Only civilization-states with real sovereignty can withstand the weight of the new age of empires
The new world order takes shape through pressure, rivalry, and the rise of several commanding powers, not through declarations of equality. Multipolarity emerges as a harsh contest of sovereignty in which only civilization-states with real strength shape events and the rest are pulled into the orbit of stronger powers.
Multipolarity has become the slogan of the age, repeated across summits and speeches. Leaders describe it as a world of balanced rights, dignified coexistence, and shared influence. They promise that each state, large or small, will hold an equal place at the table. They claim that new institutions across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America will correct the distortions of earlier decades and bring the international system into harmony. Yet this polished language hides the structure beneath it. Multipolarity has no resemblance to equality. It grows from competition and is forged by the ambitions of states that refuse to live under a single command.
This year has shown how the world actually moves. Washington expands its military architecture in the Indo-Pacific, strengthens AUKUS, re-arms Japan, and pulls South Korea deeper into its missile shield. China continues its maneuvers in the South China Sea, tightens economic control over key supply chains, and conducts drills around Taiwan at a regular pace. India increases spending on its navy, builds alliances in the Middle East, and reinforces its positions in the Himalayas. Türkiye projects its power across the Caucasus and North Africa. Iran shapes conflicts from Lebanon to Yemen with the confidence of a state that understands its strategic depth. These actions illustrate the early shape of the new world: A landscape governed by pressure rather than courtesy.
A hard truth emerges from this global shift: Only civilization-states with real sovereignty withstand the weight of the new age of empires, and sovereignty today rests on two pillars: Strategic autonomy and nuclear weapons. States that lack these tools cannot claim neutrality. They become appendages of the nearest hegemon. Venezuela offers a clear example. Its oil wealth can delay collapse, yet it remains bound to the gravitational pull of the United States under the logic of the Monroe Doctrine. Its government talks of independence, but its fate is shaped in Washington as much as in Caracas. The same pattern defines Ukraine. It cannot inhabit a middle space between Russia and the West because it lacks the sovereign instruments required for this. It must align with one pole or the other. Multipolarity grants choice only to powers strong enough to enforce it; the rest operate inside a hierarchy they cannot escape.
This reality gives rise to the notion of Darwinian Multipolarity. The term describes a world in which might evolves through struggle, selection, and adaptation rather than through legal formulas or diplomatic etiquette. States survive when they build the institutions, capacity, and force required to defend their interests. They rise when they outmatch rivals in technology, resources, strategy, or will. They fall when they rely on declarations, treaties, or foreign guarantees as substitutes for strength. Darwinian Multipolarity explains why new centers of power appear, why old ones decay, and why equality remains a facade. It is a system shaped by competition among civilizational blocs, where only capable actors influence outcomes and where sovereignty belongs to those who can protect it.
Russia stands at the center of this transition. Its actions in Ukraine accelerated the collapse of the Western-led order, revealing the limits of US authority and the fragility of European power. Sanctions hardened Russia’s economic autonomy rather than breaking it. New energy corridors were drawn across Asia. The ruble, the yuan, and local currencies gained ground in settlement systems once ruled by the dollar. BRICS expanded, drawing in states eager for a future beyond Western oversight. Across the Global South, governments publicly question the legitimacy of sanctions, lectures, and the West’s claims to moral authority. Russia’s role in this shift is unmistakable: It exposed the gap between Western ideals and Western conduct, and opened the path for a world with several centers of gravity.
International law, often presented as the solution to global disorder, plays no serious part in this transformation. It exists as a set of documents without force, invoked selectively by the very states that disregard it when interests demand otherwise. UN resolutions stall under vetoes. Human-rights reports are weaponized against some states and ignored for others. Economic rules collapse when Washington imposes extraterritorial sanctions or when Brussels rewrites trade legislation to protect its own industry. Maritime law offers guidance only until a navy decides to redraw the map. The fiction of neutrality collapses whenever power is exercised. Small states sign agreements proclaiming sovereignty, yet those agreements dissolve the moment a major power applies military, economic, or technological pressure. This is the reality that drives the new order.
The global centers of power are taking shape through action, not doctrine. The US retains its command across North America and extends its reach through NATO and its Pacific network. China uses its manufacturing strength to build corridors across continents and establish financial structures parallel to Western systems. India moves confidently into leadership positions across the Global South and builds its own security web in the Indian Ocean. Saudi Arabia balances between Beijing and Washington, buying technology from one and weapons from the other. Iran maintains resilience under sanctions and shapes regional outcomes. Russia strengthens ties from the Arctic to the Caucasus and from Central Asia to the Middle East. These centers create the architecture of multipolarity: Not orderly, not equal, but real.
