The 21st century did not begin on January 1, 2001, but on September 11 of that same year, when the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York buried, under tons of steel and dust, the illusion of a world that seemed pacified by globalization and governed by shared rules. That day not only witnessed the carrying out of a terrorist attack of unprecedented scale, but also marked the founding moment of a new historical phase characterized by the return of fear, the militarization of international politics, and the gradual decline of the liberal order established after the end of the Cold War.
Twenty-five years into the third millennium, it is becoming increasingly clear that the promise of an era of stability, cooperation, and progress has not been fulfilled.
On the contrary, the world seems to have embarked on a regressive trajectory in which force once again prevails over law, national sovereignty over multilateralism, and geopolitical competition over economic cooperation.
The West’s Misguided Wars
The response of the United States and its allies to 9/11 was immediate and forceful, in direct contrast to international law, which has always been invoked but is, in reality, a flexible system often bent to the interests of whoever happens to be the strongest at the time. The invasion of Afghanistan, presented as necessary to dismantle Al-Qaeda and overthrow the Taliban regime, turned into a two-decade-long war that ended with a chaotic and humiliating withdrawal. The Taliban, deemed defeated in 2001, returned to power in 2021, demonstrating the political, strategic, and cultural failure of the Western intervention.
Even more serious was the 2003 military operation in Iraq, justified by the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found.
The fall of Saddam Hussein did not bring stability or democracy, but rather chaos, civil war, sectarian radicalization, and the emergence of new jihadist organizations.
The West lost not only a war in Iraq but also much of its moral credibility.
These wars, fought in the name of global security, have in fact accelerated the decline of Western authority, fueled anti-Americanism, and demonstrated the limits of a foreign policy based on military superiority without a long-term vision.
Globalization and Offshoring: The West’s Hollowing Out
Parallel to the military conflicts, another process has silently undermined the foundations of Western societies: the massive offshoring of industrial activities to Asia. Western multinationals, in pursuit of profit and lower labor costs, have transferred entire production chains to China and Southeast Asia, contributing to the industrial hollowing out of Europe and the United States.
The result has been twofold. On the one hand, wage compression, the precariousness of employment, and the erosion of the Western middle class; on the other, the dizzying growth of economies that, over time, have become strategic competitors. The West has financed—often unwittingly—the rise of powers that today challenge its primacy.
The COVID-19 pandemic then brutally exposed the fragility of this model: strategic dependencies, vulnerable supply chains, and an inability to produce essential goods. Globalization, once a tool for integration, has become a source of vulnerability.
The Rise of China and Russia: The Return of Revisionist Powers
It is against this backdrop that China and Russia have risen—two powers united by a desire to revise the international order established after 1945 and consolidated after 1991.
China has successfully combined economic growth, political control, and geopolitical ambition. From being the “world’s factory”, it has become a global actor capable of competing with the United States technologically, militarily, and diplomatically.
Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, represents the crucial focal point of this strategy: a symbolic and strategic objective that Beijing has always considered an integral part of its territory.
Russia, for its part, has never accepted the end of the Soviet colossus. After years of apparent marginalization, Moscow has rebuilt its influence through energy, military strength, and an assertive foreign policy. The war in Ukraine is not a regional conflict but a systemic clash that marks the return of conventional warfare to Europe and the end of the illusion of lasting peace guaranteed by international institutions.
The European Union: A Regulatory Giant, a Political Dwarf
In this scenario, the European Union appears not only as a regulatory giant but also as a political dwarf. Although it brings together 27 member states (28 before Brexit) and represents one of the world’s leading economies, the EU struggles to articulate a coherent foreign and defense policy.
Bureaucratic complexity, cross-vetoes, and divergent national interests make any strategic decision difficult. The absence of a common army, a genuine security policy, and a federal constitution limits Europe’s ability to act as an autonomous geopolitical entity.
In the face of global crises, the EU often acts in disarray, having relied until now on American protection and proving incapable of truly influencing the global balance of power. The risk lies not only in its hypothetical—and not entirely remote—disintegration, which would return it to the status quo ante, but also in its potential to become a battleground for external powers, thereby losing its role as an actor capable of influencing the course of history.
Trump’s Return and the Crisis of the Western Order
Donald Trump’s return to the international political scene would appear to represent a further source of instability. Trump is not an anomaly, but the product of a polarized American society, weary of multilateralism and increasingly oriented toward a transactional view of international relations.
His statements on the possible annexation of Greenland, the takeover of oil wells in Venezuela, open tensions with Iran, the imposition of heavy tariffs, and the renegotiation of U.S. international commitments signal a paradigm shift: America is no longer the guarantor of the global order, but a political actor that openly pursues its own national security—or rather, its own general interests.
In an already fragmented world, the weakening of America’s role as arbiter heightens the risk of conflict and leaves room for unregulated competition.
The Great Misconception of International Law
Everything said so far leads to an uncomfortable but increasingly evident conclusion: International Law, as it is often invoked, has never truly existed. In fact, there is no universal and binding legal code, nor is there an authority capable of enforcing the rules impartially.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague is not recognized by all states, and its rulings, when issued, often lack the means to enforce them.
There are no true global political-judicial structures, nor are there detention facilities where sentences can be served. International law has, in fact, been applied only to the weak or to those who have voluntarily agreed—and continue to agree—to submit to it.
In the international system, force unfortunately continues to be the final arbiter.
Rules function as long as they align with the interests of the great powers, but they cease to have value when they contradict those interests.
The Next Thirty Years: The World of Might-Be-Right
Looking ahead to the next thirty years, the scenario that is taking shape is that of a world dominated by three or four major powers capable of exercising “might-be-right”: the United States, China, Russia, and, perhaps, some emerging actor. A multipolar world, but not a balanced one; interconnected, but not cooperative.
The risk lies not only in an increase in armed conflicts but also in the normalization of force as the primary instrument for regulating international relations. In this context, Europe faces a historic choice: to continue being an object of global politics or to finally attempt to become a subject capable of defending its own interests and values, in order to avert its dissolution, as has been feared.
The UN? It has always proven to have feet of clay, much like its now-distant relative, the League of Nations, in that its voting mechanisms are subject to a potential veto by even just one of the “Big Five” sitting on the Security Council—a fact that speaks volumes about the lack of democracy within what is supposed to be the most authoritative representative body of the global community.
NATO? In the scenario taking shape, a two-pronged Western rift cannot be ruled out: between the U.S. and Europe and, perhaps, among Europeans themselves; and so the 21st century might be remembered not as the era of global peace, but as the era in which the world ceased to believe in common rules and rediscovered, with disturbing ease, the law of the strongest—that is, the exercise of might makes right, to the detriment of international law.
