A Zeitenwende comes from Washington: how long-term trends shaped a new politics

Then US President-elect Donald Trump meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in December 2024. Photo: Frederic Legrand / Shutterstock

The events of recent weeks demonstrate the United States’ desire to change its attitude towards its commitments to allies. It looks like the previous world order has ended. It was never perfect, but anyway it is over.

In this “new world without order”, the United States will not defend its European or Asian allies. In this world, there are no alliances and allies, no mutual obligations, and old treaties can be revised unilaterally. There are only big, strong countries that take what they want and small, weak ones that fall victim to such policies. At least this is how the new American administration sees the world.

The new America does not want to be a global policeman and keep order in the world. It will not defend democracy, promote education, develop institutions, etc. — it only wants your assets. Ukrainians learned this when, instead of a peace agreement, they were offered a predatory deal on minerals and other assets for an amount five times greater than the non-refundable American military aid. The new America does not believe in alliances and agreements, it believes in the right of the strong in a multipolar world. If you are strong, then do what you want. If you are weak, give away your “clothes, boots, and motorcycle”, as once said by the Terminator. The new America does not believe in multilateralism, which means it does not need international institutions. As a result, it is possible that in the near future the United States will withdraw from NATO (if not formally, then de facto), the World Trade Organization, and maybe even the United Nations (the relevant bill has already been introduced). Musk will explain this by the need to save American funds from being wasted, and Trump will explain it by the inoperability of institutions. He will be right in this regard, but instead of repairing them, he will propose to burn everything to the ground. At the same time, Project 2025 will explain it by the fact that if the United States needs to help someone, it can do this directly, “without unnecessary bureaucrats”.

It is important to understand that America’s turnaround is not the whim of individual political leaders. On the contrary, the election of these leaders was the embodiment of a long-term accumulation of social, economic, political and technological trends. Here are some of them:

1. Loss of trust and the growth of hatred regarding institutions and the establishment, which appear to be arrogant, corrupt, disconnected from the people, and working against the population’s interests.

2. Growing protests against cultural changes brought by the postmodern agenda, with its priorities of political correctness, inclusivity, minority rights, “identity politics”, climate change, etc. This causes a feeling that traditional social structures are being undermined.

3. Feeling threatened by the pressure of technological change, the loss of the “American dream” reference point, and social frustration.

4. Anti-globalism and the desire to return jobs to the United States in the face of increasing competition from developing countries and a high dependence on international suppliers and markets.

5. Isolationism and an unwillingness to act as a global defender of values, to spend money on this as well as on international organizations, even though free and secure global trade is the foundation of American prosperity.

6. Expansionism in the Western Hemisphere, a traditional feature of American policy, which is currently expressed in claims to Canada, Mexico, Greenland and Panama.

7. Hatred of Europe (and Canada), which have managed to achieve a higher standard of living by almost all indicators. There is also the feeling that everyone else lives at the expense of the US due to unbalanced trade and less defence spending.

8. A desire to reset relations with the Russian Federation and use Moscow against China, which is the main adversary (a “reverse Nixon”, as diplomats call this fantastic and impossible manoeuvre). This is despite the deep and inseparable integration of China and Russia and the numerous contradictions between America and Russia.

9. The growing influence of large corporations on politics through campaign financing, lobbying, and influence on policy development.

10. Changing attitudes towards science and evidence-based methods, reflecting broader cultural ideological shifts and the struggle between scientific consensus and alternative views actively promoted in the media.

Since the changes in American policy are caused by long-term, powerful trends, whose influence on voters was embodied in the election of the new administration, hopes that it is possible to change their mind, to prove their mistakes, to master an agreement or to wait it all out, are completely futile.

What does the new US policy mean for Europe? The security contract with Europe, the Pax Americana, has ended. Europe as a centre of power is disadvantageous to America. Now it is not an ally (because there are no allies), but an alternative centre of power — and the fewer centres of power, the better. And here, America’s goals are the same as those of Russia: to divide Europe from America, to break up the European Union, and to have Europe weak, divided, and powerless in the form of separate unprotected markets and potential objects of plunder.

It is still unclear how the US administration sees any possible zones of influence in Europe. It is unclear whether the continent will be robbed by both sides, whether Western Europe will be a zone of exclusive American interests, and Eastern Europe of Russian interests (as it was during the Cold War), and so on. But the main thing is that they need to weaken and break up the EU, so they openly support Eurosceptics from the far right (and with Russia also the far left) of the political spectrum.

What does the new American policy mean for Ukraine? There will be no more support for Ukraine, as Ukrainian analysts forecasted back in autumn. The American administration has already stopped the supply of previously allocated aid and the exchange of intelligence information (at the time of publication everything was resumed). The shutdown of the Starlink terminals, on which Ukrainian defence communications are based, is only a matter of time. This example of how Americans can behave in a critical situation should scare all US allies around the world.

Ukraine prevents today’s America from reaching two important strategic goals. First, this is the aim to weaken Europe so that it is defenceless. Second, there is the desire to strengthen Russia to use it against China (this strategic mistake will be described in the next article). So, Ukraine must be erased — nothing personal, just business.

Ukraine now is finally realizing that its main allies are in Europe. But it is time for Europe to realize that it needs Ukraine as well.

Europe needs Ukraine as a shield. Ukraine has the largest army on the continent. Ukraine has the only army that knows how to deter Russia. Ukraine has the only army that knows how to fight a modern high-tech war, which is very different from previous motorized wars.

Ukraine needs Europe as its rear, as a source of financial support, weapons, technology, investment, political and moral support. We are doomed to be together.

Europe will not survive without Ukraine. Ukraine will not survive without Europe. We are in the same boat, we will either sail together or drown together.

Ukraine’s resilience for three years bought time for Europe, but the new way was not obvious until the arrival of the new American administration. Only now, under the influence of the obvious destruction of alliances and promises, is the awakening beginning.

To understand the Ukrainian position, we must start with the fact that Putin is not fighting for territory. Russia has vast territories, undeveloped and neglected. Russia is fighting to destroy Ukrainian statehood and identity, as it did a century ago. For Ukrainians, surrender does not mean saving lives. Rather, it means losing lives, because we will see more tragedies like Bucha and Mariupol throughout the country. Those remaining Ukrainian men will then be made to storm Central European capitals under the Russian flag. Surrender is not an option for us, because it means not life, but death. So, Ukraine must resist, regardless of who our allies are and who are not.

“All those who demand peace from us ignore that the price of our peace will be higher than the price of our war,” said Pavlo Kazarin, a well-known Ukrainian journalist and now serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

There is no immediate catastrophe yet. We have the resources for several months, and we must use this time as efficiently as possible to prepare ourselves for the next year and beyond.

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us”.

Valerii Pekar is a chairman of the board of Decolonization NGO, the author of four books, an adjunct professor at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School and Business School of the Ukrainian Catholic University, and a former member of the National Reform Council.

Please support New Eastern Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.

geopolitics, policy shift, Russian invasion of Ukraine, transformation, Ukraine, Ukraine-West relations, Ukrainian foreign policy