By Biljana Vankovska, President of the Synergia Orbi: Institute for Global Analysis in Skopje; Honorary Professor at the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje; Valdai Discussion Club expert
Alongside the ongoing debate among scholars and expert circles regarding the most accurate terminology for the emerging global order – multipolar, polycentric, or multi-nodal – the concept of the “civilizational state” has naturally gained prominence. I first encountered this framework in the work of Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University, who derives the notion from China’s long historical tradition of statehood. Over time, however, I have observed this concept increasingly applied to Russia, India, Iran, and others. Indeed, at the 2024 Valdai Annual Conference – my first participation of this kind and my first visit to Russia – I listened as a speaker from my neighboring state, who articulated Greece as a civilizational state.
Still, I begin with this anecdote because it placed me in a revealing position. During a breakfast gathering, a distinguished Indian diplomat approached me, eager to learn about my country. His first question was whether the Republic of North Macedonia draws its civilizational traditions and foundations from Alexander the Great. I was taken aback. I struggled to respond, constrained partly by my own ‘Westernized’ academic training, but more profoundly by a sense of geopolitical embarrassment. As many know, my country not only changed its constitutional name under intense external pressure, but is currently engaged in a protracted process of negotiating its history, language, alphabet, culture, and even the Constitution with a neighboring state, Bulgaria.
Without delving too deeply into what I call the ‘curious case of Macedonia,’ I wish to focus on a broader structural question. Following the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), external actors frequently framed post-Yugoslav statehood as premature or culturally fragmented, reviving the polemical and historically distorted trope of “Balkanization.” The reality is that state-building in the Balkans has always been complex, shaped by powerful external influences and borders drawn on green tables without local consultation. At the dawn of the 20th century, Albania received a partially formed state under powerful sponsorship, while Macedonia received none. It was not until the partisan struggle of the Second World War and the historic session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) in 1944 that our statehood was formally and autonomously established.
Today, although the region remains a theater of frozen conflicts and neocolonial dynamics, the prevailing civilizational matrix of the Balkans is nominally that of the West. Yet, this alignment is neither total nor unconditional. These states are often treated as an inconvenient burden or peripheral relatives within the Euro-Atlantic architecture. The primary interest in keeping them under the Western umbrella is strictly military and geopolitical. Consequently, leaders of these small states frequently compete to demonstrate maximum loyalty to the “Western code.” In doing so, they are inadvertently abandoning the authentic Balkan civilizational matrix – a heritage marked not only by historical tragedy, but also by extraordinary cultural richness, syncretism, and forms of coexistence that are increasingly absent in the West.
We are witnessing a profound loss of compass regarding who we are and why we exist. As recent EU–Western Balkans summits have demonstrated, “Europeanization” often functions as an empty rhetorical device. Instead of fostering genuine cooperation, it produces a Europe of tiered classes, where nations possess unequal rights and conditional access to prosperity. In this context, those of us on the periphery are observing a 21st-century global order undergoing a fundamental transformation: a shift from a Western-centric, hegemonic system to a multipolar landscape increasingly defined by civilizational states. The traditional Western narrative posits that its model is the sole genuine civilization, a universalist mission that must be exported – a claim that stands in stark contrast to current humanitarian crises that expose the limits of such universalist assertions.
For old and awakening major states, however, the concept of the civilizational state represents the exact opposite: a reclaiming of historical roots, cultural authenticity, dignity, and strategic autonomy. It is, fundamentally, emancipation from structural dependency. Crucially, this framework avoids civilizational competition, promoting instead mutual learning, respect, and coexistence.
Yet, for small countries situated at the historical crossroads of empires and civilizations, the rise of macro-civilizational poles presents a complex paradox. It is simultaneously an existential challenge to their sovereignty and a unique strategic opportunity. How do small nations navigate a world map being redrawn along civilizational fault lines? What does “civilizational statehood” mean for those without the demographic mass or military might to project power globally? Can they trust that major poles will treat them differently? The ongoing military posturing and interventionism in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus demonstrate that the West remains willing to enforce its alleged civilizational model through structural asymmetry and coercion.
My own country vividly exemplifies these dilemmas, a reality shared in varying degrees by Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a small nation, Macedonia possesses a distinct “micro-civilizational” identity, deeply rooted in its unique language, historical continuity, and cultural heritage. However, in its pursuit of Euro-Atlantic integration, it has faced profound, systemic pressures that can be accurately characterized as identity harmonization framed as Euro-Atlantic conditionality. External political demands have frequently required compromises regarding historical narratives, national symbols, and collective memory. These demands treat authentic national identity not as the bedrock of state sovereignty, but as a geopolitical obstacle to be dismantled. This reflects a broader hegemonic tendency within the unipolar mindset: the expectation that small states must assimilate into a homogenized Western model, shedding their civilizational distinctiveness to gain access to security and economic architectures.
For any small state, this pressure manufactures a false and dangerous dichotomy: the illusion that one must choose between developmental progress and the preservation of national identity. When “Westernization” is conflated with the erasure of local historical memory or the marginalization of linguistic uniqueness, it ceases to be a voluntary process of modernization and transforms into a form of coercive civilizational absorption. The ultimate risk is that the small state is relegated to the status of a peripheral buffer zone or a subordinate satellite, valued merely for its geopolitical utility rather than respected as a distinct cultural entity possessing sovereign agency.
To navigate this asymmetric landscape, small states must proactively assert their civilizational agency. This requires a refined, pragmatic multi-vector diplomacy that firmly rejects binary, bloc-based choices. Theoretically, my country could and should leverage its geographic and cultural intersections to act as a genuine bridge in the emerging “dialogue of civilizations,” facilitating pragmatic cooperation between larger, sometimes competing, civilizational poles.
Crucially, this diplomatic flexibility must be anchored in the fierce, non-negotiable protection of core identity. Strategic investment in domestic cultural, educational, and historical institutions builds a robust ideological immune system. This shields the nation from external assimilation while enhancing its external bargaining power. A small state must engage with larger civilizational states not as a supplicant, but as a distinct cultural peer offering valuable, alternative perspectives on global governance and regional stability.
In conclusion, the emergence of a world map defined by civilizational states does not spell the obsolescence of small countries; rather, it redefines their role. However, a genuine “dialogue of civilizations” cannot be achieved if it merely replaces one form of cultural hegemony with another. Small nations must be recognized not as blank slates for external ideological projects, but as active, respected architects of a pluralistic global order, even if their reach is not long. For small states, true sovereignty and long-term stability lie in demonstrating that global integration can coexist with, and indeed be enriched by, an unapologetic, confident defense of their unique civilizational identity.
Biljana Vankovska will take part in the expert dialogue titled From Global ‘Fighting With No Rules’ to a Dialogue of Civilisations, held by the Valdai Discussion Club, in partnership with Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, in Kaliningrad on June 23-24, 2026.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2026. All rights reserved.
This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more.