If we are to understand the current global geopolitical conflict and the role of the concept of multipolarity, it is necessary to subject the prevailing Western narratives to critical analysis. Prevailing Euro-Atlantic political science often proceeds from the assumption that every emerging great power strives for hegemonic power and the complete assimilation of its neighbours. Russian calls for multipolarity are therefore often interpreted by Western analysts as merely a smokescreen for traditional imperial expansion and a quest for regional dominance at the expense of smaller states.

However, the philosophical and metapolitical roots of this concept suggest a different interpretation, in which the Western perspective appears to be an analytical projection of its own power patterns. From this perspective, the process of globalisation led by the Euro-Atlantic centre is perceived as an attempt to achieve the absolute homogenisation of the international environment, the erasure of borders, and the unification of diverse cultures and political systems under the banner of a single universal ideology. For this model of globalisation, the existence of any independent and distinct identity is an obstacle that must be removed through the export of institutions, economic pressure or support for non-state actors within civil society.

The theory of multipolarity draws a strict line against this universalism. An alternative model of a ‘continental’ order of international relations cannot, by its very nature, be based on absorption and unification. On the contrary, it seeks to build a structured system that would act as a security architecture to curb global homogenisation. For this multipolar system to be functional and to withstand the assimilationist pressures of liberal universalism, it must be based on the coexistence of distinct, stable and culturally independent centres of power (poles).

According to this logic, a great power building a multipolar order does not seek to destroy sovereign states, provided that these states constitute functional and coherent political units. On the contrary, it is in its strategic interest to protect such independent actors (even if they are geographically small) and to cooperate with them. The existence of diverse centres of power empirically legitimises the multipolar system itself and demonstrates that the project of unipolar globalisation can be halted. Whilst the Western model seeks integration into a unified global framework, the multipolar vision favours a system of international relations based on clear demarcation and respect for civilisational differences. The following text will therefore examine the premise that multipolarity may, paradoxically, represent a real guarantee of political survival for smaller states with a strong cultural identity.

Chapter 1: Theoretical Foundations of an Alternative Great Power Model (Protective Hegemon vs. Assimilationist Power)

To understand why the multipolar concept may offer a security guarantee for smaller nation states, it is essential to distinguish, in theoretical terms, the Western hegemonic approach from the concept of a traditional Eurasian great power. These are two structurally distinct models of governing the international arena.

Definition of a traditional great power: Security umbrella versus systemic integration

Euro-Atlantic influence is often defined in the metapolitical texts under examination as assimilationist and predatory. By extending its institutions, it economically and in terms of values transforms subordinate territories, making cooperation conditional upon the adoption of its own social norms, concept of human rights and the global market. This system does not emphasise the sovereignty of borders, but rather the creation of a unified global space where local identities gradually fade in favour of a unified political and economic culture.

In contrast, the conservative model of power (historically reminiscent of Euro-Asian-style imperial arrangements) does not, in theory, require the internal assimilation of subordinate or allied actors. It functions primarily as a geopolitical and military umbrella, providing external security and stability. Within this sphere of influence, the great power tolerates and preserves the specific characteristics of the local political and cultural traditions of individual states. It does not require normative uniformity or the same internal political regime; it requires only strategic loyalty to a common security architecture that prevents the expansion of external (Western) influences. Whilst the liberal model aims for universal values, this model is based on the pragmatic preservation of diversity.

Multipolarity as a rejection of universalism This theoretical framework gives rise to a fundamental logical imperative: if Russia, as the main initiator of a multipolar order, were to attempt to export a purely ‘Russian model’ and forcibly assimilate neighbouring nations, it would be committing a strategic error and a systemic contradiction. By attempting to impose local universalism, it would transform itself into the very type of unipolar hegemon against which it primarily defines itself. It would become, de facto, a Western actor on the Eastern stage.

From the perspective of this doctrine, therefore, any potential expansion of power or assertive policy in the neighbourhood does not serve an assimilationist purpose. Rather, it is interpreted as a security necessity and a geopolitical effort to displace the influence of Western institutions from its immediate vicinity. The space vacated by the withdrawal of Western influence is not to be mechanically Russified, but is intended to serve as a stable zone for the formation of sovereign, culturally independent local systems. A superpower advocating multipolarity therefore has a systemic and structural need for independent, culturally rooted states (poles) to emerge beyond its borders. Every such sovereign state that manages to resist Western integration represents a strategic success for this model, as it demonstrates the functionality and purpose of shared international opposition to unipolarity.

Chapter 2: The Immunity of a Fully Constituted Actor (Why Smaller States May Be Safe in a Multipolar Order)

The Euro-Atlantic narrative and mainstream political science often emphasise the threat that a power advocating multipolarity (in the current geopolitical context, primarily the Russian Federation) necessarily seeks to absorb its smaller neighbours. From the perspective of the doctrine of multipolarity under examination, however, this concern is justified only in the case of those states that lack internal cohesion and resilience. If a smaller nation-state possesses a strong political identity and strategic cohesion, the dynamics of power relations change fundamentally.

