Throughout history, major transformations have emerged in the aftermath of crises and conflicts that profoundly disrupted societal structures. Events such as the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, and the end of the Cold War triggered the collapse of old orders and ushered in the construction of new systems, often accompanied by severe social, economic, and political upheavals. These transformations did not merely dismantle existing structures but also resulted in the establishment of new global orders. Today, we appear to be at a similar breaking point. Recent global economic imbalances, intensifying rivalries among great powers, and the transformative effects of technological revolutions on human life have all cast serious doubt on the sustainability of the current global order.
In this context, the real challenge for actors who represent the current status quo lies in the inevitability of change. The emergence of a new order is naturally perceived as a threat by the beneficiaries of the existing system. This is primarily because the new order possesses the potential not only to reshape political and economic structures but also to fundamentally alter global power dynamics, cultural norms, and the functioning of the international system. Thus, this process of transformation brings with it both opportunities and risks, generating an inevitable tension between those who seek to preserve the current order and those who advocate for change.
An analysis of world history over the past five to six centuries reveals that global order has been centered around a dominant power in each century. This transformation can be likened to a train moving along an aging track. In this metaphor, the train represents the global order—namely, the international system—while the cars symbolize nation-states. The rails stand for the rules and norms of the international system. The progression of the train represents the transformation process of the system. As the train continues along worn and deteriorating tracks, some cars derail, topple, or detach from the system. However, those states that can adapt to changing circumstances, reposition themselves, and integrate into the new system are able to maintain their presence and become part of the new order.
From this perspective, the historical evolution of global power centers and the transformation of the international system have been dynamic processes, with survival favoring states and actors capable of strategic flexibility and adaptation. Structural shifts in the international system are shaped by the rise and fall of hegemonic powers, and those able to integrate into the new order continue to play influential roles in global politics. The defining reality of the 21st century is that the old tracks of the world order are now obsolete, and a new world is beginning to emerge. As the global system quakes under the birth pangs of a new equilibrium, the resulting chaos stems primarily from this inevitable transformation.
Historically, challenges to the superpower of the era and the emergence of a new power have typically been driven by economic competition, military conflicts, technological advances, and political transformations. Superpowers have often established their dominance through industrialization, colonialism, military capacity, and global trade networks, but over time, the rise of rivals and internal weaknesses exposed them to challenges. For instance, in the 16th century, Spain and Portugal attained global dominance through maritime and colonial ventures but eventually lost their superiority due to economic overextension, rising war expenditures, and the ascent of competing states.
In the 17th century, the Netherlands emerged as Europe’s new leader through maritime trade and financial systems, only to decline in the face of Britain’s powerful navy and industrial-based economic growth. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain rose to global leadership by leveraging the advantages of the Industrial Revolution but faced growing competition from industrializing powers like Germany and the United States. Particularly, Germany’s industrialization and military modernization policies posed a significant threat to Britain and France, laying the groundwork for the First and Second World Wars.
By the 20th century, European powers had been weakened by world wars, paving the way for the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers. The Cold War era witnessed a global power struggle between these two states. However, due to economic stagnation, unsustainable military expenditures, and domestic instability, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, leaving the United States as the sole superpower in the international system.
As demonstrated, although superpowers have often held advantages through economic and technological superiority, rising powers throughout history have disrupted this balance and exploited the internal vulnerabilities of the existing superpower. Thus, the emergence of a new superpower is shaped not only by military strength but also by economic dynamism, innovation, and global interaction capacity. Furthermore, transitions from the Old World to the New World have historically been difficult and painful, marked by challenges, confrontations, and wars.
In this context, the challenges directed at the post-Cold War world order and the United States, the dominant power of the time, as well as America’s counterstrategies, illustrate the cyclical nature of history. Following the Cold War, the United States built its global leadership on military, economic, and technological superiority, shaping the international order according to its own interests under the guise of promoting human rights, democracy, and liberal values. During the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S. sought to expand its global influence through various mechanisms, projecting liberal norms especially in regions like the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, and the Far East.
In the Middle East, U.S. interventionist policies were legitimized through democracy and human rights discourse, although they primarily served geopolitical interests. The 1991 Gulf War aimed to secure control over energy resources, while the 2003 Iraq invasion was justified through claims of weapons of mass destruction and democratization. These interventions destabilized the region, deepened sectarian conflicts, and radically transformed domestic dynamics in many states, increasing criticisms of unilateral U.S. dominance—especially after setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the Balkans, the U.S. intervened in the ethnic conflicts that followed the dissolution of Yugoslavia, leading NATO military operations and brokering the Dayton Agreement to establish peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, these interventions provoked debates regarding international law. The 1999 Kosovo intervention, justified by humanitarian concerns, also reflected U.S. strategic interests in Europe.
In Africa, U.S. policies were structured around economic aid and development projects but ultimately deepened economic dependency. Neoliberal reforms implemented through global financial institutions integrated African economies into U.S.-centric systems but often led to instability and debt crises. Additionally, under counterterrorism frameworks, the U.S. expanded its military presence in regions like Somalia and the Sahel.
In the Far East, the U.S. adopted balancing strategies against China’s rise, strengthening military and economic cooperation with regional allies. While liberalizing Asian-Pacific economies increased U.S. influence in the 1990s, China’s rapid growth in the 2000s became the greatest challenge to U.S. hegemony in the region. Consequently, the U.S. developed strategic partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and India to counter China’s influence.
These expansionist policies, however, generated distrust among regional actors, weakening America’s influence. By the 21st century, various states and geopolitical actors began to challenge U.S. dominance, prompting America to develop new strategies to preserve its global position.
