“May you live in interesting times”… This Chinese curse perhaps most concisely describes current world affairs. We’re once again at the precipice of a new global order, which theoretically promises the equal distribution of geopolitical and economic power in a number of regional centres around the world. In economic terms, it seems like multipolarity is already underway and reshaping the balance of power among the strongest economies. Geopolitically, however, the global order is in the midst of an uncertain, turbulent and tremendously strained period of transition; its conclusion is just as unpredictable as the developments leading up to it.
When Francis Fukuyama proclaimed an end to history before the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR, his main thesis was widely criticised and time has proven it to be untrue. However, is it possible that his “end of history” concept could prove to have merit, albeit in a very different way than originally intended?
In 1948 – just a few years after the end of the Second World War, Winston Churchill said: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The lessons of WWII are undoubtedly still remembered everywhere in the world and in words or official diplomatic statements; peace is the highest international value, to be protected by any necessary international negotiations and diplomatic concessions. In 2024, however, it seems that world leaders say they want to preserve or restore peace, but their actions continuously create mistrust, imbalance and military conflict, ultimately paving the way to a much more significant war.
The international order and its systematic characteristics has only ever been altered or replaced as a consequence of major wars or tremendous geopolitical shifts. The Westphalian system of international relations, considered today as the first system of international relations in Europe, was created after the development and adoption of the then newly established concept of the “nation state”, moving away from the supranational influence of the Catholic church, which governed and guided Christian monarchies throughout the European continent during the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance. It was also a result of the end of two protracted struggles: the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). The Westphalian series of peace treaties applied cardinally new principles to relations between European monarchies such as the equal right to sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in another state’s domestic affairs.
Almost two centuries later, the Napoleonic Wars spurred another major shift in the European international order, aiming to restore and preserve the pre-war balance of power between the major European monarchies, creating the so-called “Metternich” system of international relations. While reaffirming the Westphalian principles of sovereignty and non-interference, Metternich focused on establishing a long-term balance of power within Europe, thus raising geopolitical equilibrium to a pivotal state value.
Prior to and during the “Great War” (WWI), the Metternich system of international and national governance experienced an unprecedented upheaval; the whole of Europe was reshaped, ushering in the Versailles system of international relations. Three historical dynasties ended, one of the Great Powers in Europe was dismantled and turned into a conglomerate of small countries, and absolute monarchy was replaced by either different types of democracy in Western Europe or totalitarian or communist rule throughout Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. The German Weimar Republic, under the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty, dove into unprecedented political, economic and social crisis, hinting at the developments to come.
The Great War was only surpassed in magnitude by the Second World War. Unforeseen devastation, ideological brutality, economic and social collapse, never-before-witnessed casualties; all paved the way for a non-European power to effectively enter and dismantle the Europocentric system of international relations that had governed the world up to that point. At its end, Europe being distributed in spheres of influence on a mere piece of napkin, the global order was once again changed and this time into a bi-polar system of international relations, where nuclear deterrence would start the decades-long Cold War – a prolonged period of ideological battle marked by a constant strife for geopolitical expansion and dominance.
The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s presented a new challenge to the established world order and a tremendous shift in the global balance. It effectively ended the Cold War and shifted international power from bi-polar opposition into a unipolar monopoly over world affairs. For the first time since the Westphalian peace treaties, the principle of non-interference into another nation-state’s domestic issues was called into questioned and altered to allow for such interference in the event of humanitarian crises, thus opening the door for military interventions in domestic disputes anywhere in the world based on arbitrary ideological and moral grounds.
In less than a decade, all former Soviet satellite states and the newly established or re-established countries which were previously part of the USSR underwent turbulent periods of transition towards Western-type democratic rule. The external influence of the United States was evermore present in domestic political and social processes with focused determination to reshape the newly democratic societies into its own image, thus creating loyal geopolitical partners to be used against any potential threat coming from the East.
Step by step, willingly or otherwise, the world was led into a new era of globalisation and interconnectedness, predominantly led by transnational companies, which, along with their own considerations of fiscal expansion, have promoted and continue to promote the extremely effective soft power or political marketing used by US foreign policy. This global phenomenon gave birth to its own opposition – particularism, the struggle to preserve traditional regional or national values, including religious and cultural customs, which were the most common victims of globalisation. Logically, the most traditional societies in the world were the most sensitive to externally imposed changes, thus creating the modern-day Leviathan of international terrorism. As opposed to previous centuries when certain acts of terrorism were known to occur usually in connection to liberation movements, the 21st Century presented a much more complex adversary, which, similarly to transnational companies, wasn’t limited to acting within one country’s national borders but rather developed an intricate structural web across countries and governments.
The first decade of the 21st century was marked by the unprecedented terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The narrative of military intervention into a sovereign state shifted from humanitarian support back to traditional national security reasoning, as well as a Cold War flashback on the well-known theme of nuclear threats, based on the biased and unconfirmed intelligence that was used to justify the war in Iraq. Within months, the United States was rendered unprepared to handle the national characteristics of its enemy and seemed to have sunk in foreign terrain, engulfed in unfamiliar religious and cultural customs. Previously perceived as all-encompassing and limitless, the strength of the US gave out its first signs of overreach and exhaustion.
The unipolar dominance of world affairs started to yield to the concept of a multipolar international system. However, in geopolitical terms, even today it remains limited to theoretical discussions rather than amounting to an effective change in the balance of power, in spite of all existing evidence in support of this process.
Being the largest country in the world by size, Russia has always been and remains one of the great world powers. Seemingly weakened after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in the midst of its own political and economic transition period, Russia never lost its geopolitical or strategic significance and advantages. Slowly and steadily, the country began a determined process of reclaiming its position within the global order, and its abundant natural resources and the long-term state contracts for their distribution as well as its civilian nuclear power generation capabilities played a significant part in maintaining its influence within Europe and forming new alliances across the world.
Following the collapse of the USSR, China not only managed to preserve its ideological orientation and political system, but through shrewd reforms and dedicated state effort, it successfully transformed into the fastest growing global economy, as well as the most significant manufacturer of goods in the world, with fully developed capabilities to influence and even shift economic relations and balances throughout the globe. Simultaneously, due to its ideological orientation, cultural specifics and diplomatic conservatism, China remains rather isolated in geopolitical terms. Usually reacting to international challenges rather than initiating foreign policy, the dragon of the global economy always seems a step behind when it comes to world developments. It’s the concept of reciprocity that ultimately trips China’s endeavours in current world affairs, and more specifically, the never-ending struggle to maintain international support and recognition amid scrutiny of its own domestic issues – mostly related to the autonomous regions of Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as Tibet; whilst exhibiting formidable unwillingness to take a firm position on any other state’s international or domestic dispute.
India, meanwhile, has become an almost equal rival of China in its economic development; given its recent surpassing of all other countries in terms of population size, the state is managing the largest human resource on the planet. A former British colony, it’s still striving to restore its cultural heritage, though it has already established itself as one of the biggest world economies and geopolitical actors. Although constrained by regional domestic tensions and lingering conflicts with Pakistan and China, India’s voice and position in international relations is becoming more and more relevant in current affairs.
Numerous other states across the globe are making their mark and assuming more and more relevant positions in the world order – starting with the rest of the South Pacific countries, and more specifically – Japan. From Pakistan to the Eurasian Caucuses, from Turkey to the Middle East, and from the fast-developing economies of South America to the African continent, all of these represent potential poles in a future multipolar international order.
In spite of the evident international overspreading of the US, the country has never relinquished its unipolar claim over world affairs. The tough lessons learned in Iraq initiated a gradual transformation in its foreign policy strategy, which moved away from direct military intervention into sovereign countries and towards achieving its international goals through igniting domestic civil unrest and political instability that in turn would serve the purpose of justification for partial military support to ultimately bring about radical regime change.
