The Russian offensive against Ukraine that began in February 2022 signaled the end of a three-decade-long great power peace and the beginning of an era of a new cold, or even hot war. China’s goal of achieving global hegemony in the coming decades, especially through the Belt and Road Initiative, asymmetrical technological superiority and militarization of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, is generating conflict. Although, this conflict is of a different type than what we saw during the Cold War. In the meantime, U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a crusade against the international economic order by imposing very high tariffs on friends and foes alike, hoping to obtain primacy. The New Cold War and the Remaking of Regions (2025) by T. V. Paul examines how resurgent great power conflicts affect regional peace and the prospects for peaceful change. It also explores what new tools are needed to explain patterns of regional orders, as well as the impact of systemic rivalries on these orders and vice versa.

Carnegie India hosted T. V. Paul for a discussion on his book at the Security Studies Seminar. The discussion was moderated by Srinath Raghavan.

DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS

Transition of the International Order: The current international system is characterized by a complex interplay of multipolarity and multiplexity, where actors exercise varying degrees of influence. Unlike the rigid bipolarity of the Cold War era, wherein alignment and band wagoning were dominant strategies, participants emphasized that in the present order, second and third tier countries have greater agency. Despite the dominance exercised by great powers, middle powers have pursued independent policies and resisted external influence. Furthermore, participants recognized the intensifying normative friction between countries over sovereignty, sovereign equality, and territorial integrity in the post-Cold War era. This contestation has led to systemic uncertainty globally, further exacerbated by the absence of any single framework capable of replacing the declining liberal international order. Other challenges in the international system include a lack of strong leadership, fragmented alliances, and the overlapping of regional dynamics. As a result, the need for a new equilibrium consisting of economic, political, and normative stability was highlighted. Participants underscored that the current international transition may create a decentralized structure that does not replicate Western-centric institutional models. For instance, even though the United Nations may not be reformed, countries could strengthen the G20 and possibly create a G20 Plus. In this context, they also discussed BRICS as a potential alternative to Western-led structures, while highlighting that internal asymmetries, growing dominance of China, and the lack of a shared normative vision have constrained the group’s effectiveness.

Strategies of Major Powers: Participants discussed the evolving strategies of major powers, particularly the United States, China, Russia, and India, underlining the absence of a unified global leadership and the intensification of power competition. The United States, under President Trump, is shifting from a status quo power to a radical actor, using transactionalism, unilateralism, and technological containment. This has led to global anxieties, reduced confidence in U.S.-led institutions, and prompted other countries to adopt preventive policies. China, on the other hand, is pursuing a multi-faceted strategy, combining economic expansion, selective assertiveness, and long-term hegemonic aspirations, while keeping its distance from conflicts of other countries. Furthermore, regardless of its economic limitations, Russia continues to play a significant role in the world order. Moscow leverages its military and nuclear capabilities, along with its permanent position in the United Nations Security Council to maintain its global status. Meanwhile, India has adopted a strategy of hedging and soft balancing, attempting to preserve its strategic autonomy. Participants noted that in contemporary geopolitical conditions, major powers are driven more by concerns over status and influence than by a willingness to lead cooperatively. As a result, building and maintaining alliances have become difficult, reinforcing the broader uncertainty within the international system.

India’s Position in the World Order: Participants traced India’s evolving role in the changing global order, highlighting tensions between its external ambitions and internal constraints. New Delhi’s foreign policy is currently based on tactical manoeuvring and strategic ambiguity, as it engages with multiple and conflicting actors without committing to a defined vision of the international order. While this provides India with options and flexibility, it raises concerns about credibility, stability, and long-term influence. Participants also emphasized that India’s rise in the world depends more on domestic capabilities and transformation, rather than its external engagements. Currently, its role and capacity are constrained by technological dependence, human development deficits, social inequalities, and regional imbalances. The discussion acknowledged the need for investment in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and innovation, along with greater academic freedom and institutional reform. Additionally, participants referred to India as a reactive state, as it tends to undergo major reforms, such as the Green Revolution and the 1991 economic reforms, in response to a crisis, internally or externally. However, the current global crisis has not led to an urgency in New Delhi to initiate reforms. In conclusion, participants noted that without sustained capacity building and ensuring the transformation of demographic dividend into a national strength, India risks remaining a reactive state rather than a force that actively shapes the global order.

This summary was prepared by Mugdha Satpute, research assistant, with the Security Studies Program at Carnegie India.