The Global South – this notion today, depending on definitions, encompasses up to 80% of the population of the planet Earth; therefore, it is synonymous with the “global majority”. Before discussing the Global South, one must define its boundaries, at which point immediate differences of opinion emerge. Willy Brandt once drew the border along the 30th parallel of northern latitude. According to his version, a completely different world began beyond this civilisational boundary. Today, there are other lines of demarcation between the North and the South as economic systems; however, the common treatment is still preserved. 

The modern Global South is an aggregated single diversity of civilisations, economic patterns, and cultural dominants. We say “Global South”, and we mean the structures that represent it in the international arena, such as SCO, BRICS+, and partly EAEU. These very structures are the ones that form the “voice” of the Global South in the international arena. 

The Global South, initially treated as an intellectual abstraction or imaginary space, has long since become a real place where economic and political interests clash. There is a difference between the politics of the Global South as a collective player on the world stage and the politics on the Global South as a territory where the countries of the region interact with each other. It is the politics in the Global South that defines the numerous contradictions that prevent it from developing the actual “strong position”in its interaction with the North (or the collective West).

Today, the North-South dichotomy is not just an attempt to find a new form of social justice but also a well-founded anti-colonial rhetoric. In fact, it is a neo-Marxist treatment of global inequality. By referring to the ideas of Mao Zedong, on the one hand, and Immanuel Wallerstein, on the other hand, the concept of the Global South is becoming a tool in the struggle for overcoming the unjust distribution of wealth on planet Earth. According to UN estimates of multidimensional poverty, 1.2 billion people are deprived today of two of the three basic needs: clean water, education, and electricity. The low earnings indicator (less than $1.90 a day) is also significant. All of this creates an image of enormous inequality, despite the fact that the Global South countries are in possession of key natural resources.

The Global South countries support multipolarity as the fundamental basis of the world order. It is associated in the countries of this macro-region with anti-colonialism and the ideology of struggle marked by the hegemony of globalism. At the level of Global South politics, multipolarity presupposes an equal dialogue with both regional neighbours and the North. In this regard, it is worth quoting the President of Russia, V.V. Putin, who stated: “Western countries and the new centres of the multipolar world order will sooner or later have to start an equal dialogue on a common future; the sooner it happens, the better”.

In fact, “North” and “South” in geopolitics is not a dichotomy but a strategic asymmetry that allows for more effective interaction with the so-called “collective West”, or the Global North. The thing is that this macro-region possesses a significant amount of natural resources, thatsecure the development of the world’s economies as a whole. The reliance on this asymmetry as a geopolitical condition makes the “strong position” possible, and it is this resource that Russia is counting on.

The idea of a “strong position”, which became topical after the Bandung Conference (voiced in discussions with the countries of the North), was eventually reduced to ignoring the interests of the South at the level of the UN and other international organisations. The shaped geopolitical uncertainty accompanies the high potential for conflict. The contradictions between the countries of the Global South are great and are likely to increase, especially as their voices on the world stage grow stronger.

So far, there is no unity in understanding the nature of this multipolarity. This has an extremely negative impact on the solidarity of states trying to successively propound the UN reform or the creation of alternative centres of power, or the development of supranational structures such as BRICS (the latter is insistently advocated by the “Big2” countries: Russia and China). 

If the countries of the macro-region decide on a common definition of multipolarity, this will signal significant progress in the collective understanding of the future. Moreover, the existence of a universal interpretation of multipolarity, to be accepted by the entire South, will in itself demonstrate the so-called “strong position” in the dialogue with the North or the Collective West; the latter also need the definition of the Global South since this would be a definition by the opponent, given that the differences between them are substantial. The opposition to the centres of globalism is the core political value that consolidates the Global South.

The politicalissues in the Global South are closely intertwined with the issue of leadership in the South-South system. The competition for leadership in this aspect is represented not only by the PRC-India dichotomy but also the rivalry between Brazil and the PRC in Africa. Morocco, with its climate adaptation and renewable energy projects, deserves special mention. Access to clean, fresh water is also being conceptualised within the framework of the South-South model. This problem has become one of the most acute for the analysed macro-region.

In 2025, the discussion on the Global South’s problems is predominantly focused on two aspects: analysis of the region’s economic potential and the prospects for overcoming internal contradictions. Although the term “Global South” is a product of European political imagination, the main platform for discussing its development problems is China. It is this country, which claims to have the status of the economic leader of the South, that is forming today the hierarchy of meanings connected with this geopolitical concept. 

