Over 35 years have elapsed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, a pivotal moment that signaled the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War. Countless history books start with a reference to this moment, and rightfully so. For millennia, conflicts between great powers shaped the global order, with empires rising and falling. When the wall fell, it was the first time that the victory of one superpower and the collapse of another was broadcast live to the entire world.
Liberal democracy triumphed over communism. Freedom overcame oppression. The USSR, like the Berlin Wall, was shattered into pieces and thrown almost instantly into history books. In Europe’s blood-soaked soil, which had witnessed centuries of wars, the Iron Curtain was lifted, and borders were removed as a tangible expression of newfound freedom.
Francis Fukuyama, an American professor of political economy, captured the celebratory atmosphere of the time in his now-famous article “The End of History.” He argued that the USSR’s collapse was not just another event in the long history of wars between powers with rival ideologies, but the end of ideological struggles altogether. Once the democratic-liberal order prevailed, he contended, it would become the only acceptable standard. Future conflicts, he continued, would be limited to control over resources, not ideological battles.
However, it quickly became evident that neither history nor ideological struggles had ended. Even at the peak of euphoria, it was clear that new forces would emerge and that the US would not remain unchallenged for long. However, only few could have imagined that the Americans would hasten the end of their own dominance by relinquishing control in key areas and enabling – if not empowering – rival powers.
In October 2022, the Biden administration published its National Security Strategy, a traditional document outlining the security threats facing the US. President Joe Biden used this document to declare that “the post-Cold War era is over, and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next.”
The post-Cold War era is indeed over, and amazingly, the Western superpower that began it as the great victor is now ending it engulfed in the most significant crisis since World War II.
Loss of Direction
It’s hard to remember now, but the US was actually off to a promising start. President George H.W. Bush, and especially Bill Clinton, promoted a vision of a democratic world order where everyone operates under a single set of rules promoting global peace and economic freedom. An order where everyone is dependent on each other and therefore must find a way to coexist. Above all, an order where everyone is dependent on the United States of America.
But “the end of history” – the idea that ideological struggles are a thing of the past, that something so basic in human nature could change overnight – was not realistic. The hopes that all nations would agree to play under the same rules turned out to be a game that the West, or at least its political elite, was playing with itself.
Economic globalization increased mutual dependence between countries, but in most cases, it worked against the West. China became a global leader in traditional and technological industries. The West was practically helping China secure its dominance in a growing number of sectors, at the expense of its own citizens who had made a living from these industries for decades. All in the name of a new, questionable ideal.
Ideas of regional integration and freedom of movement sounded great on paper, but in practice, they caused irreversible damage. Eliminating domestic borders in Europe, along with the complete loss of control over the EU’s external borders, led to endless waves of mass immigration. The entry of millions of illegal immigrants each year, coupled with the lack of will or inability to deport them, led to significant demographic changes in every major European city. Economic distress and a dramatic drop in personal security quickly followed.
The deterioration, as always, invited a backlash. Political parties that were previously defined as far-right swept their way into the heart of the mainstream as they were the only ones calling for a tough stance against illegal immigration. On average across the EU, these parties currently enjoy support levels three times higher than they received twenty years ago. In the four largest economies in the EU – Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands – the support level for far-right parties is above 20% and continues to climb with each election cycle.
Poor military record
From a military standpoint, the last 35 years have been less than stellar for the US, to put it mildly. One President after another suffered failures that undermined Uncle Sam’s deterrence and reputation. Bill Clinton led NATO to rescue Kosovo but failed to get the Palestinians to agree to end the conflict with Israel. He also failed to contain the growing threat from Al-Qaeda despite deadly attacks on US embassies and the USS Cole. George W. Bush faced the September 11 attacks. Under his command, the US easily toppled the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, only to sink into the quagmire and lose thousands of soldiers with no strategic value or purpose. Along the way, President Bush also failed in his efforts to stop North Korea’s nuclear project, and the radical regime in Pyongyang developed its first nuclear bomb.
