By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan — Kurdish Policy Analysis

Alexander Dugin argues that Russia is leading the fight for a multipolar world against Western hegemony. A closer examination of Moscow's actions in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, and the post-Soviet space suggests that Russia's vision of multipolarity may be less about sovereignty and more about restoring regional dominance.

Moscow presents multipolarity as a struggle for sovereignty against Western dominance. Yet Russia's own record—from Ukraine to Syria, Georgia, and its treatment of smaller nations—raises a fundamental question: Is the Kremlin fighting for a multipolar world, or simply demanding a larger sphere of influence within it? 

Few concepts have become more central to Russian foreign policy than "multipolarity."

For more than two decades, Russian officials, intellectuals, and strategists have argued that the world must move beyond American dominance and embrace a system in which multiple centers of power coexist. Among the most prominent advocates of this vision is Alexander Dugin, the Russian nationalist philosopher whose geopolitical theories have profoundly influenced debates surrounding Russia's role in the world.

Speaking at the 2026 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), Dugin once again framed Russia as the defender of sovereignty and the champion of a multipolar order. According to his argument, Russia is engaged in an existential struggle against Western hegemony. Moscow seeks only to preserve its independence and create a world in which no single power dominates others.

It is an attractive narrative.

It is also deeply misleading.

The central problem with Dugin's argument is not that Western powers have never behaved hegemonically. They have. Nor is it that many countries desire a more balanced international system. They do.

The problem is that Russia's actual behavior consistently contradicts its rhetoric.

The Kremlin speaks the language of sovereignty while routinely denying sovereignty to its neighbors. It condemns spheres of influence while demanding one for itself. It criticizes Western interventionism while pursuing its own version of geopolitical coercion.

In practice, Russia's vision of multipolarity often resembles not a world of equal sovereign actors, but a world divided among competing great powers—with smaller nations expected to accept the dominance of whichever empire happens to sit closest to them.

The Contradiction at the Heart of Dugin's Multipolarity

Dugin argues that Russia is fighting to destroy Western hegemony rather than replace it.

Yet the intellectual foundations of his own geopolitical theory suggest otherwise.

His influential work, Foundations of Geopolitics, does not advocate a world of independent nations exercising equal sovereignty. Instead, it envisions large civilizational blocs dominated by major powers.

In this framework, smaller states rarely possess meaningful strategic autonomy.

They become pieces on a geopolitical chessboard.

The irony is striking.

Russia condemns the United States for treating smaller nations as instruments of power politics while simultaneously advancing a worldview that grants Moscow privileged influence over vast regions stretching from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and the Caucasus.

This is not anti-imperialism.

It is competitive imperialism.

Ukraine Exposes the Reality

Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in Ukraine.

Dugin claims that Russia merely seeks to preserve its sovereignty against Western encroachment.

Yet Ukraine was not threatening Russia's existence.

Ukraine was exercising its own sovereignty by pursuing political, economic, and security relationships of its choosing.

The core dispute was never simply NATO expansion.

It was Ukraine's desire to escape Moscow's sphere of influence.

For decades, Russian policymakers repeatedly signaled that Ukrainian independence was acceptable only if it remained strategically subordinate to Russia.

When Ukrainians increasingly rejected that arrangement, Moscow responded not by respecting Ukrainian sovereignty but by attempting to impose its own preferred geopolitical outcome through force.

This reveals a fundamental weakness in the multipolarity narrative.

If sovereignty is sacred, it must apply equally to large and small states.

If Russia demands sovereignty for itself while denying it to Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova, then its argument is not about sovereignty at all.

It is about hierarchy.

The Forgotten Cases of Georgia and Moldova

Russia's defenders often portray the conflict in Ukraine as unique.

It is not.

The pattern predates Ukraine by many years.

In 2008, Russia intervened militarily in Georgia and subsequently recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia despite widespread international opposition.

In Moldova, Moscow has maintained influence through its support for Transnistria.

Across the post-Soviet space, Russia has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use military, economic, and political pressure to shape the choices of neighboring states.

These actions are difficult to reconcile with claims that Moscow merely seeks a world of sovereign equals.

Instead, they reflect a traditional great-power approach that prioritizes influence over principle.

The Kurdish Perspective on Multipolarity

For stateless nations and smaller peoples, the debate surrounding multipolarity often looks very different.

Kurds, for example, have experienced exploitation by multiple great powers simultaneously.

The United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and various regional actors have all, at different moments, treated Kurdish aspirations as instruments of broader strategic calculations.

From this perspective, replacing American predominance with a system dominated by competing regional powers does not necessarily produce greater freedom.

It may simply multiply the number of actors capable of constraining self-determination.

A truly multipolar world should strengthen the sovereignty of smaller nations.

Too often, Russia's version appears to strengthen only the sovereignty of major powers.

Russia's Selective Defense of Self-Determination

Another inconsistency emerges in Moscow's approach to national self-determination.

Russia has supported separatist movements when doing so weakens geopolitical rivals.

Yet it has shown far less enthusiasm for similar principles within its own sphere of influence.

This selective application undermines claims of moral consistency.

The principle appears less concerned with justice than with strategic utility.

International law becomes flexible when geopolitical interests are involved.

This is hardly unique to Russia.

Western powers have often behaved similarly.

But acknowledging Western hypocrisy does not eliminate Russian hypocrisy.

Both can exist simultaneously.

Multipolarity Without Rules

The most troubling aspect of Dugin's vision is not multipolarity itself.

A more distributed international order is already emerging.

China, India, regional powers, and middle powers are exercising increasing influence.

The real question concerns what kind of multipolarity will emerge.

Will it be a rules-based multipolarity in which states respect sovereignty regardless of size?

Or will it be a neo-imperial multipolarity in which major powers dominate their respective regions while invoking sovereignty only when convenient?

Dugin's writings often point toward the latter.

His vision emphasizes civilizations, strategic blocs, and geopolitical destiny.

Individual nations frequently disappear within larger historical projects.

Such a framework risks legitimizing domination rather than limiting it.

Why Smaller States Should Be Skeptical

Many countries in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the Middle East have understandable reasons to oppose Western dominance.

Yet they also have reasons to remain skeptical of Russian alternatives.

History suggests that great powers rarely abandon the pursuit of influence.

They merely justify it differently.

For smaller states, genuine strategic autonomy depends not on choosing between competing empires but on preserving the freedom to engage with multiple partners simultaneously.

Ironically, this resembles the multi-vector diplomacy practiced by countries such as Kazakhstan far more than Dugin's civilizational blocs.

Real sovereignty requires options.

Exclusive spheres of influence reduce them.

Conclusion

Alexander Dugin presents Russia as the defender of sovereignty against Western hegemony.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

The Kremlin's criticism of Western dominance often contains legitimate observations. The post-Cold War order was imperfect, and Western interventions have frequently undermined the very principles they claimed to uphold.

Yet exposing Western contradictions does not absolve Russia of its own.

A world genuinely committed to sovereignty would respect the choices of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other smaller states no less than it respects the choices of Russia.

A world genuinely committed to multipolarity would empower independent actors rather than divide them into competing spheres of influence.

The ultimate test of any geopolitical vision is not how it treats great powers.

It is how it treats the weak.

By that standard, Russia's version of multipolarity remains less a challenge to hegemony than a proposal to redistribute it.

The danger is not that Moscow seeks a multipolar world.

The danger is that its vision of multipolarity may simply replace one dominant center with several competing ones—leaving smaller nations caught between them.

That is not a post-hegemonic order.

It is merely a different map of power.

#Russia #Dugin #Geopolitics