Institutional cohesion as a strategic shield For the purposes of this analysis, it is essential to define precisely what constitutes a so-called ‘fully constituted pole’ within the multipolar framework. This is not merely the formal existence of a state apparatus, state symbols or administrative borders. It is an entity with a deeply rooted cultural identity, underpinned by a clearly defined historical tradition, strong value foundations and a society-wide consensus that a priori rejects assimilation by external unifying influences.

Political science and philosophical sources analysing this issue point to the fact that liberal universalism successfully assimilates other states primarily by weakening their traditional historical narratives and replacing them with a global standard. By contrast, a state with a high degree of internal value resilience naturally resists such assimilation. If a sovereign state possesses strong internal legitimacy and political gravity, a continental power cannot absorb it by force without risking disproportionate strategic costs and contradicting its own geopolitical doctrine. From a pragmatic perspective, the only rational choice for a great power is therefore to respect this sovereignty and forge a stable, mutually beneficial alliance.

Smaller actors as an essential part of the multipolar architecture

A logical question arises as to how the very centre of Eurasian influence views these sovereign, culturally resilient and politically cohesive smaller states. The theoretical concepts examined suggest that it does not perceive them as a threat or an unresolved power objective that must be eliminated. On the contrary, it treats a fully sovereign actor with respect and welcomes its existence.

From a multipolar perspective, such a nation-state represents an invaluable partner in the defensive opposition to global homogenisation. These states function as strategic strongholds and stabilising factors in regions where the assimilative influences of Western universalism are being countered. Indeed, from an international political perspective, the promotion of a multipolar order directly requires that such independent and robust centres of power actually exist within the international system.

Their very existence is, in fact, the most tangible practical proof of the viability and validity of the entire theoretical concept of multipolarity. If the continental hegemon were to absorb all the smaller nations in its vicinity by force, it would confirm the arguments of its Western critics and lose its global legitimacy. Conversely, the preservation of independent, culturally self-assured states in its vicinity sends a clear signal to the international community: the multipolar order is not an instrument of assimilation (the so-called ‘blender’), but a cooperative structure that respects diversity. A fully sovereign state actor is thus a highly prized geopolitical commodity for the Eurasian power, the destruction of which would signify the collapse of the very theoretical and moral foundation of the proposed international order.

Chapter 3: The Phenomenon of ‘Empty Shells’ (Causes of the Loss of Sovereignty and the Absorption of States in the International System)

From the perspective of Euro-Atlantic political science and liberal criticism, a legitimate question is often raised: if the conservative Eurasian superpower is the theoretical guarantor of a multipolar order and the protector of diversity, why does real-world geopolitics see the power absorption or military destruction of smaller states in its neighbourhood? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand that the multipolar doctrine theoretically protects and guarantees the security only of genuine, sovereign ‘poles’ of power. It does not guarantee the security of geographical territories or formal administrative units that lack internal cohesion and political vitality.

Loss of internal cohesion and the emergence of a geopolitical vacuum From this theoretical perspective, the nation-state is defined not merely by its territory and institutional apparatus, but primarily by its cultural, historical and value-based substance. If the political elites of a smaller state abandon their own historical tradition and uncritically adopt the universalist agenda of the global centre (encompassing secularisation, the dominance of non-state organisations and the erosion of traditional national identity), the very foundations of statehood are deconstructed. In the terminology of international relations, the state loses its geopolitical ‘gravity’ and internal legitimacy.

From the perspective of multipolar theory, such a state ceases to function as an independent power actor or pole. It is transformed into a hollow institutional shell, thereby creating a dangerous power vacuum in the international arena.

The mechanism of assimilation and transformation in a proxy territory

The moment a state loses its strategic and value-based cohesion and becomes an empty shell, the door is opened to rapid penetration by Euro-Atlantic structures. This assimilation by the global centre often takes place through non-military means – via control of the information sphere, influence over political representation, and the involvement of transnational corporations and technological mechanisms.

A formerly sovereign actor becomes a proxy target (a so-called ‘proxy territory’) and a forward base for global liberalism. For a neighbouring Eurasian superpower, such a territory ceases to represent an independent national entity; it becomes a fully colonised springboard from which the power interests of a foreign hegemon are projected directly against the security architecture of the multipolar bloc.

Pre-emptive intervention and the securitisation of the periphery This process fundamentally alters the perspective through which a great power views a potential military intervention on its neighbour’s territory. Should intervention occur and the statehood of such an actor be destroyed, multipolar theory does not interpret this as an unprovoked attack on a distinct and sovereign nation. The intervention does not destroy an independent pole, as this had already ceased to exist as a result of internal assimilation of Western values by the Western centre.

