Opinion
God’s most powerful country – once again and forever!
Werner Rügemer, writer and lecturer
In his National Security Strategy, US President Donald Trump calls for intervention by the “God-given nation” on all continents. He is (still) holding back against Russia and China, but vassals such as those in Europe are to bleed even more than they already do.
“Make America Great Again”: Trump has now summarized his campaign slogan in a comprehensive strategy. He presents himself as a peacemaker. But “peace” as in the Middle East is primarily a pretext for new investments. With his younger, more aggressive capital faction, which still has little global presence, he is looking for gaps in the globalization process to date. The major conflicts are being saved for later.1
Principles for renewed world leadership
“America, with its God-given natural rights… remains the greatest and most successful nation in human history and the home of peace on earth,” Trump’s memorandum begins. Following the mistakes of Democratic Party administrations—Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden—the US’s leadership position should not only be restored. Rather, in order to “make our country even greater than it has ever been,” Trump sets out the following guidelines:
- Military:
“To protect our national interests, we want the most powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced military in the world. We want to recruit, train, equip, and deploy it to prevent wars or, if necessary, win them quickly and decisively, with as few casualties as possible for our own forces.”
- Economy:
“We want the strongest, most dynamic, most innovative, most advanced economy in the world, the cornerstone of our global leadership and necessary for our military, with the most robust industrial base, including for military production.”
- Energy:
“We want the most robust, productive, and innovative energy sector in the world, not only for American economic growth, but also as one of our leading export industries.”
- Soft power:
“We want to maintain the United States as a unique ‘soft power’ with which we can exert our influence throughout the world in our national interest. Long-term national security is only possible with spiritual and cultural health, i.e., with religion, patriotism, family… To this end, we want to honor our glorious deeds and heroes and look forward to a new golden age.”
Modernization of the Monroe Doctrine
Trump refers to the Monroe Doctrine: He is updating it for the present.
In 1823, the US Congress adopted the “Monroe Doctrine,” named after then-President James Monroe. He was one of the founding fathers of the United States. The doctrine establishes the “prohibition of intervention by foreign powers”: The US, founded with 13 states on the east coast of North America and now expanded to 24 states, must not be hindered by other states in its further military, economic, and political expansion on North American territory towards the east coast, according to the doctrine! This was directed primarily against the European colonial powers of England and France.
“National interest” as understood by the US and according to the Monroe Doctrine therefore means that the US may expand beyond its existing territory by any means necessary, including military assistance. If other states attempt to prevent the US from doing so, war may be waged against them.
This also included the right to expropriate, expel, and, if necessary, kill the inhabitants of conquered territories, i.e., genocide: this was initiated in the wake of the Monroe Doctrine in 1830 by the Indian Removal Act.
It also included the right to wage war, for example against the state of Mexico, to take territories from it, to form new US states such as New Mexico, California, Utah, and Nevada, and to reintroduce slavery there, which had been abolished in Mexico.2
In summary: “National” security for the US means access not only to the US state, but to the entire world, in principle to all other states, and with practices that apply in the US itself.
The Department of Defense is once again called the War Department
Trump himself refers specifically to two important 19th-century US politicians who represent these structural US practices:
- Alexander Hamilton; he was one of the founding fathers of the US. He was the first Secretary of the Treasury, founded the first US bank, increased the national debt, and imposed tariffs on imports.
- William McKinley; this US president waged war against the colonial power Spain at the end of the 19th century; in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine, the US expanded to include the Philippines (US protectorate until 1945), Puerto Rico, and Guam (annexed by the US to this day), secured access to Cuba, occupied the island of Hawaii, and later made it another state.
Thus, since its inception, the US has been the only major country without a foreign ministry, but rather a state ministry: the “national interest” of the US government refers to every area of the world defined by the US itself.
For this reason, the US has also never had a Department of Defense since its founding, but rather a Department of War: it was only renamed the Department of Defense in 1947 as a euphemism for the wars and regime changes waged after World War II. But with the updated Monroe Doctrine, the Trump administration has renamed the department back to the Department of War, as it was in Monroe’s time and for most of its history.
