BY Brecht Jonkers
US President Donald Trump and his vice president James Vance have sent shockwaves throughout Europe in recent weeks. Ever since Vance’s no-nonsense speech at the Munich Security Conference (February 14-16), most NATO and EU countries have been reeling as they see the world’s foremost imperialist power seemingly backtracking on its “obligations” to European “allies”.
In particular, Trump’s direct phone call to Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 12 and the meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Minister Foreign Sergey Lavrov in the Saudi capital Riyadh, mark a clear departure from the previous US regime’s attitude towards Ukraine.
Trump has made no secret of his distaste of the Kiev regime and its president Volodymyr Zelensky. Bluntly denouncing Zelensky as a “dictator” and calling out his responsibility for the conflict with Russia, the US president has appalled many liberals and neoconservative war hawks alike, while being applauded by the ever growing non-interventionist masses in both the US and Europe.
Trump, ever the businessman, has one very specific goal in mind for the future of the United States in the emerging multipolar world: making deals. As his famous television appearances from years back show, the “art of the deal” is a fundamental concept of how Trump views his role whenever possible. He wasn’t able, or willing, to carry out this concept to its full extent in his first term as president, but that he is clearly keen on expanding now.
It is important to understand that the US is in its “dying empire” stage, comparable to the Late Roman Empire period. Rampant corruption, collapse of the currency, heavy inflation, imperial overstretch and a “deep state” cabal with little to no oversight or public accountability; they’re all typical issues plaguing a society that has tried to do too much with its now limited potential.
Trump is trying to cut back what he can, in order to safeguard the place of the US on the world stage. Basically, trying to be a Caesar both in the historical meaning of the man who took over the reins of a collapsing Roman Republic, and in the philosophical meaning of Oswald Spengler as a strongman ruler trying to stave off civilisational collapse.
This can be seen in the rapid reorientation of US focus closer to home. Trump was met with both anger and ridicule when he made a territorial claim on the Danish-administered territory of Greenland as well as the Panama Canal, and even went as far as threatening the independence and territorial integrity of Canada. However, contrary to what many in the west think, this is neither toothless bluster nor the ravings of a dangerous madman. Rather, the reorientation of US foreign policy focus is a deliberate and well thought-out choice, as well as a typical trait of an empire in decline.
Decades of imperial overstretch, economic self-destruction as part of uncontrolled free market capitalism, moral decay resulting from liberal attacks or traditional values, rampant corruption and militarism turning the US military into a black hole sucking up mind-boggling amounts of money, have weakened the US to a point where it is nearing societal collapse. The development of a multipolar world beyond the grasp of the Pentagon, and the dedollarization of bilateral trade in the Global South in particular, have further eroded the once unassailable position of the US in the world. Official estimates show that at least 70% of the world, or about 145 countries worldwide, have more commercial ties with China than with the United States, a figure nearly unthinkable just 25 years ago.
In such a situation, electing a figure like Trump to the presidency can be seen as a last-ditch attempt to preserve as much of the Empire as possible. Retreating from untenable satellite state and occupation zones, and the withdrawal to the core regions of importance are typical elements of such a policy. For example, the Roman Empire started pulling out of far-away Britannia back in 383, nearly a century before the eventual fall of Rome itself. Calculated imperial self-interest is the name of the game.
Trump, Vance and Elon Musk have all shown numerous times that they care little to nothing for many of the rules and protocols for US policy that were set by their predecessors. The most important one of these being the smokescreen of “international law” and “rules-based order” that both Democrats and mainstream Republicans have held up ever since the end of World War II as justification for their actions.
During the Cold War, the idea of “defending democracy” and “preserving peace” were key propaganda elements for the west to hold up as the lofty goals of their often less than savoury foreign and military policy. After the end of the Cold War, ideas such as Margaret Thatcher’s “there is no alternative” and Francis Fukuyama’s “The end of history” underpinned a situation in which the status quo was basically a modern and secular equivalent of a divinely mandated system against which no opposition was tolerated.
The façade of “freedom and democracy” formed a thick veneer on top of a political system of which the only goal was continued domination and hegemony. Joe Biden, a dyed-in-the-wool career politician, is a recent example of a political figure with a clear and ceaseless dedication to upholding this façade, as are most European politicians within NATO.
Trump, however, has no time or patience for this. What he sees as beneficial for US interests is what he wants to achieve, whether or not it is easily covered up by the typical smokescreen. For example: Greenland is a strategic location with promising mineral wealth deposits and usefulness for future Arctic exploitation. The fact that its current owner Denmark is a long-standing US ally that served as a loyal vassal in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, is irrelevant for the new president.
A similar situation applies to Ukraine. In the maddening propaganda campaign that swept the west ever since February 2022, Ukraine has often been depicted as the last bulwark against a tidal wave of Russian invaders threatening the entirety of Europe. Beyond the propaganda, however, Ukraine has proven to be a highly volatile and unstable state, which despite massive US support (Trump himself claimed recently that the total number runs up to $350 billion) has been wholly unable to make a stand for itself on the battlefield.
Ukraine has been struggling with demographic challenges due to mass emigration, as well as a rising problem in filling the basic ranks of its military forces to be sent to the frontlines. Zelensky, once hailed across Europe as a hero, has increasingly been resorting to moral blackmail in getting European states to keep sending his regime more money and weapons, much to the chagrin of the European population.
Trump now joins a handful of European politicians, such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Slovak counterpart Robert Fico, in openly admitting to the uselessness and even dangers of limitless support for Kiev and continued animosity towards Moscow.
Of course, we must not lose sight of the opportunistic side of the US change of policy. The US Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg pretty much admitted that one of the goals of rapprochement with Russia would be to wean it away from the BRICS organisation, and from China in particular. In this way, the pivot to Moscow could be framed as a “reverse Kissinger” move: courting Russia in order to alienate China, the exact opposite of what the US did when it curried favour with the People’s Republic in the 1970s in an attempt to isolate the then Soviet Union. Marco Rubio’s officially expressed hope for “geopolitical and economic cooperation” with Russia, seems to further affirm this goal.
It seems very unlikely, however, that either Russia or China would be naive enough to be goaded into such a destructive path. At a time when BRICS is already superseding the G7 in most economic indicators, and when the west is in its worst position in decades, throwing in one’s lot with the US seems a sure way to ruin a country.
One must bear in mind that the original 1970s plan of turning China into a western ally or vassal state by reintroducing it to the global market, also turned out to be a dismal failure that resulted in China superseding the US at all economic and societal levels. Vladimir Putin is not a naive or impressionable leader; he is easily able to see through anyone attempting to use him for nefarious purposes.
One thing, however, seems certain: Ukraine’s time in the limelight is coming to an ignominious end. Kiev was not even invited to the Riyadh talks on February 18, and neither Moscow nor Washington seem particularly keen on seeking the opinion of Zelensky in resolving a conflict that from the get-go was a far broader geopolitical conflict anyway. As for Zelensky himself, he seems to be heading the way of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ngo Dinh Diem, Manuel Noriega, Mobutu Sese Seko and so many other western-backed strongmen who were discarded as soon as their usefulness for US interests ended.
The US has other matters to worry about, that don’t concern either Ukraine or even Europe at large. Domestic stabilisation, staving off economic collapse and the “threat” of China in particular and BRICS as a whole: these are the real issues that keep the Oval Office busy right now.
As for the (former) US satellite states in Europe, the words of Henry Kissinger himself ring true: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is disastrous to be America’s friend.”
Source: Crescent International
