Профессор Никола Аврейски (Болгария) о многополярности

Выступлений профессора Николы Аврейски на Глобальной конференции по многополярности 29.04.2023ю

Multipolarity as a natural state of international relations

The world seen through the prism of the theory of international relations is originally multipolar. This principle was laid down in the first system of international relations, the Westphalian system, and then reproduced in subsequent systems - the Vienna, Versailles-Washington and Yalta systems. The principle of national sovereignty also underlies the modern international law.

The world is also multipolar according to the theory of civilizations. British professor Arnold Toynbee identified 34 different civilizations that once existed, and claimed that only five of them survived. Samuel Huntington from Harvard believed that eight civilizations existed at the end of the twentieth century, and a ninth, the African civilization, was about to emerge. Unlike Toynbee, Huntington was convinced that the surviving civilizations were not bound for universalization, but that each of them had a potential to unite around one core state, reproduce itself and assert its right to independent development. Huntington even warned that the attempt by Western civilization with the United States in its core to absorb other civilizations would inevitably lead to clashes with all other civilizations. He said that they would align against the West, risking a total clash, in which the West would face the problem of surviving.

But, blinded by the unexpected end of the Cold War, the U.S. ignored the traditions of international communication and political realism and launched the concept of a "new world order", which boils down to setting up a new international system dominated by Washington and based on American national interests. Thus, the U.S. revived the illusion of "American omnipotence", assumed the position of the "Great Winner" in the Cold War, proclaimed being the main guarantor of world security, the only protagonist of the new world, the conductor of stability, the main architect of the world economy, the guardian of the international financial system and the advocate of democratic change everywhere in the world.

But the idea of a unipolar world did not materialize, as the dream was taken for possible and the desirable for the real. The world never became unipolar. The Gulf War (1991), recognized as a war for resources, scared the Arab world away from the United States. In August 1994, Chinese President Deng Xiaoping stated that the primary foreign policy objective of his country was "to oppose hegemony and power politics and to defend world peace”. When Yeltsin paid an official visit to Beijing (early 1996), both leaders made a joint statement that hegemony in international life was unacceptable. Even in the middle of his first presidential term, Vladimir Putin openly opposed hegemony not just speaking but also acting against U.S. intentions and encroachments in Iraq, Georgia, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Equally important was that President Putin was able to put an end to chaotic reforms imposed from outside, take economic power away from, defeat separatist tendencies and bring the republics under central control, overcome the comprehensive crisis and stabilize the Federation

The political elite united around Putin, hastily looking for a consensus on a vision of Russia's specific way for development, on real sovereignty and on the sovereign democracy. Russia thus regained its confidence as a true Great Power, rediscovered its unique opportunities as an independent Eurasian geopolitical player, and assumed the role of leader among countries interested and determined to stop American hegemony. This firm course has been confirmed by the way Crimea reunified with Russia and how Russia extended unconditional support for the Donbass People's Republics.

In 2010s geopolitical experts assumed that there were three global superpowers, dominating the world - the United States, Russia and China, with the latter two acting concertedly against the first.

With serious advances in strategic arms, Russia decided to use this "strategic window of opportunity" to enter into an open confrontation with the postcolonial West, which has extended its predatory hands to Ukraine. This straightforward confrontation will be fateful not only for Ukraine, for the future of Russia and the one of Europe, but it will also inform ultimate defeat of American ambitions to impose a unipolar world.

The United States made a bet on the post-colonial practice of waging proxy wars - at the present stage "to the last Ukrainian," soon - "to the last Eastern European," if necessary - "to the last Western European". It claimed that Russia fully isolated internationally. But they have managed to rally only 50 countries (out of 193 UN members) for their proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. As the French Le Monde recently admitted, it was not Russia, but the West that is left lonely.

The vast majority of sovereign nations, peoples on all continents, including Bulgaria, which is proven to be the most Russophile in the world, want Russia to succeed in this proxy war. Because they understand that this is a battle to strengthen a multipolar world, that their own fate will depend on its outcome. They are convinced that a multipolar world is just as it respects the sovereignty of all major geopolitical stakeholders, regional powers and each individual state. They realize that a multipolar world is balanced as it properly takes into account all the most significant factors of international life. They believe that a multipolar world is stable and provides security for all.

A multipolar world is the natural state of the system of international relations. And it must be finally established!

Prof. Dr. Nikolas Avreysky