It is becoming harder to view democracy promotion as a distant concern when current events consistently point to threats to its decline. The international system built after World War II was designed to reduce conflict through shared rules, cooperation and strong international institutions and for decades, that system has helped create a relatively stable global environment.
Today, however, ongoing conflicts and rising tensions suggest that stability is weakening, and much of that shift is tied to the growing influence of authoritarian states.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is one of the clearest examples of this shift. It directly violates core principles of the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition on using force against another state’s territorial integrity. These norms have long been central to maintaining stability between states, and when they are openly disregarded, it raises broader questions about whether international rules still carry weight.
This concern is reinforced by continued fighting and global divisions over how to respond, with even recent United Nations votes showing fractures among major powers. At the same time, China’s military activity in the South China Sea and continued pressure on Taiwan reflect a similar willingness to test international boundaries and expand influence beyond established norms.
The challenge becomes more complicated when considering the actions of democratic powers themselves. The current United States approach, shaped by an “America First” policy, has included preemptive and unilateral actions justified by national security concerns. The 2026 operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, along with broader military pressure tied to instability in the region, demonstrates how the U.S. is willing to act decisively in its own hemisphere.
Similarly, sustained military pressure and blockade strategies against Iran justified on national security grounds, have been conducted largely outside multilateral frameworks. Maybe those calls were right. But they complicate the argument that international rules matter when we follow them selectively too.
That’s the real problem. When major powers treat the rules as optional, smaller states start doing the math. Why comply with a system the powerful ignore when convenient? Over time that calculation spreads, and the system eventually stops working.
The pattern emerging from these events carries a warning that cannot be ignored. When the rules that have kept major powers in check are treated as optional, the world does not actually become freer, it becomes more dangerous. American strength has always been the backbone of that order, and when the U.S. acts inconsistently, adversaries take note. A foreign policy that projects power without principle invites challengers to fill the void. Weakness emboldens rivals, and a nation without a clear direction even more so.
If America wants to lead, it must mean what it says: hold rivals accountable and don’t abandon the frameworks that keep conflict between great powers at bay. The goal is not deference to international bureaucracies. It is ensuring American power remains credible, and that the rules incentivizing freedom and liberty are the ones that endure.
Daniel Guciardo is a U.S. Navy veteran and an undergraduate student of Politics and Global Affairs at Southern New Hampshire University.