Barack Obama drew a clear red line for Assad regarding the use of chemical weapons but then failed to act when the line was crossed. President Obama also encouraged the Arab Spring, which quickly proved to be an Islamist winter, and turned his back on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak despite the fact that his opposition was the radical Muslim Brotherhood. It was a move that destabilized the entire region. Obama also settled for a shameful and toothless oversight agreement over Iran’s nuclear program and failed to prevent Russia’s offensive in eastern Ukraine. Donald Trump, in his first term, pulled out from the nuclear deal with Iran and eliminated Qasem Soleimani but didn’t follow up with an alternative, which left Iran free to advance its nuclear program. Most recently, President Biden lifted the sanctions against Iran and ordered a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan that turned into a humiliating pullout after 20 years of fighting. Biden also failed to stop Vladimir Putin from going after Ukraine again.
Throughout their presidencies, Obama and Biden both adopted a policy of “restraint through strength” against rivals who saw restraint as weakness. They tried to exercise soft power in the form of diplomatic and economic pressure, but their lack of response to rivals’ actions significantly weakened America’s standing.
The string of failures has made consecutive Presidents increasingly hesitant to use military force, which dramatically damaged American deterrence. But it was more than just a series of policy missteps. The confused American policy was both a cause and a symptom of deeper issues. It reflected a superpower no longer willing to exert its power and a society that had become self-critical to the point of self-hatred.
A series of processes have undermined the most basic Western ethos and put the foundations of Western democracy to the test. Radical social theories began to dominate Western discourse, and with the help of social media echo chambers – often fueled by direct and indirect funding from anti-Western elements – these theories manipulated public discourse and encouraged shallow thinking.
College campuses in the West have become filled with masses of purple-haired youth, who have been swept up in absurd struggles for the rights of made-up genders and oppressed groups of all kinds. It seems that with each passing year, the circle of people who fervently denied basic facts and distorted universal truths grew exponentially. If interested parties have managed to rally masses and make them doubt the facts that were right in front of them, it is no wonder they have also succeeded in getting them to support terrorist organizations and radical Islamic regimes operating on the other side of the world, including those openly seeking the destruction of the Western way of life.
The response to Israel’s war against bloodthirsty terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon is a striking example of how lost some circles in the West have become. Those who celebrated with Hamas and Hezbollah flags in Times Square while children were still being burned alive and women were raped in Israeli Kibbutzim and towns, have completely lost the ability to distinguish between good and evil, between right and wrong.
In recent years, the radicalization of the far left spiraled out of control. It was exacerbated by misinformation campaigns run by mostly Russia and Iran, who enlisted the help of herds of useful idiots on college campuses in the US. Many Gen Zers expressed growing contempt for the historical leaders who fought for freedom and the Western way of life. As a result, trust in public institutions eroded, and social polarization deepened.
The radicalization on the left has triggered, as usual, a backlash in the political right. Case in point – the re-election of Donald Trump. In 2020, he was regarded as a radical leader who was widely condemned and practically stoned out of Washington. In 2024, his re-election was being hailed by many as a “return to common sense.”
Rolling back radical indoctrination is always harder than allowing it in the first place. It will require an aggressive counter-response that will likely stretch the boundaries of what’s acceptable in a democracy. In the US, Trump’s re-election and the steps his administration has already begun taking mark the beginning of that counter-response. In Europe, and especially in Britain, which is sinking into hopeless chaos, the counter-response is long overdue.
The American Order
35 years have passed since the great victory over the Soviets, and it’s quite clear that US strategy since then has been a resounding failure. Nevertheless, even in 2025, the world order is still American in nature, thanks to the sheer scale of the American economy and the US’ influence in international institutions that it funds. This state of affairs dictates that any attempt to truly rival US power has to not only counterbalance its economic dominance but challenge American dominance over global organizations as well.
