The asynchronicity of the present world order manifests itself not only in the spheres of finance, technology, or institutions, but to no lesser degree in the realm of direct human communication. Despite the end of the unipolar moment, representatives of the World Majority paradoxically continue to communicate with one another in English—a language foreign to each of them. Moreover, it is not the English of H. G. Wells or Arnold Toynbee, but the most simplified, “purified” English—in its international-American variant. How strong is this inertia of vulgar (Latin vulgaris) English-language communication in world affairs? And in which languages will the new “tablets” of instruction for a polycentric world be written—and, more importantly, conceived? Nikita Ryabchenko, International relations and world development researcher, addresses these and other questions.
Natural languages constitute the foundation of our abstract-logical thinking, a means of describing surrounding reality, and a powerful instrument of semantic governance of international life through the creation, dissemination, and use of words that shape stereotypes of thought, communication, and activity for vast numbers of people.
Historically, the language that acquired the status of international communication was always the one through which the cultural achievements of its speakers were recorded—in science and technology, the arts, and social thought—and which held strategic significance for the progress of civilisation as a whole. At different historical periods, Latin, Arabic, French, English, and other languages assumed the role of the language of international communication.
In the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, French acquired and maintained this status—owing to the development of the natural sciences (René Descartes, Blaise Pascal), the transition to the Enlightenment (Les Lumières) and the Age of Reason (L’Âge de la raison), the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (La Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, 1789), and the drafting of the Napoleonic Civil Code (Le Code civil des Français, Code Napoléon, 1804). It was also associated with the emergence of classical diplomacy during the era of the Concert of Vienna and, later, with the appearance of the first international organisations.
The English language, which today holds a dominant position, acquired this status already in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—initially with the rise of the British colonial empire and subsequently, during the bipolar era, with the transfer of the leading role in the Western world to the United States. This occurred primarily because the technologies of the most advanced tech paradigms were developed and described precisely in English.
The Russian language, in turn, achieved its widest global dissemination during the Soviet period, especially after 1945, following the end of the Second World War, for several reasons. First, the USSR became the ideological and political core of the global socialist system, offering a worldwide developmental alternative. Second, the Soviet state ensured the transition of many peoples of Eurasia to the industrial phase of development—with administration, education, and culture organised on the basis of the Cyrillic alphabet. Third, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union was oriented towards the industrial and scientific-technological development of friendly states across different parts of the world.
More than thirty years after the dissolution of the USSR, contemporary Russia—although it is becoming a catalyst of new global transformations in the twenty-first century—has not yet proposed its own global alternative, at least one comparable to the Soviet project. Meanwhile, the role of the centre of global industrial and scientific-technological development is shifting to China. At the same time, following the collapse of the Soviet Union many peoples of Eurasia have once more reverted to nationalism and dependence on foreign powers.
However, the factors that once determined the formation of the modern linguistic picture of the world are now losing their influence as the general cultural, intellectual, and value crisis of the regional civilisation of the Greater West deepens. Since the period of the British Empire’s dominance in world politics—and later that of the United States—circumstances have changed fundamentally. In the twenty-first century, the prospects for civilisational development, the paths and methods for overcoming global crises, and the concepts for forming a new world-economic order capable of ensuring long-term cultural, scientific, and political progress are increasingly being described primarily in the languages of non-Western peoples. This includes the Russian language, based on the Cyrillic alphabet—which creates the preconditions for its potential future emergence as one of the new global languages of international communication.
Nevertheless, a paradoxical situation has emerged in contemporary international linguistic practice. Representatives of the World Majority from all regional civilisations possess their own unique languages, developed through millennia-old literary traditions and accompanied by their own distinctive modes of thinking. Yet in science and diplomacy, in media and expert communication, they are still compelled to formulate their ideas in a simplified form of English that is native to none of them.
This situation has clear parallels with a similar “asynchronous” condition in global finance. Despite visible efforts to de-dollarise national economies and to construct parallel systems of mutual settlements, not a single country of the World Majority has yet succeeded in achieving a genuine “de-dollarisation of minds”. International economic statistics continue to be expressed in US dollars—and therefore, in the perceptions of heads of state and government, their advisers, experts, and scholars, the US dollar remains the universal measure and accounting unit of national wealth.
It is therefore entirely possible that, gradually, in the linguistic sphere—just as in trade, economic, and monetary-financial relations—the current universal American standard of exchange (in this case, the exchange of thoughts, feelings, and impressions) will be replaced by a system of new bilateral or multilateral standards created by non-Western civilisations. Within such a system, the most sought-after languages will be those through which the values, ideals, meanings, and modes of action most significant for global development are expressed.
Moreover, within such a multilingual “architecture of communication” between states and peoples, new principles of international financial circulation could, for instance, be formulated in the language of the Qur’an—through the framework of Islamic finance. In turn, new principles of global governance may be articulated in Chinese through the concepts of “Great Unity” and “All under Heaven as a common possession”. Finally, new principles of ethical conduct in world affairs, forming the foundation of international law, may be expressed in Russian through the notions of sovest, which is not exactly identical to its English equivalent—conscience, spravedlivost, which is not the same as justice, and chelovechnost—humaneness—which likewise lacks a direct English translation.
Alongside humanistic ideals, spiritual and moral values, and the cultural heritage of the past, the Russian language of international communication undoubtedly constitutes one of the civilisational pillars for all the peoples neighbouring Russia. The same may equally be said of the significance of other great languages in the historical destiny and contemporary state of each regional civilisation of our time. Regardless of future advances in artificial intelligence enabling instantaneous translation of written texts or simultaneous interpretation of speech from one language into another, the decisive factor in international communication will remain the very ability to think and to express, in certain languages, ideas that are by definition unthinkable and inexpressible in others. It may well be in this cognitive and communicative sphere that the first—and most fundamental—steps will be taken towards synchronising the presently chaotic emerging world order.
Literature
1. Timofeev, I.N. Asynchronous Multipolarity: Vectors of Development and Governance Parameters. Moscow: RIAC, 2025. 184 p.
2. "How Politics Took Hold of Language and What Came of It" // World Faculty Podcast. URL: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/yazyk-politiki-podkast/
3. Our Language: As Objective Reality and as a Culture of Speech / Collective of Authors, VP USSR. Moscow: Kontseptual, 2019. 224 p.
4. Kortunov, A.V. "Is Russian Losing Its Status as a World Language?" // Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC). URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/blogs/digest/_2893/
5. Devyatov, A.P. China and Questions of Linguistics. Moscow: Zhigulsky, 2020. 247 p.
6. Khoros, V.G. "Cluster of Civilizations" // Russia in Global Affairs. 2017, No. 2, pp. 173–189.
