In recent years, the international system has witnessed a deepening state of political and strategic chaos. This cannot be understood merely as a shift in the balance of power or an expression of the rise of some major powers and the decline of others. Rather, it is a gradual collapse of the system of rules that has governed international relations since the end of World War II.
This system was based, at least theoretically, on respect for international law, the prohibition of the use of force except in the most limited circumstances, and the regulation of competition between major powers in a way that reduces the risk of sliding into all-out war.
Today, these rules no longer constitute a genuine reference point for the behaviour of major powers. Instead, they are selectively invoked when they serve interests and neglected or violated when they hinder them, thus placing global peace and security before unprecedented dangers.
The danger of this chaos lies in the fact that its source is not peripheral states or actors outside the international system, but rather the major powers themselves, which are supposed to be the last guarantors of international stability. When these powers transform into actors operating outside the bounds of legal and institutional constraints, the message sent to the rest of the world is clear: international law is no longer binding, multilateral institutions are incapable of regulating behaviour, and power alone is the standard of action and influence.
In such a context, it becomes difficult to speak of an international order; rather, it resembles an open arena of confrontational competition.
Russian actions provide a stark example of this trajectory. The extensive military intervention in Ukraine was not merely a territorial dispute or an expression of Russian security concerns, but a direct challenge to fundamental principles of international law, foremost among them respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and the inadmissibility of changing borders by force.
Even more dangerous is that Moscow did not stop at military action; it sought to redefine the rules of the game itself, considering military power and the realities on the ground to supersede the law and that the interests of major powers possess an inherent legitimacy that transcends international obligations. This logic threatens not only Europe but also opens the door to the generalisation of a model that allows any regional or major power to justify the use of force outside legal frameworks.
However, blaming Russia alone for undermining the international order would be an incomplete reading. The United States, as the dominant power for decades, has played a central role in weakening the credibility of international law through policies of unilateral military intervention, bypassing the UN Security Council, and using international institutions as tools to serve its strategic interests.
From Iraq to Afghanistan, and from expanding the use of collective economic sanctions to broadening the concept of self-defence to include preemptive strikes, Washington has contributed to establishing a precedent that adherence to international law is optional for the powerful, not a universally binding rule. This heavy legacy continues to cast a shadow over the international system, even as the United States attempts to revive its rhetoric of defending the rules-based order.
China, on the other hand, represents a different kind of challenge, less overtly military in some arenas, but no less dangerous in the medium and long term. Beijing does not seek to dismantle the international order all at once, but rather to gradually reshape it in accordance with its interests and its vision of sovereignty, development, and security.
At the same time, China presents itself as a defender of multilateralism, but it prefers a flexible multilateralism that empties rules of their binding content and grants major powers wide room for manoeuvre.
CONVERGENCE: The convergence of these unchecked roles, American, Russian, and Chinese, is what makes the current moment extremely dangerous.
The international system is no longer merely suffering from a conflict between rising and established powers, but from a near-total absence of consensus on the meaning, limits, and enforcement mechanisms of rules. The Security Council is paralysed by conflicting interests and the veto power, and international institutions are gradually losing their capacity for deterrence or mediation, while the gap widens between the declared rhetoric about peace and security and the actual practices on the ground.
The immediate consequence of this chaos is the escalation of regional conflicts, the increased reliance on military force, and the return of the logic of spheres of influence, with its inherent marginalisation of small and medium-sized states, which find themselves compelled to align themselves, compromise, or seek security umbrellas outside the framework of international law.
The more far-reaching consequence is the erosion of the very concept of collective security, transforming the world into a less predictable space, more prone to explosion at the first real test of the balance of power.
This does not mean that the world is inevitably doomed to slide into a major war, but it does mean that the conditions of stability that prevailed, albeit relatively, in past decades no longer exist. Restoring a degree of order in international relations requires, first and foremost, an explicit acknowledgement by the major powers of their responsibility for the current chaos, and a genuine willingness to subject their conduct to the rules of international law, not as a rhetorical tool, but as a binding framework.
In this context, the competition between the United States, Russia, and China is transforming into a comprehensive, multidimensional conflict, where politics, security, and economics intertwine, and where conventional red lines are absent.
Furthermore, the continuation of this trajectory weakens mutual trust between nations and undermines the possibility of reaching negotiated settlements, even on issues requiring urgent international cooperation, such as limiting nuclear proliferation, addressing climate change, or managing global health crises. When states perceive that the major powers themselves do not adhere to their commitments and disregard the rules of international institutions, collective commitment becomes a burden rather than an incentive, and international agreements transform into fragile arrangements prone to collapse at the first political or security test.
More dangerously, the current chaos is reviving the idea of naked deterrence based solely on military force, with its inherent risks of miscalculation and unintended escalation. In a world where rules are weakening and mechanisms of control are disappearing, limited crises can escalate into widespread confrontations due to miscalculations or ambiguous messages between major powers.
The writer is a political scientist and former MP. He is currently director of the Middle East Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 22 January, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: