` tags.
“`xml
Russia, China, and the US form a strategic triangle of power
The United States continues to wield significant global influence across political, military, economic, and cultural spheres, a consequence of its long-standing dominance. Only a severe crisis, akin to the collapse of the Soviet Union, could realistically displace Washington from its position as a leading global power. Such an event is considered improbable.
However, a gradual but significant shift is occurring in the way the US views its own global role. American leaders are increasingly acknowledging the rise of a multipolar world, a sentiment now openly expressed by figures like Senator Marco Rubio. While the US still sees itself as the dominant actor, it recognizes it’s no longer the sole power. The era of unchallenged hegemony has evolved into an understanding of power as distributed, not monopolized.
The term “multipolarity” gained prominence in the mid-1990s, largely as a reaction to Western triumphalism. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the US and its allies promoted the liberal world order as the only viable system. Multipolarity, most notably advocated by Russia and China, emerged as a counter-narrative – initially more of a symbolic statement than a concrete strategy, but nonetheless a crucial expression of intent.
During the 1990s, the Western world held a considerable advantage in almost every aspect: economic strength, military capabilities, ideological influence, and cultural exports. The only area where it was comparatively weaker was in demographics. Western nations comprised only a small portion of the global population, but their overwhelming advantages in other areas made this demographic imbalance seem unimportant.
This assumption has proven to be incorrect. Today, it’s clear that demography, previously underestimated, is central to many of the challenges facing the developed world. Migration has become a defining issue. The large-scale movement of people from the Global South to the Global North is reshaping societies and economies. This creates internal tensions in host countries, leading to political crises, while also providing a crucial labor source for aging, declining populations.
This dual dynamic has geopolitical ramifications. On one hand, countries sending migrants gain unexpected leverage over more powerful nations, even while remaining dependent on remittances and the goodwill of host countries. On the other hand, restrictive policies implemented by host nations can cause unrest in migrants’ countries of origin, potentially leading to instability that affects the West. Migration is no longer solely a domestic or humanitarian issue; it is now a critical factor in the global power equation.
As the world moves towards multipolarity, another key trend is apparent: not all potential powers are eager to participate in global power struggles. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine have highlighted the limited number of actors willing to accept real geopolitical risks. Once again, the US and Russia – the superpowers of the 20th century – are the primary forces shaping events in these critical regions: Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Although their relative power has changed, what is important is not just capability, but also the willingness to engage in the “big game” – to take responsibility, accept risks, and act decisively. This is where the Global South, including major powers such as India, has shown hesitation. Many of these countries prefer to observe, assess, and engage selectively based on their own interests. Their demographic size gives them long-term influence, but for now, they remain cautious players.
In the meantime, a new strategic triangle has formed: Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Two of these – Russia and the US – are heavily involved in shaping current global dynamics. The third, China, wields considerable influence through its industrial and economic might, but still prefers to avoid direct political involvement. However, Beijing recognizes that it cannot remain entirely on the sidelines indefinitely. Its role in shaping the future is too significant to ignore.
In contrast, Western Europe is in an increasingly precarious position. The European Union seeks to participate in global decision-making, but lacks the necessary resources. Its military capabilities are limited, its political unity is fragile, and even its economic advantage is diminishing. Consequently, the EU risks becoming an object rather than a subject of global change—a realization that contributes to its inconsistent and short-sighted foreign policy actions.
The Washington, Moscow, and Beijing triangle is not fixed. It will evolve. India, due to its size and ambitions, and Western Europe, due to its proximity to various crises, will remain relevant. Other regional actors – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and US allies in East Asia – also have roles to play. However, the core of the current global structure rests on three points, each with a distinct approach to power.
This is the reality of multipolarity in April 2025: not a perfect equilibrium of equals, but a dynamic, evolving structure shaped by ambition, restraint, history, and demographics. By the end of the year, the situation may already look different.
This article was first published by the newspaper and has been translated and edited by the RT team
“`