In P4, the author says that a bipolar system— the United States and the USSR— may have promoted peace. But she never suggests that a new bipolar system must emerge in order to maintain peace in Europe. Her main point isn’t about European peace; it’s simply that the traditional view of bipolar and multipolar systems should be reconsidered.

The author argues that traditional views of multipolar and bipolar systems should be reconsidered, but she never claims that these systems inevitably collapse and endanger international order. In P3 and P4, she does present two multipolar systems in Europe that undermined stability, but she also presents a bipolar system that may have promoted peace.

Actually, the author argues that the multipolar system in Europe today threatens stability, while the Concert of Europe is thought to have promoted peace. Regardless, her main point isn’t about the European geopolitical landscape; it’s simply that the traditional view of multipolar and bipolar systems should be reconsidered.

In P4, the author does say that multipolarity led to World War II and that, given modern weapons, small confrontations in a multipolar system would cause instability today. She doesn’t go so far as to say multipolarity is incompatible with a stable Europe. But even if she did, her main point isn’t about ensuring stability in Europe. It’s simply that traditional views of multipolar and bipolar systems should be reconsidered.

The traditional view sees multipolar systems as stable and bipolar systems as open to conflict. The author gives examples that conflict with this view to support her main point: the traditional view needs to be reconsidered in light of the realities of post-Cold War Europe.