The current international scene raises a fundamental question about the ability of the global order, formed after World War II, to endure and remain cohesive in the face of large and unconventional waves of instability. The rise of revisionist powers seeking to transform the international system into a multipolar one reflects this challenge. These powers, in their pursuit of change, do not hesitate to employ every tool available, including aggressive measures, which can be understood through the lens of “Offensive Realism.” This theory, advocated by prominent American political scientist John Mearsheimer, posits that the anarchic nature of the international system breeds aggressive behavior in some states.
American thinker Samuel Huntington famously described World War I as “the war to end all wars.” However, World War II, intended to be “the war to end all global wars,” has not entirely fulfilled that promise. The current geopolitical landscape suggests otherwise, with some Western perspectives likening present-day international interactions to a “Neomedieval Era.”
The Role of History
History has been invoked in most major global issues in attempts to alter geography, such as in the cases of Ukraine, Taiwan, and even Palestine, which has suddenly reemerged as the central issue that cannot be overlooked. The most prominent effects of invoking history on contemporary international interactions can be summarized as follows:
The Interplay of “Real Power” and “Perceived Power”: The phenomenon of “perception of power” has led to a greater “awareness of power” among certain international actors. Some medium and even large powers have recognized that the world is changing, and the U.S. no longer sits at its pinnacle alone. This shift has emboldened some states with either false or real senses of power.
Without this change in perception, Russia might not have militarily intervened in Ukraine, China might not have contemplated forcibly reclaiming Taiwan under its “One China” policy, Iran might not have risked escalating its proxy confrontations in international waters, Turkey might not have bargained with the U.S. over large concessions for new NATO members, and anti-American sentiments at the U.N. General Assembly over critical global issues might not have surged. This change also coincided with the rise of concepts like the “Global South” and “middle powers,” framing shifting spheres of influence across the world.
From “Hard Borders” to “Soft Borders”: A key feature of the post-World War II system was the rejection of changing borders by force, with the understanding that such actions would not receive international recognition. However, borders have once again become a central issue today, reigniting concerns reminiscent of those that fueled bilateral and global wars. Talks of a “Third World War,” “nuclear war,” or a “new Cold War” have reemerged, revealing the changing nature of the world.
Through the lens of soft borders, Russia annexed four Ukrainian regions under its sovereignty and seeks more, adopting a strategy of societal and demographic changes that serve its interests. Borders also fueled conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, while tensions between Venezuela and Guyana have escalated in South America, with Brazil, the continent’s largest country, showing a keen interest. Additionally, border skirmishes between the world’s two largest populations—China and India—have raised international alarm, given their vast populations, military power, and nuclear capabilities.
Maritime border disputes have also escalated, particularly in Asia, as seen between China and its neighbors. Tensions between Chinese and Philippine ships, which continued until late August 2024, are a particular source of concern, with each country asserting claims over various islands and reefs. The Philippines’ articulation of a “comprehensive archipelagic defense” underscores its resolve to assert sovereignty in disputed areas with Beijing in the South China Sea.
The Rise of “Artificial State” versus “Spoiler State” Narratives: Russian President Vladimir Putin invoked historical legacy in February 2022, referring to Ukraine as an artificial state to justify his military operation. Putin has repeatedly expressed his personal regret over the fall of the Soviet Union and his aspirations to restore “Great Russia.” In contrast, the West views Russia as a “spoiler state,” seeking to undermine the liberal order.
Putin’s narrative is bolstered by plausible, even real, threats, including NATO’s expansion and the erosion of previous commitments. Meanwhile, the West stands behind Ukraine, bolstered by its own set of credible threats, and both sides have overlooked potential middle-ground solutions that could prevent a zero-sum outcome.
As European states build a strong alliance to support Ukraine against Moscow, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Kyiv on August 31, 2024, to resolve historical grievances poisoning relations between the two countries and build a “solid alliance” that transcends accusations of massacres committed by Ukrainian soldiers against Poles in the 1940s. Yet, these efforts face popular resistance, as historical injustices remain difficult to overcome despite the pressing need for an alliance.
Escalation of “Fourth Frontier of War” Threats: International practices reveal an unprecedented militarization of space, referred to as concerns over the “Fourth Frontier of War.” This trend became particularly evident in February 2024, when the U.S. warned of Russian plans to deploy a nuclear weapon or dummy warhead in space, alongside Moscow’s efforts to develop space capabilities to strike satellites using nuclear weapons. Although Russia denied these claims, the threat remains plausible amid unprecedented escalation between Washington and Moscow. The international community is particularly concerned about the potential impact of a nuclear explosion in space, which could disable a third of all satellites, wreaking havoc on global communication systems.
The “Strategic Narcissism” Dilemma in the American Perspective: This refers to the United States’ tendency to view the world solely through its own lens in a form of “strategic narcissism.” This perspective is rooted in “hyper-hegemony,” limited by the U.S.’s status as the sole superpower following the Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. often looks backward rather than forward, failing to adapt to a new world where China is not the only significant threat.
The U.S. faces other real challenges, including declining confidence in American democracy, with nearly a third of voters believing the 2020 presidential election was stolen. There’s also the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House in the November 2024 elections, with implications for revisiting old and new scores. A growing number of Americans are concerned about the possibility of a new civil war, with one in four (23%) supporting the idea of their state seceding from the union, and half of strong Republicans (54%) and 40% of strong Democrats believing a civil war is likely within the next decade. These indicators, along with renewed concerns from southern Texas about the possibility of the state’s secession (“TEXIT”), suggest that history continues to haunt America’s present.
The Conflict Between “Collective Memory” and “Collective Security”: The international community has lost faith in the concept of collective security, which emerged after World War II and was embodied in the United Nations. This reflects broader global skepticism toward international institutions designed to promote security and stability in the postwar world. Consequently, nations are rushing to form military alliances, whether bilateral or multilateral.
At the same time, countries are increasingly drawing on collective memory, whether to overcome historical obstacles, right past wrongs, or address outdated realities. The fear of repeating Ukraine’s experience has led some nations to abandon neutrality, with Switzerland no longer considered a neutral state, and Finland and Sweden joining NATO. These countries have become more engaged in global politics.
Germany and Japan, two of the biggest losers of World War II, have reassessed their defense policies, marking a significant departure from historical constraints. Germany has dramatically increased its military spending, while Japan, by 2027, will have doubled its defense budget, making it the third-largest military spender in the world, after the U.S. and China. Global defense spending rose by 9% to reach a record high in 2023, indicating a more anxious and less stable world.
Adoption of “Strategic Autonomy” in Foreign Policy: Strategic autonomy, whether for Asian, European, or Middle Eastern countries, reflects a growing desire to distance themselves from U.S. influence. This trend underscores the declining American power in today’s world. Countries like France and India are pursuing more independent foreign policies, separate from American directives.
Many nations have rejected the U.S.’s binary approach of “us or China,” recognizing that the world can accommodate more than one dominant actor. China has become an indispensable partner for many countries, giving third parties more freedom to maneuver, even with Russia, which ranks below China in the emerging global order.
In conclusion, the world is facing unprecedented international tensions involving multiple actors and levels, as historical legacies are invoked without accounting for modern contexts. Several turning points could plunge international interactions into a prolonged period of uncertainty, as some actors increasingly resort to force, coercion, and war, driven by perceived, rather than actual, gains from peace and stability.
