Fyodor Lukyanov Explains the Motives Behind Trump’s 'Cultural Revolution'
The emphasis of the new US administration on traditional values in contrast to liberal ideals could enhance the allure of its soft power initiatives. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
**The American Establishment Realizes It Can’t Be Everywhere Anymore**
The eightieth anniversary of the Yalta Conference, which laid the groundwork for the international order following the Second World War, arrives at a significant juncture. Today, that order faces a crisis, with the conflict in Ukraine serving as a prominent illustration of this disarray.
A cultural transformation is taking place in the United States, which has been the global hegemon for many years. The Trump administration did not merely make slight adjustments to foreign policy; it fundamentally altered how Washington perceives its global role. What was once inconceivable is now openly debated and actively sought as policy. This represents a comprehensive rethink of the international landscape, questioning how the world should be structured and America’s role in it.
For Russia, the conclusion of the Cold War coincided with discontent regarding the new unipolar system. Although the Yalta and Potsdam agreements maintained a semblance of continuity through organizations like the United Nations, the balance within that framework collapsed as American dominance grew. Efforts to recalibrate post-war institutions to bolster U.S. hegemony have faltered, negatively impacting both the institutions and the hegemon. This stagnation is prompting significant changes in Washington’s global strategy.
**Ukraine: A Consequence of Systemic Crisis**
The situation in Ukraine exemplifies this larger systemic crisis and highlights the post-Yalta order's inability to adjust to contemporary realities. While the war in Ukraine is significant, it does not compare to the scale of conflict seen in World War II; the global landscape is now defined beyond just the Euro-Atlantic space. Other nations, most notably China, have emerged as key players. Beijing's measured involvement in the Ukrainian crisis demonstrates its importance while deliberately avoiding direct engagement, showcasing a shift in global power dynamics.
For the United States and its allies, finding resolution to the Ukraine crisis carries worldwide implications. Nevertheless, today's challenges extend beyond traditional power centers. Emerging economies and nations that had little influence 80 years ago now hold considerable sway. This reality emphasizes the insufficiency of relying exclusively on Cold War-era institutions and strategies to tackle modern complexities.
**Lessons from Yalta**
Yalta is frequently characterized as a “grand bargain,” yet this characterization simplifies its deeper significance. The conference unfolded amid the bloodiest war in history. The system it established drew legitimacy from the moral authority related to the victory over fascism and the immense human sacrifices involved. For decades, this moral grounding provided the Yalta system with a legitimacy that transcended pure geopolitics.
Currently, discussions of “deals” have resurfaced, largely influenced by Donald Trump’s practical governance style. Trump’s vision of a deal focuses on immediate results rather than prolonged negotiations. This approach has yielded some successes in specific contexts, such as U.S. relations in Latin America and certain Middle Eastern areas, where key stakeholders are deeply integrated into Washington’s sphere of influence.
However, Trump’s method struggles in more complicated and historically rooted conflicts like that in Ukraine. These scenarios, rich in history and culture, resist simplistic transactional solutions. Yet even in this context, there exists potential. Trump’s assertion that American hegemony does not require absolute control over the entire world marks a shift from the beliefs of previous administrations. He envisions hegemony as the capacity to assert particular interests selectively, whether through force or other means.
This transformation opens a narrow channel for dialogue regarding spheres of influence. Similar discussions occurred at Yalta and Potsdam, where the great powers distributed territories and responsibilities. Although today’s geopolitical reality is significantly more intricate, acknowledging that the U.S. cannot be omnipresent may foster new discussions.
**A Changing America, A Changing World**
Trump’s cultural revolution has altered America’s foreign policy landscape, with wide-ranging implications. The American establishment is increasingly recognizing that the costs associated with global omnipresence are untenable. This acknowledgement could have critical ramifications for U.S.-Russia relations and overall international stability.
Nevertheless, the concept of a new “grand bargain” is fraught with complications. Unlike in 1945, when moral clarity and shared goals steered negotiations, today’s world is far more fragmented. Divergent ideologies, entrenched rivalries, and the rise of new powers make achieving consensus a daunting task.
The relative stability of the Yalta system stemmed from a clear moral underpinning: the defeat of fascism. Today’s global order lacks such cohesive principles. Thus, the challenge lies in managing a multipolar world where power is widely distributed, and no singular narrative dominates.
**What Lies Ahead?**
For Russia, the emergence of a new U.S. foreign policy centered around traditional values and a transactional mindset presents a challenge. The liberal agenda of past administrations—focused on promoting democracy, human rights, and progressive ideals—was something Moscow effectively countered. However, the conservative agenda advocated by Trump supporters, emphasizing patriotism, traditional family values, and individual success, may be more difficult for Russia to confront.
Additionally, the potential digital transformation of U.S. influence mechanisms, through more efficient initiatives like USAID, could significantly broaden the reach of American power. Automated systems and data analytics might enable more effective targeting of resources, enhancing American soft power.
Moscow cannot afford to be complacent. Outdated propaganda methods from the 1990s and early 2000s are ill-suited to the current climate. Instead, Russia must cultivate compelling cultural narratives and master contemporary soft power tools to effectively respond to this evolving challenge.
The Trumpists’ vision of revitalizing the “American Dream” extends beyond U.S. borders—it embodies a global narrative capable of reshaping perceptions of America. For Russia and other countries discontent with the post-Cold War order, the imperative will be to adapt swiftly and effectively to this new era of geopolitical competition.