In this context, a great power’s geopolitical or military action is understood as a radical security (or, where applicable, preventive or ‘sanitary’) measure. It is an attempt to eliminate an external assimilative influence which, through a weakened proxy actor, has penetrated dangerously close to the vital interests of the conservative centre. According to this analytical logic, the loss of sovereignty and absorption by a hegemonic power therefore primarily threatens those states which voluntarily relinquish their independence, strip their values of substance, and allow their own territory to be transformed into an instrument of foreign power projection.

Chapter 4: The Central European region as a sovereign actor

(Case study of the Czech Republic)

Halting the internal erosion of sovereignty and restoring an independent centre

Euro-Atlantic media and political discourse often presents smaller states, such as the Czech Republic, with a fatal power equation: a state’s insufficient geopolitical size precludes its full autonomy and necessitates unconditional integration into Western structures; otherwise, there is an imminent threat of absorption by Eastern imperialism. However, from the perspective of the analysed theory of multipolarity, this prevailing narrative appears to be fundamentally misleading and paralysing for foreign policy thinking. Moreover, in its consequences, it represents a thesis that directly leads small nations and states towards political self-destruction and the loss of genuine statehood.

Asymmetric integration and invisible assimilation

Whilst Western political science constantly emphasises the threat of hypothetical external power absorption from the East, it often completely ignores the structural process of the erosion of sovereignty that is, in fact, already taking place from within. The global liberal centre (historically referred to as a maritime power) does not rely on military force for its primary expansion of power, but rather on the sophisticated influence of transnational corporations, non-governmental organisations, technological platforms and unifying normative pressures. The specific aim of this model is to transform the nation-state and its traditional social institutions into mere administrative or non-profit entities subject to global standards. Once this process of assimilation is complete, the nation-state ceases to exist as an independent political entity, leaving behind only a hollowed-out proxy territory serving as a periphery of the Western bloc.

Restoring strategic autonomy and political realism

The logical theoretical starting point and the only rational safeguard against this gradual assimilation – and, at the same time, a guarantee of protection against potential military absorption from the East – is the constitution of the state as an indisputable and internally cohesive power player. Central Europe’s geographical location provides a certain natural defensive potential. This potential, however, must be bolstered by the restoration of strong historical continuity, a shared identity and sovereign political realism rooted in the country’s own historical traditions. The state’s representatives must clearly declare that its territory is not a malleable, unifiable space, but rather an entity with inalienable historical legitimacy and clearly defined interests.

The moment such a state rejects the agenda of unconditional international dissolution and defines itself as an internally cohesive, functional actor grounded in traditional state values, it radically alters its geopolitical status. It ceases to be an ‘empty shell’ or merely a forward outpost for foreign interests. From the perspective of a Eurasian great power, such a Central European state transforms into the role of that respected, independent actor discussed in the second chapter. For this reason, a conservative multipolar policy has no objective, rational reason to assimilate or eliminate such a state. On the contrary, the existence of this type of actor provides the Eurasian power centre with empirical proof of the validity of the multipolar doctrine itself and confirmation that defence against the assimilationist efforts of global unipolarity is feasible. The state thus becomes a respected security partner within the international system, fulfilling an irreplaceable stabilising role.

Conclusion: The multipolar international order as a guarantee of survival

The fundamental geopolitical conflict of our time has reached a critical phase, from which a clear analytical summary of the arguments presented can be drawn. Western universalism seeks to impose a highly homogenised form of global unity on the international environment. Its ultimate ambition is the unification of diverse civilisational entities, nations and traditions into a globally controlled structure, governed by centralised normative and technological algorithms. In a system conceived in this way, smaller nation states are the first to be threatened, as they immediately lose their identity and succumb to the initial waves of structural assimilation.

On the other hand, the concept of multipolarity and alternative continental geopolitics also strives for international stability, albeit one based on the preservation of the diversity of sovereign, independent centres. Theoretically, this model does not represent a covert form of neo-colonial expansion, but rather the construction of a defensive security architecture in which each nation-state constitutes a distinct, robust and indispensable element of the overall stability of the international system.

For smaller states – specifically in Central Europe – the debate on multipolarity is therefore not merely an abstract academic construct. It represents a real historical and political challenge that will determine the preservation of their very essence and statehood. The only effective security strategy for smaller actors is to increase internal resilience, reject the gradual dissolution of state functions, and form a strong, uncompromising political entity serving as a stabilising pillar in the region. Whilst unipolarity offers smaller states de facto institutional dissolution, multipolarity, from a theoretical perspective, provides them with a framework for legitimising and preserving their own sovereign statehood.