Traditional international relations theory has long defined “middle powers” by quantifiable metrics—GDP ranking, military expenditures, or population size—casting them as countries that occupy a second tier between great and small states. Under this vertical, power-based view, middle powers are seen as materially weaker than great powers but stronger than small nations. However, this framework no longer captures the dynamic influence these states exercise in today’s multipolar world. Instead, a horizontal definition—emphasizing geopolitical position, diplomatic agility, and coalition-building capacity—more accurately reflects how countries such as Indonesia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Turkey now shape regional and global affairs.
The Vertical Versus Horizontal Definition of Middle Powers
From Material Metrics to Geopolitical Positioning
A vertical definition locates middle powers in the global hierarchy simply by comparing relative economic or military strength. Under that rubric, nations like Canada, Australia, and South Korea have historically received the “middle power” label. Yet textbook rankings overlook critical dimensions of influence: the ability to broker agreements between rival blocs, convene multilateral dialogues, and coordinate policy initiatives among diverse partners. A horizontal definition instead situates “middle” not as a level of capacity but as a positional advantage—countries that straddle various great-power interests and occupy diplomatic or geographic crossroads.
Agency and Autonomy Beyond Size
Recasting middle powers horizontally decouples them from notions of subordination. In this view, a country’s strategic value derives from placing itself “in the middle”—between major powers, between North and South, or between East and West—and leveraging that position to shape outcomes. Middle powers under this definition exhibit leadership in targeted issue areas, facilitate regional integration, or serve as conveners of multilateral dialogues. As a result, their “qualitative power”—the ability to assemble coalitions, set diplomatic agendas, and mediate conflicts—often surpasses their raw material resources.
The Rise of Eurasian Middle Powers
Fragmented Geopolitics and Multipolar Realities
The Eurasian landmass encapsulates the shifting balance of influence among the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and emerging regional powers. As great-power rivalry intensifies, several states in Central and Southeast Asia have refined a flexible, multi-aligned diplomacy rooted in pragmatic coalition-building. Nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) exemplify this trend: their foreign policies are neither beholden to Washington nor Beijing, but rather calibrated to safeguard national sovereignty, attract investment from multiple sources, and broker regional cooperation.
Indonesia: Pivoting Between Great-Power Spheres
As the world’s fourth-most populous nation and the largest economy in Southeast Asia, Indonesia combines material heft with a track record of non-alignment dating to the Bandung Conference of 1955. It continues to exercise strategic autonomy by hosting the ASEAN Secretariat, serving as a convener for the annual ASEAN Regional Forum, and sponsoring initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Outlook. Jakarta deftly balances security ties with the United States—culminating in the recent 2024 Strategic Partnership agreement—with deepening economic relations with China under the Belt and Road Initiative. By convening ASEAN-led dialogues on South China Sea disputes, climate resilience, and digital innovation, Indonesia demonstrates how “middle” positioning can translate into leadership on transnational challenges.
Kazakhstan: Linking Europe, Russia, and China
Kazakhstan, the largest Central Asian republic, occupies a geographic and economic crossroads between Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road network. Astana’s “multi-vector” foreign policy aims to avoid exclusive alignment with any one great power. In 2023, Kazakhstan co-hosted the C5+1 format—linking the five Central Asian states with the United States—underscoring its capacity to convene security dialogues. Simultaneously, Kazakhstan participates in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and has deepened trade ties with European Union member states. By fitting itself between Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels, Kazakhstan leverages its position to promote infrastructure connectivity, energy cooperation, and transboundary water management.
United Arab Emirates: Convening Gulf and Global Initiatives
Historically seen as a Gulf “petro-state,” the UAE has reshaped itself into a regional convenor, hosting major climate summits, Solar Decathlon competitions, and World Expo events. Through its diplomatic mission in the Horn of Africa—mediating in Sudan’s conflicts—and its military partnerships with Western powers in Yemen and Libya, the UAE has expanded its role beyond hydrocarbons. Abu Dhabi’s “Forum on East Africa” and its leadership within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) enable it to connect African, Middle Eastern, and Western stakeholders. The UAE’s diversification drive—spanning renewable energy, aerospace, and technology—underscores how a smaller material footprint does not preclude substantial geopolitical agency.