The younger, more aggressive capitalist faction, with Trump as its political leader, is therefore not doing anything fundamentally new, but is simply expressing the traditional US practice more openly, returning to its roots and to the practices that have been in place for the longest time anyway.
That is why Trump’s National Security Strategy states that the “Cold War” is finally over. That is also why, for example, “development aid” is coming to an end: now it’s time to invest! That is also why the euphemistic babble of ‘defense’ is coming to an end: now it’s time for war again!
However, the “great war” is being scaled back for the time being. In the coming years, the vassals in Europe and Asia are to arm themselves, rearm themselves, and buy US military equipment to counter the most important adversaries, Russia and China. They are to be built up as US proxy warriors, as Ukraine and Israel have already been.
Penetration of the “Western Hemisphere”
“What do we want in and from the world?” Trump’s National Security Strategy continues. The answers are structured according to the most important US spheres of influence in the world and their order of importance.
First and foremost is the “Western Hemisphere.” These are the “rich countries,” traditionally known as the “West,” which has been led by the US since the end of World War II: militarily, but also with the presence of banks, corporations, foundations, consultants, agencies, and, last but not least, secret services.
These allies or vassals are supposed to support the US in the fight against “mass migration, drug terrorists, and other criminal organizations.” These are the directly right-wing narratives that also apply to the Trump administration in the US. In reality, however, the main issue is this: the “Western Hemisphere” should remain free from “enemy forces” gaining access to important property. And the US allies are to protect important supply chains and “secure permanent access to key strategic positions” for the US. On this basis, the US should be able to expand its multifaceted, comprehensive leadership position. The “hostile forces” are primarily China, which, however, is treated with caution and not mentioned by name out of pragmatic insight.
Trump has already shown his support for nationalist, reactionary, even fascist forces in his racist, nationalist, right-wing extremist group around Ukrainian President Zelensky, as well as in his fundamental support for the government of his most important political friend of three decades, his “Bibi” Netanyahu in Israel.
Merz & Co. submit to the most powerful right-wing extremist in the world
In Germany, Trump has lured the AfD, okay. Our broken mainstream media are getting upset about that. But Trump has long been pursuing his right-wing extremist realpolitik with Europe’s leading politicians, including Friedrich Merz/Germany, Macron/France, Starmer/England, Tusk/Poland, and Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen/EU:
- Doubling the defense budgets of European NATO members to five percent of GDP, with the help of extreme government debt and social cuts
- Deindustrialization with the relocation of parts of companies to the US, with high subsidies and low energy prices there
- Agreement to tariffs on cars, steel, and aluminum from Europe
- Even more purchases of US military equipment and expensive and extremely environmentally harmful US fracking gas
- Digitization of EU countries by large US digital corporations, which also pass on their data to US authorities and pay virtually no taxes in EU countries.
Submission to Trump’s Israel policy
And last but not least: strong support for the genocide and the policy of expropriation and expulsion of the racist, nationalist, fascist US proxy warrior Israel, and now also support for the fake Gaza “peace plan,” under which the expulsion, starvation, and killing of Palestinians continues, in Gaza and increasingly in the West Bank.
Europe: Not involved in Ukraine negotiations
The European US vassals are complaining that Trump is not involving them in the ceasefire negotiations with Ukraine. But that is the situation: the US has been preparing and financing this war for three decades, organized the definitive regime change in 2014, and has been waging the war ever since.
And the vassals who are now complaining agreed to this and have increasingly helped according to US specifications. The US, with British help, trained the military, supplied most of the weapons, and also decided which missiles would be supplied and which would not. And the US is also conducting Ukraine’s war operationally via US missiles in space, US intelligence agencies, and the Military Command in Wiesbaden.
Never heard of it, Mr. Merz?
The Asian vassals are also being used
Trump’s National Security Strategy puts the Indo-Pacific in second place: “The Indo-Pacific, with its central sea lanes, must be kept open and free” against “foreign actors who damage the American economy.” “Reliable supply chains” must be guaranteed, as must “access to critical materials.” To put it mildly, this is directed against China and linked to armament and investment by US allies in Asia.