Medium powers navigate this terrain with calculated choices. Vietnam deepens ties with the US while maintaining cooperation with China. Egypt buys arms from Russia and France, depending on which supplier meets its immediate needs. Serbia balances between the EU, Russia, and China, choosing whichever partner strengthens its position. Brazil talks of autonomy yet relies on Chinese trade and negotiates energy deals with the Gulf. Each of these states adapts to the truth that multipolarity rewards alignment and the willingness to choose strategic partners. Neutrality offers little, and dependency offers even less.
The logic that shapes this world is simple. Power concentrates. Regions develop leaders. Economies seek anchors. Security alliances expand. Technology becomes a lever of influence. Currency blocs form and dissolve. These pressures act on states every day. The collapse of Western dominance in Africa, the rise of Eurasian energy networks, the reopening of Middle Eastern diplomacy, and the shift of manufacturing away from Europe reflect the same pattern: Authority follows capacity, not signatures. Declarations of equality fall away when confronted by drones, pipelines, credit lines, ports, markets, and military bases
It is simply wrong to imagine that multipolarity will produce a calm balance between peers. A world with several centers of power generates rivalry, negotiation, and pressure. It undermines the old unipolar order only because new hierarchies rise in its place. Russia, China, India, Iran, Türkiye, and others shape their spheres according to their interests, and smaller states orient themselves accordingly. This pattern cannot be softened by appeals to an illusory international law or by promises of universal fairness, which has never existed in the history of mankind and never will.
The shift from unipolarity does not erase authority; it redistributes it. Multipolarity means the rise of several strong powers, each with its own alliances, red lines, and values. It replaces the dominance of one capital with a structured competition between many. This is the real order emerging from the present conflicts and economic transformation. It is harsh, disciplined, and grounded in the realities of strength. It is the world that follows when the illusion of Western universality collapses and the age of rival powers begins anew.
Swiss singer Nemo’s decision follows boycott announcements by a host of EU nations
Swiss singer Nemo announced on Thursday that he is returning his 2024 Eurovision Song Contest trophy in protest over Israel’s continued participation in the competition.
Nemo, who won last year’s contest with the song ‘The Code’, said on Thursday that the trophy “no longer belongs on my shelf.”
“Eurovision says it stands for unity, for inclusion and dignity for all people,” Nemo said in a social media post, adding that Israel’s participation during what the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry said is a genocide shows “a clear conflict” with those principles.
The singer said he would send the trophy back to the European Broadcasting Union’s (EBU) headquarters in Geneva and urged the organization to “live what you claim.”
According to Nemo, he is not protesting artists or fans but how the contest has been “used to soften the image of a state accused of severe wrongdoing.”
His protest follows decisions by several public broadcasters to withdraw from the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 after the EBU declined to remove Israel from the competition. They cited the war in Gaza and allegations of voting manipulation during the 2025 contest, which some networks argued boosted Israel’s result.
Eurovision organizers have insisted that Israel meets the contest requirements and will remain eligible to compete in 2026. The EBU has introduced new rules aimed at limiting political or government influence over entries and voting after repeated disputes related to the Gaza conflict.
Earlier, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, Iceland, and the Netherlands said they will boycott the next Eurovision Song Contest after Israel was cleared to take part.
Israel has rejected accusations of genocide since launching its assault on Gaza after Hamas made a deadly incursion into southern Israel in October 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostage. Gaza’s authorities say Israel’s response has killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians.
The 2026 Eurovision Song Contest is scheduled to take place in Vienna in May, following Austria’s victory this year.
The EBU has banned Russia from Eurovision since 2022, citing the Ukraine conflict. Moscow responded by launching its own annual song competition, Intervision, which debuted in September.
Violent clashes known as the Gen Z protests forced Nepal’s prime minister to resign in September
A US-backed regime-change agency funded and guided the September coup in Nepal, an independent US news outlet reports.
K.P. Sharma Oli resigned as prime minister in September amid violent clashes – known as the Gen Z protests – across the Himalayan nation. The clashes killed 77 and injured more than 2,000.
