Director, Global Thinkers  Institute (GTI), Observer, Researcher on Geo-Philosophy, Geostrategy, Intelligence and Defense.

GTI-The next new world issue that we will discuss is Unipolar, Non-Polar which often coincides with Multipolarity and Multilateralism.

If Unipolar assumes centralized control of world power, then Non-Polar actually assumes that there is no centralized world power, but is distributed without partitions, without borders and without identity, which in a certain sense is also centralized but pseudo.

This governance is a direct manifestation of the globalization project. Globalization in a positive-economic sense is a term to explain how technology and world trade make places more connected and interdependent. Or in a social sense, as a process of international integration in the field of exchange of cultural views, civilizations and thoughts. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), there are four basic aspects of globalization: the liberation of knowledge, the movement of capital and investment, trade and transactions, migration and movement of people.

Meanwhile globalization in a critical sense is a non-polar world project which is supported by funding by many very influential political and financial groups, from the Rothschild family to Soros.

This non-polar world project is directed towards the future. A global formation that must replace unipolarity is essentially just a continuation. And this continuation is possible only if the center of gravity of society shifts to the area of combination.

The combination in question is an alliance of two levels of hegemony-material (American military industry, Western economy and resources) and spiritual (norms, procedures, values)-to become pure intellectual hegemony. Meanwhile, the significance of material dominance will certainly gradually subside. This is what is called a "global information society", where the main government will develop within the scope of a logical matrix, through mastery of intellect, control of consciousness, and programming of cyberspace.

According to Dugin, in fact a unipolar world is completely inconsistent with the project of a non-polar world. A unipolar world does not accept the validity of Western intellectual hegemony, the universality of values, nor the distribution at the decision-making level to wider society, without taking into account cultural and civilizational identities.

Meanwhile a non-polar world requires that the American melting pot model be spread throughout the world. As a result, all distinctions between society and nation will be erased, and individualized and atomized humanity will become a borderless, cosmopolitan “civil society.” Meanwhile, multipolarity argues that the center of decision making must remain at a fairly high

level (but not in one center in one place). Also the cultural distinctiveness of each concrete civilization must be preserved and strengthened (not dissolved into a single cosmopolitan whole).

Difference between Multipolarity and Multilateralism

Another model of world order, which distances itself slightly from direct American hegemony, is multilateralism. This concept is widespread in the American Democratic Party; formally, President Barack Obama followed this model in his foreign policy. In the context of the American foreign policy debate, this approach contrasts with the unipolarity espoused by neoconservatives.

Multilateralism in practice means that the US should not act in the field of international relations entirely and rely only on its own power, informing all its allies and “vassals” in an imperialistic way. Instead, Washington should consider the positions of its partners, debate and convince others of its decisions in dialogue with them, and of course draw them to the US side.

Sometimes with rational conclusions and sometimes compromise. In cases like this, it seems that the US should be “first among equals”, not “dictator among subordinates”. This obligates the US towards its allies in certain matters of foreign policy, demanding submission to a common strategy.

The general strategy in this case is the Western strategy of building global democracy, markets, and implementing human rights ideology on a global scale. However, in this process, the US, as a leader, must not directly equate its national interests with the "universal" values of Western civilization, as a basis for action. In certain cases, it is better to act in coalition, and sometimes even leave things to partners.

Multilateralism differs from unipolarity in that the emphasis is placed on the West as a whole, and in particular on its “value” (normative) aspects. In this respect, defenders of multilateralism are similar to those who support a non-polar world. The difference between multilateralism and non-polarity lies in the fact that multilateralism emphasizes coordination between A multipolar world is incompatible with the multilateral world order, because it does not subscribe to the universalism of Western values and does not recognize the right of the countries of the 'rich North'  either alone or collectively to act on behalf of all humanity and act (even in combination). ) as the sole decision-making center on the most important questions.

From the description of series 1-4 articles, we can draw several conclusions;

The multipolar world is an alternative to the unipolar world (which is actual today). This world demands the existence of several global and strategic decision-making centers that are independent and sovereign.

These centers must be adequately equipped and materially independent in order to have the possibility of defending their sovereignty on a material level in the face of enemy invasion, as an example we can take of the most powerful powers in the world today. This demand is a possibility to challenge the material, military and strategic hegemony of the US and NATO.

These decision-making centers are not obliged to recognize Western norms and values (democracy, liberalism, free markets, parliamentarism, human rights, individualism, cosmopolitanism, etc.) and can be completely independent of the spiritual hegemony of the West.

A multipolar world does not propose a return to the bipolar system, because currently there is no strategic or ideological power capable of resisting the material and spiritual hegemony of the contemporary West led by the United States. There must be more than two poles in a multipolar world.

The multipolar world does not take the sovereignty of existing nation-states seriously, as long as it is expressed at a purely legal level and is not supported by adequate military, strategic, economic and political potential. To become a sovereign subject in the 21st century, the nation-state alone is no longer enough. Under these circumstances, only aggregate states or coalitions can have real sovereignty. The Westphalian system, which continues to exist de jure, no longer reflects the true system of international relations and must be reconsidered.

Multipolarity cannot be reduced to non-polarity and multilateralism, because of this does not place the center (pole) of decision making in the authority of world governments, or in the group of the US and its democratic allies (the Western world), or in supranational level networks, NGOs and other civil society actors. Of course a pole would have to be placed elsewhere.