Globalization in the format of multipolarity: philosophical and worldview foundation of globopolycentrism

Guryanov Nikolay Yuryevich ORCID: 0000-0001-7783-6031 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of Humanities, Medical University «Reaviz» 443001, Russia, Samara region, Samara, Chapaevskaya str., 227 nik.guryanow@yandex.ru

Guryanova Anna Victorovna ORCID: 0000-0003-2579-8955 Doctor of Philosophy Guryanova Anna Victorovna - PhD in Philosophy, Professor, Head of Philosophy and History Department, Samara State University of Economics 141 Sovetskaya Armiya str., office 207d, Samara region, 443090, Russia annaguryanov@yandex.ru

Introduction

The reality of the modern world is its development in the context of globalization.

The emergence of the very concept of "globalization" usually dates back to the time of the publication of the work of the American economist T. Levitt "Globalization of Markets" (1983) ^[15], which happened more than four decades ago. Although, in fact, globalization and related processes started much earlier. The first wave of globalization swept over civilization in the last decades of the 19th century, coinciding with the progress in the development of transport and trade relations that came during this period, as well as the concomitant beginning of mass migration processes on a global scale. The second wave swept through the middle of the twentieth century, stimulating an unprecedented economic recovery in a number of developed countries of the world community. And finally, the third wave, which started in the last decades of the twentieth century, was marked by a grandiose breakthrough in the field of communications and means of communication, which stimulated the involvement of developing countries' economies in the structure of the world market ^{[1, p. 29]}.

Today, in view of the approaching completion of the first quarter of the 21st century, it is safe to say that globalization is an objective process, a kind of given. So all attempts to ignore it or forcibly restrict it (for example, the "iron curtain" that existed during the Soviet era or the modern sanctions policy pursued against undesirable countries in order to isolate them from the world community, etc.) are untenable and initially doomed to failure. In this regard, globalization should be perceived as a "new stage in the formation of the systemic integrity of the world" ^{[14, p. 57]}, any opposition to which seems obviously "meaningless and unpromising" ^{[14, p. 57]}.

Despite the numerous events of recent decades related to the revision and complication of the existing world order system itself, an increase in the level of conflict and destructiveness within it, the world continues to remain a global whole. The process of globalization is not hindered by the growing confrontation and confrontation of the great powers of our time, nor by the policy of "double standards" actively practiced by the "hegemon" of the modern world and its satellites, nor by the exponential growth of nationalist phobias against individual peoples and states (for example, Russophobia), nor by the aggressive behavior of developed countries towards developing countries, which puts The aim is to impose on the latter their own "democratic" vision of the world and the corresponding value system.

The above—mentioned trends do not stop the process of globalization and do not even slow it down, they only transfer it to a new plane of deployment — more complex and problematic in comparison with its initial stages.

Globalization as a new format of interaction between civilizations

Modern globalization is an extremely complex, full of contradictions "process in international relations, manifested in the expansion, deepening and complication of interrelations and mutual influence of countries and peoples of the world. Globalization is a stage of internationalization based on the development and improvement of information and communication technologies, liberalization and simplification of the movement of goods, services, labor and capital" ^[5]. Being by its nature a multilevel and multidimensional phenomenon, globalization has a structuring and formative effect on the spheres of modern politics and economics, the realities of social and cultural life, areas of scientific and technical interests, achievements and development of innovative technologies, etc.

The countries and peoples of the modern world find themselves totally involved in the process of globalization, which unites them into a single system, establishing links of interaction and interdependence of economic, political, socio-cultural orientation between them. At the same time, the key principle of globalization, namely, the global integration caused by it, the "strengthening" of the interdependence of the "world" ^{[14, p. 58]}, remains unchanged, with the only nuance — over time, the impact of globalization becomes more tangible, and its participants become more interconnected and interdependent. Globalization contributes to the intensification of migration processes, the redistribution of labor flows, the expansion of the range of spatial movements, the free circulation of goods and services, material capital and human resources in the world.

If initially globalization was considered as a purely economic phenomenon, later it became characterized by more capacious meaningful interpretations ^{[6, p. 103]}. In the light of the historical events that unfolded in the 1990s (the collapse of the USSR, the transformation of the United States into a world leader claiming unconditional dominance in all spheres of life of the world community), it acquired a pronounced politicized coloring. To date, the most significant consequences of globalization are observed precisely in its geopolitical dimension, in particular, in terms of the impact exerted on the formation of a system of relations between different civilizations of our time. That is why globalization in the broadest sense of the word can be characterized as a "form of interaction between civilizations" ^[4]. In such an expanded (civilizational) understanding, "... globalization can be represented both as a process, as a new ideology, as a stage in the development of human civilization, and as a stage of historical dynamics..." ^{[17, p. 109]}. But at the same time, the essential characteristic of this approach is still the idea of strengthening the interdependence of mankind in all spheres of its life activity.

It should also be noted that at the origins of the formation of ideas about globalization, there were often opinions that this process is, in general, harmonious and universal ^{[11, p. 88]}. However, significant changes in the world order that occurred at the end of the twentieth and the first quarter of the twenty–first centuries served as the basis for debunking such ideological illusions, since they caused qualitative changes in the process of globalization itself. In modern conditions, the confrontation of the defining trends of the world order is clearly represented, as well as the exponential growth of the effects of various destabilizing factors and destructive elements on it. Deviations and deformations in the sphere of the alignment of "polarities" are particularly dangerous, sometimes entailing irreversible geopolitical consequences, which is associated with the reformatting of the leading "poles" of the entire modern world order system.

We are talking about the activation and further confrontation of such weighty geopolitical models of the global world order as bipolar, unipolar and multipolar. Each of them is focused on a specific, clearly defined orientation in the distribution of the leading "players" and power flows in the international arena. Discussions about the essence and correlation of these models received different conceptual design, in particular, in the form of contrasting mondialism and cultural pluralism, universalism and "blooming complexity" ^{[16, p. 1]}, neocolonialism and internationalism, "world politics" and multipolarity ^[9], mono- and polycentrism, the universe and the "pluriverse" ^[10] etc. However, these terminological nuances do not change the essence of the issue under consideration, since in any case we are talking about a certain order of the global world order, including one, two or more power "poles".

And since all these models, which differ in their "polar" composition, were tested during the XX–XXI centuries, and some of them continue (with varying degrees of success and intensity) to function in the realities of our modernity, it is possible on this basis to talk about the existence of bipolar, unipolar and multipolar globalization ^{[11, p. 87]}. This conceptual series captures the difference in approaches to understanding the essence of globalization in terms of the "polarities" that determine it.

Bipolar globalization: the geopolitical confrontation of antagonists

For most of the twentieth century, the leading model of the organization of the global world order was bipolarity, which finally took shape as a geopolitical construct shortly after the end of World War II. Bipolarity found its full embodiment in the confrontation between the two main centers of power of the twentieth century — the USSR, together with the countries of the socialist camp grouped around it, and the United States, which assumed the role of hegemon, the unconditional leader of the entire "free" world, the carrier and translator of "unique" "democratic" values. Such duality contributed to the transformation of the world into an arena of confrontation between irreconcilable antagonistic rivals, with the consolidation of their respective spheres of influence and the start of a confrontation that led the world into a state of "cold war" and an arms race.

At the same time, bipolar globalization was characterized by a certain balance of power between its two leading poles, which kept rivals from unleashing internecine wars and excessive escalation of global conflicts. At the same time, each of the warring parties built a system of peace based on its own ideological priorities, for example, socialist or capitalist-oriented. These systems were also antagonistic and involved in an extensive process of ideological confrontation. The guarantor of preventing catastrophic consequences for civilization as a whole was the factor of power balance (nuclear deterrence), which provided, to a certain extent, the possibility of preserving the situation of geopolitical equilibrium.

However, within the framework of any bipolar system, the desire of each of its parties to monopolize power, suppress the opponent and, as a result, to the final unconditional leadership inevitably matures. Thus, the tendency of bipolar globalization to unipolar globomonocentrism is clearly emerging, the achievement of which, as a rule, demonstrates the complete overthrow, including ideological, of a defeated rival. In addition, the bipolar model is characterized by an excessively rigid division of spheres of influence that form around its main "poles": satellite countries, in fact, are faced with a choice in favor of one of the competing parties. In this scenario, there is simply no way to maintain parity, establish partnership or even just friendly relations with both leaders.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that bipolarization, which underwent its specific historical approbation in the last twentieth century, is not without drawbacks and therefore cannot be recognized as a constructive geopolitical model. Experts rightly point out its inconsistency with the foreign policy realities of modern Russia and, therefore, qualify it as "... unsuccessful: it pushes towards an arms race, to confrontation in third world countries and eventually depletes the resources necessary for internal development" ^{[18, p. 42]}. The bipolar balance of power that existed for a long time between the United States and the USSR was maintained until the collapse of the latter, after which the entire world order underwent a radical restructuring with its subsequent evolution towards unipolarity.

