Introduction
Geopolitics today has become a theatre where competing powers clash, not only over territory but over narratives, values, and control of the global order (Dahal, 2024). The world is witnessing an intensification of rivalry between the West led by the United States and its allies and Russia, with China often appearing as a quiet but influential actor (Rubab et al., 2024). This struggle is not simply about military confrontation, though war remains a powerful expression of geopolitical will, as seen in Ukraine (Howlett, 2023; Liu & Shu, 2023). It is also about disinformation, cyber warfare, data control, and the framing of global events in ways that shape public opinion (Reuter et al., 2024)
The purpose of this article is to highlight the paradoxes of global politics, particularly what might be called the “paradox of tolerance”: nations that champion liberal values of free speech, sovereignty, and democracy often suspend those very values when their own dominance is threatened. This article examines how the West frames Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an existential threat to the rules-based order, while its own interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Israel’s heavy-handed military operations in Gaza have been justified under similar pretexts of security, fighting terrorism and humanitarian need. It also interrogates how narratives around data security such as the vilification of TikTok, reveal a deeper competition over who gets to control information flows in a digitally interconnected world. Ultimately, this article seeks to explore whether this struggle for dominance is making the world safer, or whether it is pushing us toward a fragmented and unstable future where power, rather than principle, is the ultimate arbiter of global order.
The Continuity of Rivalry
The Cold War may have ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but its logic has persisted. NATO’s eastward expansion and Russia’s increasing sense of encirclement have kept the rivalry alive, even if in new forms (Mearsheimer, 2014). The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 can be seen as a breaking point, an attempt by Russia to reassert its sphere of influence and challenge what it perceives as Western hegemony (Zollmann, 2023). However, here lies a critical question: is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fundamentally different from the United States’ led invasion of Iraq in 2003? Both were framed as necessary actions, one to protect Russian-speaking populations and prevent NATO encroachment, the other to neutralise weapons of mass destruction that never existed. The West condemns the former as a violation of sovereignty but justified the latter as preemptive security.
Geopolitical competition today is not limited to the battlefield; it is also waged through information warfare. Russia has been accused of spreading disinformation to undermine Western democracies, while Western media is often criticised for projecting a one-sided narrative that delegitimises Russian grievances. The paradox is that both sides accuse the other of manipulation, yet both actively engage in it. The question becomes: who gets to decide what is “truth” and what is “propaganda”? Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power is instructive here: power is not only about coercion (hard power) but also about shaping preferences and values through persuasion (Nye, 2004). Both the West and Russia use media and digital platforms to advance their strategic narratives. The problem is that both sides claim the monopoly on “truth.” As Herman & Chomsky (1988) have long argued, information is rarely neutral, it is produced within systems of power that decide what is amplified and what is silenced. Platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok have become contested arenas, with governments pressuring tech companies to remove “harmful” content or restrict access to foreign apps. In this way, the free flow of information, one of the pillars of liberal democracy, becomes a target, indeed a casualty of geopolitical rivalry.
In addition, the West’s concern over TikTok, citing fears of Chinese surveillance, is an example of how control over data has become a key battleground (Stanford University, 2024). Yet, the irony is that Western tech giants like Facebook and Google have long harvested user data worldwide, often with minimal oversight. If TikTok represents a threat because it is a Chinese company, does that mean Western data practices are benign simply because they are Western? This question raises another uncomfortable question: is the concern really about privacy, or is it about who controls the flow of data and the power it confers? Data has become the new oil, and whoever controls it holds significant geopolitical leverage. The struggle is less about protecting citizens and more about maintaining strategic advantage in an era of surveillance capitalism.
4. The Paradox of Tolerance and the Shrinking Space for Neutrality
One of the most striking aspects of today’s geopolitical contest is that neutrality is becoming less tolerated (Begović & Chadwick, 2025). Countries in the Global South, particularly Africa for example, are often pressured to take sides, condemn Russia, align with the West, or risk economic and diplomatic consequences. Similarly, dissenting voices within Western societies who question NATO’s strategies are frequently labeled as “pro-Russian” or “misinformed.” This is the paradox of tolerance: the liberal order, which prides itself on pluralism and free debate, becomes increasingly intolerant of alternative viewpoints when its legitimacy is at stake. In the process, democracy risks turning into a space where freedom is conditional, granted only to those who align with the dominant narrative. The battle between the West, Russia, and China is not just about territory or influence; it is about defining the rules of the international system. Will the future be one of multipolarity, where power is shared among several actors, or will it continue to be dominated by the West? The answer will determine not just the future direction of geopolitics, but also the architecture of trade, technology, security, and even cultural exchange.
Conclusion
The contest between the West, Russia, and emerging powers like China is more than a clash of armies or economies; it is a struggle over meaning, legitimacy, and the right to define the global narrative. From the battlefields of Ukraine to the algorithms of social media platforms, the world is witnessing a competition where dominance is pursued not only through force but through the power to shape perception. The paradox of tolerance sits at the heart of this struggle. Liberal democracies, which once celebrated dissent and plurality, now often respond to geopolitical challenges by narrowing the space for alternative perspectives at home and abroad. Likewise, Russia and China present themselves as defenders of sovereignty against Western intrusion, yet they, too, suppress dissent and control information within their own borders.
The question we must ask, then, is whether this global rivalry is leading us toward a safer, more just world, or whether it is entrenching a system where might makes right and the rhetoric of values is merely a tool for power politics. If the goal is a genuinely rules-based order, it cannot be one where rules apply selectively depending on who holds power. As technology accelerates the speed and reach of information, the challenge is not merely to win the battle of narratives but to create a space where multiple truths can coexist without plunging the world into chaos. The future of global order may depend on whether we can transcend zero-sum thinking and build a system where tolerance, sovereignty, and justice are not sacrificed on the altar of dominance.
References
Begović, M., & Chadwick, S. (2025). Geopolitics and sports. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1650791
Dahal, D. R. (2024). The Shifting Geopolitics. Journal of Political Science, 185-201. https://doi.org/10.3126/jps.v24i1.62863
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest, 16, 3–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. Pantheon.
Howlett, M. (2023). The Russia-Ukraine war as a battle for a bordered land, not borderland. Political Geography, 101, 102814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102814
Liu, Z., & Shu, M. (2023). The Russia–Ukraine conflict and the changing geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. China International Strategy Review, 1–14. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-023-00134-5
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 77–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power. Public Affairs.
Reuter, C., Lee Hughes, A., & Buntain, C. (2024). Combating information warfare: state and trends in user-centred countermeasures against fake news and misinformation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(13), 3348–3361. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2442486
Rubab, M., Ali, Z., & Arif, M. S. (2024). US-Russia Rivalry in the 21st Century: New Cold War and Russian Resurgence in the Changing Global Power Dynamics. Spry Contemporary Educational Practices, 3(1), 577-583. https://doi.org/10.62681/sprypublishers.scep/3/1/31
Standford University ,. (202). From App to Allegory: The TikTok Ban as a Symbol of Deeper .. fsi.stanford.edu. September 16, 2025. https://fsi.stanford.edu/sipr/tik-tok-geopolitical-tensions
Zollmann, F. (2023). A war foretold: How Western mainstream news media omitted NATO eastward expansion as a contributing factor to Russia’s 2022 invasion of the Ukraine. Media, War & Conflict, 17(3), 373-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506352231216908