Of all existing forces today, the only one dominant enough to rival the US is, of course, China. Consecutive decades of rapid economic growth have elevated China into the world’s second-largest economy and a leader not only in traditional sectors but also in advanced technological fields – from semiconductor chips to electric vehicles to solar energy. China’s peaceful rise policy facilitated its rapid growth and allowed it to gain regional dominance without firing a single bullet. Coupled with its willingness to invest generously in many countries without demanding democratic reforms or regime changes, it’s easy to see why it became an attractive partner for practically every non-democratic country seeking refuge from Washington’s wrath.
China has been working for several years to establish a system of alternative institutions to rival almost every existing Western-dominated one. China’s declared aspiration is to create a new world order that considers the demands and ideologies of all countries, moving away from the Western-democratic-liberal values dictated by the US. In other words, and quite ironically, the non-democratic superpower is pursuing a more democratic world order, while the democratic superpower is striving to maintain its hold over an undemocratic global system.
China’s confrontational stance toward the West has brought Russia, Iran, and North Korea closer together. These countries share a fear of the West and the American way of life, and they desire to create a less threatening environment for themselves. Each of these nations has an open conflict with the West: Russia’s attack on Ukraine quickly became the largest war Europe has seen since 1945; Iran and its proxies launched the largest war against Israel since 1973; and North Korea, the most extreme totalitarian regime on the planet, has ongoing conflicts with South Korea, Japan, and the US. Since developing nuclear weapons, direct military action against Pyongyang is out of the question, allowing North Korea to flex its military muscles without fear of retribution.
These conflicts clearly serve China’s interests. Their continuation fuels the dependence of Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang on Beijing and on each other. In the last two years, cooperation between these four nations has deepened, with each needing the other’s assistance, mostly in terms of military aid. China’s dominance over this new bloc remains undisputed.
All the while, the Western response to these threats has been confused, hesitant, and lacking a clear vision for the future. It is no wonder that Western prestige is at an all-time low. With China waiting across the street with an open wallet, it’s easy to understand why a growing number of nonaligned countries are distancing themselves from the West and increasingly voicing support for the Chinese campaign to create a new world order. Most are not seeking to replace a pro-American order with a pro-Chinese one, but to establish a more balanced order that will be less prone to American influence.
Trump Time
Trump’s first term was full of scandals and ended with his supporters’ storming the Capitol. Trump himself admitted in interviews that he wasn’t entirely prepared for his first term. This time he comes much more experienced. His cabinet picks are a mix of seasoned politicians and controversial MAGA loyalists.
But Trump is still Trump. He craves immediate recognition for his successes and has no patience for diplomatic games or endless negotiations. He makes decisions quickly and is quick to bring out the big guns if something gets in his way.
His view of the world sometimes seems simplistic, free of complicated theories. More importantly, he is exhibiting something that previous administrations and global politics have sorely lacked in recent years – common sense. Plain common sense – the ability to tell right from wrong. This is what resonated with 77 million Americans. They were fed up with radical social agendas and complicated theories that favor the rights of other countries over their own country, who promoted rights for minorities over the rights of the majority.
Above all, Trump is a businessman who manages the world’s largest economy and isn’t afraid to use his power. In his first term, he demanded that countries like South Korea and Japan pay more for American military protection, and that NATO alliance countries increase their defense spending. His logic was clear – deployment of American troops overseas since the end of World War II was a costly investment meant to preserve Washington’s political influence around the world. Over the years, a growing number of allies adopted independent and sometimes confrontational foreign policies while continuing to enjoy the protection of the American military. When Trump demanded they pay up or lose American protection, most Western countries fell in line, and gaps with US foreign policy narrowed.
This behavior of Trump’s is reminiscent of Putin’s conduct in his first decade in office – when the Russian economy was struggling, Ukraine and Georgia sought to break away from Russia and move closer to the West. In response, the Kremlin raised natural gas prices overnight. To Ukraine, for example, Russia announced a price hike in the peak of the cold winter of 2005, from $50 to $230 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas needed for heating homes. The Kremlin claimed then that the former Soviet republics enjoyed discounted rates compared to Western European countries because they were close allies of Russia. Once they decided to move closer to the West, they argued in Moscow, it was only logical they would pay the rate that the West paid. In some cases, the Kremlin agreed to compromise on more moderate price increases in exchange for alignment on foreign policy.
Incidentally, this isn’t where the similarity ends between Trump’s logic and Putin’s – in his inauguration speech, Trump mentioned the Panama Canal and the fact that the canal was given as a gift. Since then, he said, American ships in the canal did not receive priority, and operational control of the canal was outsourced to Chinese companies. And so, Trump announced the US was going to take the canal back. His claim, that you can take back a gift because circumstances have changed, is exactly the same claim Putin made in 2014 when his forces captured the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. Crimea was gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954, to mark 300 years of unity between Russia and Ukraine. This was when both countries were prominent members of the Soviet Union. When the USSR was dissolved and Ukraine opted for closer relations with the EU, Russia moved in and took back Crimea.
Unlike his predecessors, Trump appears to not avoid, and even relish responding to every anti-American move by anyone. In his first days in office, he threatened the BRICS countries to back down from their plans to introduce a new currency and abandon the American dollar. Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on any country that does this, which would effectively block its access to the American market.
Trump is the most unpredictable president the US has ever had. This is a major advantage for a superpower looking to shake up all players in the global arena and remind everyone who’s boss. Trump’s character will push him to favor quick and simple solutions. This course of action could improve America’s standing in the short term, but it could exact a price in the longer term. For example, as part of his desire to reach quick solutions, Trump may force Ukraine to reach an agreement with Russia to end the war. Such an agreement, which would likely include recognition of Russian control over parts of eastern Ukraine, would give Trump an achievement to boast about, but would contribute to Russian deterrence against Europe and negatively influence future power struggles in the region.
Iran in the Crosshairs?
Trump makes no secret of his dream to get a Nobel Peace Prize. In that spirit, he will likely try, at least at the beginning of his term, to reshape the Middle East. Ending the war, with or without relocation for Gazans as he suggested in another paradigm-breaking idea, could open the door for Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords with Israel. This normalization is key to establishing a land trade route from India – through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel – to Europe. This is the last land route from east to west that doesn’t run through territories controlled by China, Russia, or Iran. Coincidently, the previous alternative route that was available for the West, passes through Azerbaijan. However, the Biden administration and European Union turned their backs on the local regime after it attacked Armenia. Here too, the Trump administration might propose something new in an effort to make gains against Iran and Russia.
The Iranian nuclear program remains one of the most critical issues on the world stage and is expected to attract much attention from Trump as well. Trump doesn’t want to start new wars, but he would even less so want to be remembered as the president under whose watch the Ayatollahs obtained a nuclear bomb. Trump will likely present the Iranians with an offer they can’t refuse. However, it’s not unreasonable to assume he would actually be happy if they refuse it – after all, he openly accused the Iranians of attempting to assassinate him and has yet to settle the score.
To be sure, Trump doesn’t want to get entangled in a war, but an aerial blitz on Iranian nuclear facilities has several tempting advantages: Its chances of success are high and the potential for entanglement is low. The damage to the regime might empower the Iranian opposition to topple the Ayatollahs and equally important, if the US launches a massive display of force and is successful, it will re-establish American deterrence and remind everyone which military is the most fearsome in the world and which president won’t hesitate to use it.
The Paradigm Breaker
This is becoming a pattern: Trump comes up with some new radical idea and follows it with a powerful threat. In many cases, these are paradigm-breaking ideas that sound absurd at first, and that’s how everyone treats them – in the media, among decision makers and the public. Then a day or two passes, and it turns out that not only is the President serious, but there’s also logic behind the idea. Suddenly, everyone is seriously discussing the very idea that sounded completely absurd just two days earlier.
