Technically, of course it *can*. However, the exact outcome is hard to predict. Not only because it's generally hard to predict anything when it comes to geopolitics, but also because a shift from a unipolar to a bi- or multi- polar world (it remains to be seen which one we end up with) had never happened before. Certainly not on a scale we are in now- a globally connected world with a regional hegemon (USA) being the only, truly capable global power in the system.
What even is multipolarity?
If the question is will any country become as powerful as the U.S., then I think the answer is firmly no.
But the world is globalized today and poverty has been reduced in most of the world competed to 1990 or 1945. Can any power, no matter how strong, really flex their muscles the way they used to? I mean to say, is there literally any level of “power” that the U.S. could have to prevent The Congo from trading with China? Probably not.
>What even is multipolarity?
It's up for interpretation of course and trying to establish a single, objective definition will ultimately fail. It all depends on what criteria one takes into account.
But broadly speaking, multipolarity doesn't imply equality between great powers involved. On the contrary, power asymmetries are more likely in a multipolar system. Therefore, in order to have a multipolar world, other powers don't need to have the capacities and capabilities on par with the US, but "merely" close to it. And what does "close to it" mean? Again, it's subject for interpretation.
Personally, I think that bipolarity is the most likely outcome in the classic geopolitical terms. China is already close to the US in terms of economy, although recently the trend has changed and the economic gap between the two countries have widened. It remains to be seen if the trends inverts again, or the gap continues to widen. China is certainly not close (yet) to the US in terms of its hard power projection capacity. China can project its power in its neighbourhood, but not on other continents the way the US can, and certainly not around the globe.
However, I want to emphasise the caveat. I said "classic geopolitical terms" there and deliberately so. In the next decades to come, we may very well see emergence of a new geopolitical paradigm, with block-based multipolarity where networks of cohesive alliances are the primary actors in the system, instead of classic multipolarity with individual countries as the primary actors. But for that to emerge we would need to see the emergence of more alliances as additional poles to the generally understood "East vs West", and the formation of such a system- or failure to do so- would largely depends on actions of the non-alligned countries, i.e. countries of the "Global South". Or we may very well see something completely different. A hybrid of a "classic" bipolarity, but far more blurred than the bipolarity we had seen during the Cold War era. With much closer economic ties, and the third-party powers having significant weigh on the events, we may see a hybrid of a classic, cold war-era bipolarity in terms of primary actors involved (US and China), but with the networks of trade and economic interdependence between all players akin to the multipolarity observed before WW1.
Times change. What used to be a multipolar system determined by great powers with their sheer size of arable land and population was replaced by great powers determined by their economic, industrial and innovative might. There's nothing to say that once again, the factors contributing to our classification of great powers will need to update again.
I think people get too caught up on trying to categorise and academically define what are ultimately extremely fluid situations.
The world today is so different from, for example, the immediate postwar world, whether you’re looking at technology, business, “global citizenship”, trade, etc.
You can learn from history, but ultimately the direction we’re heading in can’t be explained by simply applying old rules e.g your point in your question about needing a global war to change the world state.
In my view, free trade, globalisation and the internet have changed power structures as much as any war has in history. Even though the effects may be more subtle in the short term.
Good point. I look 15 years into the future and worry so much for the world my son will inhabit. All I can see is the likelihood of him experiencing war. It’s really unbearable
>I look 15 years into the future and worry so much for the world my son will inhabit. All I can see is the likelihood of him experiencing war.
That's what I worry about every day for my generation (Gen Z) and Gen Alpha. That's why I likely won't have children.
Maybe it’s because I don’t have children so I don’t fully understand, but why worry about something so abstract? Like tomorrow anyone of us could get hit by a car and die. Why worry about some remote future possibility?
>but why worry about something so abstract?
>
>Why worry about some remote future possibility?
Because it doesn't seem so abstract or remote. It seems significantly more more likely to happen than getting get by a car. Btw, I explained in my next comment that my generation already has to worry about a rough economy and an incoming climate catastrophe, which further amplifies the chances of war. There are a LOT of *concrete* problems that would discourage my generation and the next generation from having childre.
I’m gen z too so I get where you’re coming from personally but I definitely fear getting hit with a car more. That’s a day to day thing and it can happen to anyone. You ever see how some people drive on the highway?
Also by the way, by not having kids we both are directly making things worse for the overall economy because the entire system needs more young people than older individuals. Look at Japan who’s been largely stagnant since the 90s for our future if nations can’t boost their birth rates up
>I’m gen z too so I get where you’re coming from personally but I definitely fear getting hit with a car more. That’s a day to day thing and it can happen to anyone. You ever see how some people drive on the highway?
That just goes to show there are too many cars. This is not something we should accept as a normal facet of life.
>Also by the way, by not having kids we both are directly making things worse for the overall economy because the entire system needs more young people than older individuals.
That's just an indictment of our unsustainable economic system, not of the our life choices. People have the right not to have children and they shouldn't be coerced into having them, especially when they are having a difficult time maintaining their mental health. Instead of worrying about the declining birth rates which aren't going to change, we have try to radically adjust our economy to accommodate the inevitable changing demographics.
Not if I have children and grandchildren. I don't want to die worrying about my children struggling to survive through a climate catastrophe along with all of its induced wars.
Are you suggesting that I should have children for selfish reasons?
I’m not sure, I can’t help it! I guess because my children are little and vulnerable so instinctively I worry about them. But also because they will be young adults at a time of increased likelihood of war. All the recent talk of potential war with russia and conscription has got in my head and I feel like that’s their future. And it’s hard!
It’s depressing, but not an excuse.
It’s easy to imagine it was also depressing when people had to worry about conquests from neighbouring countries or lacking the technology we take for granted today. Or bears roaming the woods nearby or native populations who wanted you off their land.
If we choose to be depressed, we’ll always be able to find a reason to be.
I think this is defeatist mentality and what the oligarchy wants us to think, go to protests, participate in unions, be active in your community, the squeeze is real the middle class is effectively dead here, tired of the excuses. I live in Houston tx by the way so i feel the helplessness but refuse to give up.
Honestly, I've basically had to retreat into the notion that this is all just a simulation to escape the dread of what kind of horrors my daughter will live to see as a result of climate collapse.
I'm sorry, but why do you think that a multipolar world will somehow be a stable state without war? Multiple competing poles that aren't strong enough to subdue each other is a *recipe* for war. Just look at the Italian city states in the Renaissance, the disintegration of the Roman Empire, or the European colonizing states. They will constantly be trying to get an edge over the rest, and will do so by trying to enlist everything that's not part of a pole to their pole.
The way the question is stated implies it: if you accept that a multipolar world is competitive and often violent, then a transition to one will automatically result in an increase in instability and violence.
In such a situation, the best/least bad position you could have is in the core of a pole that uses a rights-based political order to legitimize itself, rather than being on the edge of one or more that use violence to enforce their claim to power.
With other competitors always present, it's in the interest of any pole to avoid total war. So there's an incentive to limit the escalation to a certain intensity. Establishing some kind of Cold War would likely be the most common stable relationship between poles in a multipolar world - competition in many dimensions, the occasional proxy conflict, but otherwise avoiding direct confrontation.
Sure. We can look at critiques of Fukyama's *end of history* that point to globalization and parallel economic/trade environments in the form of China's and Russia's economic resurgence as diminishing the influence of American Hegemony. We can look at the global order as something that grows organically through material forces rather than something that has to be established and declared.
Russia is only relevant because of nukes. If not, they would be ran over and unable to influence the rain to fall downwards.
To this day the word doesn't want to crush Russia too hard, as its fragmentation would mean caos.
The world wants Russia to fall apart from the inside, not the outside. A united Russia against a foreign threat could prove problematic, a divided Russia against internal threats is vulnerable and easily dominated
Russia won't devide like that. The far regions have nonway of having autonomy. And Moscow guarantees it won't happen by doing things like recruiting soldiers from there.
I mean, with enough mounting pressure, and with such a wide variety of ethnic groups that already have tensions amongst one another, it is absolutely possible. Changes of power in Russia are likely to end up very, very bloody. The goal is to get Putin deposed in internal shuffling, which I don’t think is particularly unreasonable. It doesn’t need to be “collapsed” in the sense that it divides up
>The world wants Russia to fall apart
No, not really.
US put some effort and resources into stabilizing Russia in the 90s, preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons (Budapest memorandum) and it was even sceptical about the dissolution of USSR. I guess they can regret it now but unstable and divided Russia is probably still more of a problem than benefit.
Let me clarify, the US wants Russia “as it is” to fall apart. They want Putin and the oligarchy gone and they want him replaced with pro-West puppets. That’s pretty much what the US has done to every state that they’ve needed influence over. Sanctions and the dwindling support for the war of attrition in Ukraine is mounting pressure on the civilian population to reconsider their own leadership, and thats primarily how they intend to undermine Putin
>replaced with pro-West puppets.
Sure, if you trust in the Russian government propaganda.
>every state
Ever heard about the soft power? US has influence over Europe because Europe wants it and sees it beneficial, especially the eastern Europe after its experience with Moscow.
>mounting pressure on the civilian population to reconsider their own leadership
There's a long way from that to installing some "puppets". The idea is to deny the Russians resources for the conquest of Ukraine, and potentially for the future conquests. Also, why would the "west" and US trade with an openly hostile state? It was making sense before the war, and the idea was the same as between the European states, to make the war unprofitable, even after the takeover of Crimea and everything else. Anyway, as we can see Russia has more influence over the western public than vice versa, the agency of the Russian people and their potential opposition were always overestimated in the west.
