The 2024 election year was, in many ways, an existential race that would determine the fate of global power balances. One side of the American electoral debate claimed that if they lost, fascism would descend upon the United States, while the other side warned that their opponents would directly ignite World War III. Sceptics observing the election from around the world echoed the classic interpretation of American politics:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo matter who wins, America’s foreign policy will not change!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The man was first tried, then shot, yet somehow survived. With a somewhat comfortable victory, he took control of the entire American legislature.<\/p>\n Donald Trump… Could he ever make peace with the establishment, which he blamed for everything that had happened to him? Now that he held so much power, it was time to settle the score!<\/p>\n As the members of his cabinet were announced, the sceptics\u2019 doubts only hardened. \u201cLook! He\u2019s filling the administration with neo-cons again! What happened to ending wars?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Former hawkish comments from cabinet members like Marco Rubio and Mike Hegseth were shared widely. To make matters worse, Trump\u2019s aggressive outbursts began even before he took office: \u201c51 Canada, 52 Greenland, 53 Mexico…\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n For America, it seemed like the same old story. The establishment would simply repaint blue as red and continue its war plans. There would be not the slightest change in the system! Or would there?<\/p>\n Not quite.<\/p>\n The end of the liberal project<\/strong><\/p>\n To understand whether there will be a shift in American foreign policy, the defeat of the Democrats must be thoroughly examined. Many attempt to explain the reason for their loss in a single sentence. \u201cThe economy, my nephew\u201d<\/em> and \u201cThe Democrats pushed the LGBT issue too hard!\u201d<\/em> are two arguments that dominate the discourse. Of course, the Democrats\u2019 defeat was driven by a multitude of factors, both large and small, with these issues at the forefront. However, this defeat was not quite the same as the one in 2016.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s victory in 2016 sent shockwaves through capital, the bureaucracy, and even the politicians who had been part of the race. When he took office at the time, he was unable to pioneer a new project or movement. While his team and cabinet were largely composed of \u2018old guard\u2019 Republicans, his battle with capital never ceased. The American establishment refused to accept him. He was unable to implement the policies he desired, particularly on issues like Syria. In 2020, big corporations threw their full weight behind Biden, and somehow, they managed to secure his victory.<\/p>\n However, 2024 was different. From Jeff Bezos to Mark Zuckerberg, many of the individuals and companies that had worked tirelessly for Biden in 2020 were either neutral this time or openly declared their support for Trump. Why? Did they see Trump as an inevitable figure they had to reconcile with? Or did they have doubts about the sustainability of the plan they had once championed? Kamala Harris is not the only loser here… Nor are the Democrats alone in their defeat… The 2024 U.S. elections marked the loss of a project that Barack Obama had inherited from the Republicans.<\/p>\n Around this time last year, I wrote a similar article analyzing 2023 from the U.S. perspective. In it, I described 2023 as \u201cthe most difficult year of the empire.\u201d<\/em> The reason for this was the U.S.\u2019s struggle with over-expansion, driven by its relentless pursuit of global hegemony. Despite its vast resources, it was increasingly unable to manage the crises erupting worldwide. Unless it could address this issue, every passing year would continue to be the most difficult year of its empire.<\/p>\n One year later, Trump promises a scenario of change that will either solve or at least mitigate this crisis.<\/p>\n First, the phrase \u201ctrying to be everywhere\u201d<\/em> requires some explanation. After the Cold War, the U.S. declared itself the global policeman. It wasn\u2019t just going to defend liberalism\u2014it was going to spread it across the world. It aimed to overthrow dictators, lower the defenses of countries it believed it could diplomatically engage through economic ties, and unconditionally support liberal governments it saw as akin to itself. Remember the famous McDonald\u2019s Theory<\/em>: two countries with McDonald\u2019s restaurants would never go to war! Capitalism and liberalism, hand in hand, would bring world peace.<\/p>\n In other words, the U.S. foreign policy of the unipolar order was entirely ideologically driven. As many would agree, this was a non-partisan plan. George W. Bush continued it, and so did Barack Obama.<\/p>\n However, the Biden era proved that American global hegemony is unsustainable. According to Trump, the U.S. was alienating countries it could have befriended for ideological reasons, while supporting countries that offered no strategic value simply because they were liberal. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. After the Jamal Khashoggi incident, Biden declared, \u201cI will turn them into a pariah state.\u201d<\/em> Instead, the Saudis aligned with China. Far from becoming a pariah state, they increased their regional influence.<\/p>\n Biden knew that the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia undermined the oft-repeated slogan of \u201cDemocracy and Human Rights.\u201d<\/em> For this very reason, he alienated a country that would normally have been an ally. In Afghanistan, billions of dollars were spent on a \u201cnation-building\u201d<\/em> model\u2014one that had failed repeatedly\u2014under the guise of protecting \u201cwomen\u2019s rights.\u201d<\/em> In Syria, through its association with the PKK terrorist organization, the U.S. demonized Turkey, a NATO member with one of the strongest armies in the alliance, for yet another nation-building project.<\/p>\n Of course, these ideologically driven projects did yield some gains, such as access to underground resources, increased regional influence, and military bases. However, when weighing the pros and cons, it\u2019s hard to argue that U.S. resources were well spent. Over the past four years, the Afghanistan project collapsed. The PKK terrorist organization continues to lose territory in both Iraq and Syria. Despite billions of dollars poured into Ukraine, Russia continues to advance, albeit with bruises and scars.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s solution: Realpolitik<\/strong><\/p>\n The series of failed policies is compelling the United States to move away from its unipolar foreign policy approach. This shift explains why at least a portion of the American establishment is now repositioning itself. Of course, individuals and entities like George Soros\u2014the direct architect of projects such as Ukraine\u2014are, for the time being, excluded from this recalibration. The new American foreign policy promises the world a \u201cmultipolarity with American characteristics.