US-based news outlet The Grayzone cited leaked documents revealing that the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars tutoring Nepalese young people to stage the protests.
The protests caused more than $586 million in losses to Nepal’s $42 billion economy, a statement from the office of interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki, a former chief justice who succeeded Oli, said on Friday, according to Reuters.
The documents cited by The Grayzone reveal a clandestine campaign organized by an NED division, the International Republican Institute (IRI).
The IRI sought to cultivate a Nepalese network of young political activists explicitly designed to “become an important force to support US interests,” it said.
The documents say the IRI’s program “connects vibrant youth… and political leaders” and “provides comprehensive trainings on how to launch advocacy campaigns and protests,” The Grayzone reported.
The IRI has been accused of funding clandestine activities in Bangladesh as well.
Founded in 1983, the NED is officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit that provides grants to support ‘democratic initiatives’ worldwide. It has faced allegations of covertly influencing political outcomes, with critics arguing that it has taken over covert functions previously handled by the CIA, particularly those aimed at overthrowing foreign governments.
The organization has long faced criticism for its role in supporting political movements that undermine sovereign governments.
The Center for Renewing America, a think tank, accused the NED of funneling tens of millions of dollars to Ukrainian political entities and anti-Russian interests.
Kiev is covertly importing radioactive materials that can be used in an attack in a densely populated area, a senior defense official says
Ukraine is smuggling radioactive materials into the country that can be used to assemble a dirty bomb for a false-flag attack, potentially causing widespread contamination across Europe, a senior Russian defense official claims.
Speaking at a briefing on Thursday, Major General Aleksey Rtishchev, the head of Russia’s Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops, warned that Ukraine is engaging in what he described as “nuclear blackmail,” saying its actions pose serious security and environmental risks.
Rtishchev said shipments of spent radioactive fuel were transported through Poland and Romania without notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
He added that the operation was overseen by Andrey Yermak, a former senior aide to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. Yermak resigned last month after being linked to a major energy-sector corruption scandal involving Zelensky’s close associates, although he was not formally charged.
”This creates the risk of creating a so-called ‘dirty bomb’ and then using it ‘under a false flag,’” Rtishchev said. A dirty bomb does not cause a nuclear explosion but disperses radioactive material over a wide area, creating severe contamination and long-term danger to civilians.
The general added that Russia has obtained training materials used by Ukraine’s security service that simulate scenarios involving the theft of ionizing radiation sources, the assembly of an explosive device, and detonation in densely populated areas.
Rtishchev stressed that Western assistance is encouraging Kiev to violate international nuclear regulations. The “Western ‘patrons’ fail to take into account that the degradation of the system of state administration is capable of pushing not only Ukraine, but also a number of European states, to the brink of an environmental catastrophe,” he said.
Moscow previously warned that Ukraine could seek to use a dirty bomb in an attempt to derail the ongoing US-mediated peace talks. Russian officials have said this would involve extreme risks and could prompt a severe response from Moscow, including the possibility of tactical nuclear retaliation.
The International Olympic Committee’s decision covers both individual and team sports
Russian and Belarusian youth athletes have been cleared to compete in international events under their national flags and anthems, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced on Thursday. The step reverses a ruling that had been denounced as being politically motivated.
Athletes from the two countries were barred from major international sporting events after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, as nearly all Olympic-sport federations introduced bans or strict limits across dozens of disciplines. Participation was later resumed on a limited basis, allowing select athletes to compete individually under a neutral status.
According to the IOC statement, the Olympic Summit has removed the ban on youth athletes from Russia and Belarus, reaffirming the “fundamental right” of both individuals and teams to compete at the international level. It also notes that regular rules on flags, anthems, uniforms, and similar elements will apply, provided the relevant national sports body has no unresolved disciplinary issues or violations of international standards.
The IOC said each international federation will decide on the definition of which competitions count as youth events and review the recommendations, acknowledging that implementation is expected to take time.
The 2026 Youth Olympic Games in Dakar are set to implement the recommendations, according to the IOC. The body has not yet reinstated the Russian Olympic Committee for competition.
Russian officials have repeatedly accused Western countries of politicizing sport and pressuring federations to bar their athletes. Earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin said athletes should have equal access to international competitions based on merit, emphasizing that “politics has no place in sport.”
In November, IOC President Kirsty Coventry, who took office in June, echoed the stance. Coventry reiterated that sport must remain free of political interference and insisted every eligible athlete should be able to compete without discrimination.