Today, many Russian researchers call the collapse of the USSR the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the twentieth century, as a result of which one of the two previously dominant world "poles" ceased to exist. Thus, the era of bipolarity was completed, the antagonism and confrontation of the Cold War era became a thing of the past, and the United States became the only superpower with full economic, military and political power. The collapse of the bipolar world order opened the way for testing a new unipolar model of the world. In its context, the Western world began to be perceived as a guarantor of global stability and order, established under the "sensitive" leadership of the United States on the basis of liberal democratic values lobbied by them.

Globomonocentrism is the ideological foundation of unipolar globalization

With the help of superior military force, unprecedented financial and economic pressure, the new hegemon began to establish its own order around the world, aggressively imposing its values and worldview. In our modern world, the United States is undoubtedly the most active and active participant, as well as the core and engine of the globalization process, aiming it at moving towards unipolarity. Unipolar globalization is based on the principle of globomonocentrism (in fact, Americanocentrism), expressed in the desire of the hegemon to exercise sole world domination. Moreover, the globomonocentric model being built by the United States turned out to be very attractive not only for its direct creator, but also for a number of satellite states supporting him, forming in their entirety a single and only "pole" of this system, namely the collective "West".

In the context of the desire for unipolarity consistently demonstrated by the Western world, the globalization process begins to be built in the format of a centralized regulatory system that fully controls the so-called "world periphery" under the leadership of a global leader, in whose role the United States acts. In fact, this monocentric globalization is an attempt by one leading power to take control of the entire process of world development, as well as maximize the exploitation of the resource base (natural and intellectual) of less developed countries and regions. At the same time, the dominant "superpower" categorically refuses to perceive other states not only as associates or partners, but even as rivals and competitors. Here, one dictates his will to everyone, imposes his own rules of the game on them without any regard for the protests and rejection coming from their side.

In such a situation of increasing ideological, political and economic pressure, its leaders realized the need for a worldview justification of the model of unipolarity, in essence, the world leadership of the United States. In this vein, the concept of the end of F.'s history was sustained, in particular. Fukuyama ^[23]. The American scientist insisted on the need to reformat the entire world community in the likeness of the Western (American) experience of civilizational construction transferred to it. That is, according to F.'s conviction. Fukuyama, in the unfolding and course of the world historical process, no plurality, plurality of civilizations can be represented. His proclamation of the "end of history", in essence, meant the complete and unconditional triumph of Western liberal democracy, which was "successfully" planted all over the world.

It is obvious that in our modern times, the forecasts made by F. Fukuyama, they look unrealistic, because today the process of globalization itself has become significantly more complicated, which excludes the possibility of geopolitical unification: The course of world history provides numerous confirmations of the emergence of crisis and conflict situations not only between different civilizations, but also within them. The analysis of these crises was reflected in the concept of the clash of civilizations by S. Huntington, in which the American thinker postponed indefinitely the proclaimed F. Fukuyama is the end of history because of the resistance offered to the Western world by traditional cultures and sovereign states ^[24]. Nevertheless, the final result of the evolutionary development of mankind remains the same for S. Huntington — the spread of Western values and ideology to the whole world, as well as the justification of the global leadership of the United States as the bearer of genuine freedom and liberal values.

Adherents of globomonocentrism can also be considered such well-known supporters of unipolar globalization as G. Kissinger Z. Brzezinski et al. In his work The Great Chessboard, Z. Brzezinski, regarding the collapse of the USSR as a great victory won by the United States in the Cold War, that is, in conditions of bipolarity, wrote: "The last decade of the twentieth century was marked by a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time in history, a non-Eurasian power has become not only the main arbiter in relations between Eurasian states, but also the most powerful power in the world. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union became the final chord in the rapid ascension to the pedestal of the power of the Western Hemisphere of the United States as the only and indeed the first truly global power" ^{[2, p. 11]}.

