Recent developments in the Western Hemisphere, particularly the direct use of military power by the United States against Venezuela in pursuit of political objectives, offer a revealing insight into the deeper transformation of the international system. Beyond the immediate regional implications, such actions signal a qualitative shift in the way force, sovereignty and legitimacy are increasingly understood and practiced in global affairs. When the leading power of the current global order openly employs military means against a foreign sovereign government outside a broadly accepted framework of international authorization, it sets a precedent that extends far beyond the specific case. It suggests that the restraints, which once distinguished covert intervention from overt coercion, are eroding, and that unilateral action is becoming a normalized instrument of statecraft. In this sense, the Venezuelan case should not be viewed as an isolated episode, but as a symptom of a wider structural transition — a transition from an imperfect yet organizing international order toward a far more fragmented and potentially anarchic global environment.

Thus, we can say that the international system is undergoing a profound and structural transformation. What is collapsing today is not merely a set of diplomatic norms or institutional arrangements, but an entire legal and geopolitical framework that till now provided a minimum level of order, predictability and legitimacy in global affairs. The erosion of this framework is not the result of a single event, nor can it be attributed exclusively to "revisionist" powers. Rather, it reflects a deeper shift in global strategic realities, power distribution and worldviews.

In recent years, the increasing use of direct military force for political objectives, outside broadly accepted frameworks of international legitimacy, has accelerated this process. The cumulative effect of such actions is the normalization of unilateralism and the weakening of constraints that once limited the open use of force against sovereign states. This trend signals not simply a return to traditional power politics, but the emergence of a far more fluid and potentially anarchic international environment.

What makes the current moment historically significant is that this erosion is taking place within the first truly post-Eurocentric global system. Economic, technological, and demographic centers of gravity are shifting eastward, while longstanding assumptions about leadership, legitimacy and universal norms are increasingly contested. The result is a growing vacuum, not only of power, but of shared principles capable of organizing international coexistence.

In this context, the global system appears to be moving away from the idea of a universal, rules-based order toward a fragmented landscape of regions, spheres of influence, and overlapping strategic interests. For major powers, this creates incentives to consolidate control in their immediate geopolitical environments while reducing commitments elsewhere. Such a strategy may be rational from the perspective of national interest, but its systemic consequence is the diffusion of instability and the weakening of global restraint.

This transition does not necessarily imply the decline of any particular state. Rather, it reflects a recalibration of priorities and a recognition that no single power can indefinitely manage the entire international system. However, as traditional structures weaken, the absence of a broadly accepted organizing principle increases the risk of prolonged disorder.

At the same time, the convergence of multiple containment strategies and pressure mechanisms over the past decade has contributed to the unintended alignment of diverse Eurasian actors and much of the Global South. Economic interdependence, shared concerns about strategic autonomy, and resistance to unilateral coercion have reinforced this trend. The emerging reality is a more complex, multicentric world, characterized by both cooperation and competition, but lacking a unifying framework.

It is within this environment that China's potential role deserves careful and sober consideration. This role should not be understood in terms of classical hegemony, nor as the replacement of one dominant power by another. Rather, China's significance lies in its capacity to offer an alternative conceptual approach to international order — one that does not rely on ideological expansion, political conversion or the imposition of uniform models.

The Chinese civilizational tradition places strong emphasis on harmony without uniformity. This principle does not seek to eliminate differences, but to manage them within a broader framework of coexistence. Historically, Chinese political thought did not conceive order as the product of constant enforcement, but as the result of legitimacy, balance, and mutual recognition of limits. Stability was achieved not through permanent confrontation, but through calibrated influence and long-term perspectives.

In strategic terms, this outlook aligns with a preference for indirect influence, gradual adjustment, and the avoidance of absolute ruptures. In a world increasingly prone to fragmentation, such an approach offers a potential mechanism for restraint and de-escalation.

Importantly, China's historical experience differs markedly from that of Western imperial powers. There is no sustained tradition of exporting political systems, religious doctrines, or universal ideologies through force. This absence of a missionary impulse does not imply moral superiority, but it does suggest a different world view that may be better suited to a plural and diverse international environment.

China possesses civilizational and strategic resources that could contribute to stabilizing a system in transition, not as a hegemon, but as a guiding and moderating force within a multipolar framework.

In this broader effort, dialogues between major civilizations become increasingly important, not as instruments of cultural projection, but as shared categories capable of supporting a more inclusive understanding of order. The Greek intellectual tradition (both classical and Orthodox) has long emphasized relational existence, balance and the recognition of otherness as a condition of coexistence, which resonates with key elements of Chinese thought.

As the postwar international system continues to erode, one of the central challenges is how to prevent the descent into unmanaged global disorder. This will require new forms of strategic restraint and new conceptual languages capable of bridging differences rather than eliminating them.

China's potential contribution lies precisely in this domain, offering a vision of global coexistence that prioritizes stability over domination, balance over uniformity and long-term harmony over short-term advantage. In a world entering an era of uncertainty, such an approach may prove not only relevant, but necessary.

The author is professor of geopolitics and modern weapons technologies and the head of the Department of Theory and Analysis of War at the Hellenic Military Academy. The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.