Among the most prominent of these challenges is China’s economic growth and technological advancements. Since the 2000s, China has increased its share in global trade and production, advancing projects like “Made in China 2025” and the Belt and Road Initiative. Competing with the U.S. in sectors such as 5G, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, China triggered U.S. responses including trade wars, high tariffs, and sanctions on companies like Huawei and ZTE. The U.S. also promoted the Indo-Pacific Strategy to bolster cooperation with regional allies and limit China’s influence.
Russia has also posed significant challenges to U.S. leadership—annexing Crimea in 2014 and launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, directly defying the Western order. Russia has also attempted to establish alternative alliances in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America to undermine American influence. In response, the U.S. has reinforced NATO, imposed economic sanctions, and provided extensive military aid to Ukraine.
In recent years, Turkey has also emerged as a challenger to U.S. policies, pursuing an independent foreign policy strategy and asserting itself as a regional power. By diverging from U.S. interests in regions such as the Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean, Caucasus, and Africa, and strengthening its domestic defense industry—including unmanned aerial vehicles—Turkey has gained prominence. The S-400 missile system purchase from Russia led to tensions with the U.S., which excluded Turkey from the F-35 program and imposed CAATSA sanctions. Nevertheless, Turkey continued to exert influence in strategic theaters like Libya, Syria, and the South Caucasus. Its establishment and promotion of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), along with energy cooperation initiatives in the Eastern Mediterranean, further signaled its challenge to the current system.
U.S. reactions included sanctions and pressures like the Halkbank case, while simultaneously attempting to maintain strategic dialogue with Turkey and strengthen NATO cooperation. The U.S. also sought to counterbalance Turkey by supporting elements like Greece, Armenia, and terrorist groups such as PKK, PYD, and SDG, and by backing Israeli expansionism in the region.
Challenges to U.S. dominance have also come from other powers such as the European Union, India, and regional blocs like BRICS. The BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—have developed alternative economic and political structures, challenging the U.S.-led dollar system. In response, the U.S. has attempted to reroute global supply chains away from China and strengthen alliances across the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic regions.
However, the United States has gradually moved away from traditional liberal values. The world increasingly witnesses violent actions, and America’s shift toward Machiavellian policies signals that the existing norms can no longer sustain global burdens. In other words, the rails supporting the current order have rusted and begun to collapse, causing individual cars—or states—to derail. This scenario underscores the necessity for a new order or a replacement of the current rails.
In conclusion; The Rails Are Worn and the Train Is Shaking: Following the end of the Cold War, the Western-centric international order maintained its position as a defining element of the global system for nearly three decades. However, the economic vulnerabilities triggered by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the rapid rise of China as a global power, Russia’s revisionist foreign policy, the geopolitical vacuums in the Middle East, and the political and economic crises facing the European Union have collectively begun to undermine the stability of the existing order.
In the 2020s, additional shocks—including the pressure exerted by the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy and supply chains, the escalating U.S.-China rivalry, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Israel’s attacks on Gaza—have further destabilized the international system. At the root of this upheaval lies the global order’s inability to adapt to shifting power dynamics.
The international institutions and norms established in the aftermath of the Second World War are losing their effectiveness in today’s multipolar world, leading to profound crises of global governance. Institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and other key organizations are struggling to align with the evolving dynamics of the new era. While a structural transformation of the global system is urgently needed, efforts to preserve the status quo are instead rendering the existing order increasingly fragile and amplifying uncertainties in international relations.
Who Will Remain Standing After the Cars Derail? The ongoing tremors within the global system are pushing states into an increasingly intense competitive environment, making the struggle for survival within the international order inevitable. The unipolar world order shaped under the leadership of the United States in the post–Cold War era is now facing significant challenges. China continues to expand its sphere of influence in the Asia-Pacific region through sustained economic growth, while Russia is directly challenging the West with its military intervention in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the European Union is gradually losing its global influence as it struggles with internal political and economic crises.
In this process of transformation, some states are struggling to adapt to the changing dynamics of the international system, while others are emerging as key actors in shaping new power balances. The dissolution of the Soviet Union marked one of the most significant geopolitical ruptures of the 20th century, resulting in many former Soviet states becoming either entirely marginalized or losing their roles within the global system. A similar process appears to be unfolding today with the erosion of the United States’ and the broader West’s global hegemonic capacity.
In this context, countries such as Turkey, India, Brazil, and South Korea are seeking to assert themselves as influential actors within the shifting global power dynamics. Turkey is aiming to establish a strategic balance between East and West through its multi-dimensional foreign policy, while India is pursuing a strategy of strengthening its international position by balancing the competition between the United States and China.
Reconstructing the New World After the Crash: Historical precedents demonstrate that major crises have often laid the groundwork for the emergence of new centers of power. Pivotal moments such as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the 1945 Yalta Conference, and the end of the Cold War in 1991 represent critical junctures at which global power balances were fundamentally reshaped. Today, the international system is undergoing a similar transformation and stands on the brink of profound structural change.
In this new era, states must possess flexibility, resilience, and the ability to strategically adapt in order to sustain their existence. Nations that fail to secure economic autonomy, fall behind in the digital and technological transformation, or are unable to modernize their military capabilities will be condemned to irrelevance within the evolving dynamics of the global system.
As the global balance of power increasingly shifts toward an Asia-centered structure, the East is poised to assume a more decisive role in global politics. However, this does not imply a complete withdrawal of the West from the international system. On the contrary, Western actors are actively seeking to preserve their influence through the formation of new alliances and economic partnerships.
In conclusion, the current international order is undergoing a profound transformation, and states are engaged in an intense struggle to adapt to this change. Those that succeed in navigating the restructuring process of the global system will emerge as key actors in the new order, while those unable to adapt will either fade into irrelevance or be consigned to the dusty pages of history. This transformation is inevitable, and the decisive factor will be which actors can align themselves with the emerging world order and possess the capacity to shape its trajectory.
