{"id":2259,"date":"2025-02-09T18:29:23","date_gmt":"2025-02-09T19:29:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/developeternal.com\/?p=2259"},"modified":"2025-02-09T20:27:28","modified_gmt":"2025-02-09T20:27:28","slug":"fyodor-lukyanov-this-is-whats-behind-trumps-cultural-revolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/developeternal.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/09\/fyodor-lukyanov-this-is-whats-behind-trumps-cultural-revolution\/","title":{"rendered":"Fyodor Lukyanov: This is what\u2019s behind Trump\u2019s \u2018Cultural revolution\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
The American establishment realizes it can\u2019t be everywhere anymore<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 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\u2019s place within it.<\/p>\n 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\u2014hurting both the institutions and the hegemon itself. This impasse is driving the changes we now see in Washington\u2019s global outlook.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s calculated involvement in the Ukraine issue, signaling its importance while avoiding direct engagement, illustrates the shifting dynamics of global influence.<\/p>\n For the US and its allies, resolving the Ukraine crisis holds global implications. However, the world\u2019s 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\u2019s complexities.<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Yalta is often referred to as a \u201cgrand bargain,\u201d<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n Today, talk of \u201cdeals\u201d<\/em> has re-emerged, largely shaped by Donald Trump\u2019s transactional approach to governance. Trump\u2019s 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\u2019s sphere of influence.<\/p>\n However, Trump\u2019s 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\u2019s rejection of the idea that American hegemony\u00a0necessitates that the US rule\u00a0the 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.<\/p>\n This shift opens the door, albeit narrowly, to discussions about spheres of influence. Similar conversations took place at Yalta and Potsdam, where the world\u2019s great powers divided territories and responsibilities. While today\u2019s geopolitical landscape is far more complex, the recognition that the US cannot be everywhere may create space for dialogue.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s cultural revolution has reshaped America\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Yet the notion of a new \u201cgrand bargain\u201d<\/em> remains fraught. Unlike in 1945, when moral clarity and shared objectives guided negotiations, today\u2019s world is more fragmented. Competing ideologies, entrenched rivalries, and emerging powers make consensus elusive.<\/p>\nUkraine: A Consequence of Systemic Crisis<\/h2>\n
Lessons from Yalta<\/h2>\n
A Changing America, A Changing World<\/h2>\n