Beyond Pragmatism: Dmitry Trenin’s Sceptical Turn On Trump 2.0

Beyond Pragmatism: Dmitry Trenin’s Sceptical Turn On Trump 2.0

By Andrew Korybko

What can be described as Russia’s pro-BRI policymaking faction has long lobbied for a harder line against the US, but their ‘friendly rivals’ in the balancing one of which Putin is a part disagreed, though Trenin’s ‘defection’ from the balancing faction to the pro-BRI one suggests that the tide might be turning.

Dmitry Trenin is one of Russia’s top experts and used to be considered a Westernizer among many prior to having a change of heart as a result of everything that happened since the special operation began. He’s an interesting figure to follow and that’s likely why RT published the translated version of an article that he recently wrote sharing a very sceptical assessment of Trump 2.0. The present piece will draw attention to the highlights before analysing the importance of what he wrote.

Trenin thinks that “the American political establishment – Congress, the media, and much of the foreign policy bureaucracy – was deeply uncomfortable with a peace formula that could hardly be presented domestically as a victory over Russia”, ergo why the “spirit of Anchorage” fizzled out. Trump “appears to have aligned himself more closely with powerful political and financial groups in Washington, including neoconservative circles and the Israeli lobby”, thus “sidelining” his “original MAGA allies”.

The end result is that “Instead of presiding over the slow decline of the liberal-globalist order, Trump is attempting to build a new version of American hegemony, one based far more openly on force.” Correspondingly, Trenin believes that “Washington’s objective today is not necessarily to construct a stable new world order. Rather, it may be to generate global instability and then dominate within that chaos.” This “inevitably” makes the US Russia’s “geopolitical, and potentially military, adversary.”

With this assessment in mind, Trenin advises that “Russia shouldn’t forget the duplicity Trump has already shown toward Iran in 2025 and again in 2026. Notably, the same American envoys involved in negotiations with Russia over Ukraine were also conducting talks with Iran…Dialogue with him is possible, but trust is not advisable. Russia must also remember that US military doctrine places great emphasis on neutralizing the leadership of an adversary at the beginning of any conflict.”

Just as importantly, “Economic cooperation with the United States is theoretically possible. In practice, it is highly unlikely. Most American sanctions against Russia are embedded in US legislation and cannot be lifted by presidential decision alone. For most Russians alive today, those sanctions will remain a long-term reality. Russia must therefore orient its economic strategy toward domestic development and cooperation with non-Western partners.”

Trenin then concludes that “Russia’s task is clear: deepen cooperation with partners facing pressure from the United States. Their resistance could slow, and perhaps eventually halt, the current American counteroffensive. Because one thing is certain: the United States will not stop unless it is stopped.” While he earlier reaffirmed that it’s Putin’s decision how to proceed, the importance of Trenin’s article is that it shows how radically even previously Western-friendly thought leaders have soured on the West.

What can be described as Russia’s pro-BRI policymaking faction has long lobbied for a harder line against the US, but their ‘friendly rivals’ in the balancing one of which Putin is a part disagreed, though Trenin’s ‘defection’ from the balancing faction to the pro-BRI one suggests that the tide might be turning. It’s therefore possible that Putin might finally be persuaded to abandon his pragmatic approach towards Trump 2.0 if the US soon doesn’t give him what he wants in Ukraine and continues encircling Russia.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Illumination in dark times
A genealogy of modern Western selfhood and a post-Western world

"Smith ... outlines a genealogy of modern Western selfhood: a radically individual, hypermasculine character that was formed during the rapid nineteenth-century expansion of the white man’s world. “Bold, conquering, and altogether assertive,” it was “dedicated to action,” hostile to reflection, indifferent to community and the environment, and guilty of possessing, Smith writes, an “undeveloped heart,” a term borrowed from E. M. Forster’s assessment of the British elite." "

" “We must alter our very relations with the world around us.” This means giving up the exalted and exaggerated idea of the West that boosts a masculinist self-image but severely constricts thought and feeling. “We should welcome our era’s uncertainties,...the not-knowing of how the post-Western story will come out.” Smith’s final warning—that “we will not survive the Western notion of the individual much longer”—should resonate today, as nineteenth-century individualism reasserts itself in the degraded Nietzscheanism of Peter Thiel and Stephen Miller." >>

* Mishra, P. (2026, April). "The Authority of Thought". Harper's Magazine.
https://harpers.org/archive/2026/04/the-authority-of-thought-pankaj-mishra/

* Somebody Else's Century: East and West in a Post-Western World by Patrick Smith. 2010 >>
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/169395/somebody-elses-century-by-patrick-smith/
#TheWest #WhiteSupremacy #masculinity #ImpulseControl #EthnoNationalism #WesternCivilization #AngloAmerican #parochialism #individualism #subjectivity #SettlerSociety #Culture #RacialInequality #war #EastWest #PostWesternWorld #DarkTimes #illumination #narrative #environment

Image: Double Bay War Memorial, Steyne Park, Sydney

The West’s Accusation Of Russian Meddling In Hungary Is Actually A Confession

The West’s Accusation Of Russian Meddling In Hungary Is Actually A Confession

By Andrew Korybko

The EU and Ukraine are the ones meddling there ahead of early April’s next parliamentary elections.