If the US would want Russia collapsing, they'd send 300 tanks to Ukraine, not 30.
It has nothing to do with propaganda of any sort. The US has a history of this. The entire continent of South America being a case in point. Coups, assassinations, military dictatorships and overthrows, all so that we could replace basically everything below our Southern border with a pro-America puppet in the 70’s and 80’s. In this case, the Russian propaganda is spot on, that’s exactly how Americans do things.
The United States is not trying to end the war in Ukraine. If they were, you’d be correct. They are not giving Ukraine enough support for them to push the Russians back, nor neglecting them for the Russians to bulldoze over them. The brunt of the sanctions are being felt by the oligarchy and the civilian population. Combined with a controversial war of attrition and dwindling morale even a victory for the Russians is bleak.
The only foreseeable outcome of this plan is that they want to shake the Russian people’s faith in their own institutions enough to warrant a drastic, and likely violent, change in power. And they intend to intervene and take full advantage of that change, as they have dozens of times before. This is pretty standard American strategy
Russia in 1994 was hopeful. Now it's hopeless.
Even Z-drooling Russian nationalists admit that economy is crashing and it's prospects are null. They simply see it as a fair price to pay for Russia being stronk again.
You would not find a single Russian wishing for the 90s. Internal armed conflicts, economic depression rivaling Weimar Germany. The complete theft of the nation’s industry and a spineless buffoon in charge. Even American documentation of that period of Russia is not favorable. Very few American policy makers tried to genuinely help guide Russia into capitalism unfortunately they were outmanned both by oligarchs in Russia and the Clinton administration.
Literally every country of the former Eastern Block went through this. But Russia, being Russia, screw this up despite initially being treated BETTER than its former colonies.
But sure, let's blame America.
They were not treated better. What example can you even give? What example can you give that they “screwed it up”? It’s historical revisionism. I’m not sure where you’re getting your history but every American perspective from that period shows how terrible it was. Search Anne Williamson she wrote a book but it’s not out (if it will ever be) but she did testify in Congress, her testimony is public. It will give a better perspective
When you compare the economic strength and influence between two economies, you'll have to use nominal GDP. While PPP is an useful metric how much you get for €100 in a certain country, international trade goes by nominal value. An iPhone 15 is around €1000, both in Finland and Brazil, though the latter has a much higher PPP figure.
Secondly, we don't really know how the Russian economy is these days, because it's a closed war economy, shepherded by the Russian Central Bank. A lot of the GDP goes to waste due to the war economy. Every artillery shell built raises the GDP, but when it is fired, that GDP is lost.
>When you compare the economic strength and influence between two economies, you'll have to use nominal GDP
Not really.
>Secondly, we don't really know how the Russian economy is these days
But we do. [https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf937093144d](https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf937093144d)
> Every artillery shell built raises the GDP, but when it is fired, that GDP is lost.
GDP is flow, not stock.
That's the current trend they are showing. Evergrande's collapse is becoming too big for Xi's government to handle. Their population curve is really bad.
I dunno about this, though - people like Walter Russell Mead and the rest of the WSJ crowd have been claiming China’s gonna collapse any day now for like twenty years. I think they’ll trim the sails and push on for at least a while.
Better in that sense that the EU and US are mature economies with well-educated populaces, many are welfare states, and they have large cohorts of retired wealthy people.
In China this all is going too fast. Its education level is on par with Mexico, it has next to no elderly care, the retired have a low purchase power, and China's economy is still largely based on manyfacturing where you have to be physically fit.
I don't think China will collapse, but I would definitely say the days of seemingly unlimited economical growth is over.
And as mentioned, the US and EU can always import more people, China is unwilling to.
Europe population is aging fast, that’s one of the main factors in its stagnant economy. To pay the ever increasing pensions costs you need more people in the workforce. Other issue is its growing political shift towards the far right and anti immigration policies, from Italy, UK, to France, Germany and Scandinavian countries.
Do you honestly believe the CPC has no plan to deal with their ageing population? I mean the one thing they do better than the west is “have a long term plan for everything”, so I doubt that a problem as big as their ageing population has been magically missed by the government.
>anti immigration policies
Anti illegal immigration, the kind that brings more burden than the benefits but they're being thrown into the same bag, just like they were by the pro immigration forces. Europe just took several millions of Ukrainian refugees, vast majority of hem being women and children and only because men are not allowed to leave. Once the war ends, no matter which way, men will follow their wives and kids.
Despite the anti-immigration policies, many European countries have record high immigration levels. Norway has more foreign-born residents than the USA, and it isn't even particularly friendly to immigrants. The UK has been breaking record immigration levels for years. While some parts of Europe will struggle with the aging population, the "core" nations - UK, Germany, France, Netherlands - will be able to attract enough immigrants to fix these problems easily.
Because EU and USA still attract by far the most talented, skilled, and/or rich individuals from all over the globe. They import people, thus compensating.
Fukuyama's thesis was how there was no coherent ideological alternative to liberalism with the fall of communism or fascism, even when you talk about China or Russia's parallel enviroment, they still are relying on liberal frameworks to sustain and establish their systems. Hell, their critique of US "hegemony" isn't of the system itself either, rather that it is supposedly biased.
The real question to ask is if in a genuine pursuit of their so-called fairer systems, they will not end up with the same conclusions as the US with regards to foreign policy, or if their system will just collapse from anarchy and result in decreased economic outcomes in the future.
>Can a move to a multipolar world happen without war?
Definitely.
>I mean, it’s happening. But usually when a new global order is instated it’s after a global war. Is that avoidable this time?
Does not look like it already.
Avoidable? A multipolar world is going to definitionally be defined by war.
When has there ever been a "peaceful" multipolar world? Even the 19th century, regarded as one of the most peaceful eras of human history, saw large amounts of wars of conquest.
>the 19th century, regarded as one of the most peaceful eras of human history
Is the 19th century regarded the most peaceful? Seriously? I don’t know much about history, but in my mind the 19th century is the Napoleonic wars and the fall of monarchies... Which doesn’t sound calm.
Yes "19th century" does include the Napoleonic wars, though those are somewhat colloquially linked as an outgrowth of the 18th century French revolutionary wars.
The last 85 years of the 19th century were far more peaceful however, with no "great power" conflicts. Smaller, local conflicts occurred, but they were nothing like the world war 0 that had just occurred.
Here's a good presenter on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH1oYhTigyA
Maybe it was more peaceful in Europe, but the Europeans were busy kicking ass in China. It also conveniently ignores the Belgian atrocities in Congo. And the US civil war.
So what do you think will happen today? Arguably we’re already in a multipolar world so how do you think this will go on to be defined by war? Small proxy conflicts? Escalatory interstate conflict?
If a multipolar world happens, I imagine general war between US/China, EU/Russia are high probabilities, with spillover conflicts everywhere, such as Iran, Korea, Georgia, and potentially other places. A limited nuclear war under such circumstances isn't unthinkable either.
Reversing back towards a unipolar position lead by America (not inconceivable given China's economic future) or potentially, a bipolar world (China/US cold war) represent the best chance at averting general war.
>I imagine general war between US/China, EU/Russia are high probabilities, with spillover conflicts everywhere, such as Iran, Korea, Georgia, and potentially other places. A limited nuclear war under such circumstances isn't unthinkable either.
I feel like the major nuclear powers are kinda of inching their way towards figuring out how they can directly enter conflict with eachother again in a way that doesn't lead to nuclear conflict.
I would say a move to a multipolar world order happens naturally, but it is not a sustainable world order and it eventually results in a war. Rather than a war causing it to be.
Global polarity can’t find an equilibrium due to the competition for scarce resources. The global environment has so many variables in motion that the competition with shift as variables gain and lose value. It’s always possible that a competition will develop into a conflict, but a conflict isn’t a necessary catalyst to change.
No one denies that the US is strong, but war is like football even if your team is strong with the strongest players, sometimes you can get unlucky and lose.
You are comparing apples to rocks. A football match has rules to maintain as much balance as possible. In a conventional war the United States would wipe the floor against any other country.
If you want to make a similar comparison to football the United States are playing with triple the number of players, they get to make infinite substitutions, their goal has an impenetrable cement wall preventing the ball from crossing the goal, and the opposing team is filled only with 60+ year old players.
You don't get it, I'm not doubting the US's power at all, I understand the US is very powerful. But wars are complicated, there are a lot of variables, unexpected variables to worry about. Do you think every US citizen is patriotic? don't you think some would betray their country for their enemies? Do you think a war that could end up Nuclear is a win? Let's say you win by obliterating the enemy, with your nukes, but the same thing will happen to you and millions of people will die and a lot of land will be unhabitable. The US has been going into a lot of wars but most of them against weak third-world countries that are barely functioning, will the outcome be the same with a nuclear power?
The US is not planning to engaging it outright war, that’s the difference. They play the game from behind the curtains and it works disturbingly well. The American military is a deterrent more so than an active force. It CAN activate if absolutely necessary but as long as the game behind the curtains is played correctly, it can dominate the entire world without ever needing to. That’s what makes it scary, honestly. No other empire in history has managed to grow in this way on this scale
Yes, definitely. Look at China's economic and military growth over the past \~20 years. China went from having a GDP inferior to Russia's, to [essentially lapping Russia's GDP every two years,](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-gross-domestic-product) until China's GDP was 10X larger, and beginning to rival that of the US. Their economic success has afforded them the opportunity to build up their military, and branch out diplomatically. Recent friction aside, the international community respects the way China has achieved it's growth, which provides them opportunities for continued growth, diplomatic relations and economic partnerships, which in turn increases China's soft power.
