The end of the “cold war” before the 4th of a century sparked a kind of euphoria among the political leaders of the East and the West, that from now on their states, regardless of rank and weight, would stay forever sovereign and independent.
On the wave of liberal ideology “about the end of history” began widespread self-deception, giving comfort to “moral security”. It is only from today’s position that we can see how incorrect that conviction was.
Against the background of this comfort, the leaders of the victorious power in the “cold war” very easy believed in the past of “the privileged hegemony”. It was based on idealistic and naive belief in the depolarization of the global system, which meant the disappearance of inter-powerful rivalry against the background of ideological contradictions. It shortly became apparent that building “democracy without borders” and “rule-based order” is highly costly and conflict-ogenic, and that in the structure of the global system, any powers are replaced by others, opposing the sovereignty of the United States and their projects. Global management from Washington has become an unfulfilled delusion.
Faith in the sustainable unpolarisation of the global strategy has unfortunately led to the functionality of the existing rules of play and global institutions. The United Nations Charter lost its importance erstwhile it began to be interpreted, not in the spirit of conflict resolution and prevention, but in order to justify the reason for the strongest power. Similarly, it has happened with institutions specified as the planet Trade Organisation or the global Criminal Court, which have been found to be harmful to US interests. The most crucial example is the applicable disappearance of the political activity of the Organisation for safety and Cooperation in Europe.
Good practices of multilateral diplomacy, based on restraint and confidentiality in inter-power communication, have besides disappeared. The work of peaceful coexistence has been mostly squandered, and the place of prudent and liable political leaders has been occupied by unpredictable and incompetent people. Rather, they provoke tensions in global relations with their disinvolvement and decision-abuse alternatively than act to put them out.
The West-centric model of global governance collapsed as a consequence of the 2008 financial crisis. His contribution to his degradation was the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, as well as the hysterical run of Western sanctions against Russia after her attack on Ukraine in 2022. The challenges of China's increasing power, Russia's opposition to the US's global monopoly on military operations in various parts of the world, and yet the creation of organized forms of opposition to the alleged planet remainder (e.g. BRICS), have made the ruling circles in the US aware of the request to revise the global strategy.
Liberalism does not service the United States
From the Trump administration's point of view, liberal ideology has ceased to service US interests in the global system. The Western planet was not prepared for specified a “heresy” and leftist-liberal circles tried to explain the U.S. President's conduct with its unpredictiveness and character. Errors in Trump's assessment consequence in false forecasts of his policies. They besides have negative consequences in the form of the White House's disregard for frivolous politicians who have defiantly spoken of America's leaders. Unfortunately, the Polish Prime Minister is among them.
Donald Trump's first election triumph and taking office as president in 2017 was a shocking consequence to the crisis, but besides a informing against the unwanted consequences of liberal globalisation. Even then, it was realized that the 4th century of unprecedented global hegemony of the US had ended, but ideological justifications for spreading the western model of democracy and governance had not yet been called into question.
With Trump returning to power in the US in 2025, she revived the hope that the global strategy under the influence of Washington's "new policy" would return to respecting the multiplicity of power-making centres and would be liberated from the dogmas of liberal ideology. However, the president's supposed-peaceful rhetoric does not go hand in hand with real economical or military moves. There is much evidence that under the slogan of restoring the unstable “size” of the American power there is an overriding hegemonic interest. In his defence Trump does not quit rival global strategies, protectionism and makiawelism. Otherwise, he just spreads his accents, and the slobs are incoherent narrative.
It is clear, however, that this time the Washington administration puts priorities not so much on the full West as on promoting the interests of America itself. This creates confusion in the Atlantic structures. There is simply a phenomenon of dismantling loyalty to the US. conventional partners, customers and vassals of America become her opponents and critics. At the same time, Trump's enemies – which was unthinkable until late – become fierce enemies of Russia. The American safety guarantees for Europe, as well as the sustainability of NATO alliance commitments, have come to question.
Regardless of stopping referring to any mythical “Western principles” of the United States, they proceed to disregard global law, and specified institutions as the UN are instrumental. They let interference in the interior affairs of another states, as well as the variability of state borders as a consequence of the evolution of the power systems. They scope into Realpolitik's arsenal, treating the levers of military and economical power with political pressures as crucial and average tools for carrying out their interests.