The Financial Times reported that Russia is meddling in Hungary ahead of early April’s next parliamentary elections through an online disinformation campaign aimed at lionizing incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orban and denigrating his opponent Peter Magyar among voters. To that end, it’s allegedly relying on Hungarian influencers to disseminate these narratives, but this claim insultingly implies that those who believe the aforesaid on their own lack agency and are Russia’s “useful idiots”.

While Russia would prefer for Orban to be re-elected since he pragmatically opposes the West’s proxy war on it through Ukraine and refused to cut off energy imports from it for equally pragmatic reasons, these policies are also genuinely popular in Hungary, ergo why voters promote him on their own online. To be sure, there’s also always been a genuine opposition movement in Hungary too, but it’s backed by the EU and Ukraine through their meddling in the country. This in turn delegitimizes them and Magyar.

Their employed means consist of the EU withholding funds from Hungary on “rule of law” pretexts in the hopes of turning voters against Orban, Ukraine delaying the resumption of oil through the Druzhba pipeline across its territory on technical pretexts for the same reason, and both criticizing Orban. With these facts in mind, and there’s no denying them since they objectively exist, it can be concluded that the West’s accusation of Russian meddling is actually a confession. Here are three background briefings:

* 19 September 2025: “Hungary Warned About Brussels’ Three Regime Change Plots In Central Europe”

* 13 February 2026: “Orban Is Right: Ukraine Has Truly Become Hungary’s Enemy”

* 18 February 2026: “Slovakia & Hungary Shouldn’t Be Fooled By The US’ Feigned Friendship”

To briefly review for those readers with limited time, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto raised awareness last August about the EU’s efforts to meddle in early April’s next parliamentary elections. Nearly half a year later, relations with Ukraine deteriorated due to its weaponization of energy that was touched upon above, but then Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Budapest and endorsed Orban. The US didn’t condemn Ukraine’s aforesaid hybrid attack on Hungary, however, nor pressure it to stop.

This in turn proves that its friendship is feigned to a large degree, although it’s also true that the US would prefer for Orban to be re-elected since his conservative-nationalist outlook aligns with Trump’s. Nevertheless, his EU- and Ukrainian-backed “democratic ouster” would accelerate the US’ envisaged replacement of Russian energy with its own on the Hungarian market, not to mention likely seeing Hungary arm and finance Ukraine for perpetuating the US’ profitable proxy war on Russia.

US interests are therefore expected to be advanced no matter whether the EU and Ukraine succeed in manipulating voters into deposing Orban. If he’s re-elected, Hungary will continue to serve as a conservative bastion in Europe in alignment with the regional ideological aspect of the US’ National Security Strategy and the new world order that it envisages, while his ouster could be immediately profitable. Ultimately, it’s Hungarians’ choice, and they’re the ones who’ll live with the consequences.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Putin’s Top Aide Patrushev Addressed The West’s Evolving Naval Threats To Russia

Putin’s Top Aide Patrushev Addressed The West’s Evolving Naval Threats To Russia

By Andrew Korybko

All in all, he has a solid understanding of their nature and how to most effectively respond to them, so observers shouldn’t worry about the West turning Russia into a purely land power one day.

Nikolai Patrushev, who’s been one of Putin’s top aides for decades already and is now also the Chairman of the Maritime Board, gave an interview to Arguments & Facts in mid-February. He began by condemning the seizure of Russian-flagged vessels as “piracy” and said that Russia is preparing responses to this. In his words, “If we don’t respond firmly, the British, French, and even the Baltic states will soon become so brazen that they will attempt to completely block our country’s access to the seas”.

One form that could take is “permanently stationing significant forces in key maritime routes, including in regions remote from Russia, ready to cool the ardor of Western corsairs.” Patrushev soberly acknowledged that “our Navy is currently performing missions to protect maritime trade under considerable strain”, however, and also said that “We need far more long-range ocean-going ships capable of operating autonomously for extended periods at significant distances from their bases.”

