Sergiy Tolstov, Ph.D. in History, associate professor, «The State Institution Institute of World History of NAS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine


The main trends in the forging of a multipolar international system are examined in the article. The paper focuses on the overall classification of forms of the system of international relations based on relations of material factors to evaluation of positioning of the leading countries on the international arena. The author reveales as peculiar and distinctive characteristics so some general rules of the implementation of international programs in specific political circumstances in the key periods of world history. The scientific novelty of the research comes from the comprehension of recent events and processes of political change in international relations, world politics that became intense and unexpected.

It is also demonstrated in the article that in the future a polycentric system can take different configurations, and the first evaluation reveals an increasing instability and confrontation in international relations in contemporaneous conditions of forging of the new world order. The development of international processes in that direction has been driven by Russia’s aggressive and conscious actions aimed at the destruction of the previous international order established during decades of efforts. Therefore, Russia tried to revise the universally recognized rules and norms in the international community.

In conclusions, the author stresses that the structurally multipolar system of international relations does not necessarily imply a relative equality in the balance of power among the potential major players. The difference in potentials and in common opportunities can be compensated by the ability of certain states to concentrate resources in areas of key priority, and to achieve results through aggressive, unexpected use of power tools or direct threats of using force, through informational and psychological pressure.

 multipolarity, structure, civilization, balance of power, stability, confrontation

Full text


  1. VENDT A. (1998) Chetyre sociologii mezhdunarodnoj politiki. In Cygankov P.A. ed. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija: sociologicheskie podhody. Moskva: Gardariki, pp. 48-90.
  2. DUGIN A.G. (2013) Teorija mnogopoljarnogo mira. Moskva: Evrazijskoe dvizhenie.
  3. PEREPELYTSIA H. (2015) Polityka Rosii – tse krakh mizhnarodnoi bezpeky: prychyny ta naslidky / H. Perepelytsia. In: Proceeding of international conference «Kryza suchasnoi systemy mizhnarodnoi bezpeky: prychyny i naslidky», Kyiv, Jule 2015. pp. 11-16.
  4. PORTJAKOV V.JA. (2013) Videnie mnogopoljarnosti v Rossii i Kitae i mezhdunarodnye vyzovy. Sravnitel’naja politika. 11(1). pp.86-97.
  5. SIVKOV K. (2011) Ocenka real’nosti mirovoj vojny, kak osnovnogo instrumenta vyhoda iz global’nogo krizisa, i ejo verojatnyj harakter. Fond Noravank. [Online]. Avaliable from:
  6. (2016) Stenohrama zasidannia Rady natsionalnoi bezpeky i oborony Ukrainy vid 28 liutoho 2014 roku / Komitet Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy z pytan natsionalnoi bezpeky i oborony. [Online]. Avaliable from:
  7. HANTINGTON S. (2003) Stolknovenie civilizacij. Moskva: AST.
  8. FRIEDBERG A.L. (1994) The Future of American Power. Political Science Quarterly. Vol.109, No.1. pp.1-22.
  9. HART J. (1985) Power and Polarity in the International System. In A.N. Sabrosky ed. Polarity and War. Boulder, Col.: Westview press. pp.25-40.
  10. KAUFMAN S.J., LITTLE R., WOHLFORTH W.C. (2007) The balance of power in world history. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. KENNEDY P. (1987) The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.
  12. STÜRMER M. (2015) Die Ukraine wird nicht das letzte Kapitel sein. Die Welt, 09 March. [Online]. Avaliable from: