Multipolarity is a fact and not some falsifiable academic theory, especially by those who obsessively wish for a utopian unipolar hegemony of the USA. Events are running faster than the international system's adoption of the theory of a multipolar world. A theory first introduced into the international debate in its entirety by Professor Dugin, who created a global political movement. 

True! Without the Fourth Political Theory, multipolarism is indeed an empty shell. In fact, if we take away from multipolarism its foundation, the one that has genially idealized and generated it, namely the Fourth Political Theory (4TP), then the multipolar idea will end up being the greatest deception of the 21st century, the double black, the Antichrist of which Alexander Dugin frequently speaks to us in his texts, in his magisterium, in his lectures, in his debates.

We live in an era of significant transition. The era of the unipolar world is coming to an end, giving way to an age of multipolarity. Changes in the global architecture of the world order are fundamental. Sometimes, processes unfold so swiftly that public thought lags behind. It is all the more important to focus on comprehending the monumental events shaking humanity.

Alexander Dugin’s speech at the Multipolarity Forum in Moscow, 26 February 2024.

On the eve of 2024, it is worth taking a look at the overall picture of the world and the main geopolitical trends. Overall, we are in a moment of transition from unipolarity to multipolarity. This year, multipolarity received additional structuring in BRICS-10 (Argentina, having just joined this organisation, was hastily removed from there by another globalist clown — Javier Milei).

The topic of the empire will inevitably come to the forefront. The term ‘state-civilisation’, introduced into scholarly discourse by our friend, the Chinese thinker Zhang Weiwei, essentially means ‘empire’.

The monitoring of multipolarism is now more topical than ever. It is through the prism of the rise of multipolarism and the decline of unipolarism that major world events must be interpreted.

We are witnessing now very important term, very important shift, paradigma’s shift - the global balance of powers, and I think, that the last meeting of BRICS countries with acceptance of new members it is a point of no return, it is something really historic, because what we see now in a world with this new structure of BRICS.

What happened at the XV BRICS Summit in Johannesburg is truly historic. Even if the President of Russia, the founder of BRICS, did not take part in it, it is still a turning point in modern history. The world order is changing before our eyes. Let us parrot the meaning of the ongoing tectonic changes.

The XV BRICS summit made a historic decision to admit 6 more countries into the organisation - Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This effectively completed the formation of the core of a multipolar world.

Text presented on the occasion of the First Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Multipolarity

Một thế giới đa cực dựa trên sự công nhận về sự bình đẳng của các nền văn minh và văn hóa, mỗi nền văn minh tạo nên vũ trụ riêng của mình.

24.02.2022 - As Russian philosopher and political analyst Aleksandr Dugin says, the unipolar world, globalist ideology, and Western hegemony are collapsing, and the US doesn't want to sit idly by. Washington is willing to take any action to stop this from happening. Thus the problem of Ukraine arose when the US declared an "impending Russian invasion."

12.02.2022 - Today, the African continent is a new center of confrontation with neocolonialism and foreign expansionism - especially French expansion.  And since the West's preferred method is to control countries through puppet governments, it is only through military coups that the system can be "broken", if only temporarily, by allowing a country to release the pressure of foreign and supranational structures. This is confirmed by the fact that military coups have recently increased in the region: in Mali in 2020, in Guinea in 2021 and now we have seen the same in Burkina Faso.

Until a few years ago, Africa was at a standstill. After the first wave of decolonization in the 1960s, the new African regimes experimented with all the political ideologies of the so-called "modern" era. This process has led to the emergence of liberal, nationalist, communist or socialist societies in postcolonial countries.

We come to a third concept, crucial for understanding the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world and the place of the BRICS countries in this process. We are talking about the concept of the civilisation-state. This idea has been formulated by Chinese scholars (in particular by Professor Zhang Weiwei) and most often the concept of the civilisation-state is applied to modern China and then by analogy to Russia, India, etc. In the Russian context, a similar theory was put forward by the Eurasians, who proposed the concept of the Peace-State. Actually, in that trend, Russia was understood as a civilisation, not just one of the countries, hence the main Eurasian concept - Russia-Eurasia.

Let us now turn to a different theory: the 'world-system analysis' constructed by Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein, an exponent of the Marxist school of International Relations (especially in its Trotskyist interpretation), on the basis of the doctrine of "the long run" (F. Braudel) and the Latin American theorists of structural economics (R. Prebisch, S. Furtado), developed a model of world zoning according to the level of development of capitalism.

The state of emergency, Ernstfall, it is very very serious and one who is in power in such a situation, is not likely to give it up voluntarily to anyone. This is, let's say, the positive side of the epidemic in which we now live. Of course, it’s important to deal with it, it’s important to survive, but you can’t reduce everything to solution of purely technical issues, it is essential to think about the future. And at the exit from this pandemic we will come across a completely new post-global reality.