According to him, “in the near future, the world’s leading navies will be replenished en masse with unmanned ships of at least the corvette class. Dozens more cutting-edge technologies will be introduced that will completely change the face of naval warfare”, in which Russia plans to play a leading role. From his perspective, “the Navy is the most powerful and flexible geopolitical instrument, suitable for active use both in peacetime and during armed conflict.”

He elaborated that “The presence of a fleet, the ability to protect our maritime economic activity, and to transport our oil, grain, and fertilizers, are essential for the normal functioning of the state.” For that reason, Patrushev warned that any Western blockade “will be broken and eliminated by the Navy if a peaceful resolution fails.” He also warned that NATO’s plans include “sabotaging underwater communications, for which we will later be cynically blamed.”

In his assessment, “The old practice of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ is making a comeback, as evidenced by events in Venezuela and around Iran.” That’s why “We are leveraging the potential of BRICS, to which it’s time to give a full-fledged strategic maritime dimension. In January, the first BRICS naval exercise, ‘Will for Peace 2026,’ was successfully held in the South Atlantic, involving Russia, China, Iran, the UAE, and South Africa.” While he might see those drills that way, India politely rebuked this depiction last month.

On that note, any official Russian portrayal of forthcoming naval drills in which only BRICS countries are invited to participate as “BRICS naval drills” following the South African precedent will probably prompt another polite rebuke from India, which strongly disagrees with turning the group into a security bloc. Sergey Rybakov, who’s Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister and BRICS Sherpa, also recently said that “[BRICS had] never been planned as [a military union], and there are no plans to transform it for the purpose.”

In any case, Patrushev’s vision of Russia thwarting Western “piracy” on the high seas together with its BRICS partners is well intentioned and not meant to offend India or the other members that enjoy close ties with the West, with the only point being that some of them strongly oppose this “piracy” too. All in all, he has a solid understanding of evolving naval threats to Russia and how to most effectively respond to them, so observers shouldn’t worry about the West turning Russia into a purely land power one day.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Russia’s Setbacks Abroad Aren’t Due To The Special Operation

Russia’s Setbacks Abroad Aren’t Due To The Special Operation: A Critique of the “Decline” Narrative

By Andrew Korybko

This popular narrative, which Foreign Affairs was one of the latest to push, is very misleading.

Foreign Affairs, the official magazine of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations that’s widely read among Western policy influencers and policymakers, recently published a piece about “The Limits of Russian Power”. The subtitle shows that it’s about “Why Putin Isn’t Thriving in Trump’s Anarchic World”. The narrative agenda is to portray the special operation as the catalyst of Russia’s supposedly irreversible decline by exaggerating its setbacks in Syria, Iran, Armenia–Azerbaijan, and Venezuela to that end.

The aforesaid setbacks, which many in Alt-Media dishonestly deny to this day, are then contrasted with the geostrategic status quo ante bellum for dramatic effect in order to maximally impress this narrative upon the reader. This preconditioning sets up the climax of fearmongering that Russia might risk World War III out of desperation to achieve some sort of victory in Ukraine “by striking Ukraine’s supply routes in eastern Europe or by attacking the U.S.-owned satellites that provide targeting information to Kyiv.”

This narrative might be convincing to some since it’s built upon the fact of Russia experiencing some setbacks over the past four years of its special operation, which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alluded to in a recent interview, but their causes are misattributed and the consequence fearmongered about. They’re not due to the conflict but to the preexisting limits that had hitherto been underdiscussed such as Russia’s reasonable unwillingness to risk war with Turkiye, Israel, and the US over third countries.

Instead of typically cautious Putin inexplicably risking World War III by authorizing direct kinetic action against NATO despite already restraining himself after so many provocations worthy of such a response, however, he’ll likely continue what Lavrov’s friend Pepe Escobar coined the “snail offensive”. In parallel, far-reaching reforms might be planned for after the special operation ends to repair broken feedback loops within the military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies that perpetuated “wishful thinking”.

Even though Russia wasn’t ever going to risk war with Turkiye, Israel, and the US over Syria, Iran, and Armenia-Azerbaijan and Venezuela respectively, it might have been able to avert some of these setbacks had members of those institutions recognized strategic threats before they materialized. Instead, it looks like the same “wishful thinking” in which Putin cautioned his CIA analogue against indulging in summer 2022 remained a problem, thus explaining with cogency why Russia was caught flat-footed each time.

These systemic challenges to which attention was drawn during the special operation, which isn’t responsible for them since they far predate it, are reparable if there’s political will and proper oversight. Russia could then more effectively and flexibly adapt to them upon excising “wishful thinking” from the minds of its “deep state” members. Some future setbacks might also be averted while the policymaking basis would then be solidly established for sustainably restoring Russia’s lost influence in those regions.

Continued “wishful thinking” within Russia’s military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies, worsened by its “global media ecosystem’s” creation of alt-realities (“Potemkinism”) further tainting their already broken feedback loops, is responsible for its setbacks, not the special operation. Likewise, the consequence won’t be Putin attacking NATO out of desperation for some sort of victory in Ukraine, but him continuing the “snail offensive” and maybe planning far-reaching reforms after the conflict ends.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Prince Andrew And Lord Mandelson Arrested: The Epstein Files And Britain’s Crisis of Power

Prince Andrew And Lord Mandelson Arrested: The Epstein Files And Britain’s Crisis of Power

By Uriel Araujo

The arrest of former Prince Andrew and Lord Peter Mandelson have plunged Britain into its gravest institutional crisis in decades. Linked to abuse and alleged misconduct and espionage tied to the Epstein network, the case raises disturbing questions about blackmail, intelligence networks, and elite impunity. What is unfolding in Britain may foreshadow a broader Western reckoning.

The United Kingdom is facing a political earthquake, possibly foreshadowing a systemic crisis across the West: former Prince Andrew, the Duke of York (who is the brother of King Charles), was formally arrested last week as part of a widening legal fallout linked to the newly released Jeffrey Epstein files. Only three days later, Lord Peter Mandelson, also known as Baron Mandelson, was arrested too. Mandelson is a top political figure and a lobbyist, as well as a former UK Ambassador to the US and former European Commissioner for Trade.

Both aristocrats were not briefly arrested on suspicion of abusing the minors Epstein trafficked: treason would be a closer description, or “misconduct” in public office linked to the Epstein ring. In Andrew’s case, the British authorities are investigating whether, while serving as the UK’s trade envoy, he passed confidential information to Epstein or his network – perhaps under threat of blackmail due to the compromising pictures the billionaire had on him. This reinforces long-standing suspicions pertaining to an espionage angle in Epstein’s operation, the obvious question being to which State or organization Epstein was forwarding the info. Both the Duke and the Baron have been released and are still under investigation. It is worth noting that Mandelson, coincidentally, has long been rumoured (at the time, without proof) of having connections with paedophile links, a problem that has plagued the British political elite for decades.

The ongoing case is being described by Reuters as the “worst crisis in 90 years”. In fact, this is an unprecedented event in modern British history. The last time any member of the Royal Family was arrested was in 1647, when King Charles I was arrested by Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War. For the first time in living memory, a senior royal has been handcuffed by the state, thereby exposing the monarchy to a degree of institutional humiliation unseen since the abdication crisis of 1936 (when King Edward VIII abdicated over a number of scandals, including his Nazi links).

The arrest is not merely a legal episode: it is the culmination of a long-suppressed moral and political reckoning. The Epstein scandal, sinister as it is, has acquired a far darker dimension with the declassification of files suggesting systematic child abuse, blackmail networks, and even murder cover-ups. There has been a public admission from American authorities that part of the unreleased files contain pictures or footage of “child pornography”, graphic violence and even death.

For instance, file EFTA00078198 contains a redacted picture (seized during government investigations on Epstein and Maxwell), which although not shown, is described in a footnote as depicting a “prepubescent” girl being sadistically violated, with gruesome details, by “several Caucasian men”.

Andrew has long been accused of socializing with Epstein and with the young women the mogul trafficked (some allegedly underage). In one of the pictures the Duke is shown, fully clothed, on all fours over a woman who appears to be unconscious on the floor. It could get worse: in a FBI investigative record one can read, among other things, the shocking allegation (file EFTA00020457) that Andrew was present and watching when a little girl, no older than eight, was tortured on a table with electric shocks by Ghislaine Maxwell.

Some commentators have also noticed that, years ago, the body of Alisa Dmitrijeva, a 17-year-old girl, who was missing, was found on the property where the Royal Family used to spend their holidays, and she was last seen near that place, which is quite odd. Those are macabre suspicions and there is no proof Andrew is guilty in any of those two particular cases, but the suspicions in themselves harm his public image – and the British Monarchy itself.

One may recall that Europe has lived through a comparable trauma before, namely the Dutroux affair in Belgium during the 1990s, a case so horrifying that it shattered public trust in the judiciary, police, and political class, involving child abuse rings, sadism and murders.

In Britain, the implications are existential enough. Back in 2022, upon the death of well-respected Queen Elizabeth II, I argued that the unpopular King Charles III’s greatest challenge would be to keep the United Kingdom united, in face of the spectre of a renewed Northern Ireland conflict in Post-Brexit Britain.

It is now documented that King Charles was reportedly warned as early as 2019 about his brother’s involvement with Epstein and about secret financial arrangements designed to “shield” Andrew from scrutiny.