This happened with his demand for US control over Greenland, which initially provoked laughter but quickly became a serious topic for discussion. This idea had come up several times before since it was first floated in 1867. Trump mentioned it in passing in his first term but never discussed it seriously. This time around, Trump seems dead serious. Taking control of Greenland would triple American territory in the Arctic Circle and allow deployment of advanced defense systems against Russia and China. Greenland is also a significant source of rare earth metals needed for the electronics industry. Control of these minerals could significantly reduce the US’ dependence on China, which dominates the market.
Come to think of it, why should a small European country who 200 years ago colonized an area thousands of miles away from its homeland, have a more legitimate claim than the world’s greatest superpower? What if the local residents voted in favor of joining the US?
In his inauguration speech, Trump demanded the return of the Panama Canal that Americans built over a hundred years ago – “we gave it to Panama, not to China” he said. His demand seemed delusional at first, but he dispatched Secretary of State Rubio to apply pressure. The result: Panama quickly fell in line and declared it was removing the Chinese from managing the canal, and ships flying under the US flag would pass through the canal for free.
In his first weeks in office, Trump began implementing his promise to deport illegal immigrants from the US. When Colombia refused to accept planes carrying deported citizens, Trump tweeted he would impose a series of crippling economic sanctions on the country and its leaders. It took Colombia’s president exactly 6 minutes to come to his senses and agree to send planes to collect the immigrants. In the same way, he forced Mexico’s president to send 10,000 soldiers to the border to stop the flow of immigrants and drug smuggling. The Canadian Prime Minister fell in line quickly thereafter. Trump also reached an agreement with El Salvador under which the country committed to house foreign criminals that the US wants to deport. Finally, he announced the opening of a new facility in Guantanamo that could hold up to 30,000 illegal immigrants.
Then came Trump’s shocking announcement about relocation for Gazans. Temporary relocation of course, until the rehabilitation of the Strip, which would pass – after being emptied of its residents – to US hands. Cynics might think this is essentially just a shiny packaging for nothing less than ethnic cleansing, but Trump promises a Riviera on the Mediterranean and a plan that would benefit everyone involved.
The proposal for voluntary transfer of Gazans and Trump’s escalating threats that they have no choice in the matter – and neither do the countries supposed to take them in – caught everyone by surprise. The US president is proposing a solution that only the most extreme right-wing circles in Israel dared to talk about until now. And even they did so cautiously, fearing prosecution.
But with Trump it suddenly sounds different, and even logical – “We’ll build them amazing homes in new areas,” he promised and “they’ll have better lives and the US will take control of the Strip.” When asked when the residents would be allowed to return, he wondered aloud: “Why would they want to return to this hellhole?”
Israeli politicians from the political right stared at the television in disbelief, Arab leaders are still shocked and the Palestinians swear they will never relocate. But Trump isn’t fazed, and it’s clear this wasn’t a slip of the tongue – since first announcing the idea, Trump has referenced the plan on several occasions, and he remains convinced it will happen.
From an Israeli standpoint, Trump’s vision for the Middle East is almost too good to be true – normalization with the Saudis, doing whatever it takes to make sure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons and clearing out Gaza, literally. The question of recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) should also be at play soon. The President has already stated multiple times that Israel is too small to remain secure.
The plan to solve the Gaza problem by relocating the Gazans and taking over the entire area is textbook thinking outside the box. Instead of contemplating a long-term ceasefire with Hamas that will just start the countdown to the next war – the President is pushing for a different solution which could actually work, or at the very least push other players in the region to come up with new ideas of their own.
Trump remains an unpredictable figure, often not following through on every radical idea he proposes. However, there is a discernible logic in his approach: he makes bold statements that initially seem far-fetched but are often grounded in common sense. These statements typically provoke skeptical responses, which soon give way to serious discussions, frequently resulting in Trump achieving his objectives, at least partially.
The US dominance has eroded in recent decades, and its Presidents are not respected as they used to be. Trump is out to fix just that. A few weeks into office and it already seems like no one wants to get in the way of the President of the United States. It’s been a while.
