As Western global influence diminishes, elites hastily point fingers at Trump. They're mistaken.
The unipolar world order remains intact despite ongoing events at its core. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The unipolar world order is not being dismantled by what’s happening inside its center.
Engaging with diverse perspectives can be intriguing, yet the real excitement often emerges when one focuses on personal opinions. This concept is at the heart of politicized opinion polling, with little evidence suggesting any alternative exists. A recent initiative by the European Council on Foreign Relations, an esteemed Western think tank, exemplifies this trend.
Titled “Alone in a Trumpian World,” the report investigates the “EU and Global Public Opinion after the US Elections,” essentially analyzing the implications of Donald Trump’s return—a figure who evokes considerable anxiety among mainstream Euro-centrists and their counterparts across various institutions, including media and academia.
The study is based on an extensive opinion poll involving 28,549 respondents across 16 European and eight non-European countries, conducted shortly after Trump’s electoral victory last November. The report presents a straightforward commentary, sharing observations and conclusions without much complexity.
A key finding is the optimism prevalent globally regarding Trump, with many believing he may enhance America’s standing and foster international peace by positioning the US as a more conventional great power. In contrast, the European Union and the distinctly isolated UK reveal a more pessimistic outlook.
The authors emphasize this European isolation repeatedly, noting the more favorable global perceptions of Trump as “surprising” or “remarkable.” This bemused perspective is typical among Western European elites, who seem increasingly disconnected from the broader world. One can only speculate how different the analysis might have been had it originated from Indian or Chinese scholars.
While the report purports to analyze political sentiments, it functions more like a manifesto cloaked in polling data. The authors—Timothy Garton Ash, Ivan Krastev, and Mark Leonard—do not shy away from presenting a bold, if somewhat superficial, geopolitical proposition rooted in a nostalgic ideology of Western (predominantly US) dominance, branded as the “liberal international order.”
The authors contend that the second entry of Trump marks an essential moment for the EU—and the globe—catalyzing the demise of the current order. They acknowledge its external challenges and internal weaknesses, noting the stark global refusal to align with Western actions since the escalation of the Ukraine War. The report delicately phrases the West as “divided from the rest,” noting the disarray has intensified.
So severe is this division that the authors argue it is increasingly problematic to view “the West” as a unified geopolitical entity. Consequently, their primary recommendation—essentially the crux of their argument—is for the EU to act like a traditional great power, embracing realist foreign policy principles. They suggest that Europe should cease “posing as a moral arbiter” and instead “build its own domestic strength” to enhance its global standing.
Despite the manifesto's nature, some insights derived from the polling data are intellectually stimulating, even if certain questions are framed in a misleading fashion. For instance, an inquiry about attitudes towards Israel’s military actions in Gaza excludes any mention of genocide or significant crimes, limiting respondents to specific categories of “war” and “conflict.”
Similarly, a question regarding the nature of the Ukraine War omits the phrase “proxy war,” which accurately describes a widely held viewpoint. By excluding such pertinent terms, the authors appear either fundamentally misguided or intentionally manipulative.
The assertion that a shift in Ukrainian public opinion toward a compromise peace is “really new” raises eyebrows, as indications of this trend have been evident for a substantial period. Ukrainian sociologists and pollsters have documented this evolving perspective for months.
Ultimately, the political functions of this report encourage readers to interpret it as a manifestation of ideology in action. This brings up a pertinent inquiry regarding what key issues are conspicuously overlooked.
First, the authors acknowledge a transition in global order, suggesting that the “post-Cold War liberal order” is in decline. This recognition is commendable, yet it has been a common realization for at least two decades. Its acknowledgment by the ECFR, a prominent ideological institution second only to the US Atlantic Council, marks a significant historical development.
Intriguingly, the authors avoid using the term “multipolarity,” instead opting for phrases like “a la carte,” “polyamorous,” and the ever-popular “zero-sum.” This lexical avoidance illustrates the struggle to confront a reality that contradicts their ideological framework.
Moreover, while the Ukraine War features prominently within the report, the examination of it misses a critical point. The authors present widespread belief among various nations that peace in Ukraine is more attainable under Trump’s leadership, particularly in countries such as China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and even within the US.
In nations where this viewpoint isn't dominant, substantial minorities still regard Trump as a potential peacemaker, including in Brazil, various EU member states, Indonesia, Turkey, and Ukraine itself. Despite probing multiple aspects of the conflict, they note political fragmentation within Ukraine regarding acceptable compromises, warning that this could lead to turmoil when negotiations commence.
The authors gloss over the potential consequences of a Ukrainian defeat—a costly outcome in terms of lives, territory, and prosperity—which might have been avoided had the West not engaged in its misguided proxy war against Russia. Garton Ash, Krastev, and Leonard overlook this uncomfortable aspect of reality rooted in their ideological biases.
Yet the most critical oversight is their assertion that Trump’s second election propels the decline of the liberal order. In reality, it is the West’s challenges in the Ukraine conflict—arguably its most ambitious proxy war targeting a major power with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal—that accelerates decline. This failure was foreseeable, and it fundamentally shapes the current historical landscape. Trump’s actions, ambitious as they may be, merely respond to this reality.
Consider what the report’s authors might articulate about the “liberal international order” if the West had triumphed and Russia had been defeated. The dynamics have shifted, and it is the West that is currently struggling, while Russia asserts its position. Significant changes impacting the global landscape stem not from activities within the West but from developments externally—most notably, the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the reassertion of the Global South.