The events of the past two years suggest that the Sino-Russian rapprochement on most multilateral and regional issues is likely to remain the central element of the current geopolitical order. China and Russia have indeed demonstrated the ability to maintain a “partnership without limits” in the face of common challenges and converging interests – from supporting each other’s defence ecosystems and economic growth to developing a UN voting modelwhich meets the interests of each other and of many other countries in the global South.

Central Asia has become one of the key geopolitical nodes in the system of South-South relations. The diplomatic projects in the region, such as the C5+, have made it possible to create a platform for dialogue with the Global North and key Global South players. Central Asia, in the capacity of a frontier zone, is becoming a communication bridge for the Global South, enabling compromise to be reached in the context of contemporary geopolitical crises. Moreover, C5+ is a way of functioning as a frontier that is not conceptualised as such, which is a paradox of the world polarisation epoch.

This frontier-specific nature is particularly evident from the perspective of partnership with the Big2 which encircles the Central Asian region, since the latter’s countries are squeezed between the former’s borders – which is why the dialogue within the C5+ is becoming so meaningful and promising. This platform for dialogue is important, but it is only one of the many options. The C5+ has the potential to develop a conventional formula for self-determination of the Global South. Nowadays, some particularly advanced projects of Rosatom are being implemented in Central Asia aimed at overcoming the current shortage of energy resources. In the context of the global race for uranium deposits, Rosatom’s projects ensure the development rather than depletion of valuable deposits. This example is important for showing the difference between the anti-colonial Big2 projects and French nuclear energy initiatives. The withdrawal from the “rich North – poor South” paradigm is possible if the ever-increasing energy deficit is overcome. It should also be noted that China is an undisputed world leader in expanding renewable energy capacities in the Global South. The very definition of the South already implies the presence of an almost inexhaustible source of energy – the Sun. The dramatic increase in the energy potential of countries on both sides of the equator automatically elevates several projections – groundwater extraction in agriculture, significant growth of industry, and rapid development of cities as key hubs of economic growth. China and Russia have been equally successful, albeit asymmetrically, in promoting energy projects in Central Asian countries, and this experience can be a model for the Global South. 

The Global South, as viewed by the Big2, is not only about multipolarity and equity but also about trying to address poverty by all three of the key UN criteria (access to education, electricity, and drinking water). However, the macro-region is too large, and its socio-economic problems are too different and unevenly distributed. 

All this gives grounds for disputes within the South and even for short-term armed conflicts along the South-South contour, such as the Cambodia-Thailand conflict in 2025. Talking about the Global South is not only about the global majority but also the complex majority that has many internal contradictions to overcome. The development of frontier zones is very important because they are territories for dialogue.

The complex majority should be treated not as a ground for criticism but, rather, the opposite, an invitation to dialogue. As viewed by the authors, this dialogue should be based on the idea of developing a “strong position” within the region towards the interaction with the Global North or the Collective West. Such a “strong position” is not so much a voice in the UN as an independent institutional format represented by the actively developing BRICS and SCO structures. This “strong position” is not only necessary to resist hegemony but is also important for solving global problems. The voice of the South is the voice of the majority of the world’s population faced with the challenge of climate change and meeting a quite inadequate response to this challenge.

The complex majority today also means a diversity of ways of political reflection about the nature of this majority. The South covers not only Russia, India, China, and Africa; it also represents a large Catholic community of Latin America and Asia. Guinea’s Cardinal, Robert Sarah, stated that “the Church is no longer Eurocentric”. Moreover, the Global South as a concept owes its emergence to Carl Oglesby, who in 1969 declared its existence from the pages of the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal. In this situation, it is necessary to ascertain who can speak on behalf of the Global South on the world stage and which forces, ideologies, and institutions are now in the position to speak on behalf of the majority.

Concluding the reflection on the complex majority, it is worth suggesting that its diversity and polyphony are evidence of its strength. This will serve as a basis for an equitable multipolar world. Of course, one should also address the issue of the Global South boundaries, and reflect on how the controversial Brandt Line might shift, as well as on the role of model-cooperation regions such as Central Asia. Today, the answers to these questions still require careful reflection.

Authors: 

Mikhalev Alexey, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Director of the Centre for Studies of Political Transformation, Buryat State University named after D. Banzarov (Ulan-Ude, Russia)

Rakhimov Kubatbek, PhD, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic Solutions Public Foundation (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan)

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the website.