You will shortly be re-directed to the publisher's website
The American establishment realizes it can’t be everywhere anymore
The eightieth anniversary of the Yalta Conference, which laid the foundations for the international order after the Second World War, falls at a remarkable moment. Today that order is in crisis, and the conflict in Ukraine is perhaps the starkest manifestation of this breakdown.
A cultural revolution is underway in the United States, which has served as the global hegemon for decades. The Trump administration did not merely tweak foreign policy – it fundamentally shifted the paradigm of how Washington sees its role in the world. What was once unthinkable is now openly discussed and even pursued as policy. This shift represents a worldview overhaul, one that questions how the world should be organized and America’s place within it.
For Russia, the end of the Cold War signaled dissatisfaction with the new unipolar order. The framework established at Yalta and Potsdam formally persisted through institutions like the United Nations, but the balance within the system collapsed as American dominance expanded. Attempts to adapt post-war institutions to serve US hegemony have failed—hurting both the institutions and the hegemon itself. This impasse is driving the changes we now see in Washington’s global outlook.
Ukraine: A Consequence of Systemic Crisis
The conflict in Ukraine is a direct consequence of this systemic crisis. It underscores the inability of the post-Yalta order to adapt to modern realities. While significant, the Ukraine war is not a global conflict akin to World War II; the world is no longer defined solely by the Euro-Atlantic region. Other powers, particularly China, now play crucial roles. Beijing’s calculated involvement in the Ukraine issue, signaling its importance while avoiding direct engagement, illustrates the shifting dynamics of global influence.
For the US and its allies, resolving the Ukraine crisis holds global implications. However, the world’s challenges are no longer confined to traditional power centers. Emerging economies and states that had little say 80 years ago now wield considerable influence. This underscores the inadequacy of relying solely on Cold War-era institutions and approaches to address today’s complexities.
Yalta is often referred to as a “grand bargain,” but this oversimplifies its significance. The conference occurred against the backdrop of the bloodiest war in history. The system it created was underpinned by the moral authority of victory over fascism and the immense human cost that victory demanded. For decades, these moral foundations gave the Yalta system a legitimacy that transcended mere geopolitics.
Today, talk of “deals” has re-emerged, largely shaped by Donald Trump’s transactional approach to governance. Trump’s vision of a deal is practical and results-oriented, prioritizing quick outcomes over intricate negotiations. This mindset has seen some success in specific cases, such as US dealings in Latin America and parts of the Middle East, where key players are deeply enmeshed in Washington’s sphere of influence.
However, Trump’s approach falters in complex, deeply entrenched conflicts like Ukraine. These situations, steeped in historical and cultural roots, resist the simplicity of transactional solutions. Yet even here, there is potential. Trump’s rejection of the idea that American hegemony necessitates that the US rule the entire world marks a departure from the dogma of his predecessors. Instead, he envisions hegemony as the ability to assert specific interests where necessary, by force or otherwise.
This shift opens the door, albeit narrowly, to discussions about spheres of influence. Similar conversations took place at Yalta and Potsdam, where the world’s great powers divided territories and responsibilities. While today’s geopolitical landscape is far more complex, the recognition that the US cannot be everywhere may create space for dialogue.
A Changing America, A Changing World
Trump’s cultural revolution has reshaped America’s foreign policy, but its consequences are far-reaching. The American establishment increasingly acknowledges that the costs of global omnipresence are unsustainable. This realization has potential implications for US-Russia relations and broader international stability.
Yet the notion of a new “grand bargain” remains fraught. Unlike in 1945, when moral clarity and shared objectives guided negotiations, today’s world is more fragmented. Competing ideologies, entrenched rivalries, and emerging powers make consensus elusive.
The Yalta system’s relative stability stemmed from a clear moral foundation: the defeat of fascism. Today’s global order lacks such unifying principles. Instead, the challenge lies in managing a multipolar world where power is dispersed, and no single narrative dominates.
What Lies Ahead?
For Russia, the rise of a new US foreign policy centered on traditional values and transactionalism poses a challenge. The liberal agenda of previous administrations – focused on promoting democracy, human rights, and progressive values – was something Moscow learned to counter effectively. But the conservative agenda envisioned by Trumpists, with its emphasis on patriotism, traditional family structures, and individual success, could prove more difficult to combat.
Moreover, the potential digitalization of the US influence mechanisms, by streamlining the efficiency of initiatives like USAID, would amplify their reach. Automated platforms and data analytics could target resources more effectively, making American soft power even more potent.
Moscow cannot afford complacency. The outdated propaganda models of the 1990s and early 2000s are ill-suited to the current environment. Instead, Russia must develop competitive cultural narratives and master modern “soft power” tools to counter this evolving threat.
The Trumpists’ vision of reviving the “American Dream” is not just an internal matter for the US – it is a global narrative with the potential to reshape perceptions of America. For Russia and other states dissatisfied with the post-Cold War order, the challenge will be to adapt quickly and effectively to this new era of geopolitical competition.
The stakes are high. A new chapter in global affairs is unfolding, and success will depend on the ability of nations to navigate this complex and rapidly changing landscape.
This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RT team