War and Peace
Trump declaratively shuns wars, although he without hesitation undertook armed attacks in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan during his first presidential term. He presently unparadonely supports the Israeli pacification of the Gaza Strip (the elimination of Hamas), attacks against Yemen (against Hutu) or Lebanon (against Hezbollah). It legitimizes and supports Israel's aggression against Iran, attempting to impose on Tehran its own conditions for the demolition of atomic infrastructure. On this occasion, you can see how powerful the Israeli lobby in Washington and American politics is. For akin reasons, despite U.S. administration simulating mediation efforts, the war in Ukraine failed to end. By calling on the parties to the conflict to negotiate, the Americans do not quit supplies of Ukrainian arms and intelligence, nor do they cease to escalate sanctions against Moscow.
These are actions contrary to Trump's intention to break off with the dangerous legacy of his predecessor. At the same time they are located in pragmatic logic to usage all means to accomplish the desired goals, avoiding the threat of full disaster. Blaming the administration of Joe Biden for provoking Russia to a preventive strike against Ukraine Trump must avoid the hazard of taking over this war on his own responsibility. This threatens not only with escalation of unpredictable consequences, but brings the United States closer to a collision with the second largest atomic power, capable of their common demolition without the engagement of 3rd parties.
The abroad policy of the United States returns to “old railway” offensive realism, treating the global order as a consequence of balancing inter-power forces. The US is reviewing their imagination of global reality, recognising the roles against China, Russia and the European Union. They treat the second not so much as in terms of hostile competition, but in terms of the deficiency of the powers of the conglomerate, especially in the field of the mobility of military forces.
It is worth recalling that the United States, after planet War II, frequently looked down on its European allies, having not only a decisive advantage over them in the power account, but besides a "moral right" to organize the European scene after the "bloody excesses" of 2 planet wars. It was during the “cold war” that convinced the Washington elite about the subordination of Europeans, and they – apart from de Gaulle – gradually agreed to vassalization. Today, there are no genuine in-house European political elites that can specify their own interests and their assertive defence. The anti-Russian attitude is the fruit of this incapacitation and manipulation, not the production of nonsubjective discernment and the ability to diagnose the situation independently. This shows a deficiency of strategical sense alternatively than political wisdom.
Americans have an excellent historical memory of old European disputes that led to war disasters. Therefore, despite the EU's tromtadration on arms unwinding, they will look carefully so that Europeans do not go to each other's throats again, as has been the case. After all, it is not hard to imagine a return to the politics of resentimists, rematchism, neighbouring pretenses, plotting against each another and escalating hatred.
Russian question
Russia's determination to defend its right and interests is surely unbearable for the French, the British and the Germans, but armed kidnapping from their side to Russia would be suicide. Therefore, Trump's realistic policy can be recovery in the coming years. In time, Europeans themselves will realize that “it is not worth dying for Ukraine”, which is just a pretext for the ongoing and exhausting Western war against the arbitraryly doomed enemy of Russia.
Changing American priorities towards Europe is possibly the biggest surprise. For decades, it has remained in the sphere of allied guarantees, based at least in the verbal sphere, on "the common interest". Ideological binder during the “cold war” period was anti-communism and anti-Sovietism. After the dissolution of the USSR, the ideological threat disappeared, but in civilizational terms Russia as the successor of the russian power continued to be an opposition to the West. A extremist revision of the attitude towards European allies began with the proclamation of the alleged return to Asia, announced officially in 2011.
The past of alliances shows that in time they are eroded. The foundations of the Anglo-Saxon War Alliance, the post-war reconstruction of Europe and the deterrence of the east bloc have become a lost melody, forgotten by today's generations. Due to the dynamics of polarization processes in the field of power, the motives for allies' commitment to keep the alliance are weakening. The Americans, engaged in a number of geopolitical azimuts, saw an expanding asymmetry in cost-raising and the reluctance of European governments to increase defence spending. In addition, the ocean began to supply for reciprocity in the fulfilment of allied obligations. This was already revealed during the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, erstwhile there was a spectacular break-up among European states in the context of the support of the alliance leader. This was 1 of the announcements of later recognition problems.
Although Trump's tariff wars started on many azimuts, no 1 has any uncertainty that the main nonsubjective of this strategy is to geoeconomically strike in China. They are the origin of the top threats in the economic, technological and military fields, as only they can deprive the US of its global primacy. However, as the mediate State does not put up an armed confrontation, a fluctuation of each other's tensions and contradictions is to be expected without a clear solution to any advantage. Knowing the current president's transactionism, it is more crucial to anticipate permanent "flexion of muscles" and "stretching of ropes" without a strong armed act against the Chinese. Modern inter-power conflict does not gotta lead to open wars. The 2 most crucial players in the game are more about securing global supply chains, access to energy markets, the improvement of industrial production and the flow of finance, technology, cognition and talent. China is undoubtedly irreplaceable in these areas.
