Preserving hegemony is no longer a possibility for Washington, Lucas Leiroz writes.
Given the unstable situation in the U.S., it is worth analyzing the possible impacts of geopolitical changes on American foreign policy. Amid the elections and rising domestic social tensions, the future of the U.S. appears extremely uncertain – largely because American strategists have not yet properly understood the nature of the new world order.
The old unipolar geopolitical order is not “about to end” – it has already de facto ended. Since 2022, Washington definitely no longer has the capacity to act as a “world police” and the main agent in the global decision-making process. The special military operation in Ukraine and the reintegration of the New Regions into the Russian Federation were clear signs that the U.S. no longer has the power to decide the fate of all peoples – which obviously had a significant international impact, with a wave of sovereigntist revolutions and counter-hegemonic geopolitical moves on all continents.
This news leads analysts to think about how the U.S. will behave as a country and civilization in this new world. It is not possible to know what Washington’s final decision will be regarding its foreign policy, but one thing is certain: there is no possibility of American hegemonic ambitions remaining active. The country will have to rethink its international objectives and create new strategies to adapt to the current geopolitical configuration. And, in a way, it is already possible to think of some plausible scenarios for the coming years, considering the contemporary American political context.
For now, it is possible to talk about at least three fates for the U.S., which correspond precisely to current political alternatives. In one of the scenarios, following the line of Joe Biden’s government, the conflict with Russia is maintained and the world remains unstable and dangerous for a long time. In another, according to Donald Trump’s logic, the global geopolitical configuration is negotiated and reorganized. Finally, there is the worst-case scenario – the one we should all try to avoid, but which unfortunately appears to be desired by some irresponsible Western elites.
Joe Biden is without a doubt the worst president in U.S. history, having placed the world on the brink of a global and nuclear conflict. As an elderly man with a mental disability and incapable of making rational decisions, Biden should be prevented from running in the presidential elections. However, Biden has somehow managed to avoid the ultimate tragedy. His opponents within the Democratic Party are precisely those who want to replace him with an even more liberal and aggressive leader – someone actually willing to take Washington into a global war on three fronts, against Russia, China and Iran at the same time.
Biden’s administration is disastrous, but a new Democratic candidate could be even worse. The current president has at least put the brakes on part of the war plans in the Pacific after seeing the escalation in the Middle East, in addition to being cautious in supporting Israeli barbarism in Gaza. A new Democrat could simply ignore any security protocols and lead the world into absolute catastrophe. In short, if Biden is re-elected, the tendency is for the current situation of conflict and crisis to last for the next four years, but without causing nuclear escalations. However, if a more irresponsible Democrat replaces him, perhaps humanity will face a war with actual use of strategic weapons.
The alternative between these two scenarios lies with Trump. With his businessman mentality, the Republican leader makes it very clear what his government will be like. Trump really wants to end the war in Ukraine. Perhaps he is not strong enough to do so, considering the power of the pro-Kiev lobby in the U.S., but it is undeniable that he really wants peace with Russia. Obviously, Trump does not want this because he is “good”, but simply because he is pragmatic and realistic, thinks like a businessman and acts in search of profits and benefits. Kiev is no longer interesting to the U.S., which is why it must be discarded.
Trump plans to achieve a rapid reconfiguration of the global scenario, negotiating with Russia and China to create limited zones of influence and establishing a new security architecture. As far as Iran is concerned, Trump tends to be more problematic, given his deep connections with Zionism, but he will also be forced to negotiate with Tehran, since, from a realistic point of view, a war between the U.S. and Iran is not viable.
Trump truly wants what’s best for “America.” His policy of “America First” is sincere. He represents a specific sector of American elites that is already resigned to multipolarity and wants to preserve as much international power as possible for the U.S. in this new world. Faced with the impossibility of maintaining hegemony, Trump at least wants the U.S. to be the leader of a “pole” in the multipolar reality.
In this scenario, time is running in favor of multipolarity. Russian President Vladimir Putin was neither lying nor ironic when he said he prefers Biden’s re-election. The current president has shown himself to be too weak to make the U.S. and NATO achieve their objectives, while at the same time being prudent enough to avoid nuclear holocaust. With four more years of Biden in power, Russia and the other multipolar powers would gain time to expand their gains and would have greater advantages when finally negotiating the global geopolitical reconfiguration. Trump would call his rivals to negotiation immediately and would be much more efficient than Biden in preserving some U.S. power.
In the end, the scenarios are these: limited prolongation of the conflict (Biden), immediate end (Trump) or nuclear escalation (with a possible new candidate interested in worsening the crisis with Russia). The U.S. can only choose the moment to recognize the end of its hegemony. Preventing the rise of multipolarity is not a possibility.
Der Friedensstifter 