The latest edition of the World Economic Forum, which has just concluded in Davos, Switzerland, proved to be a resounding success. Against expectations that the Forum might fade into irrelevance after the end of Klaus Schwab’s era, Davos instead staged a notable revival. Under Larry Fink’s stewardship, the gathering regained momentum, attracting the world’s political and economic elite and reasserting itself as a central stage for global debate.

The US president and his principal domestic and international critics were all present, using the Davos platform to clearly signal their respective positions. Donald Trump delivered his trademark extended remarks, running well over an hour. They combined buoyant confidence in the US economy with thinly veiled disdain for those unwilling to follow Washington’s lead. Yet the most consequential counterpoint came from Trump’s principal international foil: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney’s speech is likely to endure. With analytical precision, he challenged a comforting illusion at the heart of postwar global governance. As he put it, we should stop pretending that a truly rules-based international system ever existed. The hegemon has always stood above the rules it promoted, while smaller and middle powers complied with those rules in order to sustain the appearance of an orderly system. That fiction, however imperfect, helped to limit conflict.

That façade, Carney argued, has now collapsed. The hegemon is openly asserting that power alone determines outcomes. In this new landscape, middle powers face a stark choice. They can continue to behave as though the old rules still apply, competing for the favour of an increasingly transactional and unilateral superpower. Or they can pool their influence to construct a more modest framework of rules among themselves, grounded in shared interests and values, and applied flexibly rather than universally.

Davos succeeded in one essential respect: it provided a venue where these competing worldviews could be articulated openly. That remains the Forum’s core purpose, particularly at a moment when the United States is distancing itself from traditional multilateral institutions. Trump’s own initiative, the Board of Peace for the Middle East, launched in Davos and formally focused on the reconstruction of Gaza, was widely interpreted as a personalised, pared-down alternative to the UN.

The Forum also hosted Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, helping to catalyse the first trilateral contacts since the war began in 2022. Russian, American, and Ukrainian representatives have since met in Abu Dhabi to initiate talks that may, or may not, lead to a negotiated settlement. Trump likewise used Davos to soften his rhetoric on Greenland, ruling out the use of force, even as his territorial ambitions toward the “piece of ice” remain unmistakable.

One could argue that the so-called “spirit of Davos” helped ease some immediate tensions. But the underlying conflicts remain unresolved: Ukraine, the Middle East and Iran, Greenland and US territorial ambitions, China and Taiwan, climate change, the governance of AI, and the rapid expansion of dollarbased stablecoins.

If we are determined to see the glass half full, we can at least note that the global geopolitical landscape did not deteriorate further during the Forum’s proceedings. In today’s climate, that alone may be worth acknowledging; and, perhaps, quietly celebrating.