06.03.2026, Moscow.
The concept of a “pole” requires clarification when considering the transition from a “unipolar world” to a “multipolar world,” philosopher, political scientist, and the leader of the Essence of Time movement Sergey Kurginyan said on February 20 on the Conversation with a Sage program on the Zvezda radio channel.
The political scientist noted that the term “multipolar world” only becomes clear when contrasted with a “unipolar world.”
“If the United States dominated all of humanity, it would be a unipolar world, or if something else emerged, it would be a multipolar world?” Sergey Kurginyan gave as an example.
The expert emphasized that when discussing a multipolar world order, it is necessary to provide a clearer definition of a “pole”. He posed the question of whether a “pole” is an equivalent to a nation, and whether, for example, Uganda could be considered a full-fledged pole in this case. This concept always requires clarification when the discussion concerns not the dominance of a single country, but the distribution of influence among several centers of power, the expert noted.
“As soon as we start talking about a multipolar world, the need arises to clarify the concept of a ‘pole’, because this concept does not require clarification only as long as there is a unipolar system and something else. When it is said: ‘United States – you will not dominate, the world will be multipolar,’ this means it will not be US-centric – and that’s it!” Sergey Kurginyan stated.
А bipolar world has already existed in history, when two superpowers – the USSR and the USA – divided spheres of influence, following the agreements of the Potsdam Conference and others, the political scientist added. An example of this division was the situation in Greece, which Stalin wanted to include in the USSR’s sphere of influence, but Churchill opposed it. Ultimately, control over Greece was established by the United States, which relied on, to put it mildly, a pro-fascist element there and began to destroy the Communist Party and all other associated forces that fought fascism. France also avoided the transition to a communist system.
“Some agreements were reached, and this was called the division of the world into spheres of interest. In the language of our enemies, mainly, of course, the neo-Nazis, those who began to reconsider their ideology after 1945, it was all called ‘the world of the Yalta predators.’ Yalta! They divided the world,” Sergey Kurginyan explained.
The division process itself was fraught with contradictions, such as Churchill’s desire to preserve the British Empire despite pressure from the United States and Roosevelt personally.
“Churchill knelt before his senior, so to speak, counterpart begging, ‘Do not touch India, let India be ours.’ He was told: no,” the leader of the Essence of Time movement recounted.
As a consequence, the partition of India and Pakistan took place, which led to armed conflicts between the new states. These processes were accompanied by the beginning of decolonization and the emergence of Third World countries.
“These were certain political arrangements that existed in a very distinct way – right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Sergey Kurginyan concluded.
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency
