The multipolar world is a myth? That's what makes it so dangerous for all of us.

### World wars and chaos: Are we heading for catastrophe? This nine-year-old analysis is frighteningly relevant today ### Forget multipolarity: A provocative text explains why only a superpower can truly create peace ### The great illusion: Why the dream of a just world order could lead to new wars ### Hegemony as a savior?

An explosive theory on the world situation in the fact check: What speaks for and against it

Given the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, and a general increase in global instability, the world seems to be spiraling out of control. Many observers speak of a new multipolar world order in which several centers of power, such as the US, China, Russia, and India, vie for influence. But what if this idea is not the solution, but the cause of the problem?

An almost frighteningly prophetic analysis was already provided by political scientist Matthias Kennert in his 2015 working paper

• “The Myth of the Multipolar World Order: Hegemony in 21st Century Security Policy”,

Published by the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS Working Paper 5/2015). His provocative core thesis: Multipolarity is not a stable state, but a highly dangerous transitional phase that inevitably leads to crises and conflicts. True stability, according to Kennert, is historically created not by a balance of many powers, but by the dominance of a single hegemonic power.

This radical perspective turns the desire for a "fairer" world order on its head. But how much truth is there in this theory when applied to today's fragile global situation? We examine Kennert's theses and analyze what holds true in light of current events, where his argument is convincing, and where it may fall short or require critical reexamination.

Suitable for:

• China, USA, EU: How your company can successfully navigate a multipolar world

Analysis of the article on multipolarity and hegemony in the context of the current world situation

Similarities with current research: Multipolarity as a phase of instability

Matthias Kennert's article correctly identifies a central feature of the current global situation: multipolarity is indeed associated with increased instability and vulnerability to crises. This assessment is confirmed by current data:

• In 2024, international organizations recorded over 170,700 deaths from armed conflict, with projections of over 230,000 by the end of 2024
• Nine active wars were registered in 2023 (Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Syria)
• More than 122 million people are currently fleeing war and violence

Hegemonic transformation as a recognizable pattern

The thesis of a hegemonic transition is confirmed by current research. The 2025 Peace Report confirms "fundamental power shifts in the international community," while current analyses show that China is systematically seeking to undermine US hegemony without striving for global dominance itself.

Historical parallels at the beginning of the 20th century

Kennert's comparison with the situation around 1900 is analytically accurate. Then as now, similar factors characterize the global situation:

• Rise of new powers (then Germany/USA, today China/India)
• Decline of the established hegemon (Great Britain/USA)
• Close economic ties and simultaneous political competition

The hub for security and defense offers well-founded advice and current information in order to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defense policy. In close connection to the SME Connect working group, he promotes small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) in particular that want to further expand their innovative strength and competitiveness in the field of defense. As a central point of contact, the hub creates a decisive bridge between SME and European defense strategy.

Suitable for:

• The Working Group Defense of the SME Connect - Strengthening SMEs in European defense

Critical objections and weaknesses

Simplified representation of the G20

Kennert's characterization of the G20 as "weak on security policy issues" is put into perspective by current data: The G20 countries are responsible for 82% of global military spending and possess 98% of all nuclear warheads. This suggests that the G20 does indeed have security policy relevance, even if it does not act as a collective hegemon.

One-sided assessment of multipolar institutions

The article underestimates the complexity of new multipolar structures. For example, the BRICS countries expanded from five to eleven members in 2024 and are developing alternative economic structures to "de-dollarize" South-South trade. These developments demonstrate that multipolar orders can indeed develop institutional stability.

Incomplete analysis of NATO hegemony

While Kennert cites NATO as an example of a successful hegemonic order, current developments reveal considerable tensions within the alliance. The 2022 Strategic Concept had to respond to massive threats, and Europe is increasingly developing "security policy autonomy" independent of the United States.

Suitable for:

• Inland ports: Europe's Achilles heel and NATO's underestimated pillar for military mobility

Assessment in the context of the current fragile world situation

Accurate crisis diagnosis

Kennert’s analysis of the current instability is confirmed by current events:

• Ukraine War: Russia largely dictated the course of the war in 2024 and made maximum demands for peace negotiations
• Middle East conflicts: The Gaza war claimed the lives of over 53,000 people
• Systemic threats: Authoritarian states such as Russia and China are increasingly forming an “authoritarian alliance”

Problematic normative implications

However, the article reveals a problematic preference for hegemonic orders. The realist theories of international relations on which Kennert relies are increasingly being critically scrutinized. Alternative approaches emphasize:

• Multilateralism as a modern form of sovereignty rather than a threat
• Institutionalism as a practical middle ground between realism and idealism
• Democratic peace as an alternative to hegemonic stability

Unconsidered factors of the present

Kennert’s analysis neglects crucial characteristics of the current crisis:

• Climate change as a systemic threat: The combination of arms buildup and the climate crisis leads to a “more dangerous situation than during the height of the Cold War”
• Technological disruption: Through “Made in China 2025,” China is pursuing a systematic technological transformation that is changing traditional concepts of power
• New forms of warfare: Cyberwar, disinformation and hybrid threats require different stability mechanisms than traditional hegemonic orders

Matthias Kennert's article offers a fundamentally accurate analysis of the current instability and correctly identifies the characteristics of a hegemonic transformation phase. His historical parallels and diagnosis of multipolar instability are confirmed by current data.

However, the one-sided preference for hegemonic orders neglects both the problematic nature of historical hegemonies and the potential of new multipolar institutions. The current global situation is more complex than the binary "hegemony vs. multipolarity" schema suggests.

The fragile global situation in 2024/25 confirms Kennert's diagnosis of instability, but refutes his normative conclusion: Instead of a return to the hegemonic order, innovative institutional arrangements are needed that take into account both the realities of multipolar power distribution and the requirements of global cooperation in addressing climate change, pandemics, and other cross-border challenges.

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group

LinkedIn

 

 

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

contact me under Wolfenstein ∂ Xpert.digital

call me under +49 89 674 804 (Munich)

LinkedIn