In the fourth year of the full-scale fight of Ukraine for freedom and independence the Ukrainians faced unexpected drastic change in the geopolitical and geoeconomic position of the United States. On the global scale, these far-reaching changes have additionally caused exponentially increasing serious consternations about the further structure of the whole world economic order.

Whilst Trump’s « America first » strategy is intended to reshape global alliances, its implemented measures de facto have not led so far to any irreversible results. Indeed, this is best evidenced by the fact that some of them are currently postponement or even cancelled. However, clear and powerful signals related to the « America first » strategy have already been sent and received. This (as one could undoubtedly assert) characterize the directions of cardinal institutional changes in international relations. 

So, which are these signals intended to define the "new economic order" (NEO)? How could they be enabled to transform the existing system of values on which the free economy and Western democracy have been built?

Let us focus on some of them:

• significant (almost to the point of no influence) weakening of world institutions and leveling of the established “rules of the game”, the dominance of economic interests of individual countries over democratic and humanitarian values;
• extension of tariffs, subsidies and sanctions in order to obtain unilateral benefits and the devaluation of the "international order which is based on rules". This includes a fundamental change in practical business ethics: instead of following the collaboratively agreed rules, the stakeholders aim to neglect them, instead of seeking mutually beneficial agreements, the acceptance is achieved exclusively from a position of force, coercion or hybrid pressure by simultaneously using both force and coercion;
• fragmentation of not only economic relations and ties, but also the rules of interaction between countries in the political, diplomatic, security spheres, the formation of multiple fragmented "rules of the game";
• easy rejection of allies, even those with whom strong and mutually advantageous political and ideological unity has been confirmed and repeatedly proven by history; multiplication of situational alliances and/or coalitions, which be might only temporary and/or non-binding;
• aggravation of territorial claims under security slogans, which is primarily done, however, only for the prompt and abrupt seizure of strategic resources;
• the use of various forms of political, diplomatic and psychological pressure to obtain favorable conditions for access to resources, logistics and infrastructure networks;
• destruction of established logistics and production supply chains, cutting off (de facto or perceived as) disloyal countries and businesses;
• introduction of a tough migration policy, strengthening the selectivity of attracting immigration labor into the economy;
• aggravation of regional problem areas, especially in terms of labour resources and employment;
• increased food and energy risks that will provoke inflationary shocks;
• extensive use of (inter)national economic dependencies – together with foreign trade dependencies – as a weapon for political and diplomatic subordination;
• actual abolition of the goals and policies of the "green transition", the dominance of financial benefits, accompanied by ignoring severe climate risks and losses, etc. 

While these signals have not yet acquired the character of established trends, they are rather "warnings" and do not indicate the irreversibility of their transformation into the "rules" of the NEO. The rejection of appropriate approaches by the majority of democratic countries can slow down their spread. However, the longer they last, the higher the risks of their transformation into a "new normal" and the more critical their consequences will become.