Bizarrely enough, Charles himself maintained a close personal relationship for decades with Jimmy Savile, later exposed as one of Britain’s most prolific sexual predators. Savile abused hundreds of children and vulnerable adults while enjoying privileged access to royal residences and public institutions. More disturbingly, Savile’s profile in a way mirrors Epstein’s. Like Epstein, the former DJ, with no education, cultivated relationships with law enforcement, intelligence-linked figures, and political intermediaries, acting as an informal “fixer” (as the Telegraph described him) within elite and royal circles since the Thatcher era.

Something is rotten in the British state: reports now suggest that Queen Elizabeth was aware of Andrew’s Epstein ties, thereby posthumously damaging even her carefully cultivated image of moral rectitude.

From senior parliamentarians to unelected lords, this systemic crisis spares no one. While much attention has been paid to alleged connections with Russian oligarchs or to trafficking routes involving Eastern European women, the Epstein scandal functions as an atomic bomb detonating within the West. It exposes blackmail structures, intelligence overlaps, and moral decay at the very core of Atlantic power networks. One should also expect it to impact West–Israel relations, given persistent questions surrounding Epstein’s foreign connections.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Zaluzhny Breaks Silence On Zelensky As Ukraine’s Elite Power Struggle Escalates

Zaluzhny Breaks Silence On Zelensky As Ukraine’s Elite Power Struggle Escalates

By Uriel Araujo

A long-simmering factional war inside Ukraine’s political and security elites is now surfacing more openly. Former army chief Valery Zaluzhny accuses President Zelensky of intimidation as debates over elections and peace talks return. The timing raises questions about succession, leverage, and a looming political reckoning in Zaluzhny Breaks Silence On Zelensky As Ukraine’s Elite Power Struggle Escalates. The far-right and oligarchic elements further complicate the picture.

The factional war within Ukraine’s political, military, and security elites is intensifying. And it is increasingly unfolding in public, albeit still underreported in mainstream Western media. The latest development has to do with former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny, who has accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of ordering SBU searches of his office in 2022 as a means of intimidation. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) denies it. In any case, if true, why reveal this now? The timing is anything but accidental.

Zaluzhny’s accusation surfaces precisely as discussions around elections, a possible ceasefire, and even a “land for peace” formula re-enter Western and Ukrainian debates. This is thus not a belated accusation driven by conscience, but more likely a political move in a struggle over succession, immunity, and narrative control. One does not survive Ukrainian elite politics by speaking out unless protection or leverage have already been secured.

This struggle is not limited to Zelensky versus Zaluzhny. It also involves the intelligence faction centred on lieutenant general Kyrylo Budanov, whose growing influence has alarmed both military commanders and oligarchic networks. Budanov has been Ukraine’s Head of the Office of the President since January 2, 2026, having previously led the country’s military intelligence (HUR). He also served in the Foreign Intelligence Service. Ukraine’s so-called “deep state” is a battlefield right now.

One may recall that frictions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny were already visible in early 2023, when Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the general had allegedly engaged in independent peace discussions with Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov, bypassing the President altogether. Zelensky, according to Hersh’s US intelligence sources, was regarded as a “wild card,” unreliable and increasingly isolated.

In fact, Zelensky is arguably a political survivor. In late 2023, there were talks about the West favouring Alexey Arestovich intrigues against the Ukrainian President, Arestovich being a former adviser to the President’s office, with intelligence connections. In 2024, Ukraine’s exiled opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk said Zelensky could be ousted, having alienated allies domestically and abroad.

And yet the Ukrainian leader has managed to stay. Back in 2022, Zelensky openly declared his vision of Ukraine as a “big Israel”, meaning a heavily militarized, securitized state defined by permanent mobilization and internal surveillance. That was not mere rhetoric: it foreshadowed the consolidation of power, the banning of opposition parties, and the further normalization of security-service intimidation: all of this in turn being the entrenchment of a process that began in 2014, with the Maidan revolution.

Thus far, Western capitals have turned a blind eye to these measures, out of geopolitical expediency, with European Union officials discussing Ukraine’s accession (despite all civil rights issues pertaining to minorities). Be as it may, this tolerance is eroding. Under President Donald Trump, Washington for one thing is clearly signalling fatigue with an open-ended proxy war, so as to be able to pivot elsewhere. The burden is increasingly being shifted onto Europe, which in turn now faces its own strategic anxieties, including tensions with the US itself over American Greenland threats .

This changing external environment partly explains the renewed internal panic in Kiev. Elections, peace talks, or a forced transition would expose unresolved rivalries, corruption networks, and extremist power centres that have been blatantly whitewashed for years (in the West), not to mention their far-right problem.

