With the fall of the USSR in 1991, a new world order of the US/UN as chief superpowers seemed inevitable. The multi-national cooperation against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War seemed to evidence this trend: a US-led internationalist force (diplomatically, militarily, and economically). Also, the formation and strengthening ties of the EU seems to parallel the ideal of the UN for international cooperation, but the EU was formed outside of the UN.
However, the world does not seem inclined toward internationalism presently. Rather, it seems to lean toward regional internationalism. Thus, international cooperation is limited by linking countries within Europe, but not these countries to Russia or the US. This is seen in the current diplomatic row over a US-funded missile defence system for Europe, over which Europe is not on the same page as the US and neither are on the same page as Russia.
9/11 also alerted the world to another internationalist movement: Islamism. Arab nationalism, demonstrated by Saddam Hussein, is fading in favor of terrorist extremists' view of an international jihad. In this, they are using a unifying force across the Islamic World (Islam) to mobilize otherwise nationally and even religiously (i.e. Sunni vs. Sh'ia) divided against a common foe: the West. The West, consisting of the EU and the US, though, is itself divided. The UN proved powerless to mediate their differences over the invasion of Iraq, where the US now positions itself for the battle between Sunni and Sh'ia as to who will lead the Islamist attack on the West. The US, realizing Hussein was not focused on international terrorism, but rather on frightening his neighbors with the impression of weapons in order to keep them from using Iraq as a battleground, is doing its best to stabilize the situation as best as possible. However, even if the situation should be resolved in Iraq, or if the US had not invaded Iraq, events elsewhere in the Islamic World demonstrate the present dynamics, as in the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, in which the Islamic World grappled with its division over how to react to the West (as in the US-supported Israel) and/or to each other (as in Iran with its links to Hezbollah). The crossroads of Iraq is simply one battleground between forces in the Near East to see who will (or should at all, this being the goal of al-Qaeda) lead a united Islamic world.
Besides the Near East, though, Central Asia brings together clashing US, Russian, and Chinese forces, just as the British, Russian, and Ottoman Empires clashed in the nineteenth century. Now, though, the US is seeking to retain relevance as a "single" superpower with trans-international presence while Russia rebuilds its dominance of its Soviet empire by funneling Central Asia's oil wealth into itself to be held against European powers. China, in turn, is using its massive powers of wealth and population to expand influence continually, with one market being Central Asia. However, any comparison of Russian and Chinese power expansion cannot be compared to the USSR. For, at its worst Russia is now a non-communist semi-autocracy while China has turned to its own delicate communism/capitalism for which it suffered in relations with the USSR throughout the Cold War. This model has been followed in Vietnam and is now spreading into Latin America, where Hugo Chavez positions himself to succeed Castro's Soviet-era mindset to unite Latin America under his semi-democratic, semi-autocratic leadership.
What will decide the course of world events should be the reactions of subdued but potentially powerful players to the advances of these larger powers as they gain more and more de facto control over neighbors through diplomatic and economic cooperation. For instance, will the Ukraine align with Russia or the EU? Will Japan/Korea unite against China? Will Australia develop to combat both Islamic and communist elements in southeast Asia? How will India and Pakistan align as powerful but starkly contrary nations? Will Egypt consent to democracy, theocracy, or autocracy? Will Brazil maintain autonomy against Chavez?
These issues: primarily clashing views of the defitions and executions of plurocracy, theocracy, and autocracy seem to be the defining issues of our times as the world shifts into what seems to be a "Lukewarm" Era.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