In Moscow, Eurasianist scholar Alexander Dugin influenced the policy of President Vladimir Putin and diverted Russian policy towards Eurasianism. The ultimate purpose of this diversion was aimed at Russian revisionism in order to bolster Russia’s role for the creation of a multi-polar, and multi-stakeholder, world.

According to Dugin, European civilization has degenerated and it must be destroyed. However, to fight the European civilization, Dugin suggests the Eurasianist Federation based on the strategic unity and ethnic plurality with a principle judicial element of the rights of people.

Ideological unipolarity entails the universalism of Western values and Human Rights ideology with the concept of human vs. citizen. The concept of human in Human Rights theory is against the nation-state and against the concept of citizen. If you say that the human being has the same rights as the citizen, you destroy citizenship. Migration and the defense of migrants are not purely humanitarian, but ideological. It is the idea to destroy the concept of citizenship, nationality, and the state. That is one of the main goals of the so-called human rights movement. It is purely ideological - as much ideological as Marxism or National Socialism. It is pure propaganda, nothing humanitarian. If you share human rights values, you are globalists on one side, sharing an ideology just like racism in National Socialism or communism and the proletarian position in classical Marxism. Human rights is a liberal ideology. It is not neutral. It is not self-evident. It is purely ideology, just as belongingness to the Aryan race or the capitalist or proletarian classes is. If you are in favor of human rights, you are already totally controlled by ideology.

From a purely scientific point of view, there still exists no full and complete theory of a multipolar world (TMW) to date, nor can it be found among the classical theories and paradigms of International Relations (IR). We will try to look for it in the latest post-positivist theories in vain. It is not fully developed in its final aspect, the sphere of geopolitical research. Time and time again this theme is openly comprehended, but still left “behind the scenes” or treated in too biased of a fashion within international relations.

Nevertheless, more and more works on foreign affairs, world politics, geopolitics, and actually, international politics, are dedicated to the theme of multipolarity. A growing number of authors try to understand and describe multipolarity as a model, phenomenon, precedent, or possibility.

The topic of multipolarity was in one way or another touched upon in the works of the IR specialist David Kampf (in the article "The emergence of a multipolar world"), historian Paul Kennedy of Yale University (in his book "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" ), geopolitician Dale Walton (in the book "Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the XXI century: Multipolarity and the Revolution in strategic perspective"), American political scientist Dilip Hiro (in the book "After Empire: Birth of a multipolar world" ), and others. The closest in understanding the sense of multipolarity, in our view, was British IR specialists Fabio Petito, who tried to build a serious and substantiated alternative to the unipolar world on the basis of the legal and philosophical concepts of Carl Schmitt. 

Not just in the US the mainstream media was broadcasting these fairy tales. In Germany also we “witnessed” a Russian invasion with tanks and lots of war material in Crimea. When I arrived in Simferopol I started searching for the Russian invasion. And I found out it took place but just on our western TV screens. Instead of those depressing “occupation scenes” I saw happy people in “reunification-fever”. Crimeans were looking forward to the referendum day.

In my opinion, a multipolar world is the order with 5 or more centers of power in the world and this reality will keep our planet more safe and balanced with shared responsibility between the regions. But it is not just interdependence by the logic of liberalism: some regions might well exist in relative political and economic autarky. Beside that, there might exist a double core in one center (for example Arabs and Turks in a large Muslim zone or Russia and Central Asian states for Eurasia) and shifted and inter-imposed zones, because, historically, centers of power can be moved. Of course at the moment the most significant centers of power are described in terms of nuclear arms, GDP, economic weight/growth and diplomatic influence. First of all we already have more poles than during the Soviet-US opposition. Secondly, everybody understands the role of China as a ‘Bretton Woods-2’, as well as emerging countries under acronyms as BRICS or VISTA, “anchor countries” and so on. And, thirdly, we see the rise of popular and unconventional diplomacy and the desire of many countries (many of them are strong regional actors such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil) to not follow the U.S. as satellites or minor partners.

- The collapse of the Soviet Union has indeed led directly to an American domination of the world affairs. When Bush father proclaimed the new world order in the sands of Iraq, many (in the Western world) even thought that it would be so forever, that the history of ideas had stopped and that the world would from now on forever be under American domination. 

We can see today that those who thought so were wrong, and it only took a decade for History to take back its rights, leading America into wars that will accelerate its decline, while paradoxically, they were supposed to establish its domination. 

During the same decade, Russia was reborn from its ashes and has once again become a strong regional power, a power that has visions of domination of Eurasia, as Vladimir Putin hammered during his first speech as the elected president on May 7, 2012. 

We hear a lot more about the Russia / America confrontation than at the beginning of this century but these countries will probably never be anymore the main key players in the world of tomorrow, unlike America and the USSR in the world of yesterday.