The oligarchic dimension further complicates matters. Zelensky’s own rise was inseparable from Ihor Kolomoysky, despite later efforts to distance himself under US pressure. Corruption remains endemic (Ukraine ranked at 104 out of 180 countries by Transparency International in 2023), high enough to undermine military logistics and energy resilience. When Zelensky publicly suggested (last year) that roughly half of the $177 billion allocated to Ukraine never reached Kiev, he was accusing and warning the West, for leverage, most likely.

The thing is that corruption, by its very nature, cuts both ways. Any serious inquiry into Western misuse of funds would inevitably rebound onto Ukrainian elites themselves, including offshore arrangements revealed in the Pandora Papers.

Meanwhile, armed and paramilitary ultra-nationalism remains a systemic factor. From the integration of the Azov Battalion into the National Guard to the political influence of figures like Dmytro Yarosh, neo-Fascist groups, albeit a minority (in number) have nonetheless shaped post-Maidan Ukraine’s security apparatus. Yarosh famously warned Zelensky he would “hang on a tree on Khreshchatyk” if he sought a peace deal.

Adding to this volatile mix, with the release of some of the Epstein files, more information is surfacing pertaining to human trafficking networks and Ukraine-based ethically dubious biological research. All of that has the potential to draw scrutiny about top Ukrainian authorities, thus increasing the crisis.

Ukraine’s crisis therefore is no longer only about the battlefield. It is about succession, survival, and the inevitable reckoning postponed since 2014. Ending a war, especially an unwinnable one, is difficult enough, even with Trump’s previous promises of ending it “in one day”.

Ending it while armed extremists, rival security services, oligarchs, and foreign patrons all pull in different directions is harder still. The West after all has armed and financed far-right nationalists in Ukraine for over a decade (they are now deeply involved with the country’s deep state), while waging a secret CIA war there. These networks do not go away easily.

To sum it up, whether Zelensky survives this phase politically is an open question. Whether Ukraine emerges more stable afterward is even less certain.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

The Empire Strikes Back: Rubio’s Munich Speech And The Push To Recolonize The Global South

The Empire Strikes Back: Rubio’s Munich Speech And The Push To Recolonize The Global South

By Uriel Araujo

Rubio’s speech, applauded by European leaders, reignited debate over empire, colonialism, and the future of global order. Rubio’s rhetoric about civilizational renewal masks a project of renewed domination, with Europe cast as a compliant junior partner. The implications for the Global South are only beginning to surface.

Marco Rubio’s recent speech at the Munich Security Conference (telling Europeans that the US and Europe “belong together”) triggered immediate controversy, especially on social media platforms. While many commentators have been denouncing it, several European officials reportedly offered a standing ovation.

Social media commentators aside, Western specialists however did not pay much attention to the deeper implication of the US Secretary of State’s rhetoric: an enthusiastic defence of colonialism and an implicit call to recolonize the Global South. Albeit underreported, this may be the most consequential aspect of the address.

Rubio’s speech, delivered on February 14, framed world politics as a kind of civilizational struggle. He praised five centuries of Western expansion, lauding those who settled “new continents” and built “vast empires extending out across the globe.”

Tellingly, he then portrayed decolonization as a tragedy, accelerated by “godless communist revolutions” and anti-colonial uprisings that, according to him (in a very Cold War-like tone), spread the “red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map”.

For Rubio, the West’s decline was imposed, and it must now be reversed to “renew the greatest civilization in human history.” This blunt nostalgia for empire was applauded in the hall, the audience being overwhelmingly Western (with a few Global South representatives present).

The speech in fact echoed earlier interventions, as noted by political scientist Nathalie Tocci, who argued that Rubio offered a subtler version of JD Vance’s 2025 address. Tocci warned that the dismissal of a rules-based order (in favour of “raw power”) positions Europe as junior partners in a US-led empire, thereby lulling Europeans into a false sense of security – while US and European interests actually diverge.

Daniel Drezner (a Tufts University’s Fletcher School academic) went further, calling the speech repackaged Trumpism with imperial and colonial undertones, and highlighting the logical contradiction of praising centuries of conquest while lamenting post-1945 anti-colonial revolutions as the source of Western decline.

Overall, not many Western commentators noticed that Rubio was really defending the recolonization of the Global South. A few did. Trita Parsi (of the Quincy Institute), for instance, described the address as an “embrace of empire and colonisation,” basically urging Europe to join a US-led effort to restore Western dominance over the Global South through control of supply chains, minerals, AI, and markets.

Likewise, French businessman and commentator Arnaud Bertrand called it “one of the most revisionist and imperialist” speeches by a US official, and an open invitation for Europe to share the “spoils” of a new imperial order. Writing for India Today, journalist Sushim Mukul in turn likened Rubio’s economic prescriptions to the East India Company.

