Words: Darcy Islington (she/her)
While in theory the international system operates on an equal playing field, in reality, this is far from being the case.
August 15th, 2025. Trump and Putin meet at the Alaska Summit to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. It’s not hard to notice an important player missing – where was President Volodymyr Zelensky? His absence spoke volumes. Rather than being a careless mistake, it was a deliberate political choice. October 9th, 1944. Stalin and Churchill meet to draw up the Percentages Agreement, in which Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries were divided into respective “spheres of influence”. Once again, delegates of the CEE states were absent – and once again, it was a calculated political choice. The treatment of CEE countries as ‘second thought states’ is a continuous phenomenon interwoven throughout history. This disregard is not unique to CEE countries; rather, it reflects superpowers’ carelessly chauvinistic attitude towards smaller nations. While in theory the international system operates on an equal playing field, in reality, this is far from being the case.
The seeds of contempt shown by powerful states towards their “equals” were sown long ago, dating back to the colonial era of imperialist conquest. Though many countries now try to distance themselves from their pasts, neo-colonial attitudes bleed through, interwoven into the fabric of legal frameworks and territorial disputes. Settler nations like the US and Canada’s interactions with smaller states are clearly informed by their expansionist past. These countries fundamentally believe they possess the right to take away the autonomy of other states, with acquisition of territory being more important than sovereignty.
Many Latin American nations suffered at the hands of the US and its efforts to destabilise governments they deemed ‘threatening’. It’s widely believed that The Nixon Administration backed the 1971 military coup in Bolivia, deposing President Juan José Torres due to his progressive ideals. While institutions like the UN and NATO were created to prevent this and maintain universal sovereignty, their efficiency remains questionable at best. The five permanent members possess the veto power, giving them the ability to override any ruling made. This nullifies the UN’s purpose and reinforces a hierarchical state system.
The unequal power dynamics underpinning the international system result in relations between countries being ones of shaky cooperation, accompanied by a layer of distrust. This is unsurprising when we consider how hegemons often use smaller nations as battlefields to act out their conflicts and disputes. The Cold War exemplifies this: where the US and USSR used Vietnam as their stage for a proxy conflict. This conflict tore the nation apart, claiming almost 3.3 million lives, 40,000 of which were due to the devastation brought on by Agent Orange. Vietnam lost much of its agricultural spaces and infrastructure, effects that persist to this day. We see the same Cold War-era influence in nations like Nicaragua, where both sides supplied weapons that fuelled the Contra-Sandinista civil war. Post-WW2, the Potsdam Conference led to the division of Germany into occupation zones, separating families in the name of political strategy, with little consideration for those affected.
Imperialist behaviour is reinforced by politicians who harness ethnonationalism to further their agendas. When a national identity is built on favoritism of citizens and distortion of those “outside” the nation, resentment is often used as a justification to intimidate or attack “enemy” states. Putin’s belief that Ukraine is an ‘artificial state’ born from the Soviet collapse exemplifies this paradigm, providing the justification for the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion.
Attitudes of national superiority are often reinforced on a linguistic level. We have a tendency to use accusatory language when describing international relations, which further pushes states to occupy expansionist positions. Countries “decide”, “oppose”, and “fight back”, rather than “compromising” and “mediating”. Too often, when discussing states, it is forgotten that we are discussing collectives of real people rather than abstract entities representing the “wrong way” of life. This rhetoric paves the way for “us versus them” mentalities where conflict is an inevitability. The ‘war on terror’ and the dividing of the African continent were rationalised through this logic.
The consequence of sidelining nations into ‘second thought states’ is one that breeds modern imperialism. Despite disavowing the era of empire, the cycle continues as the autonomy and well-being of smaller states still comes secondary to the personal strategic interests of superpowers. When Crimea was annexed in 2014, many cried outrage over the return of chauvinist foreign policy. This behaviour, however, never left – nor is it unique to Putin’s aggression. Thucydides said, ‘The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’, but I don’t think it has to be this way. To break this mistreatment cycle, we must question our understanding of global international relations and challenge the narratives that legitimise superpower expansionism. It’s time to focus on cooperation, rather than competition.
