Conflicts in a Multipolar World: How Power Distribution Shapes Global Security
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Political scientist Glenn Diesen presents notes from his panel at the Valdai Discussion Club examining how different international power distributions affect global security. He analyzes three systems: bipolarity (Cold War’s two power centers), unipolarity (post-Cold War U.S. dominance), and the emerging multipolar system. Each configuration generates competing assumptions about stability—some view bipolarity as stable due to clarity and predictability, while others see extreme zero-sum logic creating instability. Similarly, unipolarity was expected to mitigate security competition but instead exhausted the hegemon and incentivized collective balancing by rising powers.
The current shift toward multipolarity—now non-Western-centric unlike pre-World War II systems—sparks divergent expectations. Optimists anticipate organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization fostering peace through accommodating diversity and genuine multilateralism based on sovereign equality. Pessimists warn of renewed great power rivalry, unpredictability, and Europe’s loss of U.S. protection. Diesen argues the West’s centuries-long self-conception as benign hegemon will generate panic during transition, but concludes pragmatically: no utopia awaits, only replacement of unipolar conflicts with different multipolar challenges.
Key Points
Main Takeaways
Competing Stability Assumptions
Each power distribution system generates fundamentally different expectations about security, with proponents and critics offering contradictory assessments based on divergent theoretical frameworks.
Bipolarity’s Zero-Sum Logic
Cold War bipolarity offered clarity and predictability but created extreme zero-sum dynamics where one superpower would accept massive losses to inflict greater damage on its rival.
Unipolarity’s Temporary Nature
Post-Cold War U.S. hegemony exhausted the dominant power while incentivizing rising states to collectively balance, making sovereign inequality unsustainable and transition inevitable.
Non-Western Multipolar Emergence
Unlike pre-World War II multipolarity, the current system for the first time in centuries enables non-Western civilizations to demand equal representation in global governance.
Small State Empowerment
Multipolarity enables small and medium-sized countries to diversify economic connectivity, gaining prosperity and political autonomy by avoiding dependence on single hegemons.
No Utopian Endpoint
Diesen argues pragmatically that multipolarity will not eliminate conflict but merely replace unipolar system challenges with a different set of multipolar tensions and rivalries.
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
Power Distribution Determines Conflict Type
The article’s central thesis is that international security is fundamentally shaped by how power is distributed globally—whether between two poles, concentrated in one hegemon, or dispersed among multiple centers. Rather than one system being inherently superior, each configuration generates distinct types of conflicts, stability mechanisms, and strategic incentives. Diesen rejects both Cold War nostalgia and unipolar triumphalism, arguing the emerging multipolar order will create new challenges rather than utopian peace, with Western panic during transition reflecting centuries of hegemonic self-conception confronting plural civilizational demands for equality.
Purpose
Theoretical Framework for Policy Analysis
To provide an analytical framework for understanding how competing assumptions about power distribution affect international security discourse and policy formation. Diesen aims to reveal that debates over stability often stem from operating with fundamentally different theoretical premises rather than empirical disagreements. By systematically presenting both optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of each system, he helps readers understand why actors reach contradictory conclusions about global order, ultimately preparing audiences for multipolar transition conflicts while tempering expectations that any configuration eliminates international tensions.
Structure
Chronological System Comparison → Dialectical Analysis
Opens with methodological framing about competing assumptions creating mutual incomprehension. Proceeds chronologically through three systems: bipolarity (Cold War), unipolarity (post-Cold War), and emerging multipolarity. For each configuration, presents dialectical structure—first optimistic interpretations emphasizing stability mechanisms, then pessimistic counterarguments highlighting inherent tensions. Concludes with pragmatic synthesis: multipolarity’s arrival is inevitable, Western panic predictable given hegemonic identity crisis, but no utopian resolution awaits—only replacement of familiar unipolar conflicts with unfamiliar multipolar challenges requiring adaptation rather than resistance.
Tone
Scholarly, Balanced & Soberly Realist
Diesen maintains academic neutrality by systematically presenting competing perspectives without immediately privileging one over another, though his own realist skepticism emerges in concluding assessments. The tone is analytical rather than polemical, avoiding triumphalism about multipolarity while remaining critical of unipolar pretensions. His pragmatic realism acknowledges both opportunities and dangers in systemic transitions, tempering optimistic expectations with historical awareness that power configurations generate inherent tensions. The overall effect is soberly instructive—preparing readers for inevitable conflicts while encouraging intellectual humility about predicting complex geopolitical transformations.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
In international relations theory, the absence of a central governing authority above sovereign states, creating security dilemmas and self-help systems.