That European leaders applauded Rubio’s words is itself quite revealing. One may recall that in October 2022 top European diplomat Josep Borrell sparked outrage internationally by calling Europe a “garden” surrounded by a “jungle” (the rest of the world). Rubio’s Munich applause shows that the European colonial mindset persists. Be as it may, Europe today is itself increasingly treated as part of a subordinated periphery, targeted, as it is, by American tariffs, economic warfare, and even threats of annexation in Greenland (Denmark).

It thus follows that Washington’s approach to its allies is rather schizophrenic, so to speak. It insistently shifts the “burden” of Ukraine onto Europe while antagonizing its European “allies”; and then invokes shared classical heritage – to demand obedience.

As I have argued elsewhere, even delegation requires trust, while coercion erodes it, thus pushing Europe toward strategic uncertainty. The US currently declares the transatlantic alliance obsolete (as seen in the NSS document), while praising Western unity.

Rubio’s rhetoric in any case also fits a broader trend: an American return to Monroeism (or to a strange new version of it), and, moreover, to what Eric Hobsbawm famously called “The Age of Empire” (1875–1914). Threats against Greenland, military interventions in South America (as recently seen in Venezuela), and the declaration, by Western leaders at Davos, that the US-centric order is “over” all point to major changes and a return to crude unmasked imperialism.

Rubio’s somewhat anachronic fixation on “communism” in the Global South is equally revealing. Whatever one thinks of the socialist period, and its many failures and contradictions, the Soviet Union undeniably supported anti-colonial movements. And large parts of the Global South remember it. This fact bears a positive impact on positive Russian relations with African countries, for instance, to this day. To frame decolonization as a sinister communist plot is therefore to rewrite history quite blatantly. It also legitimizes present American actions, from economic strangulation to regime-change fantasies, including, again, recent developments in Venezuela and Cuba.

One could also add that there is some irony in the very fact that Rubio himself is a Cuban-American. Washington’s neo-colonial and neo-Monroeist stance, in any case, risks backfiring at home, especially among diasporas largely shaped, as they are, by interventionist policies.

The same neocolonial logic is visible elsewhere, as is the case in Trump’s proposals for Palestine – another neocolonial mirage dressed up as pragmatism for peace.

To sum it up, Empire is back – at least in rhetoric and worldview. Rubio’s Munich speech suggests that if the US has its way, the emerging multipolar world order will be nothing but a new Age of Empires. Europe, it seems, has applauded such a vision, thus far, but it may soon discover, once again, that vassalage is not the same as partnership.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Rubio’s Munich Manifesto: Civilizationalism And The Architecture Of Trump 2.0’s World Order

Rubio’s Munich Manifesto: Civilizationalism And The Architecture Of Trump 2.0’s World Order

By Andrew Korybko

What Trump 2.0 wants to do is lead Western Civilization’s comprehensive reforms with a view towards building a nascent civilization-state that would then unrestrainedly wield its restored collective strength to coerce rising rivals into subordinating themselves to it for restoring unipolarity.

Marco Rubio, who’s one of the most powerful figures in the US due to his roles as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, gave an historic speech at last weekend’s Munich Security Conference detailing Trump 2.0’s envisaged new world order. His words were shaped by the National Security Strategy, the National Defence Strategy, and the “Trump Doctrine”, which readers can learn more about from the preceding hyperlinked analyses. The present one will review, contextualize, and analyse his speech.

He lambasted the notion that “the end of history” arrived after the Old Cold War wherein liberal democracies would supposedly proliferate across the world and the “rules-based global order” would replace national interests. Rubio particularly criticized the outsourcing of industry to adversaries and rivals, the outsourcing of sovereignty to international institutions, self-impoverishment “to appease a climate cult”, and mass migration, all of which he admitted were mistakes and says the US wants to fix.

Rubio declared that Trump 2.0 will renew and restore Western Civilization on its own if need be but prefers to do so together with Europe from which the US emerged. He then loftily praised their shared civilization in multiple ways before claiming that its reinvigoration will inspire their armed forces. This preceded him touching upon Trump 2.0’s plans to reindustrialize, end mass migration, and reform global governance to that end, which he said will deliver tangible dividends to the Western masses.

Far from the isolationist policies that some fearmonger that the US will pursue, it actually wants to optimize its global network of alliances, but this can only happen through fairer burden-sharing. Restoring pride in Western Civilization is another of Trump 2.0’s top foreign policy goals. Reflecting on this envisaged world order, it clearly takes its cues from Samuel Huntington’s and Alexander Dugin’s works on civilizationalism, which focus on this aspect of shared identity as a rising factor in global affairs.