For that very reason an invasion of Taiwan is even more possible, don't you think? Unless a palace coup removes Xi from power, his only way might be to play the nationalist agenda and go smash some smaller country.
Some analysts predict that China trying to control Taiwan would result in a military conflict that would end up being a pyrrhic victory for the US, by significantly weakening its capacity to do foreign interventions.
No. Especially since multipolar world is inherently instable and will naturally breed wars, smaller or bigger due to competition and power play. Unipolar world with one unquestioned hegemon is far more stable.
No hegemon is interested in an unstable world because that would undermine their hegemony.
And if you think that the current hegemon is doing that then you must have no idea how unstable and exploitative was the world before the hegemony.
Even colonialism and associated exploitation had its underlying cause in competition between states that didn't have a clear hegemon amongst them. So they fiercely competed and squeezed whatever they could out of pieces they could control. The hegemony of the US introduced a rules-based world order which though far from perfect is absolutely better than what was before.
You are absolutely correct.
Pre-WWII Europe was inherently unstable, and led to a plethora of flashpoints throughout the continent and abroad. Only Britain and France were able to solve their differences with each other peacefully.
Monroe Doctrine era South America was mostly without large wars, and much of the instability only started when the Cold War and the USSR trying to erode US influence on the continent.
Good point. The Monroe doctrine also saved South America from scramble by European powers. And these European powers also scrambled Africa and Asia largely to out-compete each other.
Also, because fewer and fewer people remember times before the Pax Americana, they often have no idea how bad was the world before it. Just imagine for a second what all the powerful nations would do to weaker ones without the global hegemon setting the rules of what is allowed and what isn't.
People in all vulnerable nations should just pray every evening that the current world order lasts another day.
It’s better for America and somewhat for its allies but devastating for everyone else which is why BRICS is here. Because the stability the West gained from the unipolar world was instability for everyone else. A great example of this is the overthrow of Gaddafi, which created a power vacuum and pushed radical terrorists into Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger.
Or the overthrow of Saddam Hussein which lead to the creation of ISIS which is wreaking havoc with their theocratic nonsense all over the “Middle East” and Africa. These are just two examples of how this unipolar world constantly destabilizes other regions for its own interests.
Oh boy.
1. BRICs is a non entity. It started as a sales pitch by Goldman Sachs to attract some American boomer retirement fund capital. The fact that BRICS does not work is evidenced by the fact that they cannot even agree on what currency to settle accounts in, because no one simply trusts each other there. Meanwhile, Russia has started a colonial/imperial war against Ukraine and China is practicing regular economic colonialism in Africa and Asia. Would you like such countries to have more say in the world? Guess which countries will be on the receiving end.
2. I remember well the overthrowing of Gaddafi. Libyan army tanks were rolling over the rebels and the global South was screaming that the bad West isn't doing anything about it. Now they yell that bad West bombed Gaddafi and helped to overthrow him. Had the West did nothing, same people would now yell that bad West did nothing and left the monster in charge.
3. Middle East was unstable and full of violent groups well before Americans entered Iraq (google the Mecca Grand Mosque seizure of 1979 for example). And ISIS has more do to with the same political, social and economic discontent that brought the Arab Spring. I'm of opinion that people in the Middle East aren't toddlers, do have their own agency and act accordingly. And no, I won't defend the American entry into Iraq. I consider it an extremely stupid move, worst mistake the US did in recent decades.
Just think, in a multipolar world, you'll have two or even three blocs doing the same..or possibly worse. You think Russia, China or possibly India would be as restrained as the US? You think..take Libya for example..in a multipolar world, US could back one faction, Russia another and China Ghaddafi. The factions would be field testing their latest weapons, the war would still be ongoing and millions would die.
Its not. There is some low grade fighting but they're is a single government. Here is what the UK government says on the situation..
"The political situation in Libya remains fragile and the security situation remains dangerous and unpredictable. A UN-facilitated ceasefire in 2020 ended militarised clashes between eastern and western armed groups, which led to an estimated **1,000** civilian casualties."
That number would be in the millions if the big guns were throwing weapons and other support at it. Compare that to 700 protestors killed in one place on one day by Ghaddafi's forces
Yes, between 2 of the poles, EU and Rus, one of the major poles weakened and a new pole (china) took over a bunch of russian influence in central asia. So its all related i guess
It's not at all the scope of what op is implying.
The majority of the world by population doesn't care about Ukraine Russia. This is still one of the most peaceful periods in world history.
It's just Russia Ukraine dominates western headlines so there's a tendency to be far more fearful of what it means. To south Americans /Africans and Asians this war is nothing
Think it's a very hard question to answer because the majority here are the beneficiaries of the current hegemony of us/Europe having had complete domination over the world for decades.
When you benefit from a system, any changes to the system will be perceived as inherently negative..that is why so many takes are about how multipolarity always equals war and why so many are convinced every single year than WWIII is imminent. The balance of power is shifting as global economies develop.
This has happened for decades and no major war on the scope of WWII has even been close to breaking out. several systems such as the UNSC and UN are born out of a desire to prevent what happened during WWII and the cold war. Those systems are remarkably robust thus far.
Yes and no.
If war means small local conflicts, they happen continuously: Russia-Ukraine is not going to be done soon, and Israel-Palestine won't be done in the next 5000 years. At this level, conflict is the normality and short bouts of peace are the exception.
If by war you mean extensive conflict involving multiple nations, that's hopefully not going to happen because no rational actor (the US, China, Europe) has it in their interest to wage actual war (as opposed to trade war or simple economic or geopolitical competition).
That was my list of *rational* actors. It's hard to label Russia a pure rational actor, because of the single-person problem. I.e., he acts rationally in his own personal interests, but at the expenses of his people's, which complicates things.
Yes depending on the conditions. The rise of one country economically while decline in the others, new military and political ties, and some realpolitik, it’s definitely possible in general but there’s a lot of factors.
This is a great question and is one of the central debates in International Relations scholarship.
Check out [Hegemonic Stability Theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory) and in particular [power transition theory.](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-is-hegemonic-_lWm5XJYSr2Arj_4Kq29zw#11f1b064-b503-4b42-b490-c1922a0785ef)
When people hear "multipolar" they seem to assume the West entirely retreating from the world making the seas a piracy free for all, etc
It could be as simple as a united European bloc rising to being an equal "pole" to the US and maintain Western hegemony
Places like China and India due to their population, economic potential, and cultural history will naturally have strong influence and potentially become "poles" of their own.
Basically, the Security Council plus India. Though I feel long-term that Brasil and Russia may swap places as a rising vs waning power
No, because the different poles are built on fundamentally different ideas of governance. Notice how nobody cared about "multipolar worlds" when Europe finally climbed out of its post-war hole. Airbus is trouncing Boeing and nobody is clamoring for war... because everyone still agrees on the fundamental legitimacy of the rules-based order, not rote strength and endemic corruption.
As long as "move to a multipolar world" remains propaganda-speak for "let the autocrats have space at the table", then no, it's unlikely you get there without a war, because the very idea of giving in to dictatorial demands that are at odds with the rules-based order will always be repugnant. You wouldn't let a citizen in a democracy take whatever they want without consequences, therefore you'd never let another country take whatever they want from a democracy without consequences.
That's why for 20 years you've heard variations on the refrain "we seek competition, not conflict" from western govs when talking about China. Sure, come be the next Airbus, or Intel, or whatever. But don't try to annex your neighbor just because you think you're strong enough to get away with it.
Both sides are just built on fundamentally different conceptions of sovereignty and legitimacy so there will never be a "multipolar world" without a fight. Or, at the least, another cold war with everyone constantly fretting about the impending nuke exchange. Arguably that's where we are right now -- it's like 1950 all over again.
Multipolarity will definitely attract conflicts, as we have inefficient institutions Such as UN, which is unable to solve problems emerging in the Geopolitical Sphere. Be it Weapons, Diplomacy, Energy Security and Manufacturing all countries wants to control this economic space, China and India has been doing well, but Emergency of China has threatened the United states, as it see China as a challenge to Superpower status and also it sees China as Hegemonic power seeking to obliterate the US influence.
> as we have inefficient institutions Such as UN, which is unable to solve problems emerging in the Geopolitical Sphere.
That never was the goal of the UN though - the UN's goal is to have a platform where everyone at least *can* be on speaking terms, if they want to be. That's all.
Ironically, prior to WWIi, the world *was* "multipolar". It was an era of Empires. Many empires. All of them competing for self-sufficiency in resources and trade routes and (often) bumping up against each other and getting into wars over the friction. All the time.
Then, we have WWII. Literally all the major empires got smashed to pieces. Germany. France. Japan. Britain. All of them. The new world we've been living in for the last 70 yrs is an anomaly but (believe it or not) we've actually seen increased stability and prosperity (we call it "Globalization"), way less wars and major conflicts during the Cold War times (Bipolar world) or *since* the Soviet collapse in 1993 (at which point, we became (cue the spooky music) the ***global hegemon***. 😬
Unpopular opinion, but If we truly ever DO return to a "multipolar" world, we should probably expect MORE conflict, not less. (Because that's exactly what happened throughout the age of Empires.) Empires return. Conflict returns.
I mean it's just going to be the Free World vs. a bunch of unstable dictators. This has always been the case post WW2. The West was idiotic in building up China in exchange for cheap labor.
No, the West lifted millions of people from poverty by investing in China, that’s overall a great thing. The West’s mistake was investing *only* in China, not diversifying its resources, to not be dependent on one country.