The Trump administration is forcing Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines to increase their military budgets and invest in the US. These are the countries of the “first island chain” closest to China. Like the European NATO countries, they are to increase their military spending to five percent of GDP. They themselves are suffering from economic decline, as is Germany in particular in Europe, but are also expected to invest even more in the US. And they are to accept even more US military personnel, either directly or as advisors.
This also applies in a different way to Australia. Incidentally, the “German” arms manufacturer, whose leading shareholders now come from the US and which now operates most of its branches in the US, is building a new branch there for the construction of tanks adapted to local conditions.
Middle East: Greater Israel with Arab states
The National Security Strategy states in its third point on the Middle East: “We want to prevent an adversary from invading the Middle East, gaining access to its oil and gas reserves, and blocking the chokepoints of the sea lanes.”
This includes the transformation of the Middle East by Israel, which also expanded its existing occupation zone in Syria during the Gaza war and operates half a dozen military bases. Israel bombs Syria and Lebanon with or without US approval, and bombed Iran, which the US government escalated with Operation Midnight Hammer.
The Gaza “ceasefire agreement” orchestrated by Trump does not even bring about a ceasefire, has actually expanded Israel’s military occupation of Gaza, and does not recognize any Palestinian representation.
With the help of the Abraham Accords, Trump has gradually reconciled Gulf and other Arab and Muslim states with Israel (somehow) since his first term in office and ended support for the Palestinians. Continuing and completing what Democratic administrations in the US, with EU support, have been preparing for decades: Israel now exercises (proxy) “imperial power” in the Middle East after the Gaza war: Even the leading US media outlet, the New York Times, notes this: “‘Imperial Israel’ in the New Middle East”: “Israel’s reach extends almost everywhere, as it constantly bombs regional enemies.3
With the help of the US proxy warrior, the expanded Middle East is to be opened up as a new investment area: not only the Gaza Strip initially, but also the West Bank. Above all, however, the leading US digital, defense, energy, and tourism companies are active in the Gulf states. They have to say goodbye to oil and gas anyway, but are also investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the US. The US government agreed with the Prince of Saudi Arabia that his sovereign wealth funds would invest at least one trillion (in the US: “trillion”) dollars in the US, including in defense.4
From December 8 to 10, 2025, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) organized what it called “the world’s largest media event” at the palace of the oil company Adnoc, with 60,000 participants from 132 countries, including media representatives, PR agencies, and companies in the fields of digital media, gaming, music, and marketing, “to transform journalism” – certainly an urgent desire of Trump’s, and not only his.5
Global South: US even more aggressive
Trump’s memorandum states: “America and its allies have not yet developed a common plan for the so-called Global South, including with regard to its vast resources.” . It goes on to say that although Europe, Japan, South Korea, and others have invested seven trillion dollars there, and “multinational banks” have loans there, the US in particular has hardly any presence, and China has long since made inroads.
Traditionally, Latin America’s “backyard” is actually closest to the US empire. But according to Trump, the digital corporations promoted primarily by the Democratic Party and its governments have criminally neglected it in their globalization efforts. He now wants to make up for this as quickly as possible, selectively and uncertainly. The strategy statement does not provide any further details.
Panama Canal
Trump’s wish was relatively easy to fulfill: We want Panama back, it belonged to us for over 100 years! The first step was made possible by BlackRock, now the largest US investor. Although he was closely associated with the US administrations of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, and became big thanks to them, he quickly declared his support for Trump. BlackRock bought the two ports of the Panama Canal in early 2025, meaning that the fees end up in the US and the US controls passage through the canal.
Argentina: Billions in aid for chainsaw politicians
As in Europe and around the world, Trump seeks out nationalist, right-wing extremist, even fascist media, partners, and parties. For example, he promoted Elon Musk imitator and chainsaw neoliberal Javier Milei in Argentina: although the country is one of the most indebted countries after Ukraine, it received $20 billion in extra aid from the Trump administration that it would not have received from any bank.6
Venezuela: Military regime change
Venezuela’s development into a postcolonial, sovereign state, especially since President Hugo Chavez, has been opposed by all US administrations, with the help of NGOs in Venezuela as well as external sanctions, including the US-funded alternative president Guaido, who ultimately failed. Trump wants to depose the current president, Nicolas Maduro, and has offered a $50 million reward for his arrest.7 Conspiracy-practical pretext: Maduro is the drug lord of South America and thus threatens the “national security” of the US.