Contrary to the “jaster” opinion of European allies, the United States sees no existential threat in Russia. On the contrary, they believe that Russia with its geopolitical interests and powerful resources can be useful in restoring its strategical balance with China. Neither does Trump's crew foretell nor threaten, as many European rusophobia believers do, that president Putin is preparing in a predictable position any gigantic invasion of Europe.
The pragmatic doctrine of transactionism does not underestimate at least Russian challenges and global threats to America. This does not mean that the United States is ready to quit its cooperation with the Russians, for example in the field of space exploration or exploitation of Arctic resources. Washington's most crucial nonsubjective is to "revert" common hostility and thus to limit normalisation of relations with the Kremlin. The Americans have 2 objectives: not to be drawn into the war in Ukraine (the more so that the expanding engagement of American forces is needed in the mediate East and Southeast Asia) and weakening Russia's dependence on China.
The Russians are aware of these objectives, so they do not give way to demands against the Kiev government as to the conditions of peace. They convince American interlocutors that the most crucial obstacle to peace is the Ukrainian authorities and their European patrons. They usage their front edge as a negotiating lever. They besides anticipate the US to ease sanctions and open access to Western markets. It is right for analysts to have this option of loosening the trade ties and technological dependence of Russia on China. At the same time, after mediocre experience with the credibility of Western commitments The Russians are not willing to accept all Trump's assurances and promises as "a good coin". Rather, they will focus on the strategy of strengthening the position of Vice president James David Vance, whose success in the 2028 election could seal America's "strategic revisionism".
Realpolitik vs. ideology
Against the background of specified calculations, the attitudes of European allies of America are completely disconnected from American Realpolitik. First of all, they turn distant from utilizing the late promoted "coneactiveness", i.e. opportunities and opportunities to make a close network of links in the Euro-Asian area, a single transport, energy and communication structure, which is an expression of interdependence and common penetration (cf. Parag Khanna, "Conectography". Mapping the Future of Global Civilization", Warsaw 2022). In particular, in the field of energy supply, the russophobic governments of European states are condemning their citizens to the horrors of natural gas and oil, brought from outside the continent. They besides forget that nonsubjective interdependencies and comprehensive flows cannot be reversed, can only be inhibited, most frequently to their own detriment.
It is highly likely that Donald Trump's determination to make a fresh balance of power will lead to the emergence of a certain "community of interests" between Russia and the US, which will clearly harm the European countries, which are quarreling with each party. It will besides be dangerous to decompose the European structures of NATO and the European Union against the background of individual reading of defence priorities by maximising arms spending, militarisation of various areas of social life and the "bellification" of thinking. Political realism will make more and more smaller geopolitical units decide to practice a multi-vector policy – despite the pressures of the largest states – to satisfy interests on different azimuts and without ideological contrasting of their partners. Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia can service as a model of wise arrangement with the outside world, without dogmatizing their alliance affiliations. another countries, specified as Poland, fall into a unilateral structure of dependency and are incapable to conduct rational policies, primarily for the benefit of themselves, alternatively than in the service of abroad interests and states.
Europe will lose most in the American revision of the global strategy. Although the process of little engagement by the US in defending the continent will be gradual (the liquidation of bases, the withdrawal of US soldiers), the fall in NATO's value as a political-military alliance is already taking place. The deficiency of US will paralyzes the planning and command system, and American atomic guarantees become illusion. In specified a situation, no desperate gestures from the light politicians of France, Britain or Germany will help, nor will it aid to escalate the conflict of the most active instigators, specified as Mark Rutte and Ursula von der Leyen.
Europe without the United States becomes incapable to effectively deter a possible aggressor. By making their own efforts to reformulate the alliance and self-reliance in the arms field, European governments face a challenge for powerful material sacrifices. They besides hazard being alone in case of real danger. Cynic Trump is convinced that for specified reasons they will yet fit the course imposed by the United States.
Trump America does not request an autonomous or independent Europe strategically. In particular, the European Union's objections to building a "defensive community" irritate Americans. In order to keep and even strengthen the position of a hegemonic power, no political force in the US – including Democrats, and even more notorious deep state – will agree to share a strategical initiative. Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin sabotaging the efforts of US diplomacy and putting Ukraine's triumph in conflict with Russia, not only plunge the Kiev government into an expanding loop, but besides exposure the Trump administration to a humiliating defeat in its efforts to halt this absurd war. There are many indications that mistaking the anticipation of defeating Russia leads to disastrous consequences for all its participants, regardless of the degree of commitment.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Photo: The White home (fb)
Think Poland, No. 25-26 (22-29.06.2025)
