Until quite recently "the thesis of the West" had a formal alternative both on strategic and on world outlook levels. Inconsistent planetary interests of great powers in the first half of the XX century, the two-polar world (the socialist East — capitalist Zappa in the second half of the XX century — were built in the systems of counterbalances and oppositions ready at any time to develop into the direct world conflict to an uncertain outcome as the power potential of various poles was in general comparable.
Other model of multipolarity assumes crushing and the most NATO strategic space, a conclusion of Europe and the Pacific region from under direct American control. These two versions can be considered in parallel.
This pole can be considered doubly: or as "a dump of the ideologies" which won back the (and it is right if we consider destiny of these ideologies from the point of view of their historical claims for universalism and final triumph), or as chaotic ferment of the new, yet not been born "asymmetry philosophy" (and it is right if to consider intrinsic, but not a formality of these ideologies — negative, the anti-liberal-kapitalistichsekaya their party admits true and important, external registration of this impulse is considered as something disputable and it is minor.
The unipolar world — the fact. But for huge sector of modern mankind — it is the fact entirely negative, tragic, negative. And if the formal alternative to such world is not present today, it still does not mean at all that it cannot or should not be.
Anyway — both in the most moderate and in the most rigid — the thesis of multipolarity has pronounced anti-American implication. Its main orientation consists in aspiration at the new level and at a new stage to formulate strategic and conceptual alternative of one-polarity and to "a new world order".
This situation fixes objective reality: from now on any strategic or ideological alternative to "a new world order" with need will "be asymmetric", disproportional to the developed planetary system. It will be not formal opposition of two or several comparable planetary organizations, but more difficult processes when unambiguous and indisputable leadership of "the thesis of the West" deals with unpredictable while not obvious, it is difficult the caught reality. Conditionally in this document and in modern politological language it is called as "asymmetry" or "a new call".
And this party of strategic asymmetry has to develop at us in priority. I prefer to avoid more detailed illumination of this subject for quite clear reasons. Builders of the unipolar world very much are afraid of such turn of affairs, such "a new call" from Eurasia.
Responsible search of alternative of one-polarity has to lie in new strategic and ideological areas. It does not mean that the previous alternatives to "the thesis of the West" entirely lose the value. No, they keep it, but in the removed look, in new contextual space with necessary correction. The most important that in this new space of asymmetry former alternatives develop in a new combination, and their often peripheral elements act forward, and that seemed main, on the contrary, recedes into the background.
The unipolar world — a reality. If we do not recognize this reality, any our constructions will remain out of the sphere of reality. Recognition of this come true fact is starting line of any responsible reflection about that state in which there is a mankind at a turn of the millennia.
The thesis of the West was embodied to the unipolar world just through process of overcoming of various historical alternatives which at different stages acted how traditional society, how the nationalist modes, how socialist system.
And the idea of asymmetry is the cornerstone of all versions of multipolarity. It is not about creation of direct and openly symmetric second pole, but about aspiration in the most different ways to shade or limit, deconstruct the developed one-polarity, without entering with it direct formal opposition (which, in addition, also it is impossible).