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. Many started, earlier, to talk about multipolarity in the Western world, but not fully and always in the intellectual context of Western hegemony. Critical Theory (Marxism) and Post-positivist approaches paved the way for the realization that behind the globality of the last centuries lies the hegemonic desire of Western European civilization and especially in the last decades the hegemonic globalist desire of the USA for power on a material and intellectual level in order to make its supposedly universal values global. Critical Theory has revealed the hegemonism of global exploitation hidden behind the supposedly cooperative nature of liberal capitalism by equating hegemony completely with capitalism alone, which although accepts as a necessary stage towards the achievement of another ideological globalism based on the other second aspect of the modern phenomenon. The Post-positivist approaches demonstrated the locality and temporality of the Western cultural phenomenon by equating hegemony with the perpetuation of modernity which, however, must be freed from its pre-modern remnants. The West is a local cultural phenomenon whose values concern exclusively a specific geographical area of mainly Anglo-Saxon influence. While these two examples highlighted the underlying hegemonic core of Western claims of universality, Huntington went a step further by recognizing already at the time of "the end of history" the existence of other cultures that would form the poles of a new system, but always within the realistic framework of international competition.

This is as far as the perceptual limits of the West extend. Even the recognition of multiple potential poles does not change the West's bipolar view of the world: "us: as the hegemons of a potential unipolar system, and those: who oppose our globalism". Unfortunately for them, the "mirror gifts" of technology, of global trade and economic transactions, of appealing to that hedonistic part of human nature with rightsisms and lgbtqisms that are a bomb in the foundations of any society but also tools of manipulation and authoritarian hegemonism, did not do the job they expected. The societies that require to keep their collective pre-modern consciousness deep within them were not bent by any of this, remaining deeply traditional and, although they are states belonging to the Westphalian international system, they never acquired ethnocratic characteristics. They are cultural meganations (woe to those who sold their history and their souls to modern ethnocracy). This phenomenon is called in international relations "modernization without westernization". China, India, Russia are examples to a greater or lesser extent. Islam in the Middle East (despite the conflicts between sects) perceives ethnocracy as an obstacle and the cause of its fragmentation.

Modern multipolar theory is beginning to become a conscious choice for all these multi-ethnic and multi-religious states (a postmodern projection of pre-modern empires) but which have clear cultural characteristics that unite all these distinctions while respecting their collective diversity. This was particularly the case after the collapse of the absolute power of Western ideologies within them immediately after the end of the Cold War. As Huntington points out, the collapse of the communist pole and the spread of liberal capitalist values and institutions around the world put the focus of global competition no longer on ideologies but on the civilizations that had until then been covered by them. Capitalism was transmitted to these societies not as an ideology but as a tool against the hegemony of the West that wants to subjugate the reborn pre-modern values that had been covered for the entire 20th century under the cloak of ideologies.

There has been also a long academic and political debate on whether bipolarity or multipolarity is ultimately a more peaceful solution for the international system to avoid a global conflict. The Cold War has shown, as Western scholars argue, that when the international system consists of two compact poles, it is stable, with controlled conflicts taking place on the geographical fringes of the two poles. The West today therefore relies on this experience while arguing that the multipolar world can be unpredictable. This is always to justify its need for hegemony by continuing a bipolar competition that will lead once again to global hegemony either with a global center and dispersal of the decision-making center at the individual level of the so-called "civil society" or with the USA itself at the center (in both cases we are talking about Americanization - westernization and a global social melting pot).

On the contrary, in International Relations it is now clear that a multipolar world can well be stable and even more easily avoid a world war. Perhaps even more so than bipolarity since the element of polarization is missing. In this case there may be more regional conflicts but there is more flexibility due to reduced polarization as opposed to the extreme polarization of a bipolar system. Besides, the new poles of the global system at least those already formed and consciously operating as polar forces do not have the potential to become hegemonic. The only one seeking hegemony is Euro-Atlanticism. It is in this fluidity that the current game is being played out, where on the one hand independent poles that recognize a multipolar world are emerging and on the other hand a hegemonic power that continues to see the world hegemonically. That is, potentially unipolar and conventionally bipolar (we the victors of the Cold War who are rightfully the hegemons of the world system against the challengers of our victory and hegemony). In short, the system today while multipolar the West's refusal to see reality makes it dangerous. Besides, if Euro-Atlanticism recognized the existence of several poles and not just a zone of "barbarians" located in the periphery, it would force it to realize that it cannot be a hegemonic power, that it is a cultural phenomenon historically and geographically limited and that its claim for the universalization of its values is based only on the right given by its economic and military power.  If there is a chance of avoiding WWIII it is only the US realizing that it is one pole out of 7 to be geographically confined to its traditional sphere of influence.

If not, the outposts of imperialism - hegemonism (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and soon other states on the edge of the poles), which are the tools of the West for further penetration in Eurasia, will become the pretexts for the outbreak of the last military phase of a new world war. To help the theory escape from the constant theoretical debates and to settle on which polar system is more stable, we can say that if the West insists on the bipolar interpretation, then the bipolar system will be considered the most destructive in the literature of International Relations and not multipolarity... If it makes sense to continue internationalist literature after a few nuclear explosions...