The US military has now sunk several ships and killed hundreds of people, including survivors of such attacks. In the annexed US territory of Puerto Rico, Trump has revived the military base and stationed thousands of soldiers there. The US secret services are involved. A military strike will be carried out as soon as it is considered promising.
The fact that the drug conspiracy is only a pretext is also confirmed in public: Trump has pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. The former president of Honduras was abducted to the US and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking. Now, after four years, he is a free man again—and a hoped-for accomplice of Trump in Latin America.8
Africa and peripheral regions
The Trump administration is also looking for further gaps in the current globalization process, in “peripheral regions” on all continents. Everywhere, the aim is to push back China. The exact measures are not mentioned at all in the strategy concept, especially here.
In Africa, the initial focus is on rare earths and other “critical minerals,” which are needed even more than before for the AI hype that has been greatly accelerated by Trump’s capitalists. The rising US proxy warrior, the United Arab Emirates—home to the Gulf Air Warfare Center, a US military base central to the Gulf region—is therefore supporting the terrorist paramilitary organization Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan.9
As in the well-known case of the Gaza “peace agreement,” Trump has developed a method of bringing together conflicting parties at short notice, proclaiming ‘peace’ or “ceasefire,” and thereby securing long-term investments for US companies in his circle—even if the conflicts continue. This applies, for example, to Armenia and Azerbaijan, where Trump has secured the long-term operation of the Sangesur Corridor. The same applies to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, India and Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Serbia and Kosovo.10
The limits of Trump’s national global strategy
The vast majority of investors, entrepreneurs, speculators, and real estate sharks in Trump’s circle, many of whom are also represented in the government, have so far had little global presence. Elon Musk, who was briefly involved in the government, was an exception. Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner do have golf courses in Scotland and the Gulf states, as well as real estate in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But they also want to catch up globally with large corporate investments. That is why they are looking for gaps, and that is why they are more aggressive.
But they are misjudging the situation, not in all cases, but in principle. Trump’s model of the unhindered rise of a great power in the 19th century, the direct combination of military, expropriation, investment, and regime changes in Latin America and then also in Asia’s backyard—that is nostalgia.
Sure, the UN, historically humanity’s greatest achievement for international order, has become increasingly helpless in all major wars and conflicts – but yes, above all because of the co-founder, the US itself. From the beginning, the US has increasingly waged its wars and regime changes alongside and also against the UN, with “coalitions of the willing” convened for each, or even without them. Trump was able to make fun of this so ostensibly during his appearance before the UN in September 2025 that even the otherwise Trump-obedient German mainstream media recognized the fakes.11
However, the “rest of the world,” which Trump mentioned in passing in his memorandum, has been gradually organizing itself for about three decades, even alongside the UN. The fact that the US did not succeed with the corrupt first head of government of post-socialist Russia, Boris Yeltsin, but is now confronted with an increasingly sovereign, important, and globally networked state under Putin’s successor government was one of the beginnings of the end of US hegemony. This was to be overturned with the US proxy warrior Ukraine – but even the Trump team now has to admit that this has not succeeded, and is trying to extract a few advantages from it at the expense of its European “friends.”