“This system was assumed by many to offer stability as the international anarchy and security competition was mitigated.”
Made less severe, serious, or painful through deliberate intervention or circumstantial changes that reduce negative impacts or intensity.
“With one centre of power, there was less risk of great power rivalry, and it was assumed to offer universalism.”
To make room for or adapt to something; to adjust policies or structures to include diverse perspectives, interests, or entities.
“Others see the unipolar distribution of power to have introduced extreme instability as it is unlikely to accommodate genuine multilateralism.”
A state of balance between opposing forces or actions; in international relations, a stable distribution of power preventing domination by any actor.
“The hegemon also has a proclivity to embrace ideologies of superiority to legitimise the concentration of power, which makes it more hostile to accepting an equilibrium from emerging.”
To make something acceptable or valid according to established standards, laws, or norms; to justify or provide authority for actions or systems.
“The hegemon also has a proclivity to embrace ideologies of superiority to legitimise the concentration of power.”
Unity arising from common interests, objectives, or standards; mutual support within a group demonstrating cohesion despite internal differences.
“For Europe, a multipolar system entails the US pivoting away from Europe and the continent losing its solidarity and stability.”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1According to the article, Diesen argues that multipolarity will create a stable international system free from major conflicts that characterized previous eras.
2According to the article, what is a key criticism of the unipolar international order?
3Select the sentence that best explains why unipolarity is described as inherently temporary.
4Evaluate whether each statement about different power distribution systems is true or false according to the article.
Bipolarity creates extreme zero-sum logic because without a third party, one power will accept losses as long as they’re greater on the other side.
The current multipolar system is Western-centric like the pre-World War II multipolar order.
Multipolarity enables small and medium-sized countries to gain prosperity and political autonomy through diversified economic connectivity.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5What can be reasonably inferred about Diesen’s view of Western reactions to emerging multipolarity?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
In a bipolar system with only two superpowers, any loss by one side becomes an automatic gain for the other with no third party able to benefit or mediate. This creates incentives for powers to accept devastating economic or military costs as long as their rival suffers proportionally greater damage. Without alternative power centers to which states can realign, both sides become locked in destructive competition where relative losses matter more than absolute welfare. The Cold War exemplified this dynamic, with both superpowers accepting massive resource expenditures and proxy war costs to prevent the other from gaining any advantage.
The crucial difference is that pre-World War II multipolarity remained Western-centric, with European powers and the United States dominating the international system. The emerging multipolar order is the first in centuries where non-Western civilizations—particularly through organizations like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Greater Eurasian Partnership—possess sufficient power to demand equal representation and challenge Western normative dominance. This represents a fundamental shift in civilizational balance, enabling diverse cultural and political systems to shape international institutions rather than merely adapting to Western-imposed structures.
Dominant powers require ideological justification to legitimize their concentrated authority both domestically and internationally. Claiming moral, civilizational, or historical superiority—such as the United States positioning itself as the guardian of universal values or spreading democracy—makes hegemonic power appear natural and beneficial rather than coercive. These ideologies serve practical purposes: justifying interventions, maintaining domestic support for costly dominance, and discouraging challenges by framing resistance as opposing progress itself. However, this superiority complex makes hegemons hostile to accepting equilibrium with rising powers, viewing power equalization as regressive rather than normal systemic adjustment.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This article is rated Advanced because it requires sophisticated understanding of international relations theory, particularly concepts like polarity, hegemony, zero-sum dynamics, and sovereign equality. The text presents dialectical argumentation—systematically examining competing perspectives rather than linear narratives—demanding analytical skills to track contradictory theoretical frameworks. Vocabulary includes specialized academic terms like “multilateralism,” “equilibrium,” and “proclivity.” Readers must comprehend abstract systemic arguments about power distribution effects, distinguish between optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of identical phenomena, and synthesize Diesen’s pragmatic realist position that emerges through balanced presentation rather than explicit advocacy. The compressed format assumes familiarity with Cold War history and contemporary geopolitical institutions like BRICS.
This linguistic shift reflects fundamental structural change from legal universalism to hegemonic selectivity. International law based on sovereign equality treats all states as formally equal subjects bound by mutual constraints—including the most powerful. The “rules-based order” rhetoric allows hegemons to selectively apply norms while exempting themselves, determining which rules matter and who must follow them. This maintains appearance of principled governance while preserving power asymmetries. For Diesen, this transition exemplifies how unipolarity undermines genuine multilateralism, as unconstrained hegemons inevitably privilege their interests over universal legal principles, making sovereign inequality operational reality despite formal egalitarian rhetoric.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
