Competition among nations is a concept that has endured across the ages, transcending the confines of history. Even prior to the emergence of modern nation-states, rivalries were a persistent force, manifesting themselves within competing empires. While international cooperation is not an entirely foreign concept, more frequently, competition takes a darker trajectory, often spiraling into conflict and perpetuating the grim specter of war.
The last century alone has been rife with strife. From the harrowing trenches of the Great War to the events of World War II, followed by Korea, Vietnam, and beyond, present-day perils may undeniably be real and palpable, but they are far from unprecedented. As the Israeli offensives on Palestine intensify and the war in Ukraine reaches apparent gridlock, one can almost make the argument that the world is regressing to a more familiar state of affairs, with current global affairs often adhering to well-established principles of international relations.
In the Cold War era, the United States and the Soviet Union spearheaded two largely insulated systems with limited connections. While the threat of mutual annihilation served to temper their rivalry and eventually led to détente,both superpowers fundamentally sought to replace the other’s system with their own.
The dynamics of the ongoing great-power competition, however, significantly differ from the Cold War, which neatly divided the world into separate spheres of influence, each with clear boundaries and limitations for every nation involved. The global landscape of power is in a state of flux, emboldening revisionist powers such as Russia and China to engage in realpolitik and challenge the dominant position of the United States. These power players often do not adhere to a common set of rules. In fact, Moscow and Beijing actively contest the norms upheld by Washington, whether it’s the principle of non-aggression in Eastern Europe or the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. 
For most great powers today, modern conflicts are of secondary importance, despite their formal statements and apparent economic and military support. Ukraine’s freedom and independence in its war against Russia, for instance, are, in truth, a secondary concern for the United States. The primary issue has always been reining in Russia and setting an example for the rest of the world. In fact, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has candidly expressed that the United States aims to use Ukraine to weaken Russia, preventing future incursions by the Kremlin.
Across the Internet is also trending a video from 1986, where Senator Joe Biden stated that ‘supporting Israel was a valuable investment’, emphasizing that it served U.S. self-interest. He even suggested that if Israel didn’t exist, the U.S. would need to create such an ally in the Middle East.
What distinguishes the current geopolitical scene is the profound role of markets. In contrast to the 19th-century setting where  military might held sway, the contemporary world order is firmly grounded in the supremacy of markets. Smaller powers cannot be dismissed, as their influence radiates through these very markets. Lesser nations today wield significant clout in international relations, and their perspectives hold weight.
In today’s interconnected world, even the closest U.S. allies cannot entirely sever their ties with China, politically or economically. It is improbable that Western companies will forsake investing in the Chinese market, even if Washington pressures them to do so 
This intricate web of interdependence does not eliminate the possibility of war but significantly elevates the costs associated with any potential conflict. In tandem with the presence of nuclear deterrence, it reduces the likelihood of war being employed as a policy instrument. The primary concern lies in accidental escalations, often fueled by nationalist narratives, particularly in potential conflicts related to Taiwan.
In this new phase of great-power competition, nations confront two undeniable realities. First, there are few countries that do not harbor concerns about various aspects of both U.S. and Chinese behavior. Second, China and the United States are inescapable geopolitical forces that no nation can afford to overlook. Effectively managing relations with both is the linchpin of successful international diplomacy. Without the United States, engaging with China would occur in an unbalanced environment, putting any nation at a disadvantage. Similarly, without China, there’s a heightened risk of the United States neglecting a country’s interests or taking their relationship for granted. Faced with these realities, most countries seek to maximize their autonomy within their unique circumstances, aligning their interests across various domains to their benefit. Smaller nations, in particular, seek alliances and partnerships with a diverse array of actors to navigate the complexities of contemporary geopolitics. In an ever-evolving landscape, the fundamental principles of international relations remain consistent, harkening back to historical norms.