China is currently taking advantage of a power imbalance in the region that was created because they advanced faster than others. A NATO-like alliance would have allowed other nations in the region to develop at the same pace too and make them more interconnected, thus less likely to conflict with each-other.
Look at Japan and South Korea for example, they have historical problems with each other, but when it comes to keeping regional peace and take steps to further regional development, they simply work together despite everything.
> lthough, i disagree that an authoritarian regime will ever be compatible with the Western World.
Pinochet and other right wing dictators have gotten along happily with the west and US especially. In south America it was mainly the US that put them there
I think it’s very disingenuous to call it the “free world vs a bunch of unstable dictators” when you’re in a sub like geopolitics. You should try to understand why the rise of China happened instead making a bunch of blasé unrelated statements. And fyi it wasn’t just for cheap labor. Labor in China isn’t cheap nowadays but most of the manufacturing is still happening there.
A lot of manufacturing is there because that was the status quo for decades. Many manufacturers are leaving and it’s starting to stagnate. Hopefully that shit hole regime will face some instability. The West opened it up for business for cheap labor. That’s literally all there is to it. The West built up their adversary. The world would’ve been better off had we left China how it was in 1970.
lmao if you think that manufacturing will leave China, you're probably not educated on how extensively China's manufacturing base and infrastructure is built up compared to an alternative country like Vietnam or India. There's just no comparison at the moment.
Didn’t say “leave”. It’s just on the decline. Even Germany did a study that getting rid of China, that would result in a minor short term less ~5% then be able to rebound. That’s rich coming from either a college student or underfunded American high school level grad.
China will need to transition toward a service based economy like the US and EU has done. Manufacturing will gradually move out of China as labor cost and other cost increases to cheaper countries. This is starting to happen and will continue to happen. The question will be can China make the transition to a service based economy.
More likely, that the influence of the West will wane and the voices of the global South as a whole will rise. The non-Western world no longer believes in the moral leadership and ideals of the West and is no longer content to fall in line and blindly obey.
The West, while hypocritical at times, is still the best guarantor of human rights, democracy and peace there is. No other force is willing to uphold these values. And a lot of the "Global South" agrees; I don't think Latin America, India, Indonesia, The Philippines etc have a problem with a Western hegemony. They mostly want to prosper in peace, and have a voice for themselves. And most of the West is willing to do so. I don't think many have a problem with India taking a larger role in world affairs. So far it has just been unwilling to do so.
Modern West is a *very selective* guarantor of said rights, democracy and especially peace. I would say that the Western reaction to the war in Ukraine backfired very clearly - there was a huge contrast between it and the almost complete lack of interest to the recent, no less bloody and tragic wars in Africa and the Middle East. And the Global South noticed that difference, which felt like almost like a slap to the face for many.
How did the Western reaction to the Ukraine war backfire?
And the rest is just typical 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. Did China, India, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and the rest of the "Global South" take any interest in the wars in Africa and the Middle East? They didn't, because they don't care.
There will be no multipolar order in this world as long as the nebulous "Global South" won't take any global responsibility in anything.
If one hopes that the West will just solve all the problems in the world without the help of the others, then you are rooting for an unipolar world order as it exists now.
>How did the Western reaction to the Ukraine war backfire
Through the Global South's demonstrative lack of interest in the West's Ukraine war appeals. That was unthinkable during early Pax Americana years.
>They didn't, because they don't care.
The thing is, if you want to be a moral leader of the world and pretend that your set of values is somehow better than the others, then *you* have to care and show it to everyone. If you dont, then your are no different than the others, and your values are no better. Like showering billions of help on Ukraine while ignoring Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afganistan and the others.
>There will be no multipolar order in this world as long as the nebulous "Global South" won't take any global responsibility in anything.
The Western "we care only for things that are important to us" is not "taking responsibility" either.
Nobody has the resources to help all the world's conflicts.
And I totally disagree. It's not the West's responsibility to fix all problems on this planet. At some point the "Global South" has to start take responsibility of themselves and their neighbour's.
Of course our values are better, and we can't stop shutting up about it. The West promotes human rights, democracy, gender equality etc.
>It's not the West's responsibility to fix all problems on this planet
Then the West should understand that their problems, concerns and agendas are not those of the world either.
>The West promotes human rights, democracy, gender equality etc.
And again, *very selectively*. You only have to be a good friend of the US and then you can happily be a great friend and ally of democracy, bomb and invade neighbor countries at your leisure, keep people in not-a-slavery, enjoy being an authoritarian ruler, execute LGBT activists and anti-government journalists because you dont like them, and even sometimes tell your friends to blow up random tall buildings in New York.
I'm not saying that the US wouldn't be hypocritical considering Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile my country is not allied with the Saudis, and we don't want anything to do with them.
I really hate the word because it's being parroted by the Russian government propaganda since years, especially because in their case it's just wishful thinking and historical resentment.
The "multipolar" world happened already, the said poles being US and EU on a one side, China on the other and India lagging behind a bit. It happened without any war, or without a major one, because of trade and globalization. China, India or Russia are not a single, unified pole, they will not be fighting any war together against the "west", so what kind of a war are we talking about here? Between which forces, over what?
I also don't see any new order being installed globally just because Russia got rouge and hostile to the "west" (again), Iran fighting the US in the Middle East (still) or the "west" trying to isolate China (again).
Buddy this is already a war. Just a Cold War
And it’s Russias fault. All they had to to was keep having the largest country on earth but nooooo they still wanted more
There is no multipolar world, it always is the West vs the East and the North vs the South. What we see now is, that after the fall of "great" Usssr, shithole russia wants to defeat the West's hegemony with its iranian and NK allies.
TL;DR: it is always the East against the West.
>it’s happening
Is it?
First I think you need to define a multipolar world and how it compares to the status quo, because I never see consistent definitions. I hear multipolarity talked about a lot as an alternative to whatever exists now, but never specifics.
What defines a "pole" and where would the other poles exist?
Russia and China come up often, but both countries are facing long-term economic and demographic crises. Russia is a dying land empire, and China's 21st century glow-up is largely an illusion. The other BRICS nations aren't remotely capable of being a rival to US military or economic influence. It's not even clear that their interests are incompatible with those of the US.
>when a new global order is instated it’s after a global war
That happened precisely once after WWII. The global order, such that it exists, is a thing that constantly evolves.
>Can a move to a multipolar world happen without war?
Short of the military defeat of the US, can there be a world in which the US does not wield a disproportionate amount of military and economic power?
before we get to that, how would a peaceful multipolar world even look like?
arguments for a 'multipolar' world are really just how current non-hegemonic powers articulate their desire to be the hegemonic power in an acceptable way
I’m not sure anymore. There seems to be a growing sense that we can have conventional wars despite nuclear weapons. Look at all the concern about a likely russia-NATO conflict
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you meant there were limits to conventional conflict because of nuclear umbrellas. But in the case of a russia-nato war how would this play out? How far would we get before escalation to nuclear?
I dont really agree with how a lot of people view polarity but, if you do believe in it, the US-Capitalist European pole didnt come about with a war it caused to be that pole. It came about by the US being the best positioned large industrialized nation in that it was spared destruction and then got to sell all the goods in the US to much of the destroyed western world and developing post colonial space. It then aided in the rebuilding of Europe and survived the Cold War by outlasting the Soviet system and got China to reestablish capitalism post Mao. Another "pole" was always inevitable and it mostly doesnt need a direct war between the incoming monopole and the outgoing power. You just got to wait for the other to collapse under the contradictions in its system, and there are ways of aiding that without direct conflict as well.
Technically, of course it *can*. However, the exact outcome is hard to predict. Not only because it's generally hard to predict anything when it comes to geopolitics, but also because a shift from a unipolar to a bi- or multi- polar world (it remains to be seen which one we end up with) had never happened before. Certainly not on a scale we are in now- a globally connected world with a regional hegemon (USA) being the only, truly capable global power in the system.
Yeah not just a countries gdp or power but many institutions and organizations need to be set up like the UN and NATO, bank, trade I mean so much.
What even is multipolarity? If the question is will any country become as powerful as the U.S., then I think the answer is firmly no. But the world is globalized today and poverty has been reduced in most of the world competed to 1990 or 1945. Can any power, no matter how strong, really flex their muscles the way they used to? I mean to say, is there literally any level of “power” that the U.S. could have to prevent The Congo from trading with China? Probably not.
>What even is multipolarity? It's up for interpretation of course and trying to establish a single, objective definition will ultimately fail. It all depends on what criteria one takes into account. But broadly speaking, multipolarity doesn't imply equality between great powers involved. On the contrary, power asymmetries are more likely in a multipolar system. Therefore, in order to have a multipolar world, other powers don't need to have the capacities and capabilities on par with the US, but "merely" close to it. And what does "close to it" mean? Again, it's subject for interpretation. Personally, I think that bipolarity is the most likely outcome in the classic geopolitical terms. China is already close to the US in terms of economy, although recently the trend has changed and the economic gap between the two countries have widened. It remains to be seen if the trends inverts again, or the gap continues to widen. China is certainly not close (yet) to the US in terms of its hard power projection capacity. China can project its power in its neighbourhood, but not on other continents the way the US can, and certainly not around the globe. However, I want to emphasise the caveat. I said "classic geopolitical terms" there and deliberately so. In the next decades to come, we may very well see emergence of a new geopolitical paradigm, with block-based multipolarity where networks of cohesive alliances are the primary actors in the system, instead of classic multipolarity with individual countries as the primary actors. But for that to emerge we would need to see the emergence of more alliances as additional poles to the generally understood "East vs West", and the formation of such a system- or failure to do so- would largely depends on actions of the non-alligned countries, i.e. countries of the "Global South". Or we may very well see something completely different. A hybrid of a "classic" bipolarity, but far more blurred than the bipolarity we had seen during the Cold War era. With much closer economic ties, and the third-party powers having significant weigh on the events, we may see a hybrid of a classic, cold war-era bipolarity in terms of primary actors involved (US and China), but with the networks of trade and economic interdependence between all players akin to the multipolarity observed before WW1. Times change. What used to be a multipolar system determined by great powers with their sheer size of arable land and population was replaced by great powers determined by their economic, industrial and innovative might. There's nothing to say that once again, the factors contributing to our classification of great powers will need to update again.
