Essay by Andrey Polonsky (Russian historian and writer), in The Multiplural World, March 15, 2025
(This essay was originally published in the Russian daily newspaper Vzglyad on March 15, 2025. Translation to English is by The Multiplural World using improved machine translation. Further below are related readings drawn from the ‘World news for March 2025‘ page of The Multiplural World.)
International relations in the 21st century are reviving old lines of tension. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the U.S. was confronting Britain for world dominance, France was seeking a place at the top of the imperialist order. Today, there are new players in the global South – notably China and Africa, but also India and the Arab world. These are not the decrepit Ottoman Empire of old.
The U.S. government and President Donald Trump talk a lot about ‘peace’. They present themselves as peacekeepers, almost as arbitrators in our tragic war. Sometimes it’s hard to completely banish a desire that they act so because Russians really want this war to end and for a lasting peace to take hold.
But is ‘peace’ as mediated by Americans really possible? To what extent can such a peace correspond to Russians’ ideas about the country’s security? Here the doubts begin, supported by experience, which, as we know, is ‘the result of difficult mistakes’.
In the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Trump is trying to portray himself as a pragmatist, constantly talking about a ‘deal’. He is a businessman to the core, a businessman and the son of a businessman. However, every ‘man of action’ knows that it makes sense to conduct relations only with a counterpart who is accountable and reliable for his words and commitments. For all eleven years since 2014, the Kiev government has shown itself to be absolutely incapable of reaching an agreement. During the Special Military Operation, Kiev has gone so far as to forbid any negotiation for an agreement with Russia.
If we are talking about some kind of compromise between Moscow and Washington, then it is clearer what to talk about. But amidst this whole circus punctuated with provocative proposals and casting dust in the eyes of observers, the cancellation then resumption of military aid to Kyiv looks very strange. Partners who want to come to an agreement do not behave like that. Why sit down to play cards with a cheat who constantly cheats?
These are all obvious facts. But there is another unforgettable theme in the American-Ukrainian theater. It was the United States and dutiful Europe that are the main culprits in the Russia-Ukraine tragedy. The fact that the main responsibility for this military atrocity lies with several Democratic administrations in Washington does not change the essence of the matter. Authorities and the ‘intellectuals’ bought and paid by the government in the American capital have for a long time pondered how to use Ukrainian nationalism against the USSR and then against the Russian Federation following Ukraine ‘independence’ in 1991.
During the 1940s, the time of Truman’s presidency, the Americans were quite cautious towards the Soviet Union, understanding the serious consequences of any aggressive action by them. In the 1960s and 1970s they somehow realized the futility of such attempts, but they did continue to invest in the propaganda of Banderist. After 1991, they lifted their last brakes and began sending money and people to intervene in Russia, organizing conferences and seminars, creating ‘non-governmental organizations’ and cultivating school and university programs in the humanities. They did everything to alienate Ukrainians from Russians, aiming to transform Ukraine into an ‘anti-Russia’. In the end, they staged two ‘Maidan’ protest movements, with the second one ending in the fatal coup of February 2014. Then came the decision several months later to start a civil war against the people of Donbass after they rose up in protest against the coup. That decision was made by the usurpers in Kiev following consultations and encouragement with overseas advisers.
Now, seeing that the case is lost despite all the NATO military assistance, above all, American, military assistance, provided, and seeing that the West is on the brink of a direct ‘hot clash with nuclear power Russia, Trump has decided to change tactics and play referee. From his position, there is a double benefit here. Firstly, he is trying to somehow avert the inevitable defeat of his satellites in Europe, and secondly, he hopes to display America’s continued influence if not dominance in international affairs.
This is the main meaning and role of the ‘domestic’ rhetoric of the American president, directed against the Democrats and his declared enemy Biden. Supposedly, Trump’s influence and personal connections will solve the war in Ukraine where all the Abrams and Leopard of the NATO powers tanks have failed and ended up burning spectacularly on Ukrainian fields. The ending of this conflict in Eastern Europe is intended to result in America ‘becoming great’ again and remaining as the main power on the planet.
In addition, the personal ambitions of the impulsive Donald are at play. The man has said so many times that he would solve all the problems in Ukraine in a day. But everything turned out to be much more difficult than he imagined.
A familiar logic is being used, painfully reminiscent of the rules and regulations of the criminal world. The head man must go out of his way to prove to everyone and everything that he is the main boss and he still controls the funds. There is no room for subtleties.
Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman of the Russian president, is absolutely right when he says that “we shouldn’t put on rose-colored glasses” in evaluating the much-publicized U.S. ‘ceasefire’ proposals. Neither the America of Biden nor of Trump are our friend or partner. They are opponents, now being forced by Russia to seek compromises. The events of the last few days in Russia’s Kursk border region show that things are not going well at all for either of these Americas.
The overall picture is overlaid with the internal struggles in the United States and in the West as a whole. These largely determine both the rhetoric and the political decisions of the American administration. Within America, ‘globalists’ [imperialists] are fighting against the ‘ultra-globalists’ [also imperialists], while conservatives are fighting ‘liberals’ and loud minorities are pitted against a silent majority. This confrontation works in Russia’s favor as Russia seeks new paths for world development together with its real friends and allies.
In international relations, the 21st century is reviving old lines of tension. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the U.S. was challenging Britain for global supremacy, France was seeking historical revenge for its decline from the pinnacle of the global order, and so on down the list. The new players in the global South, notably China and Africa but also including India and the Arab world, are not the decrepit Ottoman Empire of old.
Having lost its imaginary unity, the West is steadily losing its influence and power. The Trumpists understand this better than anyone else. That is why they are seeking a way out of direct confrontation with Russia at this time and to tame the ‘anti-Russia’ for a time. Such attempts can in way be explained by a Trump longing for peace, still less by a readiness to recognize Russia’s legitimate concerns and interests. No, the anti-Russia game was played and the bet was lost, the bluff failed. The task now for Washington is to get out of a dead-end situation without losing face.
So don’t be fooled. The American authorities, including in Donald Trump’s version, are not our friends. There is no guarantee whatsoever that, having failed with Kiev, they will not try to organize ‘anti-Russia’ in another place or at another level.
The Cold War confrontation that lasted throughout the second half of the 20th century and led to this tragic conflict in the first quarter of the 21st century cannot be cancelled by asserting an aggressive global agenda and political rhetoric mixed with occasional diplomatic courtesies. The entire history since the late 1980s proves the point. Dialogue by a sovereign people and country can only be conducted by vigilantly defending one’s own identity and sovereignty. No retreat is permissible, not one step.
Related readings, drawn from the ‘World news’ page for March 2025 of The Multiplural World:
* The Western powers grapple with their gathering defeat in Ukraine:
Britain on a tightrope as it tries to bridge a widening Trans-Atlantic gap, New York Times, Mar 15, 2025 Five years after it left the European Union, Britain may have finally found a new role on the global stage – a gig that looks curiously like its old one (here in pdf format: British gov’t on a tightrope as it tried to bridge the Trans-Atlantic gap)
Background: [Britain PM hosts a virtual (online) meeting on March 15 of 30 leaders of imperialist countries and hangers-on to grapple with their gathering defeat in Ukraine. The group is crowing in unison in support of the Trump regime’s ‘ceasefire’ threats now being delivered to Russia. This occurs amidst all the Trump theatrics directed at diverting attention from the gathering defeat. Incredibly, the near-totality of ‘alternative’ media in the West is spellbound by the Trump theatrics, unable or unwilling to discuss and analyze the implications for the emerging multipolar world of the historic defeat of the U.S./NATO duo. Here is a rare exception: Ukraine’s military collapse in Russia’s Kursk border region, and Washington’s rush to freeze its proxy war in Ukraine with a ‘ceasefire’, video report by Brian Berletic, broadcast on his YouTube channel ‘The New Atlas’, Mar 13, 2025 (44 minutes) ]
* Vladimir Putin’s intial response on March 14 to the ‘ceasefire’ demand by the U.S. government and now endorsed by the ‘G7’ imperialist countries (text here in pdf format: V. Putin’s initial response on March 14 )
* Russia says time is running out for Ukrainian forces in Kursk Region to surrender, RT News. Mar 15, 2025
* Disinformation on Ukraine prevails in Western, not-so-alternative media. [Declassified UK published a report on March 11 reporting on Britain’s effort to lead a Western scramble for Ukraine’s alleged ‘vast mineral resources’. Alas, two items are entirely missing from the Declassified report. One, Ukraine does not posses ‘vast mineral resources’ that can be profitably be accessed. Ah well, small detail. Two, Britain and the rest of the U.S.-led military alliance are facing a gathering military and political defeat in Ukraine. Darn, another small detail is in the way of a good story. The report in Declassified UK displays its Western loyalties by performing a deft ‘disappearing act’ of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. It refers to that war as ‘Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine’. Poof: gone is the NATO proxy war! Hence does a modern-day Houdini appear and perform magic tricks! The Declassified report has been re-produced in the eclectic and unreliable Consortium News.]
