GEOPOLITICAL DIGITALIZATION IN MULTIPOLAR WORLD

BANJA LUKA, JANUARY 5 /SRNA/ - Geopolitics has always been an attempt to understand how power is distributed across space and time, why conflicts emerge where they do, and why history has a tendency to repeat itself, said international and economic policy expert Nemanja Plotan.

"Yet every era nurtures its own illusion that it has discovered a single factor capable of explaining all geopolitical phenomena. At different times, this role was assigned to naval power and control of the seas, later to landmasses and Mackinder's `Heartland,` and today it is increasingly attributed to digitalization," Plotan stated in the author's text for SRNA, which we are publishing in its entirety: However, just as geopolitics begins with a map but does not end there, the digital revolution does not abolish geopolitical logic - it accelerates it, multiplies it, and renders it less visible. Space has not disappeared; it has migrated into the cyber domain. Power has not vanished; it has been algorithmized. War has not been abolished; it has become hybrid. Digitalization does not replace geopolitics - it digitalizes it. Those who fail to grasp this risk fighting old wars with the wrong tools in a new world. FUTURE OF WARFARE IN DIGITAL MULTIPOLAR WORLD Digital geopolitics belongs to what is commonly referred to as fifth-generation warfare, which is conducted primarily through non-kinetic means. Unlike classical conflicts dominated by physical force, fifth-generation warfare relies on social engineering, disinformation, cyberattacks, and advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. The objective is no longer the destruction of the enemy's army, but the shaping of the behavior, attitudes, and decisions of the opposing society. In this form of warfare, the boundary between war and peace - as well as between civilian and military - becomes almost invisible. Social networks, media platforms, and algorithms become instruments of geopolitical influence, while individuals, often unknowingly, participate in the spread of narratives with strategic consequences. States that fail to recognize that power in the twenty-first century is increasingly projected through information, data, and digital systems risk losing their sovereignty without a single shot being fired. In classical geopolitics, warfare was conditioned by geographic size, population, industrial strength, and territorial depth. Large states enjoyed advantages over smaller ones due to their ability to absorb losses and sustain prolonged wars of attrition. Digital transformation, however, is steadily eroding this logic. In the future, the decisive factor will no longer be territorial size or troop numbers, but the level of technological innovation and the capacity for rapid adaptation. Robots, drones, and autonomous systems are becoming the new soldiers, yet the key advantage lies not merely in their production, but in the ability to digitally control - and sabotage - them. Cyberattacks and the hacking of autonomous systems are becoming just as important as their physical destruction. Israel’s attack on Hezbollah using modified pagers, as well as Ukrainian drone strikes deep inside Russian territory, illustrate that warfare is no longer fought exclusively along front lines, but within the digital depth of the adversary. This is a clear indication that classical military concepts are entering a phase of obsolescence. The most pronounced feature of digital warfare is the asymmetry between cost and effect. When a million-dollar missile is used to destroy a tent worth a few thousand dollars, it signals a profound financial and military imbalance. But when a drone costing a few thousand dollars destroys a tank or aircraft worth hundreds of millions, the logic of power is turned upside down - it is like using a stone to bring down a castle. The Houthis in Yemen force the US Navy to expend expensive interceptors; Ukraine uses digital and drone operations to compensate for numerical inferiority; and the cost of traditional warfare has never been higher. This suggests that the world is moving toward an era of multipolarity in which even small actors can deliver strategic blows to great powers. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SPHERE Geo-economics - the use of economic instruments for geopolitical purposes - is also undergoing a profound transformation. In the twentieth century, wars were fought over oil, trade routes, and control of physical resources. The US intervention in Iraq was directly linked to controlling energy flows and stabilizing global oil markets. In parallel, the United States constructed financial hegemony through institutions and mechanisms such as SWIFT, using them as tools of economic pressure and sanctions. Today, however, we are entering an era of digital currencies, cryptocurrencies, and cross-border digital payment systems, which are gradually dismantling the unipolar financial order. A multipolar financial system is emerging in which states seek alternatives to the dollar and Western financial infrastructure. For the first time in human history, the geographic map is losing importance, while codes, servers, and algorithmic networks are gaining primacy - even in the economic domain. An additional challenge is algorithmic polarization of society. In the past, public opinion was shaped by intellectuals, journalists, and institutions. Today, this role is increasingly assumed by algorithms, whose logic is based on radicalization and the maximization of engagement. The political center is gradually disappearing, while societies are splitting into opposing camps with no shared language. All these processes indicate that the future of international relations will belong neither to classical realism nor to liberalism. The global order increasingly resembles a constructivist model, characterized by constant change, fluid identities, and redefined meanings of power. States are no longer defined solely by material capabilities, but also by their ability to shape narratives, identities, and perceptions of reality. Just as classical geopolitical thinkers warned that there are no "magic formulas," digitalization offers no salvation by itself. It is a tool - powerful, dangerous, and long-term. States that understand it can compensate for their weaknesses; those that ignore it become objects of other people's strategies. In a world where maps are drawn less often with ink and more often with code, the greatest danger is not technological backwardness, but intellectual naivety.