The Erosion of the International Order: As US Mirrors Russia, a New Era of Great Power Politics Emerges

The international landscape is undergoing a fundamental shift, marked by a growing willingness among major powers to prioritize national interests over adherence to established international norms. Recent actions by the United States, increasingly mirroring those of Russia, signal a departure from the post-World War II rules-based order and the emergence of a new era defined by great power competition and unilateralism.

From Multilateralism to Great Power Politics

For Moscow, the recent shift in US foreign policy represents a confirmation of a long-held belief: that the era of multilateralism is over. Violations of sovereignty, once condemned, are becoming normalized as standard practice in international relations. This change is particularly evident in the context of conflicts like the war in Ukraine, where the principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty are being challenged.

The US Adopts a More Unilateral Approach

The United States has increasingly adopted language and justifications for its actions that echo those previously used by Russia. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, defending the need for preemptive strikes to avoid escalation with Iran, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, stating the US did not initiate current conflicts but seeks to complete them, reflect a willingness to employ assertive measures in pursuit of national security objectives.

Calls for action against regimes deemed “illegitimate,” whether framed as fighting “Iranian terrorists” or “Ukrainian neo-Nazis,” are now utilized as propaganda tools by multiple actors. This rhetoric underscores a broader trend of justifying intervention based on ideological grounds rather than strict adherence to international law.

Russia’s Assertiveness and the New Status Quo

While condemning the attack on Iran as “an act of planned and unprovoked aggression,” Russian President Vladimir Putin refrained from direct condemnation, instead offering Moscow as a mediator and calling for de-escalation. This approach subtly asserts a new status quo: a world where great powers no longer seek permission for actions deemed necessary to protect their strategic interests.

A Departure from Past Practices

While unilateralism and preemptive military action are not new to US foreign policy – exemplified by the 2003 invasion of Iraq – there is a significant difference today. The Bush administration, at least, attempted to secure a legal mandate through the UN Security Council, presenting evidence (while contested) of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. When that failed, Washington formed a “Coalition of the Willing” to garner broader support.

Similarly, the 2011 intervention in Libya received partial authorization from the UN Security Council, and the military campaign against ISIS in Syria was defended by citing the Syrian government’s inability to control terrorist factions, with support from a 90-member coalition. These efforts to seek some form of consensus are now largely absent.

Allies Recognize the Shift

Even Washington’s allies are acknowledging this change. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2026, stated that the “pleasant fiction” of a rules-based order had ended, replaced by a “harsh reality” where powerful nations pursue their interests without restraint.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged that the EU cannot be the guardian of the “old world order” and must adapt to a new era of realism. The EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell, lamented “the weakening of the existing international norms, rules and institutions that we have been building for 80 years.”

A Hierarchical International Community

The growing similarities in behavior between Washington and Moscow signal a break with the post-World War II order. By normalizing unilateral military action, the US is contributing to a system where the invasion of Ukraine is no longer viewed as a unique violation of international law, but as a legitimate act of statecraft. This emerging reality sees great powers claiming inherent rights to spheres of influence, based on their capabilities.

Smaller and medium-sized powers, such as Ukraine, Iran, or potentially Taiwan, are increasingly relegated to secondary actors, their security subordinate to the interests of neighboring hegemons. The principle of equality between sovereign states is being undermined as Washington and Moscow prioritize preventive security over territorial integrity.

A More Volatile World

While the concept of limited sovereignty echoes the Brezhnev Doctrine of the Cold War, the current situation is potentially more volatile. The Cold War operated within the predictable framework of two ideological blocs and a shared understanding of the rules. These boundaries have dissolved, leading to fluid power dynamics, rewritten rules, and a dangerously blurred hierarchy of great powers.

In this new landscape, the US and Russia appear less as ideological rivals and more as joint architects of a world where the rule of law plays a diminished role in limiting the exercise of force.