No rules, no rulers: The unraveling of the old world order and the role of Russia, by Timofey Bordachev

What happens if the U.S. can’t enforce international order and nobody else wants to? From Timofey Bordachev at swentr.site:

International order is losing its meaning – just like multipolarity

FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin. © Sputnik / Alexei Druzhinin

The day is not far off when the very notion of “international order” will lose its former meaning – just as happened with the once-theoretical concept of “multipolarity.” Originally conceived in the mid-20th century as a way to balance power among great states, multipolarity now bears little resemblance to what its originators had in mind. The same is increasingly true of international order.

In recent years, it has become commonplace to say that the global balance of power is shifting and that previous leaders are no longer able to maintain their dominant positions. This much is obvious. No group of states today is capable of enforcing its vision of justice or order upon the rest of the world. Traditional international institutions are weakening, and their functions are being re-evaluated or hollowed out. Western Europe, once a central pillar of global diplomacy, appears to be in the final phase of its strategic decline – a region now better known for procedure than power.

But before we join the chorus, lamenting or celebrating the end of one era and the start of another, it is worth asking: what exactly is “international order”? Too often, this concept is treated as a given, when in fact it has always been a tool – one used primarily by states with both the means and the will to coerce others into accepting certain rules of the game.

Historically, “international order” has been imposed by dominant powers capable of enforcing it. But today, emerging players outside the Western sphere – nations like China and India – may not be particularly interested in taking up that role. Why should they invest their resources in a vague, abstract idea that primarily served the interests of others?

The second traditional purpose of international order has been to prevent revolutionary upheaval. In the current strategic environment, this function is largely fulfilled not by institutions or diplomacy but by the simple fact of mutual nuclear deterrence. The handful of states with major nuclear capabilities – Russia, the United States, China, and a few others – are enough to keep general war at bay. No other powers are capable of truly challenging them in an existential way. For better or worse, that is what guarantees relative global stability.

Continue reading