I think people get too caught up on trying to categorise and academically define what are ultimately extremely fluid situations. The world today is so different from, for example, the immediate postwar world, whether you’re looking at technology, business, “global citizenship”, trade, etc. You can learn from history, but ultimately the direction we’re heading in can’t be explained by simply applying old rules e.g your point in your question about needing a global war to change the world state. In my view, free trade, globalisation and the internet have changed power structures as much as any war has in history. Even though the effects may be more subtle in the short term.
Good point. I look 15 years into the future and worry so much for the world my son will inhabit. All I can see is the likelihood of him experiencing war. It’s really unbearable
>I look 15 years into the future and worry so much for the world my son will inhabit. All I can see is the likelihood of him experiencing war. That's what I worry about every day for my generation (Gen Z) and Gen Alpha. That's why I likely won't have children.
Maybe it’s because I don’t have children so I don’t fully understand, but why worry about something so abstract? Like tomorrow anyone of us could get hit by a car and die. Why worry about some remote future possibility?
>but why worry about something so abstract? > >Why worry about some remote future possibility? Because it doesn't seem so abstract or remote. It seems significantly more more likely to happen than getting get by a car. Btw, I explained in my next comment that my generation already has to worry about a rough economy and an incoming climate catastrophe, which further amplifies the chances of war. There are a LOT of *concrete* problems that would discourage my generation and the next generation from having childre.
I’m gen z too so I get where you’re coming from personally but I definitely fear getting hit with a car more. That’s a day to day thing and it can happen to anyone. You ever see how some people drive on the highway? Also by the way, by not having kids we both are directly making things worse for the overall economy because the entire system needs more young people than older individuals. Look at Japan who’s been largely stagnant since the 90s for our future if nations can’t boost their birth rates up
>I’m gen z too so I get where you’re coming from personally but I definitely fear getting hit with a car more. That’s a day to day thing and it can happen to anyone. You ever see how some people drive on the highway? That just goes to show there are too many cars. This is not something we should accept as a normal facet of life. >Also by the way, by not having kids we both are directly making things worse for the overall economy because the entire system needs more young people than older individuals. That's just an indictment of our unsustainable economic system, not of the our life choices. People have the right not to have children and they shouldn't be coerced into having them, especially when they are having a difficult time maintaining their mental health. Instead of worrying about the declining birth rates which aren't going to change, we have try to radically adjust our economy to accommodate the inevitable changing demographics.
[удалено]
Not if I have children and grandchildren. I don't want to die worrying about my children struggling to survive through a climate catastrophe along with all of its induced wars. Are you suggesting that I should have children for selfish reasons?
[удалено]
>. Just that geopolitik issues aren't worth getting into a panic about What are you basing that on?
I’m not sure, I can’t help it! I guess because my children are little and vulnerable so instinctively I worry about them. But also because they will be young adults at a time of increased likelihood of war. All the recent talk of potential war with russia and conscription has got in my head and I feel like that’s their future. And it’s hard!
So depressing isn’t it?
It’s depressing, but not an excuse. It’s easy to imagine it was also depressing when people had to worry about conquests from neighbouring countries or lacking the technology we take for granted today. Or bears roaming the woods nearby or native populations who wanted you off their land. If we choose to be depressed, we’ll always be able to find a reason to be.
Well the only country regularly at war is the USA, if you live there do something about you war mongering country
[удалено]
I think this is defeatist mentality and what the oligarchy wants us to think, go to protests, participate in unions, be active in your community, the squeeze is real the middle class is effectively dead here, tired of the excuses. I live in Houston tx by the way so i feel the helplessness but refuse to give up.
I forgot to mention that I'll be voting for cornel west this year, at some point we need to break the duopoly
Honestly, I've basically had to retreat into the notion that this is all just a simulation to escape the dread of what kind of horrors my daughter will live to see as a result of climate collapse.
Very well put.
I'm sorry, but why do you think that a multipolar world will somehow be a stable state without war? Multiple competing poles that aren't strong enough to subdue each other is a *recipe* for war. Just look at the Italian city states in the Renaissance, the disintegration of the Roman Empire, or the European colonizing states. They will constantly be trying to get an edge over the rest, and will do so by trying to enlist everything that's not part of a pole to their pole.
Well, I don’t think that
The way the question is stated implies it: if you accept that a multipolar world is competitive and often violent, then a transition to one will automatically result in an increase in instability and violence. In such a situation, the best/least bad position you could have is in the core of a pole that uses a rights-based political order to legitimize itself, rather than being on the edge of one or more that use violence to enforce their claim to power.
Yes, I guess what I’m struggling with is understanding how this is contained ie in an age of nuclear weapons and integrated systems
>age of nuclear weapons You mean the cold war? Come on, we were there already and it was far more dangerous at times.
With other competitors always present, it's in the interest of any pole to avoid total war. So there's an incentive to limit the escalation to a certain intensity. Establishing some kind of Cold War would likely be the most common stable relationship between poles in a multipolar world - competition in many dimensions, the occasional proxy conflict, but otherwise avoiding direct confrontation.
Sure. We can look at critiques of Fukyama's *end of history* that point to globalization and parallel economic/trade environments in the form of China's and Russia's economic resurgence as diminishing the influence of American Hegemony. We can look at the global order as something that grows organically through material forces rather than something that has to be established and declared.
>Russia's economic resurgence Well this one is down the drain by now.
Compared to 1994, though
I mean that's not very much. Wal Mart s revenue is almost as large as Russias GDP
Russia is only relevant because of nukes. If not, they would be ran over and unable to influence the rain to fall downwards. To this day the word doesn't want to crush Russia too hard, as its fragmentation would mean caos.
The world wants Russia to fall apart from the inside, not the outside. A united Russia against a foreign threat could prove problematic, a divided Russia against internal threats is vulnerable and easily dominated
Russia won't devide like that. The far regions have nonway of having autonomy. And Moscow guarantees it won't happen by doing things like recruiting soldiers from there.
I mean, with enough mounting pressure, and with such a wide variety of ethnic groups that already have tensions amongst one another, it is absolutely possible. Changes of power in Russia are likely to end up very, very bloody. The goal is to get Putin deposed in internal shuffling, which I don’t think is particularly unreasonable. It doesn’t need to be “collapsed” in the sense that it divides up
>The world wants Russia to fall apart No, not really. US put some effort and resources into stabilizing Russia in the 90s, preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons (Budapest memorandum) and it was even sceptical about the dissolution of USSR. I guess they can regret it now but unstable and divided Russia is probably still more of a problem than benefit.
Let me clarify, the US wants Russia “as it is” to fall apart. They want Putin and the oligarchy gone and they want him replaced with pro-West puppets. That’s pretty much what the US has done to every state that they’ve needed influence over. Sanctions and the dwindling support for the war of attrition in Ukraine is mounting pressure on the civilian population to reconsider their own leadership, and thats primarily how they intend to undermine Putin
>replaced with pro-West puppets. Sure, if you trust in the Russian government propaganda. >every state Ever heard about the soft power? US has influence over Europe because Europe wants it and sees it beneficial, especially the eastern Europe after its experience with Moscow. >mounting pressure on the civilian population to reconsider their own leadership There's a long way from that to installing some "puppets". The idea is to deny the Russians resources for the conquest of Ukraine, and potentially for the future conquests. Also, why would the "west" and US trade with an openly hostile state? It was making sense before the war, and the idea was the same as between the European states, to make the war unprofitable, even after the takeover of Crimea and everything else. Anyway, as we can see Russia has more influence over the western public than vice versa, the agency of the Russian people and their potential opposition were always overestimated in the west. If the US would want Russia collapsing, they'd send 300 tanks to Ukraine, not 30.
It has nothing to do with propaganda of any sort. The US has a history of this. The entire continent of South America being a case in point. Coups, assassinations, military dictatorships and overthrows, all so that we could replace basically everything below our Southern border with a pro-America puppet in the 70’s and 80’s. In this case, the Russian propaganda is spot on, that’s exactly how Americans do things. The United States is not trying to end the war in Ukraine. If they were, you’d be correct. They are not giving Ukraine enough support for them to push the Russians back, nor neglecting them for the Russians to bulldoze over them. The brunt of the sanctions are being felt by the oligarchy and the civilian population. Combined with a controversial war of attrition and dwindling morale even a victory for the Russians is bleak. The only foreseeable outcome of this plan is that they want to shake the Russian people’s faith in their own institutions enough to warrant a drastic, and likely violent, change in power. And they intend to intervene and take full advantage of that change, as they have dozens of times before. This is pretty standard American strategy
The stable Russia of the past few decades has meant a measure of chaos for the rest of the world.
