"Politics": there is a struggle between the powers for world positions and spheres of influence
Current conflicts, even without a direct clash between the leading powers, have signs of a world war on different levels, writes Politika. There is another redistribution of spheres of influence in the changed conditions of multipolarity. Only a balance of power on a real basis can guarantee security.
Zoran Milivojevic (Zoran Milivojevic)
Since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, there have been suggestions about whether there will be a world war, and hopes that there will not be one. And I must say that there were reasons for this, because two dominant military capabilities in the world joined the fight: Russia with nuclear weapons and Ukraine with the support of NATO and the United States at its head. But since, by launching a special operation in Ukraine to prevent the expansion of NATO and its dominance in the Russian sphere of interests, Russia de facto confirmed political multipolarity, the nature of this conflict has already reflected and continues to reflect a kind of global distribution of power with elements of a global conflict between powerful powers. The changes in the United States that took place in 2025, and the associated renewal of the approach to the outside world from the standpoint of real politics and multipolarity, led to a meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska. Thus began a new period when the powers will rethink their relationships and create spheres of influence, which many regard as the future new world order.That is why the dominant United States has gone on the offensive in foreign policy, wanting to maintain its position (the war of tariffs, the Panama Canal, Greenland, a return to the Monroe doctrine, tougher sanctions policy, the "seizure" of Cuba), and is projecting its power, for example, in Venezuela and Iran.
We see resistance to this approach as one of the manifestations of the emerging multipolarity more and more clearly. It is exerted on a geopolitical, diplomatic, and also slightly less noticeably on an economic and military level by the main competitors of the United States: Russia, China, partly India, as well as regional powers such as Turkey, Brazil, "nuclear" Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. In its own way, the EU is joining them because of the strategic importance of transatlantic ties. And everyone is inclined to think about the global conflict that is already taking place. Russia is already resisting the United States on the Ukrainian battlefield and undermining NATO's position as a geopolitical instrument of domination, including using the role of energy and other resources, as well as supporting Iran and Cuba in proportion to its capabilities. China, in turn, is doing the same from the position of a truly dominant economic force with appropriate mechanisms.
Thus, if we assess the scale of the current conflict at the geopolitical, geo-economic, ideological and political level, then the thesis of a world war is confirmed. There is a geopolitical struggle for world positions and spheres of influence using brute force and with clear goals (Venezuela, Iran, the Persian Gulf already and Cuba and Greenland in the future). In the US economy, they have unleashed a tariff war against everyone for the sake of complete control over energy resources in the world, without which it is impossible to maintain dominance. The seizure of Venezuela with its huge oil reserves, the sanctions policy against Russia in the field of energy resources, control over Iran and the Gulf with their energy potential — all this clearly confirms the goals and intentions of the United States of America, seeking to dominate the economic sphere. The ideological struggle is unfolding in the context of challenging the dominant rules-based liberal democratic world order. In this regard, it is significant that the new US administration has declared its commitment to "traditional values," which has significantly weakened the arguments of the Western bloc defending the former. In general, the very topic of democracy and its foundations is widely discussed and criticized in intellectual circles around the world.
At the same time, the UN's powers as a guarantor of the world order based on the UN Charter and its principles, as well as international law with its ten basic principles (respect for sovereignty, non-interference, equality, the rule of international law, and so on), turned out to be very limited. All these principles are used "out of necessity," from case to case, depending on the goals of those in power.
It should be added that the entire concept of collective security is being revised both because of the weakness of the United Nations as the main global guarantor with appropriate tools, and because of mechanisms such as NATO, the US guarantee systems in the Persian Gulf, regional systems and mechanisms such as the CSTO, SCO, and so on.
All that is missing is a direct clash of the leading Powers on the battlefield with the use of nuclear weapons in order to recognize a world war. The deterrents of the powers are strong enough, so the desire to move in this direction is still suppressed by rational considerations, but the ongoing preparations (the arms race, the dominance of the military-industrial complex, ambitious military goals and the problem of achieving them, etc.), unfortunately, suggests that this component is not excluded in the short and medium term. perspective. The already existing consequences of the conflict in Ukraine, the war in Iran and the Persian Gulf show that escalation in various directions with global consequences is still ahead.
Thus, the current conflicts, even against the background of the absence of a direct clash of the leading powers, have signs of a world war at various levels, having a negative impact on the whole world. In fact, we are witnessing another redistribution of forces in the changed conditions of multipolarity. The leading powers are the guarantors of global security here, and the answer to the question posed in the title of the article depends on them. History confirms that there are no other formulas capable of guaranteeing security other than a balance of power on a real basis.