\u201d<\/p>\n However, it would be naive to envision a multipolar world order as a harmonious utopia where \u201ceveryone holds hands and runs down the slope.\u201d Just as a dragon or a bear cannot be caged, an eagle, too, cannot be confined. The United States remains the most powerful nation globally, boasting unmatched manpower, industrial capacity, technological prowess, and a unique geopolitical position. Such a country cannot simply retreat within its borders. Even as the U.S. adapts to multipolarity, it does not automatically follow that it will coexist smoothly with China or Russia. Multipolarity inherently brings chaos. Unlike the classical Cold War paradigm, this chaos is not limited to conflicts among global giants but can also erupt among regional powers. This is the lens through which issues like Syria should be understood. Interpreting every geopolitical confrontation solely through the interests of the U.S. or Russia is a relic of Cold War thinking. Multipolarity inevitably creates space for regional powers to assert their interests\u2014countries like Turkey or India, for instance.<\/p>\n To navigate this new order, the U.S. is seeking to establish a governance framework compatible with Realpolitik. Realpolitik, a political philosophy originating in 19th-century Germany and championed by Otto von Bismarck, the architect of German unification, prioritizes pragmatism over ideology. Its goal is to safeguard state interests by crafting a balanced power dynamic. In the U.S., two of the most prominent advocates of Realpolitik were Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger.<\/p>\n Kissinger viewed the greatest threat to the U.S. as the potential alliance between the \u201cdragon\u201d (China) and the \u201cbear\u201d (Russia). China possessed the manpower and industrial capacity, while the Soviet Union had the energy resources to sustain it. A partnership between the two could have spelled the end of American hegemony before it even took root. Although the U.S. framed the Cold War as a battle of \u201ctyranny against democracy,\u201d its most decisive actions were guided by Kissinger\u2019s Realpolitik. The \u201cOne China\u201d policy regarding Taiwan, which remains in place today, is a legacy of this philosophy.<\/p>\n President Theodore Roosevelt succinctly encapsulated Realpolitik with his famous adage: \u201cSpeak softly and carry a big stick.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Roosevelt\u2019s \u2018Big Stick Diplomacy\u2019 shaped U.S. foreign policy at the beginning of the 20th century. Roosevelt did not see the United States as the world\u2019s policeman but believed that its own backyard should fall under its sphere of influence. He expanded the Monroe Doctrine, intervening in the politics of South American states. Moreover, it was during this period that the famous Panama Canal was built, thanks to Roosevelt\u2019s efforts. In 1903, Colombia, which controlled Panama, refused to reach an agreement with the U.S. The U.S. fueled rebellions in the Panama region and deployed its navy to prevent Colombia from suppressing the uprising. Panama\u2019s independence was immediately recognized, and construction of the canal began in 1904.<\/p>\n The foreign policy moves of the new Trump era are likely to follow a similar path. The aim is to prioritize U.S. national security interests over the task of \u2018spreading liberalism.\u2019 This approach aligns with the principles of Realpolitik. From now on, U.S. foreign policy will be driven by interests rather than ideological impositions.<\/p>\n From this perspective, the rhetoric Trump launched even before taking office makes more sense.<\/p>\n Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine to prevent a \u2018dragon-bear\u2019 friendship. Trump wants Greenland to control the trade routes expected to emerge as glaciers melt due to global warming. Trump is considering action against Mexico because he believes China, through the cartels, is attacking the United States via drug trafficking. Trump wants Panama to establish a barrier at the most strategic point to South America, where China is consolidating its influence.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t get me wrong\u2014Trump is no Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a highly popular president in the U.S., and many still regard him as one of the greatest in American history. Trump\u2019s domestic political battles began even before he took office, and it is unlikely that a figure like Kissinger will emerge on his side.<\/p>\n However, the U.S. bureaucracy has already prepared itself for Kissinger-like policies. The clearest evidence of this is Trump\u2019s emphasis on tariffs. These tariffs, which will be imposed not only on China but also on \u2018allied\u2019 countries like Canada, are likely to exacerbate the U.S. inflation problem, which is already in a precarious state. If Trump implements the tariffs as he has proposed, it will become clear that this decision was made without regard for electoral consequences or public reaction. If the U.S. is entering a struggle with China, it cannot afford to lose its industrial base there. The return of industry, especially microchip manufacturing, to the U.S. is far more important for the country than the careers of politicians or the votes they seek.<\/p>\n This is precisely why I disagree with the claim that \u2018U.S. foreign policy will not change.\u2019 For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is preparing to adopt policies that align with the multipolar world developing beyond its borders. The aggressive nature of these policies does not negate their compatibility with the new world order. All states, whether they have favorable or unfavorable relations with the United States, must prepare for a drastic shift in American foreign policy. This new plan may fail, and with the return of the Democrats in 2028, the old ways might resurface. But for the next four years, Trump\u2019s Realpolitik awaits us. Let everyone prepare for multipolarity with American characteristics!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The 2024 election year was, in many ways, an existential race that would determine the fate of global power balances. One side of the American electoral debate claimed that if they lost, fascism would descend upon the United States, while the other side warned that their opponents would directly ignite World War III. Sceptics observing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":7006,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[860,319,625,962,4482,4481,1192],"class_list":["post-7005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-democracy","tag-donald-trump","tag-foreign-policy","tag-multipolarity","tag-speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick","tag-theodore-roosevelt","tag-united-states"],"yoast_head":"\n