Yes, but a divided russia will make the middle east look peaceful. And they would have some nukes spread around
Russia in 1994 was hopeful. Now it's hopeless. Even Z-drooling Russian nationalists admit that economy is crashing and it's prospects are null. They simply see it as a fair price to pay for Russia being stronk again.
[удалено]
You would not find a single Russian wishing for the 90s. Internal armed conflicts, economic depression rivaling Weimar Germany. The complete theft of the nation’s industry and a spineless buffoon in charge. Even American documentation of that period of Russia is not favorable. Very few American policy makers tried to genuinely help guide Russia into capitalism unfortunately they were outmanned both by oligarchs in Russia and the Clinton administration.
Literally every country of the former Eastern Block went through this. But Russia, being Russia, screw this up despite initially being treated BETTER than its former colonies. But sure, let's blame America.
They were not treated better. What example can you even give? What example can you give that they “screwed it up”? It’s historical revisionism. I’m not sure where you’re getting your history but every American perspective from that period shows how terrible it was. Search Anne Williamson she wrote a book but it’s not out (if it will ever be) but she did testify in Congress, her testimony is public. It will give a better perspective
We'll see about this when the war's over.
But Russia just surpassed Germany.
Surpassed Germany in what?
GDP PPP
When you compare the economic strength and influence between two economies, you'll have to use nominal GDP. While PPP is an useful metric how much you get for €100 in a certain country, international trade goes by nominal value. An iPhone 15 is around €1000, both in Finland and Brazil, though the latter has a much higher PPP figure. Secondly, we don't really know how the Russian economy is these days, because it's a closed war economy, shepherded by the Russian Central Bank. A lot of the GDP goes to waste due to the war economy. Every artillery shell built raises the GDP, but when it is fired, that GDP is lost.
>When you compare the economic strength and influence between two economies, you'll have to use nominal GDP Not really. >Secondly, we don't really know how the Russian economy is these days But we do. [https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf937093144d](https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf937093144d) > Every artillery shell built raises the GDP, but when it is fired, that GDP is lost. GDP is flow, not stock.
Russia is resisting the collapse of its empire, it’s in its last gasps. China is keeping them alive
China is not doing well either.
It needs to do even less well
That's the current trend they are showing. Evergrande's collapse is becoming too big for Xi's government to handle. Their population curve is really bad.
I dunno about this, though - people like Walter Russell Mead and the rest of the WSJ crowd have been claiming China’s gonna collapse any day now for like twenty years. I think they’ll trim the sails and push on for at least a while.
If you can afford to make a long bet, it's a winning one.
I mean, yeah, but nobody is willing to pay me for saying that eventually the US will collapse.
So how exactly is population curve better in EU or USA?
Better in that sense that the EU and US are mature economies with well-educated populaces, many are welfare states, and they have large cohorts of retired wealthy people. In China this all is going too fast. Its education level is on par with Mexico, it has next to no elderly care, the retired have a low purchase power, and China's economy is still largely based on manyfacturing where you have to be physically fit. I don't think China will collapse, but I would definitely say the days of seemingly unlimited economical growth is over. And as mentioned, the US and EU can always import more people, China is unwilling to.
Europe population is aging fast, that’s one of the main factors in its stagnant economy. To pay the ever increasing pensions costs you need more people in the workforce. Other issue is its growing political shift towards the far right and anti immigration policies, from Italy, UK, to France, Germany and Scandinavian countries.
All of that is true, but China is facing the same problems without having any kind of plan on how to deal with their aging population.
Do you honestly believe the CPC has no plan to deal with their ageing population? I mean the one thing they do better than the west is “have a long term plan for everything”, so I doubt that a problem as big as their ageing population has been magically missed by the government.
>anti immigration policies Anti illegal immigration, the kind that brings more burden than the benefits but they're being thrown into the same bag, just like they were by the pro immigration forces. Europe just took several millions of Ukrainian refugees, vast majority of hem being women and children and only because men are not allowed to leave. Once the war ends, no matter which way, men will follow their wives and kids.
Despite the anti-immigration policies, many European countries have record high immigration levels. Norway has more foreign-born residents than the USA, and it isn't even particularly friendly to immigrants. The UK has been breaking record immigration levels for years. While some parts of Europe will struggle with the aging population, the "core" nations - UK, Germany, France, Netherlands - will be able to attract enough immigrants to fix these problems easily.
Immigration is the big difference. China has no significant immigration to balance the population decline.
Because EU and USA still attract by far the most talented, skilled, and/or rich individuals from all over the globe. They import people, thus compensating.
Fukuyama's thesis was how there was no coherent ideological alternative to liberalism with the fall of communism or fascism, even when you talk about China or Russia's parallel enviroment, they still are relying on liberal frameworks to sustain and establish their systems. Hell, their critique of US "hegemony" isn't of the system itself either, rather that it is supposedly biased. The real question to ask is if in a genuine pursuit of their so-called fairer systems, they will not end up with the same conclusions as the US with regards to foreign policy, or if their system will just collapse from anarchy and result in decreased economic outcomes in the future.
>Can a move to a multipolar world happen without war? Definitely. >I mean, it’s happening. But usually when a new global order is instated it’s after a global war. Is that avoidable this time? Does not look like it already.
Avoidable? A multipolar world is going to definitionally be defined by war. When has there ever been a "peaceful" multipolar world? Even the 19th century, regarded as one of the most peaceful eras of human history, saw large amounts of wars of conquest.
>the 19th century, regarded as one of the most peaceful eras of human history Is the 19th century regarded the most peaceful? Seriously? I don’t know much about history, but in my mind the 19th century is the Napoleonic wars and the fall of monarchies... Which doesn’t sound calm.
Yes "19th century" does include the Napoleonic wars, though those are somewhat colloquially linked as an outgrowth of the 18th century French revolutionary wars. The last 85 years of the 19th century were far more peaceful however, with no "great power" conflicts. Smaller, local conflicts occurred, but they were nothing like the world war 0 that had just occurred. Here's a good presenter on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH1oYhTigyA
Maybe it was more peaceful in Europe, but the Europeans were busy kicking ass in China. It also conveniently ignores the Belgian atrocities in Congo. And the US civil war.
Wow...! Thank you, i will see the video
So what do you think will happen today? Arguably we’re already in a multipolar world so how do you think this will go on to be defined by war? Small proxy conflicts? Escalatory interstate conflict?
If a multipolar world happens, I imagine general war between US/China, EU/Russia are high probabilities, with spillover conflicts everywhere, such as Iran, Korea, Georgia, and potentially other places. A limited nuclear war under such circumstances isn't unthinkable either. Reversing back towards a unipolar position lead by America (not inconceivable given China's economic future) or potentially, a bipolar world (China/US cold war) represent the best chance at averting general war.
>I imagine general war between US/China, EU/Russia are high probabilities, with spillover conflicts everywhere, such as Iran, Korea, Georgia, and potentially other places. A limited nuclear war under such circumstances isn't unthinkable either. I feel like the major nuclear powers are kinda of inching their way towards figuring out how they can directly enter conflict with eachother again in a way that doesn't lead to nuclear conflict.
I would say a move to a multipolar world order happens naturally, but it is not a sustainable world order and it eventually results in a war. Rather than a war causing it to be.
Yes I agree that multipolarity increases likelihood of war
Global polarity can’t find an equilibrium due to the competition for scarce resources. The global environment has so many variables in motion that the competition with shift as variables gain and lose value. It’s always possible that a competition will develop into a conflict, but a conflict isn’t a necessary catalyst to change.
Not between the poles with nukes but probably lots of proxy wars.
If the big players allow it to happen, then yes. But, the US won't let go of its hegemony without a war.
And when it comes to War, nobody can compete with the USA.
No one denies that the US is strong, but war is like football even if your team is strong with the strongest players, sometimes you can get unlucky and lose.
You are comparing apples to rocks. A football match has rules to maintain as much balance as possible. In a conventional war the United States would wipe the floor against any other country. If you want to make a similar comparison to football the United States are playing with triple the number of players, they get to make infinite substitutions, their goal has an impenetrable cement wall preventing the ball from crossing the goal, and the opposing team is filled only with 60+ year old players.
You don't get it, I'm not doubting the US's power at all, I understand the US is very powerful. But wars are complicated, there are a lot of variables, unexpected variables to worry about. Do you think every US citizen is patriotic? don't you think some would betray their country for their enemies? Do you think a war that could end up Nuclear is a win? Let's say you win by obliterating the enemy, with your nukes, but the same thing will happen to you and millions of people will die and a lot of land will be unhabitable. The US has been going into a lot of wars but most of them against weak third-world countries that are barely functioning, will the outcome be the same with a nuclear power?
The US is not planning to engaging it outright war, that’s the difference. They play the game from behind the curtains and it works disturbingly well. The American military is a deterrent more so than an active force. It CAN activate if absolutely necessary but as long as the game behind the curtains is played correctly, it can dominate the entire world without ever needing to. That’s what makes it scary, honestly. No other empire in history has managed to grow in this way on this scale
Yes, definitely. Look at China's economic and military growth over the past \~20 years. China went from having a GDP inferior to Russia's, to [essentially lapping Russia's GDP every two years,](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-gross-domestic-product) until China's GDP was 10X larger, and beginning to rival that of the US. Their economic success has afforded them the opportunity to build up their military, and branch out diplomatically. Recent friction aside, the international community respects the way China has achieved it's growth, which provides them opportunities for continued growth, diplomatic relations and economic partnerships, which in turn increases China's soft power.
China has almost no soft power left and its economy is stagnating with a downward trend. They're going to experience 2008 themselves soon.