Above all, the non-military, economic, cooperative, rapidly expanding and deepening multipolarity with the formats BRICS, CELAC (Latin America), FOCAC (Africa), SCO (Asia), and EEF (East Asia) practice an alternative structure that the US can no longer counter – which makes it all the more dangerous.12
1 National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington, The White House, November 2025
2 For more details on the following, see Werner Rügemer: Verhängnisvolle Freundschaft (Fateful Friendship), 4th updated edition, Cologne 2024, pp. 12–89
3 ‘Imperial Israel’ in the New Middle East, New York Times November 28, 2025
4 Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Solidifies Economic and Defense Partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, The White House November 18, 2025
5 Bridge Summit Looks to Become the Largest Cross-Sector Media Event in the World, New York Times, November 28, 2025
6 Trump supports Milei with $20 billion, www.amerika21.de October 14, 2025
7 US doubles reward for Maduro’s arrest, tagesschau.de August 8, 2025
8 Pardon by Trump – Honduras’ former president released from prison, Der Spiegel December 2, 2025
9 Why is the UAE involved in Sudan’s bloody war? https://www.middleeasteye.net November 4, 2025
10 How many wars has President Trump really ended? bbc.com/news October 15, 2025
11 Trump at the UN General Assembly. A speech full of false claims, https://wwwtagesschau.de September 24, 2025
12 Werner Rügemer: Trump’s “America First” – A Change in US Strategy, World Marxist Review 2/2025, https://dx.doi.org/10.62834/8j5fth62
Dr. Werner Rügemer, Köln/Germany, interventionist philosopher, Member of the Council of World Association for Political Economy; member of the editorial board of World Marxist Review. www.werner-ruegemer.de
Opinion
Istanbul’s East-West Forum: A conversation the world can no longer avoid
Dr. Ahmed Moustafa, Director & Founder, Asia Center for Studies & Translation, Egypt
In a city that has spent centuries translating the language of one civilization to another, the first East-West Forum arrived at a moment when the world itself seemed to have lost the vocabulary for talking across its divisions.
Held in Istanbul on Sept. 26–27 and preceded by meetings around the event, the forum brought together diplomats, academics, journalists, strategists and political thinkers from a wide range of countries. Hosted by Harici Media in partnership with the Berlin-based European Transcontinental Initiative, the gathering was conceived as an attempt to examine a world increasingly defined by competing power centers, regional wars, economic fragmentation, artificial intelligence and the erosion of confidence in institutions created after the Second World War. Harici reported that participants came from roughly 30 countries.
For us, the significance of Istanbul was not simply a matter of the speakers on the panel or the structure of the programme. Its deeper importance lay in the willingness to put difficult — and sometimes uncomfortable — questions on the table.
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to my friend and brother, Mr. Tunç Akkoç, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Harici Media, for his gracious invitation to a representative of the Asia Center for Studies & Translation, Egypt, to participate in the Forum as a speaker and commentator. His initiative in creating a platform where competing geopolitical narratives could meet directly deserves recognition.
In his opening remarks, Akkos stressed that the initiative was intended to establish a permanent platform where people representing different political and intellectual traditions and perspectives could meet and engage in direct dialogue.
This vision is particularly significant because the traditional language used in international relations has increasingly struggled to explain the realities of a rapidly changing world.
The Problem of Proxy Wars
During the session that discussed proxy wars in the region and ways to reach solutions to their crises, the Center put forward the view that the Middle East cannot simply be understood through the traditional map that divides the parties into “good” and “evil,” or into “responsible states” and “rogue states.”
Such terms, in our assessment, often reflect the perspective of powers that possess extensive influence over international media and financial and security institutions.
The Center particularly criticised what we see as political bias within important sectors of the Western media and some non-governmental organisations that receive Western funding. From our perspective, these institutions can, in some cases, move from being mere observers of geopolitical conflicts to becoming influential parties in the battle over the narrative and the story.
However, this view should remain open to debate and should not automatically be accepted as an absolute truth.
The more important question is not whether every Western journalist, every NGO, or every Western institution works to serve a single geopolitical agenda clearly, this is not the case, but whether the information environment itself has become so highly polarised that the public is now receiving radically different interpretations of the very same war.
In our assessment, the answer is increasingly approaching “yes.”
The problem becomes particularly clear when searching for the term “proxy wars” in the Middle East. Some of the first results focus on groups associated with Iran, including Hezbollah and the Houthis, as well as Hamas, whereas the history of regional conflicts is far more complex.
Al-Qaeda and ISIS emerged through different historical trajectories, with Anglo-Saxon support that was “created by Britain and the United States.” In environments dominated by the United States and Britain, Al-Qaeda emerged from the environment associated with Osama bin Laden and the Afghan jihad, while ISIS developed largely from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, under American sponsorship, to pursue a certain agenda in the region and advance the scenario of “creative chaos” promoted by Condoleezza Rice, the radical US Secretary of State.
At the same time, US policy toward Afghanistan during the Cold War contributed to shaping the broader environment from which some militant jihadist movements later emerged.