The quintessence of globomonocentrism understood in this way can be the following words of U.S. Secretary of State M. Albright (1998): "... We are America. We are an indispensable nation. We stand tall. And we see further, looking into the future" ^{[20, p. 9]} But, despite such rosy initial prospects that opened up to the Western world at the end of the twentieth century, in our modernity it is becoming increasingly obvious that there are a number of negative consequences of the practical implementation of globomonocentrism promoted by the West. These include, in particular, the strengthening of social inequality ^{[25, p. 35]}, the growth of chaotic trends in the world, the continuous unleashing of economic, military, etc. conflicts. In a number of countries, this has led to the destruction of traditional social structures, to protracted wars and bloodshed and, as a result, to the collapse of statehood itself. Similar trends are observed in our modern times.

Any manifestation of sovereignty on the part of individual peoples and states is qualified by supporters of globomonocentrism as an obstacle to achieving world goals, and punitive measures are taken against violators and sanctions are imposed. Thus, "... unipolar globalization does not aim at a "dialogue of civilizations", not the development and enrichment of cultural societies and Logos of civilizations, but only an absolute deconstruction "in the American way", the imposition of uniform standards in the field of international law, economics, pop culture and mass culture, the inclusion of all civilizations in the Logos of the global West and blurring of cultural features" ^{[11, pp. 90-91]}.

Unipolarity has its natural consequence, sometimes irreversible deformations in the system of international relations, the cultivation of monopolization, one-sidedness and bias in assessing current events and making existentially significant decisions in this area. In modern conditions, there is an obvious urgent need to abandon the globomonocentrism promoted by the West, which has long been positioned as a kind of universal value on a universal scale. After all, "the path to the cultural unity of mankind in the medium term can be thought of only through a dialogue of civilizations, and not through the spread of Western European cultural principles to all mankind" ^{[13, p. 21]}.

Globopolycentrism as the ideological basis of the multipolarity model

If globomonocentrism, as already shown above, is associated with the assertion of one leading pole of power and authority, practicing the tactics of applying double standards in building relations with other countries in the field of politics, morality, etc., globopolycentrism assumes a completely different format of international cooperation. Compared with globomonocentrism oriented towards absolute hegemony, globopolycentrism can be considered more natural and mutually beneficial, since it presupposes the perception of other (and not only highly developed) countries as partners and guarantees cooperation on the principle of equal interaction between the parties. This is manifested at the level of civilizational, state, national, cultural, religious, etc. forms of development of both individual regions and large-scale international associations. Globopolycentrism, understood in this way, acts as a worldview prerequisite for a multipolar model of the global world order.

Multipolar globalization is an "international order in which there are several poles of geopolitical influence — countries and their unions, international organizations" ^[22]. In its quantitative dimension, multipolarity essentially means that "... several (namely, more than two) states are endowed with approximately equal economic and military potential, representing a kind of economic and political poles of the world" ^{[3, p. 7]}. Qualitatively, the multipolar world is characterized not only by an increase in the number of its direct participants, the spheres of influence and areas of responsibility behind them, but also by a decrease in the degree of tension in the world, which is achieved by reducing the severity of ideological antagonism, observed, for example, in conditions of bipolarity.

At the same time, we are talking specifically about "... large communities — macroregions or civilizations with distinctive socio-cultural, geo-economic and international political characteristics" ^[8]. These large-scale civilizational blocks do not necessarily have to correspond to each other in terms of the size of the territory they occupy, be economically or militarily balanced, and their populations can also vary significantly in their numerical and ethnic composition. In a multipolar world order, "a certain asymmetry in the development of civilizations" is quite acceptable ^{[13, p. 19]}. However, what all civilizations interacting in conditions of multipolarity have in common is their inherent "... ability to influence global processes, to bring their own view of problem solving into the world discussion" ^[8].

The philosophical and ideological basis of multipolarity can be considered a number of concepts of Russian thinkers of the XIX-XX centuries, the authors of which insisted on the fundamental nonlinearity of the historical process, its multiplicity and plurality, the qualitative diversity of its direct participants – world civilizations and cultures ("cultural and historical types"). The pluralism of the subjects participating in the historical process assumed the inadmissibility of "Europeanization", that is, the reduction of the entire wealth of world history and culture to the historical heritage of exclusively European peoples. "Europe is the field of the Germanic-Roman civilization — neither more nor less..." ^{[7, p. 74]}, and this civilization in no way can claim to be considered a "universal" civilization, — wrote in this regard the famous Russian scientist and philosopher N. Y. Danilevsky.