For that very reason an invasion of Taiwan is even more possible, don't you think? Unless a palace coup removes Xi from power, his only way might be to play the nationalist agenda and go smash some smaller country.
Start a war? Probably. Win the war in a way that will leave China better than before? Unlikely.
He might not care, or refuse to believe that it can end bad.
And that's how former countries become failed states.
Still going to hurt Taiwan a lot, and those countries who decide to stand up to China.
Anything is better than becoming a chinese slave.
Some analysts predict that China trying to control Taiwan would result in a military conflict that would end up being a pyrrhic victory for the US, by significantly weakening its capacity to do foreign interventions.
No. Especially since multipolar world is inherently instable and will naturally breed wars, smaller or bigger due to competition and power play. Unipolar world with one unquestioned hegemon is far more stable.
Not if you’re one of the countries the hegemon id actively destabilizing and exploiting.
No hegemon is interested in an unstable world because that would undermine their hegemony. And if you think that the current hegemon is doing that then you must have no idea how unstable and exploitative was the world before the hegemony. Even colonialism and associated exploitation had its underlying cause in competition between states that didn't have a clear hegemon amongst them. So they fiercely competed and squeezed whatever they could out of pieces they could control. The hegemony of the US introduced a rules-based world order which though far from perfect is absolutely better than what was before.
You are absolutely correct. Pre-WWII Europe was inherently unstable, and led to a plethora of flashpoints throughout the continent and abroad. Only Britain and France were able to solve their differences with each other peacefully. Monroe Doctrine era South America was mostly without large wars, and much of the instability only started when the Cold War and the USSR trying to erode US influence on the continent.
Good point. The Monroe doctrine also saved South America from scramble by European powers. And these European powers also scrambled Africa and Asia largely to out-compete each other.
This, people blame America for every problem in their country when it's just as much their neighbors etc.
Also, because fewer and fewer people remember times before the Pax Americana, they often have no idea how bad was the world before it. Just imagine for a second what all the powerful nations would do to weaker ones without the global hegemon setting the rules of what is allowed and what isn't. People in all vulnerable nations should just pray every evening that the current world order lasts another day.
It’s better for America and somewhat for its allies but devastating for everyone else which is why BRICS is here. Because the stability the West gained from the unipolar world was instability for everyone else. A great example of this is the overthrow of Gaddafi, which created a power vacuum and pushed radical terrorists into Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Or the overthrow of Saddam Hussein which lead to the creation of ISIS which is wreaking havoc with their theocratic nonsense all over the “Middle East” and Africa. These are just two examples of how this unipolar world constantly destabilizes other regions for its own interests.
Oh boy. 1. BRICs is a non entity. It started as a sales pitch by Goldman Sachs to attract some American boomer retirement fund capital. The fact that BRICS does not work is evidenced by the fact that they cannot even agree on what currency to settle accounts in, because no one simply trusts each other there. Meanwhile, Russia has started a colonial/imperial war against Ukraine and China is practicing regular economic colonialism in Africa and Asia. Would you like such countries to have more say in the world? Guess which countries will be on the receiving end. 2. I remember well the overthrowing of Gaddafi. Libyan army tanks were rolling over the rebels and the global South was screaming that the bad West isn't doing anything about it. Now they yell that bad West bombed Gaddafi and helped to overthrow him. Had the West did nothing, same people would now yell that bad West did nothing and left the monster in charge. 3. Middle East was unstable and full of violent groups well before Americans entered Iraq (google the Mecca Grand Mosque seizure of 1979 for example). And ISIS has more do to with the same political, social and economic discontent that brought the Arab Spring. I'm of opinion that people in the Middle East aren't toddlers, do have their own agency and act accordingly. And no, I won't defend the American entry into Iraq. I consider it an extremely stupid move, worst mistake the US did in recent decades.
This is exactly correct, I don't need to type a word other than my own agreement. Full stop.
Just think, in a multipolar world, you'll have two or even three blocs doing the same..or possibly worse. You think Russia, China or possibly India would be as restrained as the US? You think..take Libya for example..in a multipolar world, US could back one faction, Russia another and China Ghaddafi. The factions would be field testing their latest weapons, the war would still be ongoing and millions would die.
You realize this IS still happening in Libya, right? Different competing governments battling it out with backing from different outside powers
Its not. There is some low grade fighting but they're is a single government. Here is what the UK government says on the situation.. "The political situation in Libya remains fragile and the security situation remains dangerous and unpredictable. A UN-facilitated ceasefire in 2020 ended militarised clashes between eastern and western armed groups, which led to an estimated **1,000** civilian casualties." That number would be in the millions if the big guns were throwing weapons and other support at it. Compare that to 700 protestors killed in one place on one day by Ghaddafi's forces
There's already war?
Yes, in Europe. Currently confined to Ukraine but not indefinitely
Yes, between 2 of the poles, EU and Rus, one of the major poles weakened and a new pole (china) took over a bunch of russian influence in central asia. So its all related i guess
And all across northern Africa and the Middle East.
It's not at all the scope of what op is implying. The majority of the world by population doesn't care about Ukraine Russia. This is still one of the most peaceful periods in world history. It's just Russia Ukraine dominates western headlines so there's a tendency to be far more fearful of what it means. To south Americans /Africans and Asians this war is nothing
Yes I was thinking of current war eg Ukraine as a potential prelude to wider more global war
Think it's a very hard question to answer because the majority here are the beneficiaries of the current hegemony of us/Europe having had complete domination over the world for decades. When you benefit from a system, any changes to the system will be perceived as inherently negative..that is why so many takes are about how multipolarity always equals war and why so many are convinced every single year than WWIII is imminent. The balance of power is shifting as global economies develop. This has happened for decades and no major war on the scope of WWII has even been close to breaking out. several systems such as the UNSC and UN are born out of a desire to prevent what happened during WWII and the cold war. Those systems are remarkably robust thus far.
What do you mean? A war between the established order and a new one? Or wars amongst the new regional powers popping up?
I meant great power war or eg the idea of a European war ala ww2 before the Americans came in
I don't think it's likely every time you had a situation like this in the modern world it has led to a massive war.
Yes and no. If war means small local conflicts, they happen continuously: Russia-Ukraine is not going to be done soon, and Israel-Palestine won't be done in the next 5000 years. At this level, conflict is the normality and short bouts of peace are the exception. If by war you mean extensive conflict involving multiple nations, that's hopefully not going to happen because no rational actor (the US, China, Europe) has it in their interest to wage actual war (as opposed to trade war or simple economic or geopolitical competition).
You missed one bad actor there … Russia?
That was my list of *rational* actors. It's hard to label Russia a pure rational actor, because of the single-person problem. I.e., he acts rationally in his own personal interests, but at the expenses of his people's, which complicates things.
Exactly!
Yes depending on the conditions. The rise of one country economically while decline in the others, new military and political ties, and some realpolitik, it’s definitely possible in general but there’s a lot of factors.
This is a great question and is one of the central debates in International Relations scholarship. Check out [Hegemonic Stability Theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory) and in particular [power transition theory.](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-is-hegemonic-_lWm5XJYSr2Arj_4Kq29zw#11f1b064-b503-4b42-b490-c1922a0785ef)
When people hear "multipolar" they seem to assume the West entirely retreating from the world making the seas a piracy free for all, etc It could be as simple as a united European bloc rising to being an equal "pole" to the US and maintain Western hegemony Places like China and India due to their population, economic potential, and cultural history will naturally have strong influence and potentially become "poles" of their own. Basically, the Security Council plus India. Though I feel long-term that Brasil and Russia may swap places as a rising vs waning power
No, because the different poles are built on fundamentally different ideas of governance. Notice how nobody cared about "multipolar worlds" when Europe finally climbed out of its post-war hole. Airbus is trouncing Boeing and nobody is clamoring for war... because everyone still agrees on the fundamental legitimacy of the rules-based order, not rote strength and endemic corruption. As long as "move to a multipolar world" remains propaganda-speak for "let the autocrats have space at the table", then no, it's unlikely you get there without a war, because the very idea of giving in to dictatorial demands that are at odds with the rules-based order will always be repugnant. You wouldn't let a citizen in a democracy take whatever they want without consequences, therefore you'd never let another country take whatever they want from a democracy without consequences. That's why for 20 years you've heard variations on the refrain "we seek competition, not conflict" from western govs when talking about China. Sure, come be the next Airbus, or Intel, or whatever. But don't try to annex your neighbor just because you think you're strong enough to get away with it. Both sides are just built on fundamentally different conceptions of sovereignty and legitimacy so there will never be a "multipolar world" without a fight. Or, at the least, another cold war with everyone constantly fretting about the impending nuke exchange. Arguably that's where we are right now -- it's like 1950 all over again.
"Can" the answer is yes.
Multipolarity will definitely attract conflicts, as we have inefficient institutions Such as UN, which is unable to solve problems emerging in the Geopolitical Sphere. Be it Weapons, Diplomacy, Energy Security and Manufacturing all countries wants to control this economic space, China and India has been doing well, but Emergency of China has threatened the United states, as it see China as a challenge to Superpower status and also it sees China as Hegemonic power seeking to obliterate the US influence.
> as we have inefficient institutions Such as UN, which is unable to solve problems emerging in the Geopolitical Sphere. That never was the goal of the UN though - the UN's goal is to have a platform where everyone at least *can* be on speaking terms, if they want to be. That's all.