These distinctions matter.
Because propaganda often begins where complex historical details end.
Who Has the Right to Define a “Rogue State”?
The same problem appears in the vocabulary used to describe states.
Countries such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are frequently portrayed in Western strategic discourse as states challenging the existing international order.
Egypt, despite the different nature of its relationship with Washington, can also become the subject of criticism when its foreign policy does not conform to certain Western expectations.
The question is not whether these governments should be exempt from criticism. Of course not.
The deeper question is this: can the international system remain sustainable when one geopolitical camp increasingly assumes the authority to define which governments are legitimate, which movements are terrorist, which wars are defensive and which forms of resistance are acceptable?
That was one of the central questions behind our intervention in Istanbul.
The Middle East has repeatedly been presented through the lens of the “Iranian threat” as the principal strategic danger.
There is no question that Iran possesses significant military and regional capabilities, and that its policies are deeply contested by many neighbouring states. At the same time, reducing virtually every regional security problem to Tehran can obscure the interests and roles of other actors, including Israel, the United States, Gulf states, armed groups and local political forces.
The region has repeatedly paid a heavy price for simplistic interpretations of complex conflicts.
The Economics of Fear
The discussions in Istanbul also led us to a broader American question: to what extent can fear itself become a source of political and economic power?
Historically, the United States has experienced intense political campaigns shaped by perceived racial, ideological and security threats.
One does not need to accept every interpretation of this history to recognise that fear can become a factor with tangible economic consequences.
A 2020 study by Citi estimated that racial discrimination against Black Americans had cost the US economy approximately $16 trillion in lost economic output since 2000, based on an analysis of disparities in wages, education, housing and investment.
This figure demonstrates the extent of the economic losses associated with racial discrimination and exclusion. It also raises questions about the relationship between fear-based narratives concerning Black Americans, media influence, the political power of the gun lobby and the broader economic consequences of insecurity.
More importantly, however, the study highlights a fundamental point: bias and insecurity carry substantial and measurable economic costs.
The broader lesson has direct relevance to foreign policy.
When societies are continually presented with existential enemies, military spending and the expansion of security institutions become politically easier to justify.
America After Iran
In Istanbul, we also advanced the view that the United States after its confrontation with Iran in 2026 should not simply be understood through the traditional image of unlimited American power.
The conflict exposed economic and strategic vulnerabilities.
The Strait of Hormuz emerged as a major strategic pressure point for global energy markets, amid disruptions to international trade that forced governments and companies to search for alternative routes and supplies.
The consequences were reflected in oil prices and energy costs in Europe and elsewhere.
This does not mean that American power has disappeared. Rather, it suggests that military power is no longer synonymous with strategic control.
The rise of China, Russia, ASEAN, Iran and other centres of economic and diplomatic influence has made the international order increasingly complex and dispersed.
The East-West Forum itself reflected this reality, bringing together voices from Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North America while explicitly addressing multipolarity and the ongoing transformation of the global order.
America Is Changing From Within
The domestic dimension of American politics also deserves attention.
The emergence of figures such as Zohran Mamdani in New York and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan reflects changes in the American political debate over inequality, foreign policy, healthcare, identity and the influence of established political and economic interests.
Their political trajectories should not be treated as evidence of a predetermined future for the United States.
They do, however, illustrate how issues that were once treated as peripheral including the costs of war, US policy toward Israel, economic inequality and the political influence of younger and more diverse generations have moved closer to the centre of American political debate.
This is another reason why East-West dialogue cannot remain confined to foreign ministries and military institutions.
A Dinner for Dialogue
One of the most memorable moments on the margins of the Forum was the private dinner held on the evening of Friday, September 25, hosted by H.E. Mr. Hasan Capan, Chairman of the Turkish-Chinese Friendship Foundation, and H.E. Ambassador Ersin Erçin, Vice Chairman of the Foundation, in honour of the speakers and participants.
We extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to both of them for their generosity, friendship and support.
The gathering was more than simply a dinner. It provided an opportunity for personal interaction, an exchange of ideas and the building of relationships among participants — precisely the kind of human diplomacy that formal conferences sometimes lack.
