A. Goltsov


The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. Ideally, leadership of the certain actor means that other actors voluntarily accept its proposed values, norms and rules, recognize its authority to implement a policy for the realization of common goals. Hegemony is the dominance of a particular actor (hegemon) over other actors, establishing his controls over them, imposing its political, economic and cultural values. Hegemony in international relations is carried out usually covertly and often presented as a leadership. Leadership and hegemony are possible at various levels of the geopolitical organization in the world. We treat leadership and hegemony as mechanisms of implementation of a geostrategy of powerful actors of international relations, particularly of informal neo-empires. Each of the contemporary informal neo-empires develops and implements geostrategy, aimed at ensuring its hegemony, usually covert, within a certain geospace and realizes it as a means of a both “hard” and “soft” power. The USA, which is the main “center” of the Western macro-empire, trys to maintain its world leadership, and at the same time secure a covert hegemony over the strategically important regions of the world. The EU is a neo-imperial alliance and has geostrategy of “soft” hegemony. Russia opposes the hegemony of the West and advocates the formation of a multipolar world order with the “balance of power”.

The RF carries in the international arena neo-imperial geostrategy in the international arena directed to increase its role in the world and ensure its hegemony in the post-Soviet space.

Key words: leadership, hegemony, covert hegemony, informal neo-empire, neo-imperial geostrategy, Western macro-empire.

Full Text:




National Security Strategy. The White House, Washington. February 2015,

Arrighi G., Silver B. (1999) Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Brzezinski Z. (1997) The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York : Basic Books.

Castells M. (2011) ‘A Network Theory of Power’, International Journal of Communication 5 : 773-787.

Doyle M. W. (1986) Empires. Ithaca, London : Cornell University Press.

Haass R. N. (2014) ‘The Unraveling. How to Respond to a Disordered World’, Foreign Affairs. November/December,

Ikenberry G. J. (1996) ‘The Future of International Leadership’, Political Science Quarterly 111 (3) : 385-402.

Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. (1989) Power and Interdependence. Second ed. Glenview : Little Brown.

Lake D. (1993) ‘Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?’, International Studies Quarterly, 37 : 459-489.

Lundestad G. (1990) The American ‘Empire’ and Other Studies of US Foreign Polict in Comparative Perspective. Oxford, Oslo : Oxford University Press.

Manners I. (2002) ‘Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40/2 : 235-238.

Mearsheimer J. J., Walt S. M. (2016) ‘The Case for Offshore Balancing’, Foreign Affairs July/August,

Nye J. S. (2015) ‘American Hegemony or American Primacy’, Project Syndicate March 9,

Obama B. (2007) ‘Renewing American Leadership’, Foreign Affairs July/August,

Wendt A., Friedheim D. (1995) ‘Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empiere and the East German State’, International Organization 49/4 : 689-721.

Wiener J. (1995) ’’Hegemonic’ Leadership: Naked Emperor or the Worship of False Gods?’, Journal of International Relations 2 : 219-243.

Zielonka J. (2008) ‘Europe as a global actor: empire by example?’, International Affairs 84/3 : 471-484.

Концепция внешней политики Российской Федерации. 12 февраля 2013 г. [The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. February 12, 2013],

Дорошко М. С. (2012) ‘Вплив ‘перезавантаження’ американсько-російських відносин на зовнішню політику держав пострадянського простору’ [The impact of ‘reset’ of USRussian relations on the foreign policies of states of the post-Soviet space], Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин 107/1 : 97-102.

Каспэ С. И. (2007) Центры и иерархии: пространственные метафоры власти и западная политическая форма [Centers and hierarchy. Spatial metaphors of power and Western political form]. Москва : Московская школа политических исследований.

Копійка В. В. (2015) ‘Зовнішньополітичні стратегії США у глобальному світі: тенденції і перспективи’ [The foreign policy strategies of US in the global world: trends and prospects], Міжнародні відносини. Серія ‘Політичні науки’ 5,

Макаренко Є. А. (2015) ‘Геополітичний вимір президентських послань Конгресу США: 2012-2015 роки’ [The geopolitical dimension of presidential messages to Congress: 2012-2015 years], Міжнародні відносини. Серія ‘Політичні науки’ 5,

Рижков М. М. (2011) ‘Стратегії стримування у зовнішній та безпековій політиці США’ [Strategies of containment in the foreign and security policy of the USA], Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин 102/1 : 5-21.

Чубайс А. ‘Россия как либеральная империя’ [Russia as a liberal empire],


  • There are currently no refbacks.