The concept of security remains a relative term, both theoretically and practically. Its evolution is related to the development of societies and the perception of relations between them. Researchers of ancient civilizations confirm that security is not a newly created term, but a condition that man seeks to achieve since ancient times. States, from their initial structure as entities based on a limited territory, with a system of government to administer it, have considered security their greatest concern. Despite conflicting opinions on the nature of the first social cell, researchers confirm the importance of the safety factor in the construction of civilizations. 

History proves that the kings of Mesopotamia had an absolute sense of security. To secure their country from threats and to control the rich resources in the region, they included under their authority the cities near the shores of the Mediterranean as a guarantee of maritime borders, while land security pushed the Akkadians to control the eastern and northeastern mountainous regions by annexing cities of Assyria , Alamites and other regions in the East. The concept of security was not lacking among the pharaohs. Although pharaonic Egypt was located on the African continent, the wars of Thutmose and Ramses towards the Middle East, convey the pharaonic awareness of the concept of security in preventing the presence of any foreign power near its borders. 

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Europe became an important station of the theoretical and practical approach to security. The emergence of nationalism, especially during and after the Reformation, which led to the fragmentation of Europe and the creation of a series of political societies, created a state of instability. This encouraged the idea of expanding the borders of the state and creating "natural barriers" as a line of defense against external threats. This concept justified invasions to ensure self-defense. Thus, the theoretical and practical development of the phenomenon of nationalism and the circumstances that prevailed after the Second World War, created the modern term of "national security". 

After the international division between the Eastern and Western camps at the beginning of the Cold War, "security policies" became more important than "the concept of security". The United States of America was the first to create the "National Security Council", as a coordinator of state strategies. Since then, the use of the concept of national security has appeared at different levels, depending on the nature, local, regional and international conditions. During this period, in most countries, the concept of security was limited in external dimensions, mainly to the military threats that could come from rival states, and neglected the internal dimensions, the importance of which revealed the transformations that followed in Eastern Europe. The great upheavals that are there, were not the result of interstate war conflicts, but the result of the failure of governments and internal pressures. They were the factors that promoted the transformations towards the western political-economic model and the reconceptualization of new understandings of security. This means that security is not achieved by military force alone. Security is measured by skill. The concern here lies in the fact that the states in the transition stages are at their weakest, due to the fierce struggle by the old system through resistance mechanisms, followed by the "Deep State". Therefore, the longer the transition period, the greater the security threat. 

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was time to abandon the narrow concept of security, which focused mainly on the military aspect, to start the second phase. After the 90s, the Copenhagen school understood four new dimensions, besides the military one. Political, economic, social and environmental.

Different crises show the orientation of states. There is the possibility that states become more authoritarian and slide towards dictatorships, through unjustified measures, ignoring or attacking political rivals, tightening of freedoms, censorship, even violating international law, in the name of increasing the security of their state. This type of threat to balances is fueling the hegemonic perspectives of large states with imperial history, the idea of starting a multipolar world, the "fall of the West" and the emergence of Russia and China as dominant powers in the near future. 

Without further ado, it must first be said that in some way the world has always been multipolar, in the sense of culture, civilization, military, economy, etc. The question that is asked here is; Which country or alliance remains on top, the superpower? Undoubtedly, the USA and the West are absolute dominants in their indicators. Any other analysis remains at the limits of emotions or irrational desires. The end of the Cold War was dominated by the USA, which, contrary to theoretical expectations, contributed to the development of the EU, Russia, China and Japan. This means that the US does not feel rivaled by a new power that could replace it. "Opposition" objections to the USA, mainly in the Security Council, are limited to certain policies. The option of creating a new power or balancing the powers requires tougher steps in limiting the existing dominant power, which apparently the rivals of the USA cannot do. 

Russia, beyond the hallucinatory analysis of its well-wishers, has no chance of becoming a leading power in the world arena. The aggression against Ukraine was its failed attempt. The West, without engaging militarily in the conflict, has restrained Russia only through arms sent there. Threats to the West with Russian gas and oil have created a temporary economic crisis, but nothing more. While the Russian influence is weakening. And this is just the beginning. Dominant power is much more than guns, gas and grain. 

As for China, the rivalry with the West is significant. But even China, beyond its potential, remains a limited rival. Huawei's case is an indicator of this limitation. Huawei, the leading company in the world for the production of smart phones in 2020, the developer of the G5 project, but also the pride of China, is today in a position of survival. What is the reason? The basis of smart electronic products is based on electronic chips. The largest companies in the world for their design are American. To produce these chips themselves, China needs equipment such as software or ADA (electronic desing automation). Here too there are four companies, all American, namely "cadence", "synopsys", "Ansys", "Mentor Graphics", covering over 90% of world production. And if China would tend to produce self-software or ADAs, it is simply impossible because of the missing technology. There are only 5 companies in the world, 3 American, 1 Dutch and 1 Japanese each, which possess such technology. 

In other words, globalization has brought changes in the concept of security. Power is no longer related to the military factor, but to politics, technology, education, economic growth and the adoption of information. People are closer to liberal approaches, with all the criticism they carry. The rival powers of the West and the USA have not been able to offer the world their values in competitive cohesion, but as indisputable and exclusionary options. In fact, here even the West has something to correct in relation to the values of others. The universal, civilized prelude of all times offers the possibility of reflection within its ferment; “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”