Real dialogue does not always begin behind conference podiums.
Very often, it begins around a single table.
Istanbul’s Larger Message
The first East-West Forum should be regarded as the beginning of a dialogue, not the end of a debate.
The organisers have already articulated a vision of transforming the initiative into an annual gathering in Istanbul, developing expert working groups, establishing an East-West Forum network and potentially creating a business council capable of connecting intellectual dialogue with economic cooperation.
This may ultimately prove to be one of its most important contributions.
The world that emerges from the current conflicts including the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz will require more than ceasefire agreements.
It will require a new conversation about security, energy, sovereignty, development, technology and coexistence.
Istanbul is an exceptional setting for such a dialogue. One participant even proposed moving the headquarters of international organisations, including the United Nations, to Istanbul.
For centuries, the city has stood between two continents without belonging exclusively to either.
The East-West Forum can follow the same principle: not choosing one civilisation against another, but creating a space in which East and West can confront their differences without turning disagreement into permanent conflict.
For this reason, we see the Istanbul gathering as an announcement of intent.
It was not an attempt to erase differences.
It was an attempt to make dialogue possible despite them.
At a time when proxy conflicts increasingly risk evolving into direct confrontations, this may be among the most important political conversations the world can undertake today.
Opinion
A new world in the East, old dogmas in the West
Much commentary followed the US president greeting the visiting Chinese leader at the foot of the aircraft stairs: both because a US president had not done so in many years, and because the leader he welcomed heads a state that the US defines as a competitor, an adversary, and an enemy. That photograph demonstrated that the US itself now recognizes China not merely as an economic power, but as a political, military, scientific, industrial, and technological one; yet it revealed other realities as well.
It showed that a multipolar order has arrived. It showed that the failure of the US to abide by the order whose rules it laid down and whose institutions it established has exacted a heavy toll on the US itself. It showed that the US-centric Atlantic system is unravelling. It showed that the collapse of a world order flouted, and indeed subverted, by its own rule-maker is both legitimate and inevitable. It showed that East-centred institutions, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, enjoy an open path against Western-dominated bodies. It showed that the US regards China as a rival not merely economically, but ideologically and technologically. It showed that the US has proven unable to exercise deterrence against China, Russia, and Iran to the degree it desires.
Let us admit it: after the Cold War ended, the US assumed it could act as it pleased by bringing the European Union to its side and constantly invoking human rights, democracy, and freedom. It was mistaken. The more it spoke of a rules-based world order, of a liberal world order, the more it flouted those very rules. In the end, that order collapsed as well. The birth of a multipolar, multilateral, and multicentric world accelerated; and it was just as well. Now is the time to debate the rules, institutions, traditions, and solutions of this new order.
Yet who will conduct this debate? Who will take part in this search?
It is not right to expect this from the US; nor is it realistic. It is likewise impossible to expect it from the European Union. Europeans follow so subserviently in Washington’s wake that they refuse to consider even Russia as European, despite the fact that, alongside its Eurasian identity, millions of its citizens live across territory spanning Europe and Asia while viewing their nation as historically, politically, socially, culturally, artistically, and intellectually European. They attempt to construct a European defence and security architecture by excluding Russia, in defiance of Russia, and by harbouring hostility toward Russia. In the end, they are both mistaken and defeated.
As the new order emerges, India must also be examined under a distinct heading, alongside China and Russia. For India is a nuclear power possessing the world’s largest population and its 5th largest economy. It maintains disputes with China and Pakistan, yet enjoys good relations with Russia, the US, and Britain. It is a member of both the SCO and BRICS. On the other hand, within the Quad grouping, alongside the US, Japan, and Australia, it positions itself against China.
In summary, as an order takes shape in which the West runs out of breath while the East rises, and Atlantic institutions dissolve while those of Eurasia and the broader Global South come to the fore, we must first rid ourselves of Cold War dogmas and habits.
Opinion
Neither Turkic states heed us, nor does anyone ask us on Syria
At the NATO summit held in Ankara last month, US President Donald Trump made promising remarks to Türkiye regarding the lifting of CAATSA sanctions, clearing the path for the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Türkiye, and supplying the engines required for the domestic Kaan aircraft. He has yet to keep his word.