The stakes are high. A new chapter in global relations is emerging, and success will depend on nations' ability to navigate this complex and rapidly shifting landscape.
This article was originally published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RTN team.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
The eightieth anniversary of the Yalta Conference, which laid the groundwork for the international order following the Second World War, arrives at a significant juncture. Today, that order faces a crisis, with the conflict in Ukraine serving as a prominent illustration of this disarray.
A cultural transformation is taking place in the United States, which has been the global hegemon for many years. The Trump administration did not merely make slight adjustments to foreign policy; it fundamentally altered how Washington perceives its global role. What was once inconceivable is now openly debated and actively sought as policy. This represents a comprehensive rethink of the international landscape, questioning how the world should be structured and America’s role in it.
For Russia, the conclusion of the Cold War coincided with discontent regarding the new unipolar system. Although the Yalta and Potsdam agreements maintained a semblance of continuity through organizations like the United Nations, the balance within that framework collapsed as American dominance grew. Efforts to recalibrate post-war institutions to bolster U.S. hegemony have faltered, negatively impacting both the institutions and the hegemon. This stagnation is prompting significant changes in Washington’s global strategy.
**Ukraine: A Consequence of Systemic Crisis**
The situation in Ukraine exemplifies this larger systemic crisis and highlights the post-Yalta order's inability to adjust to contemporary realities. While the war in Ukraine is significant, it does not compare to the scale of conflict seen in World War II; the global landscape is now defined beyond just the Euro-Atlantic space. Other nations, most notably China, have emerged as key players. Beijing's measured involvement in the Ukrainian crisis demonstrates its importance while deliberately avoiding direct engagement, showcasing a shift in global power dynamics.
For the United States and its allies, finding resolution to the Ukraine crisis carries worldwide implications. Nevertheless, today's challenges extend beyond traditional power centers. Emerging economies and nations that had little influence 80 years ago now hold considerable sway. This reality emphasizes the insufficiency of relying exclusively on Cold War-era institutions and strategies to tackle modern complexities.
**Lessons from Yalta**
Yalta is frequently characterized as a “grand bargain,” yet this characterization simplifies its deeper significance. The conference unfolded amid the bloodiest war in history. The system it established drew legitimacy from the moral authority related to the victory over fascism and the immense human sacrifices involved. For decades, this moral grounding provided the Yalta system with a legitimacy that transcended pure geopolitics.
Currently, discussions of “deals” have resurfaced, largely influenced by Donald Trump’s practical governance style. Trump’s vision of a deal focuses on immediate results rather than prolonged negotiations. This approach has yielded some successes in specific contexts, such as U.S. relations in Latin America and certain Middle Eastern areas, where key stakeholders are deeply integrated into Washington’s sphere of influence.
However, Trump’s method struggles in more complicated and historically rooted conflicts like that in Ukraine. These scenarios, rich in history and culture, resist simplistic transactional solutions. Yet even in this context, there exists potential. Trump’s assertion that American hegemony does not require absolute control over the entire world marks a shift from the beliefs of previous administrations. He envisions hegemony as the capacity to assert particular interests selectively, whether through force or other means.
This transformation opens a narrow channel for dialogue regarding spheres of influence. Similar discussions occurred at Yalta and Potsdam, where the great powers distributed territories and responsibilities. Although today’s geopolitical reality is significantly more intricate, acknowledging that the U.S. cannot be omnipresent may foster new discussions.
**A Changing America, A Changing World**
Trump’s cultural revolution has altered America’s foreign policy landscape, with wide-ranging implications. The American establishment is increasingly recognizing that the costs associated with global omnipresence are untenable. This acknowledgement could have critical ramifications for U.S.-Russia relations and overall international stability.
Nevertheless, the concept of a new “grand bargain” is fraught with complications. Unlike in 1945, when moral clarity and shared goals steered negotiations, today’s world is far more fragmented. Divergent ideologies, entrenched rivalries, and the rise of new powers make achieving consensus a daunting task.
The relative stability of the Yalta system stemmed from a clear moral underpinning: the defeat of fascism. Today’s global order lacks such cohesive principles. Thus, the challenge lies in managing a multipolar world where power is widely distributed, and no singular narrative dominates.
**What Lies Ahead?**
For Russia, the emergence of a new U.S. foreign policy centered around traditional values and a transactional mindset presents a challenge. The liberal agenda of past administrations—focused on promoting democracy, human rights, and progressive ideals—was something Moscow effectively countered. However, the conservative agenda advocated by Trump supporters, emphasizing patriotism, traditional family values, and individual success, may be more difficult for Russia to confront.
Additionally, the potential digital transformation of U.S. influence mechanisms, through more efficient initiatives like USAID, could significantly broaden the reach of American power. Automated systems and data analytics might enable more effective targeting of resources, enhancing American soft power.
Moscow cannot afford to be complacent. Outdated propaganda methods from the 1990s and early 2000s are ill-suited to the current climate. Instead, Russia must cultivate compelling cultural narratives and master contemporary soft power tools to effectively respond to this evolving challenge.
The Trumpists’ vision of revitalizing the “American Dream” extends beyond U.S. borders—it embodies a global narrative capable of reshaping perceptions of America. For Russia and other countries discontent with the post-Cold War order, the imperative will be to adapt swiftly and effectively to this new era of geopolitical competition.
The stakes are high. A new chapter in global relations is emerging, and success will depend on nations' ability to navigate this complex and rapidly shifting landscape.
This article was originally published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RTN team.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