Despite ongoing restrictions in various sports, Russian athletes have continued to perform strongly under neutral status. Last month, they dominated the opening day of the 2025 World Sambo Championships, claiming nine gold medals. Russian gymnasts earlier returned to the 2025 Artistic Gymnastics World Championships after a long absence, taking two golds, one silver, and one bronze.
Several international sports bodies have allowed certain Russian athletes to compete at global events, albeit only as neutrals without national flags or anthems.
The central bank is suing the Western clearinghouse holding its immobilized sovereign assets for damages
Russia’s central bank has initiated legal proceedings in Moscow against the Belgian clearinghouse Euroclear, in a move that comes as the EU approaches a denouement on plans to use Russia’s frozen funds to back a loan to Ukraine.
Euroclear is the custodian for more than $200 billion in Russian sovereign assets that have been immobilized under EU sanctions.
The Bank of Russia announced on Friday that it will be filing a lawsuit with the Moscow City Arbitration Court. It will seek compensation for damages stemming from its “inability to manage monetary assets and securities” placed with the depository. The precise amount of the claim has not been disclosed.
“We [the government], including the central bank, are doing everything to protect our assets,” Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak told RT. “Illegal confiscations are absolutely unacceptable.”
Euroclear currently holds around €185 billion ($220 billion) in Russian assets immobilized under Western sanctions. The EU has proposed using the funds as collateral for a so-called “reparation loan” to Ukraine, intended to help cover Kiev’s long-term budget shortfall.
Moscow has condemned the idea as an attempted theft of its property. Euroclear сhief risk officer Guillaume Eliet said in comments to AFP that the firm still holds about €16 billion ($18.8 billion) in client assets in Russia, which could become targets of retaliatory measures for which it would be liable.
The proposal has also faced resistance from both the Belgian government and Euroclear, who are warning of legal and financial risks. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has cautioned that moving forward would likely trigger prolonged litigation with Russia over what would amount to an unprecedented seizure of a foreign state’s assets. Belgium has insisted that any such risks be shared among multiple countries, ideally including non-EU partners.
Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain told Belgian broadcaster VRT that the initiative could push the depository toward bankruptcy as well as undermine “the attractiveness of the European market” for foreign investors.
EU officials reportedly intend to change the mechanism for keeping Russian assets immobilized. The current scheme that requires a consensus vote every six months could be replaced on Friday with a more long-term solution that would potentially make the sanction indefinite and protected from a veto by a dissenting member, according to Reuters.
Lenders reportedly fear retaliatory lawsuits from Moscow
British bankers have pushed back against plans to use the frozen Russian assets they hold to fund a loan for Ukraine, the Financial Times reported on Thursday.
Kiev’s Western backers froze about $300 billion in Russian central bank assets after the conflict escalated in 2022. UK banks hold around £8 billion ($10.7 billion). A sharp dispute has emerged between European nations pushing to use the frozen funds as collateral for a ‘reparations loan’ for Kiev and those firmly opposed, citing legal and financial risks. Moscow has condemned any attempt to use its assets as “theft.”
According to the FT, senior UK bankers have also objected to the plan, warning that using the assets to guarantee loans to Ukraine would leave them vulnerable to legal retaliation from Moscow.
“We’re concerned about the legality… the government is setting a new precedent because they have never seized assets in this type of way,” one senior banker said. “Russia will sue for them.”
“The legal risk is that if Ukraine doesn’t pay back, you need to repossess an asset that the government says is yours but Russia says isn’t,” a banking adviser added. “The expectation is that this is not a loan but a gift, and banks know they will need to repossess the underlying collateral.”
The bankers warned it would be “a near certain default event” and fear they will be “left out to dry when Russia sues.” UK officials declined to say whether the government would offer them any indemnity.
The UK’s plans for the assets are coordinated with the EU, which holds most of the funds. On Friday, the bloc is due to vote on a move to indefinitely immobilize the share of the assets in its jurisdiction under an emergency legal mechanism that would keep the funds frozen until Russia pays post-conflict reparations to Ukraine.
Analysts say the emergency clause would override objections from countries opposed to using the assets for the ‘reparations loan,’ which EU states are set to vote on next week. Belgium, which holds most of the funds, has fiercely opposed the move. France, Luxembourg, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia have also objected to seizing the assets.