In his work "Russia and Europe" (1869), he first proposed a new, civilizational approach to the interpretation of world history, according to which "progress [...] does not consist in going all in one direction (in which case it would soon stop), but in proceeding from the whole field, It is a component of the field of historical activity of mankind, in all directions. Therefore, no civilization can be proud of representing the highest point of development, in comparison with its predecessors or contemporaries..." ^{[7, p. 135]}. Thus, in the concept of N. Y. Danilevsky, the plurality (in modern language, "polycentricity", "multipolarity") of world history was asserted, a number of significant cultural and historical types were distinguished, forming in their entirety its qualitatively peculiar and unique appearance.

It is obvious that today "the civilizational approach is only one of the possible ways of describing the world. However, [...] at the current critical stage, it is he who provides the most verified "entry point" for an adequate interpretation of the processes associated with the transformation of the world order" ^[8]. The significance of the civilizational approach, developed by N. Y. Danilevsky back in the XIX century, lies in the fact that through its medium it is possible to present the course of historical development as polyphonic and multilevel, which best corresponds to the true picture of the historical evolution of mankind. There is no place for hegemony in it, the violent suppression of some civilizations by others, which entails the loss of their cultural and historical flavor and originality by the defeated.

The Russian philosopher N. S. Trubetskoy wrote about this at the beginning of the XX century. In his work "Europe and Humanity", he announced the threat posed by the European world against all other peoples and civilizations, the excessive aggressiveness of Western universalism of thought and action, as well as the historically characteristic rejection of other cultures as equals in Europe ^[21]. In contrast to this approach, the philosopher emphasized that contemporary European culture could in no way be considered a universal or universal culture. It is nothing more than a product of the historical creativity of a separate group of related Germanic-Romance peoples. For them, European culture is mandatory, but humanity as a whole is not at all obliged to perceive it as a kind of guiding landmark.

S. N. Trubetskoy called on all peoples to join forces to resist Romano-German aggression and unjustified colonial claims, which invariably emanated from the Western world. In fact, such claims are untenable, which encourages humanity to seek an adequate response to the challenge of Europe, to abandon Western values and stereotypes forcibly imposed on it. This appeal of N. S. Trubetskoy found its logical continuation in the works of P. N. Savitsky, who considered the main pillar for countering forced Westernization to be "Russian Eurasia" ^[19]. It is our country that can organize such universal resistance, which will be able to effectively resist European universalism in the future, which has been aggressively imposed on the entire world community for centuries as a kind of universal standard.

It should be recognized that the above judgments of Russian philosophers of the XIX–XX centuries perfectly fit into the general worldview context of our modernity, illustrating the confrontation between mono- and polycentrism, unipolar and multipolar formats of globalization that unfolded in it. Thus, N. Y. Danilevsky's ideas about the nonlinearity of the historical process and the multiplicity of civilizations involved in it, as well as the perniciousness of the tactics of "Europeanization" for Russia and the world as a whole, largely predetermined the formation of the worldview of globopolycentrism and the model of a multipolar world order based on it. N. S. Trubetskoy's statement about the "threat of Europe to humanity" can be interpreted as a kind of warning against excessive susceptibility to the temptations of Westernization (unipolarity), and P. N. Savitsky's idea of the importance of "Russian Eurasia" in this process — as a justification for the leading role our country is called upon to play (and, actually, it is already playing) in terms of countering the aggressive intentions of the West towards building a new model of the global world in the format of multipolarity.

In modern conditions, it is multipolar globalization that most adequately reflects the objective processes of the development of world civilization. The fundamental difference between multipolarity and all other alternative models of the world order is that the division of the world into separate regional blocks based on it occurs naturally and voluntarily, moreover based on the economic interest and integration of friendly states involved in this process ^{[18, p. 43]}. The relevance of building globalized interaction based on the principle of polycentrism is confirmed by many factors of modern geopolitics, including the appearance on the international arena and the subsequent strengthening of the positions of new globally significant "players", the redistribution of economic, power, resource, etc. flows in their favor.

As a result, the hegemon of the unipolar world and its immediate environment are facing more and more new challenges associated with the threat of losing their total control over the geopolitical processes unfolding in our modern times. The latter, which is quite natural, causes resolute rejection and resistance on the part of the weakening hegemon, aimed at preserving the lost leadership status at any cost. However, in the changed political, economic and socio-cultural realities of the era of globalization, this is not possible, while opposition to Western monocentric narratives is steadily increasing. Nevertheless, the West still seeks to contrast itself with the rest of the world, being, in fact, in "... a state of adolescent nihilism in relation to objective historical processes ..." ^[8]. Although this nihilism is rather similar not to youthful maximalism, but to a conscious, mature rejection of any dissent, arising against the background of faith in the absolute authority of one's own ideological position and rejection of resistance.

