Neo-Imperial Trends and Projects in the Contemporary Multipolar World

The relevance of this study lies in the development of scientifically grounded understanding of the nature and preconditions of a new stage of competition between global and regional powers in the context of the multipolarity and globalization of the modern planet. One manifestation of the escalation of international relations is the emerging attempts to incorporate the traditions of imperialist policy into the strategies of leading actors in the global political process. At the same time, contemporary neo-imperial discourse possesses unique characteristics that are not fully considered in political science.

The purpose of this article is to provide a political analysis of the restoration of imperial foreign policy by leading actors in international relations and to identify the consequences of its implementation for the state of a unified security space in a multipolar world.

Materials and Methods. The study utilizes comparative and historical scientific methods. The comparative method was applied to compare various types of neo-imperial projects and the instruments for their implementation. Using the historical method, the stages of the advancement of imperial expansionism models in the history of world politics and in the current stage of political development were determined.

Results. This article systematizes the key factors shaping and implementing neo-imperial tendencies at the regional and global levels of international relations. It summarizes scholarly concepts in classifying contemporary forms and channels of military-political expansionism in the context of post-bipolarity. The article examines the transformation of methods for achieving geostrategic dominance among key actors in global politics and the reasons for the emergence of new types of neo-imperial expansion in the 21st century. The prerequisites for the further evolution of global and regional powers' policies to achieve superiority in global competition are substantiated.

Conclusions. The consequences of globalization processes are identified as the primary reason for the emergence of contemporary neo-imperial projects for ensuring global and continental hegemony. A link is demonstrated between the erosion of the national statehood model and attempts to restore its international legitimacy by appealing to the powerful foreign policy traditions of the imperial period. The priority factor in advancing contemporary neo-imperial projects is the need to counter challenges to the interests of traditionalist politicians posed by transnational and supranational actors in the era of globalization. The replacement of indirect, hybrid models with overt manifestations of neo-imperial expansionism is argued to be one of the leading trends in geopolitical confrontation in the 21st century.

1. Balashov A. N., Livtsov V. A. Post-classical empire as a type of state in scientific controversy and international activity // Central Russian Bulletin of Social Sciences [Srednerusskij vestnik obshchestvennykh nauk]. 2024. Vol. 19, No. 5. P. 84–98. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22394/2071-2367-2024-19-5-84-98; EDN: WADUZA

2. Bogdanov A. N. “The American Empire” as a Resource of Legitimacy for US Dominance after the Cold War // World Economy and International Relations [Mirovaya ehkonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya]. 2023. Vol. 67, No. 1. P. 46–55. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-1-46-55; EDN: AISYXJ

3. Veselov Yu. A. Imperialism of world orders // Via in Tempore. History. Political science [Via in Tempore. Istoriya. Politologiya]. 2023. Vol. 50, No. 1. P. 233–248. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.52575/2687-0967-2023-50-1-233-248; EDN: RKBSPL

4. Dante Alighieri. Small works. Feast. About folk eloquence. Monarchy. St. Petersburg: Terra, ABC Publishing House, 1996. 656 p. (In Russ.).

5. Ivanova I. I. Evolution of the Middle East policy of the Republic of Turkey in the XX–XXI centuries. Moscow: Publisher Vorobyov A. V., 2019. 380 p. (In Russ.). EDN: UAAEAP

6. Loshkarev I. D., Parenkov D. A. Post-imperial trajectories in world politics // Law and governance. XXI century [Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek]. 2017. No. 4 (45). P. 91–97. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24833/2073-8420-2017-4-45-91-96; EDN: YWUJOI

7. Mackinder H. J. Geographical axis of history // Polis [Polis]. 1995. No. 4. P. 45–60. (In Russ.).

8. Medushevsky A. N. Imperial Presidency: how Trumpism is changing the US political system // Political science [Politicheskaya nauka]. 2019. No. 4. P. 284–311. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31249/poln/2019.04.12; EDN: PVDFPT

9. Meleshkina E. Yu. Post-imperial spaces: features of the formation of states and nations // Political science [Politicheskaya nauka]. 2013. No. 3. P. 10–29. (In Russ.). EDN: RCOXZN

10. Mikhailov Yu. G. Prospects for the imperial future of Russia // Issues of law, economics and technology [Voprosy prava, ekonomiki i tekhnologij]. 2023. No. 4. P. 17–26. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.54449/37941_2023_4_17; EDN: BVMHVI

11. Panchenko A. B. Sharing power: complication of structure as a principle of stability of continental empires // Notebooks on conservatism [Tetradi po konservatizmu]. 2022. No. 2. P. 252–269. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24030/24092517-2022-0-2-252-269; EDN: VBKQKX

12. Sogrin V. V. American Empire as a Historical Phenomenon // American Yearbook [Amerikanskij ezhegodnik]. 2017. No. 2016. P. 18–37. (In Russ.). EDN: ZXXRER

13. Tkachev S. V. Empire and colonialism in the modern world // Oykumena. Regional studies [Ojkumena. Regionovedcheskie issledovaniya]. 2023. No. 2. P. 26–31. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24866/1998-6785/2023-2/26-31; EDN: ZAVRGG

14. Fedorenko S. P. Features of understanding the empire in the context of the processes of formation of neo-imperial statehood // Philosophy of law [Filosofiya prava]. 2013. No. 6 (61). P. 72–75. (In Russ.). EDN: RUAVKB

15. Shishkov V. V. European Union — from the idea of supranational sovereignty to the new Western European “empire”: problems and prospects of European integration // Scientific yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Nauchnyj ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural’skogo otdeleniya RAN]. 2014. T. 14, No. 1. P. 93–105. (In Russ.). EDN: RCUWDY

16. Schmitt K. Nomos lands in the right of peoples Jus publicum Europaeum. Moscow: Vladimir Dal, 2008. 670 p. (In Russ.). EDN: QQQKAB

17. Sharikov P. A. “Trumpism” as the dominant movement in the US Republican Party in the 2020s // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 25: International Relations and World Politics [Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 25: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika]. 2024. Vol. 16, No. 4. P. 70–94. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.48015/2076-7404-2024-16-4-70-944; EDN: ENUZJN

18. Getz Trevor R. Imperialism and Colonialism: A Global Perspective. Vancouver. Publisher: PearsonCollegeDiv. 2010. 353 p.

19. Jordheim H., Neumann I. Empire, imperialism and conceptual history. April // Journal of International Relations and Development. 2011. 14 (2). P. 153–185.

20. Klieman A. Great Powers and Geopolitics: International Affairs in a Rebalancing World. New York, Dordrecht, London : Springer International. 264 p.

21. Snyder J. Myths of empire: domestic politics and international ambition. London : Cornell University Press, 2013. 559 p.

22. Spruyt H. The sovereign state and its competitors: an analysis of systems change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. 304 p.