Different stages of international politics have each seen major players whose actions have usually shaped the overall function and direction of the international system and the way various players in the system act. For instance the rivalry between the Persian Empire and Greek city-states and the ensuing alliances and counter alliances other regions and actors of the time joined based on the Iran-Greek rivalry shaped much of the dynamics of international affairs of the time.

Later in the modern-era, the well-known 19^th century multi-polar system in Europe resulted in famous alliances and rivalries that manifested in the Concert of Europe. In the latter half of the 19^th century and after the German Reich replaced Prussia in 1871 and Italy was admitted to Europe in 1867, the multi-polar system saw a renewed rise in tension and rivalries and was replaced with a new balance of power system, this time a system where a new Germany played an important role in both alliances and counter-alliances.

The creation of the modern German state under the leadership of the legendary German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck forged a new set of treaties and alliances in the Old Continent. In 1873 Germany forged alliances with the Russian and Austria-Hungary empires which were the two most conservative powers in Europe, thus creating the “Three Emperors’ League.” The Three Emperors’ League eventually crumbled due to a host of issues including conflicts between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans. Ultimately on the brink of WWI Europe’s multi-polar system was divided into two major armed camps by a series of alliances: The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy and the Triple coalition of Britain, Russia and France, though Italy switched sides at the last moment and the Ottoman Empire joined the German Alliance. The rivalries of the two blocs finally resulted in the biggest and most brutal war the international system had seen until that time. The rest of the world was overtly or covertly supportive of one of the two sides.

After the war, the map of the entire world had dramatically changed. This was especially true in the Middle East where the almost 600-year-old Ottoman Empire collapsed and the winners of the war, Britain and France, carved up the Middle-East into their own zones of interest according to the famous Sykes-Picot Agreement.

On the brink of World War II, the same dynamics were once again at play. A fragile multi-polar system, where Germany had become a major power overtaking its rivals, was on the brink of collapse. And once again the Allied powers and their ally nations all over the world prevailed over Germany and its international supporters. Like World War I, almost every single country in the world was directly or indirectly involved on one side of the war effort.

Post WWII: A saga of international affairs based on Soviet-US rivalry

The main victors and benefactors of the post-World War II era were almost without doubt Washington and Moscow. The two “allied” countries that fought against the Nazis emerged from the Second War as important countries to “superpowers,” which formed a new “bi-polar” era as a replacement for the previous multi-polar systems. However, their post-WWII honeymoon was very short. Both countries adhered to ideologies that were head-on opposed to the other. Communism and Liberal- Capitalism were both the children of modernity and shared common interests in eradicating the Nazi plague in Europe, but they were also sworn enemies of the other. Adding to the belligerency of the political ideologies was the fact that two very powerful and expansionist countries were adhering to the two hostile word views that provided contradicting conceptions of what a good life and just polity ought to be: the recipe of disaster was in the make and resulted in almost 45-years of Cold War between the two countries.

In November of 1956 Nikita Khrushchev the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union famously proclaimed:

“If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.”

And President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “We don’t propose to sit here in our rocking chair with our hands folded and let the Communists set up any government in the Western Hemisphere.”

Almost all nations in one way or another supported or were supported by the opposing sides. From the countries who had gathered in the Soviet-backed Warsaw Pact, to the countries forming NATO, and countries like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and the United Kingdom who had formed the CENTO or Baghdad Pact, almost all countries in the world were somehow caught in the cross-fire of the Soviet-US rivalry and were forced to choose sides.

Even the apparently independent Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) — which were a group of states that claimed they were not formally aligned with or against either the United States or the Soviet Union —  was formed as a response to the Moscow-Washington antagonism. And yet even NAM members, one way or another, tilted toward Moscow or Washington. India and Cuba tended toward the Soviets, and Malaysia and Jordan that tended toward the US are good examples of how the Washington-Moscow rivalry was the main driving force of this era.

Post-Soviet Union: Once again a saga of Russia-US rivalry?

With the fall of the Soviet Union in the December of 1991, many proclaimed American Liberal Democracy has prevailed and rivalry among world powers has come to an end. Francis Fukuyama, the acclaimed American political philosopher predicted that free-market liberal democracy would become the world’s “final form of human government” and hence “the end of history” has come. The Yeltsin-era in the new Russia that had emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Union supported Fukuyama’s claim. Yeltsin was a weak President and was also heir to fragile political structures and a frail economy. To add insult to injury, Yeltsin was often viewed as an increasingly unstable leader that was an alcoholic and was often ill. Thus, on December 1999 he resigned and his powerful prime minster, Vladimir Putin took his place. If Yeltsin was weak and generally accommodating to the US and the West, Putin had a completely different approach to the West and the US in particular.

Putin has attempted to change the dominant view of the 1990s that Russia is a mere regional power with minimal influence on the post-Soviet unipolar system where the United States enjoys the most influence. Putin’s campaign in Syria and his defense of President Assad, his intervention in the Crimea and his support for the Russians in the Crimean peninsula, his military participation in Georgia and Ukraine, new alliances and cooperation with nations such as Iran, India and China, and most importantly American allegations that Moscow intervened in its 2016 presidential election in favor of US President Donald Trump  are all indicators that, as Eugene Rumer elaborates, “Moscow today has broader ambitions, greater resources and a willingness when challenged to challenge its adversaries in return. That is what Mr Putin has done in Syria and it is only prudent to expect him to do so again.”

Recent allegations that Russia might be behind a recent chemical agent attack on former double agent Sergei Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter, and the ensuing diplomatic row with the West that has resulted in the expulsion of Russian diplomats from London and the US, is the most recent episode of increased and renewed tensions with Russia.

Regardless of accepting or rejecting the claim of scholars who have claimed that Russian and US interests fundamentally clash, the episodes of the past century seem to illustrate that both multi-polar and bi-polar systems generate rivalries between the hegemons that lead the system. If this is true — which historically has been the case — in a world where Russia is becoming increasingly powerful; and undermining Washington’s sole hegemony, a clash or at least rising tensions among Moscow and Washington seems inevitable. This in turn will affect the international system creating new alliances and counter-alliances where Russia could be a potential driving force and shape the system’s outcomes.