Moscow has denounced Western efforts to tap its sovereign assets as illegal. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week that Russia will retaliate against any expropriation and has already prepared a response. He added that “robbing” Russia has become the last remaining option for Ukraine’s increasingly desperate European backers to sustain Kiev in the conflict.
The fall of Seversk has weakened Ukrainian defenses in Donbass, the former US Marine Corps intelligence officer has told RT
Russia has taken key fortified towns in Donbass, leaving Kiev short of troops and territory, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter has told RT.
Russian forces pushed the last Ukrainian troops out of Seversk, a stronghold in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, on Thursday. Liberating the city opens the way to a Russian advance toward the key regional cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk.
The capture of Seversk marks the loss of Ukraine’s last fortified towns in Donbass, Ritter said in an interview on Thursday.
“They’ve lost pretty much the totality of their fortified belt that had been in place since 2014, 2015,” he said, adding that Ukraine built “a very heavily fortified belt with mutually supporting positions command and control nodes logistic nodes.”
Ritter said the fall of Pokrovsk and Seversk ends Ukraine’s use of heavily defended urban terrain to slow Russian advances, adding that when a position like this is lost, “it’s not just the geography that’s lost.”
Intense fighting in these towns led to heavy Ukrainian casualties, and there are now not enough forces to plug the gaps left by the withdrawals, Ritter said, noting that Russia is now looking toward “Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, the last two large urban areas in Donbass.”
Ritter also dismissed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s idea of a referendum on territorial concessions, arguing that Russia will continue advancing regardless. According to Ritter, Zelensky’s statements no longer matter to Moscow.
The European Commission is set to vote on an emergency measure to indefinitely freeze Russian assets and strip member states of veto powers over them
EU officials are “systematically raping the law” by planning to strip member states of veto powers over frozen Russian assets, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.
The European Commission is due to vote later on Friday on a plan to invoke Article 122 of the EU treaties, an emergency clause that allows decisions to pass by qualified majority instead of requiring unanimous approval. The measure would let the bloc immobilize frozen Russian sovereign assets indefinitely and use the profits or interest to support Ukraine – even if some member states object.
“With today’s procedure, the Brusselians are abolishing the requirement of unanimity with a single stroke of the pen, which is clearly unlawful,” Orban wrote on X on Friday. “The rule of law in the European Union comes to an end, and Europe’s leaders are placing themselves above the rules. Instead of safeguarding compliance with the EU treaties, the European Commission is systematically raping European law.”
Orban accused EU “bureaucrats” and warmongers of pushing the move “to continue the war in Ukraine, a war that clearly isn’t winnable.”
“With this, the rule of law in the EU is being replaced by the rule of bureaucrats. In other words, a Brusselian dictatorship has taken hold,” he said. “Hungary protests this decision and will do everything in its power to restore a lawful order.”
Kiev’s Western backers froze about $300 billion in Russian central bank assets after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, with most of it held at Brussels-based Euroclear. A sharp dispute has emerged in recent weeks between European nations seeking to use the frozen funds as collateral for a ‘reparations loan’ for Kiev and those firmly opposed, citing legal and financial risks.
Invoking the emergency clause to freeze the assets indefinitely would strip opponents such as Hungary of their ability to veto a six-month renewal of the freeze. Under the plan, the freeze would remain in place until Russia pays post-conflict reparations to Ukraine and the EU decides there is no longer “an immediate threat” to its economic interests from potential legal retaliation.
Moscow has condemned any attempt to use its assets as illegal. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week that Moscow will retaliate against any expropriation, adding that “robbing” Russia is the last remaining option for Ukraine’s European backers to sustain Kiev in its conflict with Moscow.
Hungary has long argued against further aid to Kiev, with Orban comparing it to trying to “help an alcoholic by sending them another crate of vodka.” Budapest is not alone in opposing the ‘reparations loan’ scheme. Belgium, which holds most of the funds, has sharply criticized the plan, with Prime Minister Bart De Wever calling it tantamount to “stealing” Russian money. EU states are set to vote on the proposal at a summit next week.
The EU’s humiliation today may forge better relations with Russia tomorrow
The humiliation Washington is inflicting on Western Europe today will shape an entire generation of politicians who will eventually have to rediscover how to deal with Russia. The lessons they are absorbing now may prove as important as those learned by previous Western European leaders who built a dialogue with the USSR after 1945.