Under the banners of democratic change, free elections and human rights, the Arab Spring, which kicked off across several Middle Eastern countries from the early 2010s onward, proved the new methods to be extremely effective. The whole region was brought to a stand-still and taken out of the equation of global geopolitical power. Initiated as yet another Arab Spring in 2011, the resulting civil war in Syria devastated a previously strong and stable state, fuelled the fire of international terrorism and Islamic extremism, and displaced millions of people, thus creating one of the worst refugee crises ever witnessed, which ultimately spilled over into the European continent, becoming a long-term geopolitical, security, economic, humanitarian, cultural and even religious issue.
In February 2022, Russia announced its special military operation in Ukraine – a conflict that had originally begun in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the regional conflict in Donbass. The latter two events may be perceived as national security steps taken by Russia in response to yet another “spring”, encouraged by the US international agenda. The postponement of the EU agreement with Ukraine became the official reason for the so-called “Revolution of Dignity” that successfully brought a change in the national government, while leaving Crimea and Donbas as lingering, unresolved disputes between Ukraine and Russia, turning these regions into an international relations’ no-man’s land as well as a harbinger for future active warfare.
It took almost eight years for events to escalate and bring war in Europe once more. Preceded by months of tense diplomatic negotiations, ultimatums and the inherent underestimation of Russia’s resolve by the US, the “Special Operation” began to the surprise of most of the Western world. If 1946 heralded the lowering of the iron curtain between Eastern and Western Europe and effectively triggering the start of the Cold War, 2022 witnessed disturbingly similar events following the failure of diplomatic efforts to bring about a ceasefire in Ukraine. An iron curtain was again falling across Europe, putting an end to pivotal trade relations for the continent in agricultural and manufactured goods as well as natural resources. It was the modern Western-type democracies that imposed an information black-out, banning Russian media outlets from broadcasting within Europe. Airline companies no longer operate flights to or from Russia, transnational companies have withdrawn from the Russian market, and international sanctions have been imposed on the country as well as Russian nationals.
Democracy as a political system and ideological value has been heralded as the best form of state governance that humankind has ever developed. It’s assumed to ensure freedom of speech, equal representation, respect for human and civil rights, and the acknowledgement of cultural heritage and religious views…
It has been two and a half years since war returned to Europe and now both countries have started to exhibit certain signs of exhaustion and a readiness to engage in ceasefire negotiations, ultimately reaching a resolution to the conflict and putting an end to the war. However, the situation still seems unresolvable, and achieving an outcome which is equally satisfactory for both sides is impossible. Ukraine is firmly insisting on restoring its pre-2014 borders, including in Crimea, while Russia needs to reach a deal for a nationally dignified exit to withdraw its troops, which will require much more concessions than those currently being offered. Any realistically possible outcome acceptable to Russia would be deeply unsatisfactory to Ukraine, which would suggest that even if active warfare is discontinued, the conflict will remain and linger, ultimately transforming into an underground movement for liberation within the remaining Ukrainian territories. Simultaneously, given that millions of Ukrainians have been displaced throughout Europe and perhaps a considerable number of them would choose not to return to their home country, it’s possible that this hypothetical liberation movement would spread across the EU member states in pursuit of political recognition, and pressure would be applied to national governments to support the cause.
An iron curtain has lowered across Europe once again, ominously hinting to the growing tensions on the Old Continent. Even if the current war in Ukraine reaches a resolution, it will most probably be short-lived and could possibly reignite to engulf Europe and perhaps the world in a much more significant conflict. A number of other regional conflicts around the world promise the same outcome. The current global order is constantly bubbling and shifting, gradually transforming into what today is expected to be a new, more balanced multipolar system of international relations. However, the path leading down that road might present a hurdle, which one day may come to be known as the “Third World War”.