Coalition-Driven Diplomacy: Issue-Based Alignment
Moving Beyond Cold War Bloc Politics
The Coral division between two monolithic blocs has given way to issue-based coalitions. Middle powers no longer find themselves automatically tethered to a single camp. Instead, they form partnerships around shared interests—climate action, digital governance, pandemic response, and development finance—often sidestepping great-power rivalry. This horizontal approach emphasizes flexible alignments: working with one great power on infrastructure, another on security cooperation, and a third on human rights advocacy.
South–South Cooperation and BRICS Expansion
Historically, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) showcased how post-colonial states could resist superpower domination by forging a third path. Today, the Group of Twenty (G20) and the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) extend that legacy. Middle powers from the Global South leverage these forums to articulate development priorities, debt-relief initiatives, and demand fairer global economic governance. Recent BRICS expansions—including Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—underscore how middle powers collectively seek to rebalance international financial institutions and diversify supply chains away from exclusive Western control.
Shared Leadership in Climate and Digital Domains
Middle powers have also taken the lead in forging multilateral solutions to emerging challenges. In 2024, Indonesia spearheaded the hosting of the COP29 climate conference in Jakarta, rallying Southeast Asian nations around a regional renewable-energy roadmap. Simultaneously, Singapore’s diplomatic forays into digital trust hubs—focused on data privacy, cybersecurity norms, and artificial-intelligence ethics—highlight how city-states and small-to-medium economies can convene tech coalitions that transcend traditional power blocs. Through these issue-based alignments, middle powers assert their capacity to set the global agenda on matters that will define the twenty-first century.
Constraints on Great-Power Dominance
Eroded Unilateralism and Rising Costs of Coercion
In an era of unprecedented connectivity, economic interdependence, and global media scrutiny, the unilateral exercise of power comes at a high price. Even superpowers such as the United States, China, and Russia find their strategic options circumscribed by reputational risk, domestic constraints, and the necessity of coalition-building. To intervene militarily, impose sanctions, or demand political concessions, they must first rally a broad base of international support—often mediated through middle powers.
Normative Influence and Soft Power
Middle powers frequently wield “soft power” in ways that great powers cannot replicate. Cultural diplomacy (e.g., South Korea’s global Hallyu wave), development assistance (e.g., Malaysia’s technical cooperation with African states), and norms advocacy (e.g., Sweden’s championing of gender equality) allow these countries to project influence disproportionate to their material size. Their ability to tap into global civil society networks, mobilize diaspora communities, and champion niche causes—such as human rights or environmental justice—confers moral authority that mediates great-power aspirations.
The Limits of Hard Power in the Twenty-First Century
A greater reliance on gray-zone activities, cyber tactics, and economic coercion has become the new norm for great-power competition. Yet these methods still require strategic partnerships, trust-building, and reliable intermediaries—roles that middle powers fill. When great powers are unable or unwilling to take the lead—whether due to domestic political constraints or concern over international backlash—middle powers frequently step in to broker ceasefires, facilitate humanitarian corridors, or convene track-two dialogues.
Case Studies: Recent Middle-Power Interventions
ASEAN Mediation in the South China Sea
Since 2023, Southeast Asian nations under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) framework have sought to mediate between China and Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei over competing claims in the South China Sea. While Beijing still exerts substantial maritime power, the collective ASEAN approach—championed by Indonesia and Singapore—has secured progress in negotiating a code of conduct that neither side could achieve alone. By coordinating joint patrols, confidence-building measures and scientific surveys, ASEAN members have demonstrated how middle-power coalitions can narrow the disparities of influence in a strategic maritime arena.