In the current situation of ideological confrontation between globomonocentrism and globopolycentrism, the need to revise the model of the global world order itself is becoming more and more obvious, which implies its reorientation from a unipolar to a multipolar format of interaction between the parties involved in it. It should be recognized that for the modern global world, monocentrism is not only ineffective, but also very dangerous, which forces us to make an existential choice in favor of an alternative, namely a globopolycentric strategy for the future development of civilization. In modern Russia, it is the model of a multipolar world order that is considered as a priority strategy for the development and interaction of the countries of the world community ^[12].

Of course, globopolycentrism, which underlies the model of a multipolar world, cannot be considered ideal, completely devoid of any drawbacks, as, indeed, all other geopolitical models (the unipolar world with its tendency to absolute hegemony, the bipolar world with the categorical antagonism of its main figures and their ideological positions). Multipolar globalization is not a conflict—free option for building global interactions, based on the quantitative and qualitative diversity of its participants, their historical and ethnic variability, the divergence of their interests, etc. However, compared with other models, multipolarity turns out to be much more connected with objective reality, which is why it more reliably gives humanity a chance to overcome geopolitical crises and problems.

In modern conditions, the forcibly aggressive strategy of asserting globalization in its unipolar format, practiced by Western countries, must be overcome. Building a model of a multipolar world contributes to strengthening the civilizational sovereignty of Russia and other countries of the world community. The underlying ideological principle of globopolycentrism presupposes the joint existence in the modern world of a number of powerful centers of power and authority, among which, in fact, global responsibility for the future of civilization will be distributed, including at the level of individual states. Ideally, the priority of the latter should be the protection of not only internal, but also planetary, universal interests.

Conclusion

Summing up the results of the review, we note that globalization is a given, a reality of the modern world. It represents a special form of interaction between civilizations and is an objective process, therefore any attempts to ignore, limit or eradicate it must be considered untenable. Globalization is not identical to globomonocentrism, which is one of the possible forms (and not the only and not the most perfect) of building the interaction of civilizations in the global world. Modern globomonocentrism (in fact, Americanocentrism) is associated not only with the assertion of one leading pole of power, but also with the consistent application of the tactics of "double standards" in the field of politics and morality in building a system of international relations.

In the course of historical testing, the bipolar model of relations that existed in the twentieth century between the United States and the USSR showed its inconsistency due to the inherent contradictions of antagonistic systems. The unipolar model practiced by the modern "collective West" also does not meet the political demands of our time due to the ambitions of the West (USA), seeking to "reshape" the world in their own interests in order to establish a neocolonial regime. In this regard, Russia, China and other countries free (from the dictate of the United States) are forced to create a multipolar world as an alternative system of coexistence of civilizations, providing protection from neocolonialism. The establishment of a multipolar world is a necessary condition for the free development of Russia and other countries of the world community. The principle of globopolycentrism underlying multipolarity presupposes the perception of other (and not only highly developed) countries as partners, which guarantees their cooperation on terms of equality of the parties.

The philosophical and ideological foundation of globomonocentrism is the theoretical constructions of F. Fukuyama, S. Huntington, Z. Brzezinski in the form of ideas put forward by these thinkers about the end of history, the clash of civilizations and the leadership of the United States as a "truly global power" and an "indispensable nation." Russian Russian philosophers N. Y. Danilevsky, K. N. Trubetskoy, P. N. Savitsky, in particular, expressed their ideas about the multiplicity of civilizations, the harmfulness of "Europeanization" for our country and the whole world, about the threat of Europe to humanity and the importance of overcoming this threat of "Russian Eurasia", serve as the philosophical and ideological basis of globopolycentrism.".

In the modern global world, which is developing under conditions of Westernization forcibly imposed on it, we cannot talk about abandoning globalization as such, but only about changing its format, namely, the transition from unipolar to multipolar globalization. Of course, the model of a multipolar world is not without flaws and contradictions, but, unlike the previously presented unipolar and bipolar models, it is much more connected with objective reality and, therefore, more guaranteed to give humanity a chance to successfully overcome global geopolitical crises and problems.