“Today, power is no longer concentrated in the hands of a few countries or a small group,”
“Emerging market nations are coming to the forefront, and they are ready to take power into their own hands. They are steadily increasing both their economic and demographic capabilities. These countries are ambitious; they demand the equal participation of all nations, including the Global South, in addressing global issues. Only in this way can we ensure stability and security throughout the world. The current geopolitical context is extremely complex, and we stand ready to participate in the development and establishment of a multipolar world one in which there is no place for double standards or threats to international security.”
– Ajit Doval, National Security Adviser of India.
History rarely announces the arrival of a new international order with a single dramatic event. More often, transitions in global power emerge gradually through accumulating fractures, shifting alliances, changing economic centers, and the quiet but unmistakable alteration of diplomatic language.[i] The 14th International Meeting of High Representatives Responsible for Security Issues, convened in the Moscow Region in May 2026[ii], belonged to that latter category, not a revolutionary moment in itself, but a revealing window into the geopolitical psychology of an emerging age.
What unfolded in Moscow was more than a security conference. It was a gathering of states increasingly convinced that the post-Cold War order has entered a phase of irreversible decline. Representatives from India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and dozens of other countries from the Global South and Eurasia converged around a common premise, the international structures designed after 1945 are no longer aligned with the realities of twenty-first century power.
For nearly three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world functioned under the assumption that Western-led liberal internationalism represented not merely one model of order, but the inevitable endpoint of political evolution. Institutions such as the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, NATO, and the wider architecture of global governance operated within a strategic environment overwhelmingly shaped by American primacy. Yet the geopolitical conditions that sustained that order have steadily eroded. The rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, the strategic assertiveness of middle powers, the demographic and economic expansion of Asia and Africa, and the growing disillusionment of the developing world with selective international norms have collectively transformed the global landscape.
The Moscow forum reflected this transformation with unusual clarity.
India’s National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, articulated perhaps the most consequential strategic message of the summit. His remarks were neither ideological nor overtly confrontational; rather, they reflected the increasingly self-confident posture of a civilisation-state that views itself not as a subordinate participant in global affairs, but as an indispensable pillar of the emerging order. Doval argued that power is no longer concentrated within a narrow group of states and that emerging economies now possess the economic, technological, demographic, and political weight to demand equal participation in shaping international security structures.[iii]
His intervention captured a broader Indian strategic philosophy that has matured considerably over the past decade. India is no longer merely advocating reform of existing institutions; it is positioning itself as one of the principal architects of a future multipolar order. This distinction is important. Reform implies accommodation within the existing framework. Architecture implies participation in designing a new one.
Doval’s sharpest observations, however, were reserved for terrorism. His warning that “there cannot be double standards in the fight against terrorism” was more than a familiar diplomatic statement.[iv] It represented a deeper frustration shared by many states of the Global South regarding the selective application of international norms. For decades, counterterrorism policies have frequently been filtered through geopolitical convenience, alliance structures, and strategic utility. Some militant actors have been condemned universally; others have been tolerated, instrumentalised, or strategically overlooked depending on the interests of major powers. India’s position reflects a growing impatience with this inconsistency.
Equally revealing was Doval’s emphasis on maritime security in West Asia, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. In earlier eras, such concerns may have been viewed narrowly through a military lens. Today, they are understood as existential arteries of global commerce. Modern geopolitics is no longer defined solely by territorial conquest or ideological rivalry; it is increasingly shaped by the security of trade corridors, energy flows, digital infrastructure, semiconductor supply chains, and technological ecosystems. Disruptions in the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf reverberate instantly across inflation, energy markets, shipping costs, and global production networks. In this sense, economic security and national security have become virtually indistinguishable.
Yet the most intellectually significant aspect of the Moscow gathering was not its criticism of the West, but its collective rejection of the Cold War paradigm itself. Contrary to many Western interpretations, the emerging multipolar world is not necessarily coalescing into two rigid ideological blocs. Indeed, several participants explicitly warned against precisely such an outcome.
Brazilian presidential adviser Celso Amorim argued that multipolarity must not devolve into competing spheres of influence reminiscent of nineteenth-century imperial rivalries. Sovereign states, he insisted, must retain the freedom to diversify partnerships and pursue independent development strategies rather than becoming subordinate to rival geopolitical camps. This perspective reflects an increasingly influential doctrine among middle powers: strategic pluralism. Countries no longer wish to choose permanently between Washington, Beijing, Moscow, or Brussels. Instead, they seek to maximise autonomy by engaging simultaneously with multiple centres of power.[v]
This logic is particularly visible in India, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Indonesia, Brazil, and several African states. These nations are not “non-aligned” in the Cold War sense; rather, they are multi-aligned, issue-based, and strategically transactional. They cooperate with different powers across different domains while resisting permanent bloc discipline.