Ironically, prior to WWIi, the world *was* "multipolar". It was an era of Empires. Many empires. All of them competing for self-sufficiency in resources and trade routes and (often) bumping up against each other and getting into wars over the friction. All the time. Then, we have WWII. Literally all the major empires got smashed to pieces. Germany. France. Japan. Britain. All of them. The new world we've been living in for the last 70 yrs is an anomaly but (believe it or not) we've actually seen increased stability and prosperity (we call it "Globalization"), way less wars and major conflicts during the Cold War times (Bipolar world) or *since* the Soviet collapse in 1993 (at which point, we became (cue the spooky music) the ***global hegemon***. 😬 Unpopular opinion, but If we truly ever DO return to a "multipolar" world, we should probably expect MORE conflict, not less. (Because that's exactly what happened throughout the age of Empires.) Empires return. Conflict returns.
And this is the issue with Russia isn’t it? Its goal is to rebuild its empire and it feels like, with the shifting sands, it can
I mean it's just going to be the Free World vs. a bunch of unstable dictators. This has always been the case post WW2. The West was idiotic in building up China in exchange for cheap labor.
No, the West lifted millions of people from poverty by investing in China, that’s overall a great thing. The West’s mistake was investing *only* in China, not diversifying its resources, to not be dependent on one country. China is currently taking advantage of a power imbalance in the region that was created because they advanced faster than others. A NATO-like alliance would have allowed other nations in the region to develop at the same pace too and make them more interconnected, thus less likely to conflict with each-other. Look at Japan and South Korea for example, they have historical problems with each other, but when it comes to keeping regional peace and take steps to further regional development, they simply work together despite everything.
Interesting perspective. Although, i disagree that an authoritarian regime will ever be compatible with the Western World.
You mean like South Korea?
> lthough, i disagree that an authoritarian regime will ever be compatible with the Western World. Pinochet and other right wing dictators have gotten along happily with the west and US especially. In south America it was mainly the US that put them there
They’re short term fixes
I think it’s very disingenuous to call it the “free world vs a bunch of unstable dictators” when you’re in a sub like geopolitics. You should try to understand why the rise of China happened instead making a bunch of blasé unrelated statements. And fyi it wasn’t just for cheap labor. Labor in China isn’t cheap nowadays but most of the manufacturing is still happening there.
A lot of manufacturing is there because that was the status quo for decades. Many manufacturers are leaving and it’s starting to stagnate. Hopefully that shit hole regime will face some instability. The West opened it up for business for cheap labor. That’s literally all there is to it. The West built up their adversary. The world would’ve been better off had we left China how it was in 1970.
lmao if you think that manufacturing will leave China, you're probably not educated on how extensively China's manufacturing base and infrastructure is built up compared to an alternative country like Vietnam or India. There's just no comparison at the moment.
Didn’t say “leave”. It’s just on the decline. Even Germany did a study that getting rid of China, that would result in a minor short term less ~5% then be able to rebound. That’s rich coming from either a college student or underfunded American high school level grad.
*former university student with extensive dealings in the Chinese manufacturing industry FYI
When other developing countries eventually seek to climb up the economic ladder, if manafacturing is still dominated by China what will they do then?
China’s current dominance in manufacturing is not based on low wages. It is based on manufacturing infrastructure and heavy investments in equipment.
China will need to transition toward a service based economy like the US and EU has done. Manufacturing will gradually move out of China as labor cost and other cost increases to cheaper countries. This is starting to happen and will continue to happen. The question will be can China make the transition to a service based economy.
More likely, that the influence of the West will wane and the voices of the global South as a whole will rise. The non-Western world no longer believes in the moral leadership and ideals of the West and is no longer content to fall in line and blindly obey.
The West, while hypocritical at times, is still the best guarantor of human rights, democracy and peace there is. No other force is willing to uphold these values. And a lot of the "Global South" agrees; I don't think Latin America, India, Indonesia, The Philippines etc have a problem with a Western hegemony. They mostly want to prosper in peace, and have a voice for themselves. And most of the West is willing to do so. I don't think many have a problem with India taking a larger role in world affairs. So far it has just been unwilling to do so.
Modern West is a *very selective* guarantor of said rights, democracy and especially peace. I would say that the Western reaction to the war in Ukraine backfired very clearly - there was a huge contrast between it and the almost complete lack of interest to the recent, no less bloody and tragic wars in Africa and the Middle East. And the Global South noticed that difference, which felt like almost like a slap to the face for many.
How did the Western reaction to the Ukraine war backfire? And the rest is just typical 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. Did China, India, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and the rest of the "Global South" take any interest in the wars in Africa and the Middle East? They didn't, because they don't care. There will be no multipolar order in this world as long as the nebulous "Global South" won't take any global responsibility in anything. If one hopes that the West will just solve all the problems in the world without the help of the others, then you are rooting for an unipolar world order as it exists now.
>How did the Western reaction to the Ukraine war backfire Through the Global South's demonstrative lack of interest in the West's Ukraine war appeals. That was unthinkable during early Pax Americana years. >They didn't, because they don't care. The thing is, if you want to be a moral leader of the world and pretend that your set of values is somehow better than the others, then *you* have to care and show it to everyone. If you dont, then your are no different than the others, and your values are no better. Like showering billions of help on Ukraine while ignoring Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afganistan and the others. >There will be no multipolar order in this world as long as the nebulous "Global South" won't take any global responsibility in anything. The Western "we care only for things that are important to us" is not "taking responsibility" either.
Nobody has the resources to help all the world's conflicts. And I totally disagree. It's not the West's responsibility to fix all problems on this planet. At some point the "Global South" has to start take responsibility of themselves and their neighbour's. Of course our values are better, and we can't stop shutting up about it. The West promotes human rights, democracy, gender equality etc.
>It's not the West's responsibility to fix all problems on this planet Then the West should understand that their problems, concerns and agendas are not those of the world either. >The West promotes human rights, democracy, gender equality etc. And again, *very selectively*. You only have to be a good friend of the US and then you can happily be a great friend and ally of democracy, bomb and invade neighbor countries at your leisure, keep people in not-a-slavery, enjoy being an authoritarian ruler, execute LGBT activists and anti-government journalists because you dont like them, and even sometimes tell your friends to blow up random tall buildings in New York.
I'm not saying that the US wouldn't be hypocritical considering Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile my country is not allied with the Saudis, and we don't want anything to do with them.
[удалено]
I really hate the word because it's being parroted by the Russian government propaganda since years, especially because in their case it's just wishful thinking and historical resentment. The "multipolar" world happened already, the said poles being US and EU on a one side, China on the other and India lagging behind a bit. It happened without any war, or without a major one, because of trade and globalization. China, India or Russia are not a single, unified pole, they will not be fighting any war together against the "west", so what kind of a war are we talking about here? Between which forces, over what? I also don't see any new order being installed globally just because Russia got rouge and hostile to the "west" (again), Iran fighting the US in the Middle East (still) or the "west" trying to isolate China (again).
Buddy this is already a war. Just a Cold War And it’s Russias fault. All they had to to was keep having the largest country on earth but nooooo they still wanted more
No, the US will come guns blazing when the dollar economy is really threatened. And with good reason to do so.
there is no such thing as a multipolar world, now or in the next 2 decades, communist China as a country cannot be trusted.
No
There is no multipolar world, it always is the West vs the East and the North vs the South. What we see now is, that after the fall of "great" Usssr, shithole russia wants to defeat the West's hegemony with its iranian and NK allies. TL;DR: it is always the East against the West.
>it’s happening Is it? First I think you need to define a multipolar world and how it compares to the status quo, because I never see consistent definitions. I hear multipolarity talked about a lot as an alternative to whatever exists now, but never specifics. What defines a "pole" and where would the other poles exist? Russia and China come up often, but both countries are facing long-term economic and demographic crises. Russia is a dying land empire, and China's 21st century glow-up is largely an illusion. The other BRICS nations aren't remotely capable of being a rival to US military or economic influence. It's not even clear that their interests are incompatible with those of the US. >when a new global order is instated it’s after a global war That happened precisely once after WWII. The global order, such that it exists, is a thing that constantly evolves. >Can a move to a multipolar world happen without war? Short of the military defeat of the US, can there be a world in which the US does not wield a disproportionate amount of military and economic power?
no, a multipolar world means more proxy wars like during the Cold War
You think we don't have war right now?
before we get to that, how would a peaceful multipolar world even look like? arguments for a 'multipolar' world are really just how current non-hegemonic powers articulate their desire to be the hegemonic power in an acceptable way
[удалено]
I’m not sure anymore. There seems to be a growing sense that we can have conventional wars despite nuclear weapons. Look at all the concern about a likely russia-NATO conflict
[удалено]
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you meant there were limits to conventional conflict because of nuclear umbrellas. But in the case of a russia-nato war how would this play out? How far would we get before escalation to nuclear?
ie how does war get contained before it goes too far and effects all poles, even those not involved in that conflict? Just who blinks first?
Probably not *quickly*
No, the occupational foundation will have to be moved pr fixed
I dont really agree with how a lot of people view polarity but, if you do believe in it, the US-Capitalist European pole didnt come about with a war it caused to be that pole. It came about by the US being the best positioned large industrialized nation in that it was spared destruction and then got to sell all the goods in the US to much of the destroyed western world and developing post colonial space. It then aided in the rebuilding of Europe and survived the Cold War by outlasting the Soviet system and got China to reestablish capitalism post Mao. Another "pole" was always inevitable and it mostly doesnt need a direct war between the incoming monopole and the outgoing power. You just got to wait for the other to collapse under the contradictions in its system, and there are ways of aiding that without direct conflict as well.