There is furore among diplomats regarding medium-sized autocratic nations wielding more hard power on the new world order. Countries like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia have begun to meddle in the politics of their neighbourhood, which was earlier restricted to great powers like Russia or Europe. The reason was the grand exit of the US from the world scene post-2016 when it began to look inwards in response to the awaking dragon.
However, a bigger picture in these battles must be more easily seen. The fall of the Soviet union was globally witnessed, but none stood watching when the colonies fell into the European merchants. In fact, the peace that shadowed post second world war saw colony owners sign on behalf of their holdings. Boundaries were drawn to satisfy the European view of the world. Thus the constant turmoil in these autocratic nations speaks of a history that was ignored in this treaty of the west. Baghdad, for example, had long been the capital of the Islamic dynasties. However, current-day Iraq is almost denied any coastline to operate its maritime cargo. The kingdoms of Kuwait were a promise that the English kept at the cost of Iraq's future.
What was left of this exercise was states with confusing boundaries and new wars that have no reason. The Indus plain was split in two for the first time in history. Although many nation-states are using this argument to fuel hypernationalism among their citizens, there is an essential misjudgement in the first place. There is no doubt that autocrats have used such issues to divert the public from their political failings. However, these forged lines beg the question of whether the world wars' burden of peace came as new tensions among formed states?