From Unipolarity to Multipolarity: BRICS, U.S. Hegemony, and the Future of the Global Political Order

Abstract

The expansion of BRICS signals a pivotal transformation in the international system, challenging U.S. hegemony and accelerating the transition toward a multipolar world. This article explores the strategic, economic, and geopolitical implications of BRICS's growing influence, the U.S. response through coercive economic and military measures, and the potential for global conflict, including nuclear confrontation. Drawing on international relations theory, historical analogies, and contemporary developments, it assesses three future scenarios: peaceful transition, global fragmentation, and militarized retrenchment. The article concludes with a philosophical argument for cooperative multilateralism and a planetary survival ethic. It calls on global strategists to abandon doctrines of domination in favor of solidarity, humility, and collective stewardship, as the very survival of the human species hangs in the balance.

Introduction

The post–Cold War international order is fracturing under the weight of shifting power dynamics, ideological realignments, and structural inequalities. At the center of this transformation is the rise of BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—and its expanding influence across the Global South. This bloc's growing resistance to U.S.-led sanctions, advocacy for alternative financial institutions, and pursuit of strategic autonomy have collectively disrupted the unipolar order that emerged after 1991 (Stuenkel, 2020).

In parallel, the United States, increasingly reliant on tariffs, sanctions, covert operations, and unilateral military actions, is doubling on hegemonic retrenchment. However, in an age of multiple nuclear-armed states, such confrontational postures risk triggering irreversible catastrophe. This article argues that the global community is at a crossroads: it can continue down a path of escalating tensions and proxy wars, or it can seize the opportunity to redefine security, power, and progress regarding mutual survival and planetary well-being.

The Strategic Significance of BRICS Expansion

Once an economic acronym, BRICS has grown into a geopolitical actor demanding structural reforms in global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and United Nations Security Council (Acharya, 2014). The inclusion or alignment of countries such as Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia signals a deliberate shift toward South–South solidarity, aimed at countering Western dominance in global governance.

De-dollarization is central to BRICS's strategy—a systematic effort to diminish dependency on the U.S. dollar in trade and financial transactions. This approach seeks economic sovereignty and political autonomy from U.S. sanctions and conditionalities (Subacchi, 2020). Parallel financial institutions support this, including the BRICS New Development Bank and alternative payment systems (Pomeranz, 2022). These developments reflect a broader aspiration for multipolarity rooted in historical grievances, postcolonial agency, and demands for institutional fairness.

U.S. Response: Militarized Retrenchment and Eroding Legitimacy

The United States' response has veered toward economic coercion and military assertiveness. Recent proposals for a 10% tariff on BRICS members are emblematic of a zero-sum approach that undermines diplomacy and multilateralism (Wallerstein, 2004). Simultaneously, military interventions—such as the unprovoked bombing of Iran, expanded operations in Somalia, and ongoing support for Israeli militarism—demonstrate a deepening reliance on force as a default instrument of foreign policy.

These actions not only erode the legitimacy of U.S. leadership but also escalate the risk of miscalculation, especially in regions where multiple nuclear powers intersect. The Thucydides Trap—the historical pattern in which dominant powers respond violently to rising challengers—looms large (Allison, 2017). In a multipolar and nuclear-armed world, however, the consequences of such entrapment are existential.

The Nuclear Age and the Crisis of Strategic Imagination

A moral contradiction defines today's global order: while humanity possesses the technological capacity to eliminate poverty, reverse climate change, and promote inclusive development, it also retains the power to annihilate itself in minutes through nuclear warfare. However, strategic doctrines remain trapped in 20th-century containment, deterrence, and dominance paradigms.

Philosophically, this reveals a crisis of imagination—a failure to reimagine global security as a typical human project rather than a nationalist enterprise. As long as nation-states see nuclear weapons as tools of strategic leverage rather than apocalyptic threats to civilization, the world will hover perilously close to irreversible disaster.

What is required is a shift in strategic thinking—from power over others to responsibility to others; from dominance to dignity; from war-readiness to peace-preparedness. As Hannah Arendt warned, violence destroys power rather than consolidating it, while cooperation enlarges the human capacity to act in concert (Arendt, 1970). In a world interconnected ecologically, economically, and digitally, the logic of confrontation is not only irrational—it is suicidal.

Speculative Futures: Three Scenarios

1. Peaceful Multipolar Transition

In this best-case scenario, the U.S. and BRICS engage in cooperative multilateralism. Global actors democratize institutions like the United Nations, restructure the financial system for fairness, and jointly address transnational challenges such as climate change, migration, and pandemics. Strategic competition yields to strategic coexistence (Ikenberry, 2011).

2. Fragmented Regionalism

A more likely short-term outcome involves splintering the global order into regional blocs. While this avoids full-scale global war, it hinders global cooperation and entrenches rival economic and technological spheres. Peace remains tenuous, and global governance becomes patchy and ineffective.

3. Militarized Retrenchment and Nuclear Brinkmanship

In the most dangerous scenario, the United States escalates military interventions to preserve hegemony—conflicts in the Taiwan Strait, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East spiral into great-power confrontation. The collapse of diplomatic institutions and miscalculations involving nuclear-armed actors lead to mass civilian casualties and potentially the end of organized human life as we know it.

A Call for Planetary Ethics and Strategic Humility

The time has come to articulate a planetary ethic of survival. This ethic must be grounded in three principles:

1. Interdependence: No nation is self-sufficient in the face of planetary threats—whether nuclear war, pandemics, or climate catastrophe.

2. Moral Equality: All lives have equal value. No strategic doctrine, no national interest, justifies the incineration of millions.

3. Historical Responsibility: Nations that have benefited most from past hegemonies must lead in disarmament, demilitarization, and diplomacy.

Rather than investing in new weapons systems and escalatory doctrines, the world's great powers must invest in education, cooperation, and mutual security agreements. Nuclear abolition, climate justice, and poverty eradication must become the benchmarks of global leadership.

Conclusion

The BRICS expansion is not simply a geopolitical reconfiguration—it challenges the assumptions underpinning the modern world order. The future is not predetermined. Whether it unfolds as a peaceful transition, a fragmented stalemate, or a nuclear catastrophe depends on the choices made today by those in positions of power.

Strategists must now answer what is possible and what is permissible. Is the pursuit of dominance worth the risk of extinction? Can we afford another century of militarized rivalry in a world armed to destroy itself?

The answer must be no. Humanity's continued existence demands a shift from hegemonic ambition to cooperative survival. In the nuclear age, humility is not weakness—it is wisdom.

References (Available Upon Request)