The American establishment has realized that it is inexpedient for the United States to be everywhere--Fyodor Lukyanov

Relatively short, provocative read

Fyodor Lukyanov is editor-in-chief of the journal "Russia in Global Affairs", chairman of the presidium of the non-governmental organization "Council on Foreign and Defense Affairs," Member of the Presidium of the Russian International Affairs Council, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club, Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics, author and host of the International Review program. And he writes op/eds for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, which is where this was originally published in Russian. RT took it upon themselves to again translate and edit an op/ed but altered the text and thus skewed the writer’s intentions. After reading the following translation, please go to RT’s version and see the differences for yourself. What Lukyanov sees and terms a “cultural revolution” I wouldn’t call culture at all but behavior of a select few unelected Americans having gained control of the US government so they could pursue their own interests at the expense of the nation’s citizenry and established an Oligarchy broadly known as the Deep State. That Oligarchy indeed has a sickness that combines Megalomania with Pleonexia which together guide their behavior. But the issue of culture doesn’t get addressed until the final paragraph. Indeed, the op/ed’s subtitle is “Lukyanov: The Ukrainian conflict is a consequence of the crisis of the system laid down in Yalta,” which is what the argument is centered on.

The eightieth anniversary of the Yalta Conference, which laid the foundations of the international order after World War II, falls at an amazing moment. In the United States, which has held the position of world hegemon for several decades, a cultural revolution is taking place. The administration of Donald Trump is not just changing the conceptual approaches but expanding the space of what is possible in principle. What seemed unthinkable is officially proclaimed and even accepted as a guide to action. And the point is not in specific plots, but in the worldview—how the world can and should be arranged.

Russia, like many other States, expresses dissatisfaction with the state of affairs after the Cold War. At the end of the bipolar confrontation, the Yalta-Potsdam model, which was formally preserved in the UN design, essentially ended—the balance within the system disappeared. The attempt to adapt the institutions that resulted from the agreements at the end of the World War to American hegemony did not benefit either the institutions or the hegemon. Awareness of the impasse has been one of the reasons for the changes that are taking place in America's perception of its place in the world. Do the processes in Washington allow us to count on agreements on the principles of international community living? It just so happens that they focus on the Ukrainian issue, and it is its settlement that could become the basis for world perestroika. Or not?

The American establishment has realized that it is not appropriate for the United States to be everywhere.

The acute confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine is certainly significant for the international situation, but it is not a conflict equivalent to a world war. The world is not limited to the Euro-Atlantic area and related problems. The Ukrainian conflict is a consequence of the crisis of the system laid down in Yalta. And its main participants are the same as then. But a rapidly growing role in world politics and the economy belongs to states that, to put it mildly, did not have a decisive voice 80 or even 35 years ago. The behavior of China, which considers the Ukrainian issue important enough to indicate its presence, but shies away from direct involvement, is indicative.

Hypothetical agreements within the framework of the Ukrainian settlement are fundamental from the point of view of relations between Russia and the United States/the West, and this in itself is a factor of global significance, but far from the only one.

In public usage, it is customary to call the Yalta negotiations a "big deal", which detracts from their significance. This "deal" was preceded by the bloodiest world War in history. Of course, geopolitical rivalry from time immemorial provided for exchanges of various kinds, often cynical in nature. But the human price paid for that victory is incomparable. As well as the blatant inhumanity of the defeated ideology. Because of this combination of factors, the system created at that time worked effectively for a relatively long time—its moral foundation was solid.

Today, the word "deal" is once again in use with the light hand of the US president. And his principled readiness for such a type of relationship is of interest, especially against the background of the dogmatic obstinacy of his predecessors. But we must not forget that Trump's interpretation of the deal has little to do with how it is understood in the socio-political context.

As a businessman, Trump is focused on quick practical results, any attention to details is a waste of time and a distraction from the point. State your interest, as well as indicate what he considers to be the legitimate interest of the partner (that is, what he is willing to do)—this is the content of the approach. And continue to pursue the implementation of both the first and the second. And most importantly: the deal is the goal. Concluded - closed the issue. This applies to international politics when it comes to relations with a deliberately weaker and more dependent counterparty. Trump trained in Colombia or Panama. To some extent, this approach can be tried in the Middle East. First, the key players there are deeply integrated into the system of various ties with the United States. Secondly, the main contradictions are so deadlocked that some people are ready to agree to turn the board over. It is absolutely not necessary that this will give you anything.

The Ukrainian conflict is a consequence of the crisis of the system laid down in Yalta.

As for long-standing complex conflicts with cultural and historical roots and geopolitical reversals, such as the Ukrainian one, Trump's approach is powerless. This, however, does not mean that what is happening does not contain useful potential. It is worth going back to the beginning—about the cultural revolution. Trump is abandoning a key component: the belief that American hegemony means governing the entire world. In his understanding, hegemony is the ability to achieve the realization (by force or other means) of specific interests. The realization by the American establishment that it is not appropriate for America to be everywhere is the basis for a possible conversation about areas of interest. This was the subject of discussions in Yalta and Potsdam. Today, such a conversation will be completely different, and maybe even end without starting. But the chance for it has slightly increased compared to what it was three or four months ago. [My Emphasis]

Well, the first issue relates to the thesis’s central point: is the Ukraine crisis a result of “the system laid down at Yalta”? My answer is no. The crisis is the result of utterly dishonest US politicians who lied at every turn related to their intentions because they were driven by their illnesses—“To live at everyone’s expense” as President Putin has stated several times—and as reflected in the dual public pronouncements of the Outlaw US Empire’s intent to rule the world vis Full Spectrum Dominance—Hitler’s vision restated by the Empire that saved and further cultivated Nazism. Indeed, when we look at post-WW2 history honestly, we see the Outlaw US Empire breaking the Yalta-Postdam-UN world order immediately upon FDR’s death. Why there continues to be a reluctance—a willful blindness—by many who ought to know better to admit that while the world tried, the resistance and many illegalities committed by the Outlaw US Empire never allowed the Yalta Order to function properly, although yes, no world war has occurred since.

Has the Outlaw US Empire actually backed down due to some alteration in its global vision? Trump’s continuing abetting of the genocide in Palestine says no. That the Empire has lost to Russia in Ukraine is clear and reveals many weaknesses, but have we seen any signal that Trump is going to abandon its European colonies that were part of its victory in getting Europe to take the hit for any further support for Ukraine? No, quite the opposite. That Trump continues to be obstinate and presumably blind to Russian realities is merely Biden continued. A cultural revolution would imply a sea change when it comes to facing realities, and that has yet to occur. Team Trump lives in Fantasy Land just as much as Team Biden did. Sure, we have the USAID exposure and a few other happenings that are related to Trump not allowing the same troublemakers to upend his administration this time, but that’s political infighting not any sort of change in culture. A genuine change in culture will be seen when the Outlaw US Empire ceases to be an Outlaw, follows international law, and promotes peace and wellbeing of all nations. And what we see from Trump is more confrontation, more acting outside the law, and no realization that such behavior is uncivilized.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!