Beyond Bandwagoning: Small State Agency and Proactive Alignment in Emerging Multipolarity

Abstract Classical small state theory holds that states unable to secure themselves must either balance against a threatening power or bandwagon with a dominant protector. This dichotomy does not fit the behaviour of Central and Eastern European (CEE) states since 2022. Drawing on a structured comparison of Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states, set against a negative case (Georgia before 2008), this article develops the concept of proactive alignment: a strategy in which a small state actively invests in reshaping the security architecture around it rather than merely responding to structural pressure. Proactive alignment rests on three interconnected practices: anchoring, which embeds a major power through permanent physical and institutional infrastructure; norm building, which promotes alliance-wide spending and defence standards; and coalition structuring, which aggregates small-state influence through regional formats. Emerging multipolarity, the article argues, does not weaken small-state agency; it produces a specific structural condition — the credible but uncertain commitment of the dominant ally — that makes proactive strategies both necessary and possible. Three conditions determine when this logic, rather than balancing, bandwagoning, or hedging, should be expected to operate: existential threat perception, a precedent of allied abandonment, and sufficient material capacity. The article proposes a third small-state posture beyond the balancing/bandwagoning dyad, grounded in the credible-commitment and costly-signalling literatures. Empirically it is a theory-building exercise: the case comparison and negative case illustrate the concept's plausibility and specify the conditions under which it should and should not apply, not test it statistically. The cases suggest, without proving, that small states can act as producers as well as consumers of the international security orders they inhabit.