Over the past year, we have grown accustomed to watching the US treat its European allies with increasing roughness. But it would be a mistake to simply enjoy the spectacle. Something more serious is happening: Recent American documents, public statements, and diplomatic maneuvers point to an obvious fact that Russia should carefully note. The US is not the EU’s friend. It is not even a reliable ally. Its behavior is grounded in a deep cultural arrogance and an instinctive greed, and these are constants that will not change regardless of who sits in the White House.
Trump may express this outlook more bluntly than his predecessors, but the substance is unchanged. Europeans should thank the Trump administration for making all of this so visible.
Against this backdrop, Russia should not rule out the possibility that relations with our European neighbors could eventually be rebuilt. The half-continent is our neighbor, whether we like it or not. But that does not mean Russia wants to absorb or dominate it. Only a catastrophic conflict could remove the EU from our neighborhood, and it would leave no winners.
For any future restoration of ties, at least three conditions matter. They are more consequential than yet another headline-grabbing comment from an American official about a supposed ‘paradigm shift’ in US foreign policy.
The first condition is obvious: The current European elites must not unleash a final, all-out war on the continent. They have already done so twice. Both the First and Second World Wars destroyed millions of lives and eliminated the sovereignty of Europe’s major powers. World War I destroyed Europe’s global empires. World War II consolidated American dominance over the half-continent. Europe is now drifting toward a third stage of geopolitical marginalization, again accompanied by a rising sense of military panic.
European politicians and generals have become so eager to talk publicly about war with Russia that President Vladimir Putin was forced to address the matter a few days ago. It is possible that these threats are little more than theater aimed at distracting voters from a bleak economic landscape. Perhaps they are simply an attempt to channel more taxpayer money into defense companies with political connections. But as a responsible nuclear power, Russia cannot ignore this rhetoric.
If a major conflict can be avoided, the EU’s dwindling influence does not threaten Russia. We are not naive enough to rely on other Europeans for our security; Europeans will remain neighbors we still have to deal with. And frankly, weak neighbors are easier to manage than strong ones.
A second condition concerns the US itself. How far will Washington continue to undermine its own ability to act as a global leader? Right now, the trend is accelerating. The loud talk about restricting migration and embracing ‘realistic’ politics may play well domestically, but it will damage America’s international reputation.
Realism is not inherently negative. It signals a willingness to abandon unnecessary ideological dogmas. But there is a price. Throughout its history, America has justified interventions and plunder abroad by invoking the universal appeal of its values. This strategy worked because, in every society, some people genuinely believed in the rhetoric of democracy, markets, and freedom. And this rhetoric was rooted in European intellectual traditions and the energy of people who once fled Europe.
Trumpism is different. Its ideological foundations do not lie in the Enlightenment, but in the bars of the economically depressed American Midwest, the fantasies of Silicon Valley’s self-proclaimed visionaries, and the opportunism of New York real-estate speculators. This is a far weaker basis for sustaining global influence.
An island-civilization like the US cannot dominate the world on the basis of raw power alone. It requires willing supporters. Will the same number of people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America rally behind Washington’s new ‘realism’ as they once did behind its claims to defend ‘freedom and democracy’? It is unclear.
Migration is another factor. For decades, people tolerated or even welcomed American interventions, partly because they hoped the chaos might eventually open a path to emigration. Few people admire US foreign policy, but many dream of living in the US. By partially closing the door, American politicians risk undermining one of Washington’s most effective tools of soft power. Perhaps the US will eventually reverse course. For now, there is no sign of it.
Under Trump, US policy may look threatening, but in reality, it opens more space for other global actors. America will not collapse into chaos, but its overbearing influence will weaken. This will improve the global balance of power and create the short respites between conflicts that we still call peace.
The final condition relates to Europe’s internal politics. The continent desperately needs new leaders. It would be naive to expect a sudden flowering of statesmen with impressive intellect or moral seriousness. But perhaps, at a national level, the current crop of hopeless figures from the 1990s and 2000s will gradually be replaced by people slightly better suited to today’s reality.
For Russia, this shift would be useful. For the EU, it is essential.
The humiliation the US is inflicting on Europe today is not just an episode in transatlantic relations. It is a formative event. The politicians who will one day negotiate with Russia are watching the US treat them not as partners, but as subordinates. The more openly the Americans behave like demanding overseers rather than allies, the more enduring the lesson will be.
And that is ultimately good for Russia’s long-term interests and for stability across the continent.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