The report’s final irony lies in its invitation to global voices—Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, and Russian—to share perspectives on Trump’s return and its ramifications. This self-centered approach may further illustrate Western Europe’s considerable journey ahead to redefine its role in a transformed world.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
Engaging with diverse perspectives can be intriguing, yet the real excitement often emerges when one focuses on personal opinions. This concept is at the heart of politicized opinion polling, with little evidence suggesting any alternative exists. A recent initiative by the European Council on Foreign Relations, an esteemed Western think tank, exemplifies this trend.
Titled “Alone in a Trumpian World,” the report investigates the “EU and Global Public Opinion after the US Elections,” essentially analyzing the implications of Donald Trump’s return—a figure who evokes considerable anxiety among mainstream Euro-centrists and their counterparts across various institutions, including media and academia.
The study is based on an extensive opinion poll involving 28,549 respondents across 16 European and eight non-European countries, conducted shortly after Trump’s electoral victory last November. The report presents a straightforward commentary, sharing observations and conclusions without much complexity.
A key finding is the optimism prevalent globally regarding Trump, with many believing he may enhance America’s standing and foster international peace by positioning the US as a more conventional great power. In contrast, the European Union and the distinctly isolated UK reveal a more pessimistic outlook.
The authors emphasize this European isolation repeatedly, noting the more favorable global perceptions of Trump as “surprising” or “remarkable.” This bemused perspective is typical among Western European elites, who seem increasingly disconnected from the broader world. One can only speculate how different the analysis might have been had it originated from Indian or Chinese scholars.
While the report purports to analyze political sentiments, it functions more like a manifesto cloaked in polling data. The authors—Timothy Garton Ash, Ivan Krastev, and Mark Leonard—do not shy away from presenting a bold, if somewhat superficial, geopolitical proposition rooted in a nostalgic ideology of Western (predominantly US) dominance, branded as the “liberal international order.”
The authors contend that the second entry of Trump marks an essential moment for the EU—and the globe—catalyzing the demise of the current order. They acknowledge its external challenges and internal weaknesses, noting the stark global refusal to align with Western actions since the escalation of the Ukraine War. The report delicately phrases the West as “divided from the rest,” noting the disarray has intensified.
So severe is this division that the authors argue it is increasingly problematic to view “the West” as a unified geopolitical entity. Consequently, their primary recommendation—essentially the crux of their argument—is for the EU to act like a traditional great power, embracing realist foreign policy principles. They suggest that Europe should cease “posing as a moral arbiter” and instead “build its own domestic strength” to enhance its global standing.
Despite the manifesto's nature, some insights derived from the polling data are intellectually stimulating, even if certain questions are framed in a misleading fashion. For instance, an inquiry about attitudes towards Israel’s military actions in Gaza excludes any mention of genocide or significant crimes, limiting respondents to specific categories of “war” and “conflict.”
Similarly, a question regarding the nature of the Ukraine War omits the phrase “proxy war,” which accurately describes a widely held viewpoint. By excluding such pertinent terms, the authors appear either fundamentally misguided or intentionally manipulative.
The assertion that a shift in Ukrainian public opinion toward a compromise peace is “really new” raises eyebrows, as indications of this trend have been evident for a substantial period. Ukrainian sociologists and pollsters have documented this evolving perspective for months.
Ultimately, the political functions of this report encourage readers to interpret it as a manifestation of ideology in action. This brings up a pertinent inquiry regarding what key issues are conspicuously overlooked.
First, the authors acknowledge a transition in global order, suggesting that the “post-Cold War liberal order” is in decline. This recognition is commendable, yet it has been a common realization for at least two decades. Its acknowledgment by the ECFR, a prominent ideological institution second only to the US Atlantic Council, marks a significant historical development.
Intriguingly, the authors avoid using the term “multipolarity,” instead opting for phrases like “a la carte,” “polyamorous,” and the ever-popular “zero-sum.” This lexical avoidance illustrates the struggle to confront a reality that contradicts their ideological framework.
Moreover, while the Ukraine War features prominently within the report, the examination of it misses a critical point. The authors present widespread belief among various nations that peace in Ukraine is more attainable under Trump’s leadership, particularly in countries such as China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and even within the US.
In nations where this viewpoint isn't dominant, substantial minorities still regard Trump as a potential peacemaker, including in Brazil, various EU member states, Indonesia, Turkey, and Ukraine itself. Despite probing multiple aspects of the conflict, they note political fragmentation within Ukraine regarding acceptable compromises, warning that this could lead to turmoil when negotiations commence.
The authors gloss over the potential consequences of a Ukrainian defeat—a costly outcome in terms of lives, territory, and prosperity—which might have been avoided had the West not engaged in its misguided proxy war against Russia. Garton Ash, Krastev, and Leonard overlook this uncomfortable aspect of reality rooted in their ideological biases.
Yet the most critical oversight is their assertion that Trump’s second election propels the decline of the liberal order. In reality, it is the West’s challenges in the Ukraine conflict—arguably its most ambitious proxy war targeting a major power with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal—that accelerates decline. This failure was foreseeable, and it fundamentally shapes the current historical landscape. Trump’s actions, ambitious as they may be, merely respond to this reality.
Consider what the report’s authors might articulate about the “liberal international order” if the West had triumphed and Russia had been defeated. The dynamics have shifted, and it is the West that is currently struggling, while Russia asserts its position. Significant changes impacting the global landscape stem not from activities within the West but from developments externally—most notably, the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the reassertion of the Global South.
The report’s final irony lies in its invitation to global voices—Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, and Russian—to share perspectives on Trump’s return and its ramifications. This self-centered approach may further illustrate Western Europe’s considerable journey ahead to redefine its role in a transformed world.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
