Valeriy Baker: What does the new American policy signify for Ukraine?

A week has passed to piece together the picture from all the chaos swirling around us. Finally, we have assembled it. This text should be supplemented with important details that will become known later, but I am publishing it quickly so that we can familiarize ourselves with this new reality. First and foremost, pour yourself a cup of tea to muster the strength to read to the end.

1.

Thus, the old world order has come to an end. The old world order, based on rules, agreements, and values, no longer exists. It was never perfect, but it was there. Now it is gone.

Describing the reasons for the destruction of the world order requires a separate article; here I will briefly note that developed countries benefited from the world order, while developing countries (those that are catching up or at least pretending to) sought to dismantle it because it was disadvantageous. At some point, developing countries (primarily China) began to catch up to developed ones, and the most powerful developed country, the USA, decided it was time to shift from protecting the old order to destroying it. This is why the American people elected Trump, who became the spokesperson for this idea. This is not a coincidence, but rather the embodiment of a trend (like everything else in the world). Previously, one side was hammering away at the supporting structure while the other was maintaining and repairing it; now the structure is being dismantled from both sides, which will happen much faster.

In this "new world without order," the USA will not protect its European or Asian allies. In this world, there are no alliances or allies, no mutual obligations, and old treaties can be unilaterally revised. There are only large strong countries that take what they want, and small weak ones that become victims of such policies. At least this is how the new American administration sees the world. They are not isolationists—they are expansionists, and we should not be surprised by their current demands regarding Greenland, Canada, or Panama.

It is clear that the current American administration is not monolithic. It consists of many groups with quite different values and interests, but I will only mention two of the most important ones. Let’s call them America First and techno-oligarchs (it would be more accurate to label them techno-fascists, using the term not as an insult but to denote their ideology). America First dreams of dismantling the world order while strengthening the American state so that America dominates the world. Techno-oligarchs dream of dismantling the world order, including the American state, so that their tech corporations dominate the world.

The strategy of the first group is outlined in the Project-2025 by the Heritage Foundation. The strategy of the techno-oligarchs is shaped by Musk, Thiel, Sachs, and other representatives of this cohort. These two groups have opposing views on taxation, intelligence services, migrants (techno-oligarchs need talent from around the world, while America First is against migrants), and other issues, so sooner or later they will clash. But for now, they are united in their desire to dismantle what was as quickly as possible. "We will destroy the whole world of violence, uproot it, and then..."—we've heard this somewhere before.

The new America does not want to be the global police force and maintain order in the world. It will not defend democracy, promote education, or develop institutions, etc.—it only wants your assets from you (previously, only China did this). 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, do what you want. If you are weak, give up "your clothes, shoes, and motorcycle," as the Terminator said. This is neo-colonialism, whether in economic or military format. The new America does not believe in multilateralism, meaning it does not need international institutions, so it is not excluded that the USA will withdraw from NATO (if not formally, then de facto), the World Trade Organization, and perhaps even the UN in the near future. Musk will explain this as a necessity to preserve American resources from wastage, Trump will cite the ineffectiveness of institutions (and he will be right, but instead of repair, he will propose to demolish everything to the ground), and Project-2025 will assert that if the USA needs to provide assistance to someone, they can do it directly, "without unnecessary bureaucrats."

2.

What does the new American policy mean for Europe? The security contract with Europe, "Pax Americana," has ended. Europe as a center of power is disadvantageous for America: it is no longer an ally (because there are no allies) but an alternative center of power—and the fewer centers of power, the better. Here, America's goals align with those of Russia and China: to separate Europe from America, to break the European Union, and to keep Europe weak, fragmented, and powerless in the form of individual unprotected markets and a target for plunder. A cumbersome seal, which can be bitten from all sides.

It is still unclear how the American administration envisions spheres of influence in Europe: whether they will jointly plunder it from both sides, or if Western Europe will be an area of exclusive American interests while Eastern Europe will belong to Russia (as it was during the Cold War), and what will happen with China's encroachments (which is already gradually buying up Europe piecemeal), etc. But the main thing is that they need to dismantle the European Union, divide everyone, and for this, they openly support Eurosceptics from the far-right (and Russia also from the far-left) end of the political spectrum. If strong individual leaders emerge from the ruins of Europe, the USA will cooperate with them. So far, they see none in France, Germany, or Britain.

3.

What does the new American policy mean for Russia? America sees China as its biggest adversary. Here we have what I call the biggest geopolitical mistake of the 21st century: the American belief in the possibility of detaching Russia from China and turning it in the opposite direction—against China. In our opinion, this is impossible. But, as we know, every American administration has initially sought to "reset" relations with Russia, mistakenly considering it part of Western civilization. None of these "resets" ended well, but that was later.

In this situation, the main fear of the American administration is the collapse of the Russian regime. This must not be allowed at any cost. Two years ago, I wrote that the fear of Russia's defeat far outweighs the fear of Ukraine's defeat (without which the world has lived perfectly for hundreds of years), to the point that there may come a moment when instead of supporting Ukraine against Russia, America will begin to support Russia against Ukraine. Unpleasant, but that day has come.

Already in the first month of his term, Trump removed Russia from international isolation, presenting it not as an aggressor and international terrorist, but as a powerful country entitled to its place at the table of great powers. It is possible that sanctions will soon be lifted.

Imagine that during the height of World War II, the President of the USA, instead of helping Britain fight the Nazi Reich, instead of lend-lease for the USSR, would send negotiators to meet with representatives of Hitler, call Adolf his best friend, prepare for a personal meeting, and explain to everyone that Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France are to blame for the war, and that he would somehow come to an agreement with his friend Adolf.

4.

What does the new American policy mean for Ukraine? First and foremost, there will no longer be support for Ukraine. As early as last fall, Ukrainian analysts explained that support from the USA would not be forthcoming regardless of the outcome of the presidential elections.

Sometimes it seems to us that someone in the American administration hates Ukraine, while someone else loves it. This is a childish approach: a child thinks they are the center of attention, and everyone around them somehow relates to them, whether good or bad. An adult knows that the world is mostly indifferent to you. The world is not Ukraine-centric. In their understanding, Ukraine is neither good nor bad—it is simply irrelevant, meaning it has no relation to the matter.

Ukraine hinders the current America from doing two things. First, weakening Europe to make it defenseless. Second, strengthening Russia to use against China. So Ukraine must be punished—nothing personal, just business.

A popular metaphor in the new American administration compares the current war to the American Civil War. Ukraine appears as a rebellious southern province. The good northerners will eventually defeat the bad southerners and restore order. And foreign states (the USA, Europe) should not meddle in someone else's civil war.

5.

What should we do in this situation?