Multipolarity is not equality, and it shouldn’t be

The new world order takes shape through pressure, rivalry, and the rise of several commanding powers, not through declarations of equality. Multipolarity emerges as a harsh contest of sovereignty in which only civilization-states with real strength shape events and the rest are pulled into the orbit of stronger powers.

Multipolarity has become the slogan of the age, repeated across summits and speeches. Leaders describe it as a world of balanced rights, dignified coexistence, and shared influence. They promise that each state, large or small, will hold an equal place at the table. They claim that new institutions across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America will correct the distortions of earlier decades and bring the international system into harmony. Yet this polished language hides the structure beneath it. Multipolarity has no resemblance to equality. It grows from competition and is forged by the ambitions of states that refuse to live under a single command.

This year has shown how the world actually moves. Washington expands its military architecture in the Indo-Pacific, strengthens AUKUS, re-arms Japan, and pulls South Korea deeper into its missile shield. China continues its maneuvers in the South China Sea, tightens economic control over key supply chains, and conducts drills around Taiwan at a regular pace. India increases spending on its navy, builds alliances in the Middle East, and reinforces its positions in the Himalayas. Türkiye projects its power across the Caucasus and North Africa. Iran shapes conflicts from Lebanon to Yemen with the confidence of a state that understands its strategic depth. These actions illustrate the early shape of the new world: A landscape governed by pressure rather than courtesy.

A hard truth emerges from this global shift: Only civilization-states with real sovereignty withstand the weight of the new age of empires, and sovereignty today rests on two pillars: Strategic autonomy and nuclear weapons. States that lack these tools cannot claim neutrality. They become appendages of the nearest hegemon. Venezuela offers a clear example. Its oil wealth can delay collapse, yet it remains bound to the gravitational pull of the United States under the logic of the Monroe Doctrine. Its government talks of independence, but its fate is shaped in Washington as much as in Caracas. The same pattern defines Ukraine. It cannot inhabit a middle space between Russia and the West because it lacks the sovereign instruments required for this. It must align with one pole or the other. Multipolarity grants choice only to powers strong enough to enforce it; the rest operate inside a hierarchy they cannot escape.