The international order is undergoing a fundamental transformation. For decades, Western-led institutions—the UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank—have shaped global governance. Yet Russia, alongside emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil, is increasingly challenging this unipolar framework and constructing alternative mechanisms for international cooperation. Understanding Russia's strategic positioning within both traditional and alternative multilateral institutions is essential for anyone seeking to comprehend contemporary geopolitics.The Traditional Architecture: Russia's Complex Relationship with Western InstitutionsRussia maintains membership in the United Nations Security Council as a permanent member—a legacy of the Soviet Union's Cold War status. This position grants Russia veto power over international resolutions, making it a critical actor in matters ranging from humanitarian crises to military interventions. Yet this authority masks deeper tensions. Russia's frequent vetoes on Syrian intervention, humanitarian aid resolutions, and territorial sovereignty questions reflect a fundamental disagreement with Western-aligned council members on principles of international law and state sovereignty.The Russian perspective on international institutions is shaped by historical experience. The post-Cold War period witnessed NATO expansion toward Russia's borders, the 1999 Kosovo intervention without Security Council approval, and the 2003 Iraq invasion undertaken despite Russian opposition. These events crystallized Russian conviction that Western-dominated institutions operate with double standards—applying international law selectively based on geopolitical interests rather than consistent principles.Alternative Architectures: BRICS and Regional OrganizationsRecognizing its limited influence within Western-dominated structures, Russia has invested substantially in alternative institutions. The most significant is BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa)—a coalition explicitly designed to counterbalance Western hegemony and represent emerging market perspectives.BRICS challenges the assumption that development must follow a Western model. Through BRICS, Russia engages with economies representing billions of people and trillions of dollars in combined GDP. The proposed BRICS development bank, for instance, offers an alternative to IMF and World Bank lending, providing financing without the governance conditions historically imposed by Western institutions.Similarly, Russia leads the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security framework encompassing Central and East Asian states. Through the SCO, Russia coordinates on counterterrorism, regional stability, and economic cooperation with partners who share concerns about Western interventionism but possess distinct regional interests.Regional Governance and Bilateral RelationshipsBeyond global institutions, Russia exercises significant influence through regional organizations and bilateral arrangements. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) represents Russia's effort to maintain economic integration with former Soviet states, creating an alternative to European Union expansion in the region. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) functions as a Russian-led military alliance, though recent tensions (notably Kazakhstan's neutrality during the Ukraine conflict) have revealed limits to Russian influence even among aligned states.Implications for International OrderRussia's dual engagement—maintaining presence in Western institutions while building alternative structures—reflects a fundamental conflict in contemporary international relations. Russia seeks recognition as a great power with legitimate regional interests, not as a subordinate actor within a Western-designed system. Whether through Security Council vetoes, BRICS cooperation, or regional arrangements, Russia consistently reasserts agency in shaping its geopolitical environment.For students of international relations, Russia's institutional strategy demonstrates that global governance is contested, not settled. The 21st century will likely feature competing institutional architectures, each reflecting distinct visions of legitimate international order, national sovereignty, and acceptable state behavior.Blog Post 2: Digital Governance and Democracy: Lessons from Blockchain Technology and Decentralized SystemsDemocracy is experiencing a crisis of representation. Traditional democratic institutions—parliaments, political parties, electoral systems—often fail to reflect citizen preferences accurately, respond efficiently to constituent needs, or resist corruption. Simultaneously, technological innovations are creating new possibilities for governance structures that bypass traditional intermediaries. Blockchain technology and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) offer profound lessons about reimagining democracy itself.The Problem: Centralized Authority and Democratic AccountabilityContemporary democratic systems centralize authority in representatives who translate citizen preferences into policy. Yet this system faces persistent challenges: political parties become disconnected from constituents, bureaucratic processes become opaque and inefficient, and corruption flourishes when decision-making power concentrates.Citizens increasingly experience democratic disillusionment. They lack transparency into how their representatives decide on crucial issues. Lobbyists and wealthy interests appear to exercise disproportionate influence. Bureaucratic implementation of democratic decisions often contradicts expressed public will. These systemic failures fuel populism, extremism, and democratic erosion worldwide.Blockchain's Governance Innovation: Transparency and DecentralizationBlockchain technology introduces revolutionary governance possibilities through three key features: transparency, immutability, and decentralized decision-making.First, blockchain creates permanent, transparent records of decisions and transactions. Every governance action is recorded and verifiable—citizens can audit precisely how resources were allocated, decisions were made, and policies were implemented. This radical transparency fundamentally undermines corruption mechanisms that depend on secrecy.Second, blockchain enables smart contracts—self-executing agreements encoded in computer code. Instead of relying on intermediaries to enforce agreements or implement policies, smart contracts automatically execute predetermined actions when conditions are met. This removes human discretion points where corruption traditionally enters governance processes.Third, blockchain facilitates Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)—governance structures where decision-making authority distributes across all participants rather than concentrating in hierarchical leadership. Members directly vote on organizational decisions, with voting power potentially distributed equitably across participants.Practical Application: Quadratic Voting and Economic AlignmentMy work on the LUNARIS project demonstrated how decentralized governance mechanisms can align incentives while respecting democratic participation. We implemented quadratic voting—a mechanism where voting power increases non-linearly with financial stake, preventing whale dominance while enabling meaningful small-holder participation.Crucially, we designed multi-token economic systems where governance tokens (voting rights) separated from utility tokens (economic benefits). This prevented wealthy actors from simultaneously controlling governance and capturing disproportionate economic rewards—a fundamental corruption mechanism in traditional systems.Challenges and LimitationsYet blockchain governance solutions face significant limitations. Technical complexity creates barriers to democratic participation—not all citizens possess technical literacy to engage meaningfully in code-based governance. Early blockchain systems showed that decentralization without thoughtful incentive design led to concentrated power among technical elites and large token holders.Additionally, blockchain governance cannot address fundamental political questions—values conflicts, distribution of resources, prioritization of competing goods. No technological system can resolve whether society should prioritize equality or efficiency, individual rights or collective welfare. Technology can enhance transparency and reduce corruption, but cannot substitute for political philosophy and democratic deliberation.Toward Democratic InnovationThe most promising path forward involves hybrid governance—combining blockchain's technological innovations with traditional democratic institutions' legitimacy and inclusiveness. Imagine a voting system where citizen participation occurs through accessible user interfaces, transparent vote recording on immutable ledgers, and economic incentives encouraging genuine engagement rather than manipulation.Several municipalities and organizations are experimenting with blockchain-based governance. Estonia's digital society framework, some DAOs experimenting with quadratic voting, and blockchain-based land registries in developing countries demonstrate emerging possibilities.ConclusionBlockchain and decentralized governance systems offer no panacea for democratic crisis. Yet they provide crucial insights: democracy functions better with transparency, incentive alignment matters profoundly, and technological innovation can reshape power distributions. Whether society successfully integrates these lessons into more democratic institutions remains an open question. What is certain is that governance structures evolve, and ignoring technological possibilities for democratic enhancement represents a failure of imagination and leadership.
Russia's Role in Multilateral Institutions: Reshaping Global Governance
Research it with Amirul Islam.