South Africa’s intervention added another layer of sophistication to the debate. Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni offered perhaps the conference’s most important cautionary note: that multipolarity itself is not inherently moral. The nineteenth century was also multipolar, yet it produced colonialism, imperial competition, and the violent partitioning of weaker societies. Her warning carried profound historical resonance, particularly for Africa, where memories of external domination remain deeply embedded within political consciousness.
Ntshavheni’s remarks on hybrid warfare were especially striking. She described an on-going international misinformation campaign surrounding claims of “white genocide” in South Africa narratives designed not merely to influence opinion, but to destabilise state legitimacy and encourage separatist sentiment. In doing so, she highlighted one of the defining realities of contemporary geopolitics; the battlefield of the twenty-first century increasingly lies within the informational and psychological domain. Modern conflict no longer requires formal invasion. Societies can be fragmented digitally, economically, technologically, and cognitively long before military force becomes necessary.[vi]
This explains why digital sovereignty emerged as a recurring theme throughout the forum. South Africa’s investments in cyber resilience, Malaysia’s concerns over technological fragmentation, and China’s advocacy of alternative governance models for artificial intelligence all reflected a growing fear among developing states that the future international hierarchy may be determined less by military power alone and more by control over data, algorithms, semiconductors, communication systems, and digital platforms.
Malaysia’s warning regarding the fragmentation of artificial intelligence ecosystems deserves particular attention. The world appears to be entering an era in which rival technological architectures as American, Chinese, European, and potentially others may evolve separately, creating what some analysts describe as a “digital iron curtain.” Competing standards in AI governance, cyber security, cloud infrastructure, and digital regulation could eventually divide the global economy into parallel technological spheres.
China’s contribution to the forum further illustrated the ideological ambitions underlying this transition. By promoting Xi Jinping’s Global Security Initiative and invoking the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, Beijing sought to frame itself as the defender of sovereignty, non-interference, and collective security against what it portrays as Western unilateralism and interventionism.[vii] Whether one accepts this framing or not, it is increasingly clear that China is no longer merely seeking integration into the existing order; it is actively constructing alternative normative frameworks around which future coalitions may form.
Russia, meanwhile, used the forum to reinforce its vision of a Greater Eurasian Partnership an expansive geopolitical concept intended to integrate security, energy, trade, and infrastructure across Eurasia independently of Western institutions.[viii] Moscow’s strategic objective appears increasingly civilizational rather than purely territorial: the creation of parallel networks of political and economic coordination capable of reducing dependence on Western-controlled systems.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Moscow summit was the language repeatedly employed by participants, sovereignty, equality, strategic autonomy, reform, inclusivity, resilience, and multipolarity. These are not accidental diplomatic phrases. They constitute the emerging vocabulary of a world undergoing structural transition.
The deeper reality is this, the crisis confronting the contemporary international system is not merely geopolitical, it is institutional and philosophical. The post-1945 order derived much of its legitimacy from the promise that rules would be universal, institutions representative, and globalisation mutually beneficial. Increasingly, many states believe those promises have been applied selectively.[ix] The resulting legitimacy deficit has become one of the central drivers of geopolitical fragmentation.
The Moscow Security forum therefore revealed more than dissatisfaction with the present order. It revealed the intellectual foundations of the next one. The countries of the Global South are no longer asking simply for representation within an existing structure, they are asserting their intention to shape the principles, institutions, and strategic balances of the emerging century.[x]
Whether this transition ultimately produces stability or disorder remains uncertain. Multipolarity can generate equilibrium, but it can also intensify rivalry. The decline of unipolarity does not automatically guarantee justice, cooperation, or peace. History offers no such assurances. Yet one conclusion now appears increasingly difficult to dispute: the age in which a single power could define the political, economic, and moral grammar of international order is slowly drawing to a close.
[i] https://www.cfr.org/reports/perspectives-changing-world-order
[ii] https://mid.ru/en/press_service/2085290/
[iii] https://newsonair.gov.in/national-security-adviser-ajit-doval-calls-for-decisive-action-against-terrorism/
[iv] http://aninews.in/news/world/europe/cannot-be-double-standards-in-fight-against-terrorism-nsa-doval-at-1st-international-security-forum-in-moscow20260528173515/
[v] https://tvbrics.com/en/news/countries-of-global-majority-declare-collective-responsibility-for-global-security/
[vi] https://www.gov.za/news/speeches/minister-khumbudzo-ntshavheni-first-international-security-forum-28-may-2026
[vii] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyjh/202406/t20240628_11443852.html
[viii] https://tvbrics.com/en/news/russian-foreign-ministry-explains-concept-of-the-greater-eurasian-partnership/
[ix] https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=12912&lid=7893
[x] https://indiafoundation.in/articles-and-commentaries/the-ascendant-global-south-evolution-issues-and-promise/
Punit Shyam Gore (MA Defence and Strategic Studies) is an alumnus of the School of Internal Security, Defence & Strategic Studies of the Rashtriya Raksha University, Gandhinagar (an institution of national importance) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
