Additionally: many of the trends today give credence to the argument that the international system is approaching a possible paradigm shift in global power. What do I mean by paradigm shift in global power? I mean the difference between pre- and post- Congress of Vienna; pre- and post- World War II. Pre- and post- Soviet collapse. Perceptions of relative power often drive the events that lead to the paradigm shift (more often than not, it's sealed by blood through war).

So if the perception is that U.S. relative power is in retrenchment, and Russian (or Chinese) power is increasing, how does that affect state behavior? In my previous posts, I discussed how Russia's historical references points about its past status frames its current decision-making (as opposed to current conditions framing the decisions); so if the U.S. is in retrenchment, and it perceives the power of other states to be increasing, will the U.S. be more or less likely to escalate conflict? As time progresses, the window for the U.S. to act to protect its status closes as other states approach parity. And for the contenders, time works to their advantage. The Russians may be perceiving that this is an opportune time for them to increase their power.

Now, how the U.S.-Russian dyadic unfolds within the context of a U.S. led international system is one thing. But how it affects U.S. interests after a paradigm shift is harder to calculate. For one thing, the triggering mechanism is difficult to assess - it could be the outcome of a major conflict (Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II), or it could be a significant political (Great Britain) or economic event (Soviet Union). That's because all of the norms and perceptions taken for granted become irrelevant. That's why it's important to take the long view of the Ukraine conflict - are we setting the conditions for future challenges to U.S. power?