Kazakhstan’s Role in Ukraine Ceasefire Talks
In 2024, Kazakhstan offered its territory as venue—and mediated discussions—between Ukrainian and Russian delegations, leveraging Astana’s balanced ties to both Moscow and Kyiv. While neither side fully acquiesced to all demands, Kazakhstan’s diplomatic shuttle efforts opened pathways for incremental prisoner exchanges and humanitarian de-escalation measures. Astana’s “multi-vector” diplomacy—welcoming both U.S. and Chinese envoys while maintaining historic ties to Russia—underscored how a middle power can temporarily eclipse great-power friction to promote regional stability.
Brazil’s Leadership in Amazon Rainforest Conservation
Amid global concern over rainforest deforestation, Brazil—traditionally perceived as a regional heavyweight—has anchored a coalition of Amazonian countries, including Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador, to negotiate funding from the Green Climate Fund. By forging a South American bloc that delivered a joint twenty-point action plan at the 2024 United Nations Climate Conference, Brazil showcased how a nation outside the G7 can steer substantive policy outcomes on a matter of global import.
Challenges and Limitations for Middle Powers
Fragile Coalitions and Divergent Priorities
Although middle-power groupings can generate momentum, they often lack the institutional cohesion or binding enforcement mechanisms found in great-power-created institutions. Regional associations such as the African Union or Mercosur have frequently faced internal disagreements over leadership, economic policy, or security mandates. When immediate national interests diverge—whether over trade, resource management, or political ideology—middle-power coalitions can fracture, reducing their capacity to counterbalance great-power ambitions.
Economic and Domestic Constraints
Middle powers may enjoy diplomatic leverage, but they often contend with fragile economies, governance challenges, or social divisions at home. Public opinion and electoral politics can pressure leaders to choose between principled multilateralism and domestic exigencies. When budgets for foreign aid or defense are cut, middle powers risk losing the diplomatic currency that once enabled them to punch above their weight.
Sustaining Strategic Autonomy Under Pressure
Great powers continue to court middle states through trade deals, security guarantees, or development projects. In many cases, the lure of Chinese infrastructure investment or U.S. security assistance compels middle powers to align more closely with one patron, undermining their horizontal flexibility. Maintaining autonomy requires careful balancing—not always easy when economic growth depends on one major investor or when security threats drive nations to seek support from a powerful ally.
Conclusion: The Promise of a Concert of Middle Powers
As the global system evolves toward multipolarity, middle powers occupy a pivotal role. Their horizontal positioning—at the intersection of competing great-power interests and regional networks—provides them with unique leverage to promote cooperation over confrontation. By reframing “middle” as a function of geopolitical placement, rather than purely material capacity, one can appreciate how these states convene diverse stakeholders, set regional agendas, and resist hegemonic domination.
In Eurasia and beyond, emerging coalitions of post–Global South middle powers exemplify a new diplomatic praxis: pragmatic, coalition-driven, and principle-based. Having inherited the legacy of decolonization and non-alignment, nations such as Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and South Africa demonstrate how to navigate beyond binary Cold War–style blocs. Their ability to bridge U.S.–China tensions, resolve regional disputes, and champion sustainable development underlines how strength in the twenty-first century can derive from connectivity and inclusivity.
Ultimately, middle powers—when recognized for their agency—can emerge as the linchpins of a more balanced global order. Their cooperative endeavors may prove critical in preventing polarized great-power rivalry from spiraling into open conflict. By harnessing soft power, expertise, and diplomatic nimbleness, these “in-between actors” could chart a course toward an international system defined by coalition-building, shared leadership, and collective security. In that sense, strength is no longer measured solely by size, but by the capacity to convene, bridge divides, and galvanize collective action. And in the new world order, those occupying the middle may well be the ones shaping the future.
READ MORE: Jacinda Ardern Reveals Imposter Syndrome and Embraces Empathetic Leadership