As could be expected, the concept of American Exceptionalism pervades Rubio’s speech, which is evident with respect to him declaring that the US will go it alone in restoring Western Civilization if need be and also describing the West’s perceived “terminal decline” after World War II as a “choice”. The latter hints that the US doesn’t believe that multipolarity, understood in this context as the rise of other civilization-states for balancing the nascent Western one that Trump 2.0 wants to create, is inevitable.

Extrapolating from that, this in turn suggests that the rise of other poles (however they’re described [countries, civilization-states, blocs, etc.]) is the result of the West’s counterproductive policies, not due to any policies of their own. That’s questionable, since while it’s true that Nixon’s Sino-US Détente from the Old Cold War provided the capital responsible for China’s rise for instance, the Communist Party of China directed this process to protect national sovereignty and turn China into an economic superpower.

What Trump 2.0 wants to do is lead Western Civilization’s comprehensive reforms with a view towards building a nascent civilization-state that would then unrestrainedly wield its restored collective strength to coerce rising rivals into subordinating themselves to it for restoring unipolarity. The US has achieved some foreign policy successes over the past year, but this doesn’t mean that it’ll succeed in reforming Western Civilization, creating a civilization-state out of it, and then controlling the world.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Armenia’s Western Turn And the Domestic Upheaval It Could Trigger

Armenia’s Western Turn And the Domestic Upheaval It Could Trigger

By Andrew Korybko

Armenia might have to accept the return of the ~200,000 Azeris who fled during the chaotic Soviet collapse (and the descendants), grant them equal language rights, teach in schools that they consider Armenia to be “Western Azerbaijan”, and possibly agree to a Schengen-like deal with Azerbaijan.

Vice President JD Vance’s trip to Armenia ended with three highly strategic agreements on a $9 billion nuclear energy partnership, a chip deal that led to a contentious AI datacentre project scaling its investment there by a factor of eight to $4 billion, and an $11 million surveillance drone sale. They also discussed implementing the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), the strategic significance of which was elaborated on here, and parallel pipeline construction from the Caspian Sea.

That last detail wasn’t expanded upon apart from Vance declaring that “a lot of private capital is going to flow” into it, but this is assumedly part of a larger future plan to either risk Russia and Iran’s ire by building an underwater pipeline from Central Asia to Azerbaijan or a tanker fleet for the same purpose. In any case, the importance is that Armenia is poised to play a crucial role in facilitating transregional logistics between the US/EU/Turkiye and Central Asia, which challenges Russia’s regional influence.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is now on the verge of completing Armenia’s pro-American pivot, which he initiated after rising to power in a Colour Revolution in early 2018 and then unprecedentedly accelerated after Armenia’s loss in its latest war with Azerbaijan in late 2020. It’s with this in mind that the US rewarded Armenia by sending it these technologies, the symbolic importance of which Vance drew attention to prior to endorsing Pashinyan ahead of June’s next parliamentary election.

About that, “Armenia’s Next Parliamentary Elections Are Shaping Up To Be Another Flashpoint” since “Pashinyan’s potential democratic ouster could complicate and possibly even suspend TRIPP, thus plugging the geostrategic gap through which Turkiye is expected to inject Western influence along Russia’s entire southern periphery. Likewise, him retaining power would keep this gap open.” This explains why the US wants Pashinyan to win re-election and complete Armenia’s pro-American pivot.

That scenario would likely be followed by the replacement of most Russian companies’ shares in the Armenian market by their American rivals. Some might swiftly be forced out per the Venezuelan precedent that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently complained about and others like those in the energy sector might only be squeezed out after some time since a rapid replacement isn’t realistic. The triple purpose would be to harm Russian companies, reduce Russian influence, and expand US influence.

While the US is promising Armenia material prosperity, this might come with radical socio-cultural costs. Its subordination as a “Neo-Ottoman sanjak” might be inevitable if Pashinyan is re-elected, after which Azerbaijan and Turkiye could coerce him to “Turkify” society. This could begin by accepting the return of the ~200,000 Azeris who fled during the chaotic Soviet collapse (and their descendants), granting them equal language rights, and teaching in schools that Armenia is known to them as “Western Azerbaijan”.

If a Schengen-like deal is also agreed to between Armenia and Azerbaijan, perhaps even with Turkiye too if ties with Armenia are normalized under US mediation, then Armenia’s post-Soviet monoethnic society could become a thing of the past. As identity becomes a more important factor in contemporary politics at the domestic and international levels, many Armenians might feel uncomfortable with such a change if more become aware of its likelihood, which could lead to them tanking Pashinyan’s re-election bid.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.