This is quintessential Trump. He is neither a reliable nor a predictable leader. He approaches diplomacy like a merchant. In bargaining, he opens with the highest possible bid. Rather than institutional consultations, negotiations, formal diplomatic channels, and classical statecraft, he favours personal ties, bilateral encounters, and leader-to-leader diplomacy. He is notoriously erratic. A figure he praises one day, he drags through the mud the next, humiliating, scolding, and even insulting them.
US moves in the Mediterranean
Failing to honour the promises made to Türkiye, the US eased and partially lifted the arms embargo it had enforced on the Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA) since 1987 in 2020, before abolishing it entirely in 2022. Not content with this, the US signed a military cooperation agreement with the GCA in 2024 and hosted its leader at the White House. The GCA, whose path to acquiring weaponry from the US was cleared in 2024, has also recently been deepening its relations with France. Even though two British sovereign bases already exist in the southern part of Cyprus, with the US utilizing them whenever necessary, both the US and France signed separate basing agreements with the GCA. The GCA’s relations with Israel are also remarkably sound, as are those with Qatar. Meanwhile, relations between Greece and France have been exceptionally warm in recent years.
Amid all these tangible developments, Türkiye has largely relinquished its vigilance regarding the Blue Homeland. Drilling vessels and seismic survey ships have been withdrawn from the eastern Mediterranean.
The most distressing of these developments has been that four Turkic states in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan), none of which officially recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as a state, expanded their ties with the GCA and opened embassies in exchange for European Union financial assistance. Through this recognition, by acknowledging the Greek Cypriot Administration as the sole representative of the entire island under the name of the Republic of Cyprus, they effectively rejected the existence of the TRNC, whatever they might claim to the contrary.
Whatever anyone may say, and from whichever angle one evaluates it, the conduct of these four friendly and brotherly states cannot be explained merely by their lack of loyalty or their disregard for Türkiye’s sensitivities on this matter. Alongside this, one must acknowledge the failure of Turkish foreign policy. If Türkiye cannot convince even fellow Turkic states, let alone others, on an issue where its position is most legitimate and justified, such as Cyprus; if, far from persuading them, it cannot prevent them from cultivating relations with the GCA and opening embassies, this represents a monumental failure on the part of Turkish foreign policy.
Moreover, the failure in the Mediterranean is not confined to Cyprus. There is more.
Who is sidelining Türkiye in Syria?
Türkiye is persistently excluded from European-organized meetings on Syria. Türkiye’s views are not sought. So much so that even Qatar, our closest ally in the Arab world, on whose soil we established a military base and to whom we sold major assets, does not hesitate to take part in initiatives that exclude Türkiye from energy projects in the Eastern Mediterranean, or to cooperate with Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration.
Much has changed in Syria since the days when Ahmet Davutoğlu, former prime minister, former foreign minister, former AKP chairman, and leader of the now-dissolved Future Party, carried away by his own momentum, declared: “Not a bird can fly in the Middle East without our knowledge”, “We know the Middle East street by street, inch by inch”, and “We are the masters, pioneers, and spokesmen of the emerging Middle East”, all while eagerly seeking to act as a subcontractor on behalf of the US. The regime has changed. The government has changed.
So let us ask: did we get what we wanted?
Israel, which most recently struck Abu al-Duhur Military Airbase east of Idlib in northern Syria; Israel, a backer of the PKK-PYD-YPG terrorist organization; Israel, which usurped Syrian land in the Golan Heights, attacking Syria and rolling in its tanks whenever it pleases; Israel, which seeks to partition Syria into four entities (Kurdish, Alawite, Arab, and Druze): Israel got what it wanted. And it continues to do so.
Does Israel, which directs scathing rhetoric at Türkiye, fortified by immense US backing and sustained by Europe’s three major powers (Germany, Britain, and France), draw this audacity solely from the imperialist powers standing behind it? Or does Türkiye’s inefficacy in the Turkic world and across the Arab sphere, alongside that backing, also embolden Israel?
In answering this question, we will arrive at a far more accurate assessment if we take into account the depth of Israel’s relations with Azerbaijan.
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
