At the end of the Second World War there was really only one “Superpower” in the world, the United States. Today’s world is strikingly different. Economics and technology have changed the map. From the standpoint of power and influence, strategically, it’s now a multipolar world.

China has certainly moved up in the global power rankings, but power and influence has spread elsewhere as well. NATO is a collective force with immense economic and military capacity. India became the world’s most populous nation this year, and its growth has come with a mounting technological and military presence. Russia’s strategic presence has diminished but it has demonstrated, frighteningly, that it still has a menacing presence on the global stage. I haven’t even mentioned the growth and strategic stature of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.

Any of the aforementioned have the ability to destabilize the world as Russia has demonstrated in Ukraine, Iran in Israel, Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and China in Taiwan, limiting what the United States can do without potentially cataclysmic consequences. A 21st century argument can be made that even smaller nations can cause catastrophic problems, enabled by technology, mis-and-disinformation.

In an analysis written for the Belfer Center at Harvard University, Stephen M. Walt concluded, “Restoring unipolarity is probably impossible. We are going to end up in a 1) bipolar world (with the United States and China as the two poles) or 2) a lopsided version of multipolarity where the United States is first among a set of unequal but still significant major powers (China, Russia, India, possibly Brazil, and conceivably a rearmed Japan and Germany).”

Some say that a multipolar world is less stable because of the multiple potential areas for miscalculation that could lead to wars with global chain reactions. Others believe that a multipolar world affords multiple alliances that would collectively be better equipped to deter or smother flare ups.

UN Secretary General António Guterres is a proponent of the latter, a believer in multilateralism as the chemistry that neutralizes combustible global situations. He may be right. No surprise, however, that this perspective comes from the head of an international organization of more than 190 sovereign nations whose purpose as stated in its charter is “to maintain international peace and security (by) developing friendly relations among nations based upon respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples.”

Not to be the curmudgeon in this debate, but the UN has not been very effective in regard to Ukraine, Iraq, a post-war expansive Soviet Union, Vietnam, or Israel and the Arab world, among other examples.

Let’s be clear about one thing, China and Russia are keen on the prospects inherent in a multipolar world. A new name for many Americans has emerged among international alliances, and it’s called BRICS. It stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its 15th congregation this summer in South Africa was a reminder of its intention to provide a base for its developing members to test the dominance of the United States economically. China is its biggest supporter in hopes of reshaping the world order. At their August meeting, the five original members embraced the addition of six new members. Xi Jinping hailed the expansion as “historic.” Those six new members suggest a tilted southern strategy: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates and Ethiopia.

In spite of the declarations of esprit de corps among the BRICS members, it remains a somewhat disparate group. India and China are at each other’s throats at their common border. Saudi Arabia is trying to be its own polestar of the Middle East, careful to thread the universe between the West and the East and the North and the South. Argentina is a proud independent state with, like Brazil, a basket full of economic problems and no BRICS co-member is ready to solve their problems except to offer them financing, for a price. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is currently running an “autocratic democracy,” whose intention is to do whatever it takes to climb the power structure, on whoever’s back(s) he needs to climb on. So, BRICS is symptomatic of this ever-increasing multipolar world, but it is also symptomatic of the complexities of the global economy, trade, currencies and the politics of getting along to get better.

And let us not forget the other influencers in this brave new multipolar world — the growing list of billionaires and oligarchs.

For every nation in the world today, the tactics and strategies are focused on how to wield the most influence and gain the most wealth in an interconnected world. The factors that determine their success may depend on alliances, ideology and which side or sides to team up with economically and for purposes of national security.

The next 10 months will be significant for American leadership in how some of these alignments shape up. A wartime success for Ukraine, settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflagration, finalizing the Saudi-Israeli diplomatic pact, and preventing a China-Taiwan conflict could help the United States become the pre-eminent North Star among nations for the foreseeable future.

President Biden has significant challenges ahead of him before the election, and the country, afterwards as well. It would help if Congress could get its act together to help support the ongoing cataclysmic events in Ukraine, Israel and the Middle East, but it appears, writ large, that the congressional turmoil will only add to the tactical challenges we are facing in a multipolar world.

Bill Sims is a Hillsboro resident, retired president of the Denver Council on Foreign Relations, an author and runs a small farm in Berrysville with his wife. He is a former educator, executive and foundation president.