In connection with the recent Munich Security Conference, I went through the security report prepared for the event. The organizers tend to give these reports eye-catching titles. This year, the cover featured the word "Multipolarization," a fusion of two concepts: multipolarity and polarization.

The report's main thesis is that while the old geopolitical rivalry has returned, everything else is new and changed. In terms of polarity, we simultaneously see unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity, as well as non-polarity — all at the same time.

It is evident that the political and economic liberalism that followed the Cold War is no longer the sole driving force. Challenges to the existing order primarily arise from within, as seen in the rise of nationalist populism in many liberal democracies. At the same time, there are external challenges as well, demonstrated by the growing ideological divide between democracies and autocracies. A world is emerging where different models of global order coexist, compete or clash simultaneously.

In a positive scenario, multipolarization could offer opportunities for a more inclusive global order and impose greater limitations on the United States, which many have seen as overly dominant. In a pessimistic scenario, however, multipolarization increases the risk of disorder and conflict while undermining cooperation. This year's Munich Security Index indicates that the populations of G7 countries are less optimistic about the new global order than those in BRICS countries (excluding Russia) — that is, people in Brazil, India, China and South Africa.

The return of Donald Trump to power has buried the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus in the U.S., which held that the grand strategy of liberal internationalism was in America's best interest. Trump's team believes that the international order established by Washington has been a poor deal and as a result, the U.S. may renounce its historical role as Europe's security guarantor, with consequences for Ukraine as well. In the coming years, U.S. foreign policy will likely be shaped by its competition with China, which in turn may accelerate the multipolarization of the international system.

Trump's return may mark the end of Pax Americana, but it does not necessarily mean that the U.S. will relinquish its role as the world's most powerful state in the near future. At the same time, some analysts, according to the report, see a trend toward a bipolar world in which the U.S. and China are the only superpowers, with no other nation possessing the economic or military capacity to reach great-power status. While Russia has significant capabilities due to its nuclear arsenal, it remains a regional power rather than a global one.

Ideologically, there is also a trend toward multipolarity. Liberal supremacy appears to be a thing of the past. Most liberal democracies are experiencing the rise of illiberal forces domestically. Instead of liberalism's hegemony, a new competition between democracies and autocracies is expected. In addition to Putin's war in Ukraine, growing cooperation among revisionist autocracies signals a deepening global confrontation. Skeptics argue that the unity of geopolitical blocs may not survive the rise of illiberal populists.

This does not mean that the liberal order will disappear, but its scope is increasingly limited to Western countries — or what remains of the West. A new system is emerging, characterized by both power pluralism and identity pluralism. In this system, Russia aspires to establish a Eurasian order under its leadership, while China is building its own regional order in East Asia, which it seeks to expand through the Belt and Road Initiative. However, according to the report, the peaceful coexistence of multiple international orders is highly unlikely.

In a multipolarized world, the absence of a clear leader is evident, as many countries have plenty of negative energy but lack positive momentum. This could lead to a system with no foundation at all. Under the guise of multipolarity, Russia and China are attempting to divide the world into regional unipolar spheres of influence. Meanwhile, the Global South's leaders hold ambiguous positions on international rules — it remains unclear whether they seek to change the rules or demand their more consistent enforcement.

Critics argue that Trump's team behaves with the same narrow self-interest as many great powers throughout history. Some believe that a U.S. withdrawal from global affairs would create a security vacuum that, by the end of the decade, could expose Europe to Russian aggression. According to the report, the next four years will ultimately determine whether U.S. global engagement helps maintain order or fuels further disorder.

The European Union is said to be facing three major crises. Russia's war against Ukraine has destroyed Europe's collective security system. The use of economic interdependence as a weapon threatens the EU's economic model. And the model of liberal democracy in Europe is under pressure both from within and from external forces. Trump's return would only exacerbate these crises.

Regarding Russia, for Vladimir Putin, the war is not just about Ukraine — it is a war over the principles on which the new global order will be based. Russia speaks of a multipolar order where not states but civilizations are the key actors. However, in these civilizations, sovereignty and leadership belong only to powerful state-civilizations. Small nations cannot possess full sovereignty; they must belong to the sphere of influence of a state-civilization.

For this reason, Russia does not recognize Ukraine's right to sovereignty and equality, making its invasion entirely justified in its own view. And in Russia's eyes, its sphere of influence extends over the entire former Soviet space. However, Russia's actual capabilities do not align with its self-proclaimed status as a world-leading power, even if it has played its mediocre hand skillfully.

There is a contradiction between Russia's self-image and its actual power, yet its ability to play a larger role than reality might suggest has persisted. Whether Russia can continue its imperial ambitions depends on the broader international community.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!