Thousands of dismissed government employees... Chaos and turmoil in federal agencies... Hundreds of thousands of people deported on military planes and helicopters back to the countries they fled – mostly due to persecution or the inability to secure a piece of bread; the same countries from which the Statue of Liberty had once beckoned them... A complete halt to refugee admissions and, consequently, the closure of the U4U program…
And then – a speech by Vice President J.D. Vance at a critically important international conference on European security, effectively declaring that the U.S. is abandoning Europe, reneging on its commitments that had upheld the true "golden era" of Euro-Atlantic civilization – an era carefully constructed through collective efforts on the ruins of World War II and the lessons of the Cold War...
This is the outcome of the first 30 days of the lightning-fast activity of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, who secured a decisive victory in the 2024 elections under the primary slogan: "Make America Great Again!"
At the epicenter of events – Ukraine, plunged into complete uncertainty…
A Time Bomb That Is Exploding
The arrival of Trump in the White House – both the first and the second time – marked the culmination of trends that had been gradually gaining momentum, initially unnoticed beneath the surface of what was the most prosperous and fruitful period in modern U.S. history. This period extended to politically, economically, and morally-culturally allied countries (far beyond just Europe) within the so-called "American sphere of influence," or "Western civilization." The Marshall Plan, NATO, the Common Market, and the EU were all milestones in the construction of this civilization.
Yes, this is a distinct civilization, systematically built through the collective efforts of all the nations that became part of it. The invention of nuclear weapons and the establishment of nuclear parity created guarantees against nuclear states attacking one another or non-nuclear states (which were shielded under the "umbrella" of nuclear-armed countries), leading to the adoption of the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. The painful reckoning with the experience of Nazism after Hitler’s defeat created a powerful immunity – both against war and any attempts to establish dictatorship—ensuring an unshakable social contract that upheld democracy as the foundation of peace and prosperity. The agreements signed at the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 enshrined the most crucial guarantee against renewed military conflicts in Europe: the inviolability of national borders and the sovereignty of participating states.
These two fundamental pillars – military and economic-political-cultural-moral – seemed unshakable, beyond debate, and absolutely essential for humanity's survival as a biological species, at least within "Western civilization." I will highlight only its most essential traits: the primacy of fundamental human rights – life, freedom, and equality before the law – over any group identifiers (race, nationality, gender, social status, etc.); private property as the foundation of the economy; freedom of speech and self-expression, with an absolute prohibition on inciting war or any form of dictatorship; fair elections; separation of powers, with their independence, equality, and subjection to the law; and the predominance of humanistic ideals in culture.
Under these principles, politics within "Western civilization" fluctuated freely according to the will of voters but remained within fairly strict boundaries, known as centrism (both right and left), enshrined in foundational documents (constitutions, criminal codes, electoral laws, etc.) as well as unwritten traditions: never allowing the most radical groups on either end of the political spectrum to gain power, as they inevitably sought to replace democracy with a dictatorship of their own political force.
This order ensured an optimal balance between freedom and relative stability, persisting since the late 1940s. It enabled unrestricted, comprehensive development for individuals and society as a whole, creating an unprecedented level of comfort in human history. On one hand, this provided solid guarantees against any conflicts, while on the other, it did not restrict opportunities for progress. The ultimate embodiment of the success of the American sphere of influence was the reunification of Germany under the leadership of its western (not eastern) half and the rapid movement of former Eastern Bloc countries toward NATO (rather than the Russian sphere of influence). (The Baltic states managed to catch the "last train" just in time).
However, beneath this surface, destructive processes were brewing (Hegel’s laws of dialectical contradiction and Newton’s third law—action and reaction—have not been repealed!). Let me name just the most obvious ones. The principle of equal rights for individuals inevitably led to the expansion of inclusivity for social groups that had historically been marginalized – giving rise to "positive discrimination." The rapid advancement of science and technology, which transitioned into a full-fledged technological revolution at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, created a qualitatively new level of opportunity. This was used, on one hand, to further human development, and on the other, by subversive forces – freedom of speech turned into an unlimited tool for manipulating the consciousness of entire populations. The peace and prosperity of the "West" attracted the underprivileged from less fortunate regions of the world, and their numbers gradually exceeded the West’s capacity to integrate them with dignity. Cultural differences only exacerbated this crisis.
Yet, it is likely that all these crises could have been managed – had "Western civilization" not come into direct confrontation with the "Eastern" one, in a much broader sense than just the "Muslim East."
The Converging Paths of the West and Russia Leading to a Head-On Collision
The Soviet Union once had a strong “inoculation” against war but not against dictatorship – after all, the USSR itself was a totalitarian dictatorship. Mikhail Gorbachev’s attempt to bring the Soviet system closer to the "Western" model by introducing private property and freedom of speech ultimately provided the final push that led to its collapse. The breakup was prevented from spiraling into a full-scale, uncontrollable war – like the Civil War of 1918–1920 – by relying on this "inoculation" against war itself and the Helsinki Act, which upheld the inviolability of borders. This is why the dissolution of the USSR was structured in accordance with the borders of the Soviet republics that declared themselves independent states. However, as it turned out, Russia – even under Gorbachev – never received an "inoculation" against dictatorship.
The transition from the Soviet economic system to capitalism followed the path of "primitive accumulation of capital," regardless of how that capital was obtained. The newly emerging system absorbed both organized crime groups on one side and former members of the Soviet security services, primarily the KGB, on the other. In the early 1990s, this transition was accepted as a "norm" both inside Russia (and other post-Soviet countries) and in the West—there was no resistance. On the contrary, the West fully supported the establishment of the new system, effectively becoming its guarantor under the slogan: The market will fix everything.
This created unprecedented opportunities for criminals to transform Russia’s transition to capitalism into a transition to a mafia state. Criminal elements took control of this process, using brute force to suppress legitimate authorities. These mafia forces immediately launched an offensive against the West, sensing that sooner or later, the West would recognize the need to counter them.
If we summarize these complex processes, we see two powerful forces moving toward each other at full speed. From the West – comprehensive support for capitalism in the post-Soviet space, with the goal of establishing a similar system of prosperity and peace. From Russia – a determined effort to dismantle the West.
At first, these attempts manifested as the almost unrestricted penetration of Russian subversive forces into the West (which the West either failed to notice or chose to ignore). Russian oligarchs aggressively purchased the most luxurious real estate and corrupted Western societies with their distinct style of arrogance, dubbed "bykuvannia" (bullying and flexing wealth). Russian spies infiltrated Western intelligence agencies and government institutions, while unrestricted travel allowed Russian influence agents to settle in Western countries.
Russia’s wars against Ichkeria (Chechnya) became the first battlefield in this confrontation between Russia and the West. The West failed to notice this (and so did Ukraine, actually).
The “war on international terrorism,” particularly “Islamic terrorism,” following the infamous September 11, 2001 attacks, created unprecedented opportunities for Russia to effectively conquer the West under the guise of an "ally" in this war. Russia was granted a de facto indulgence to commit genocide against the Chechen people. It also leveraged its newly forged alliances with Western countries to infiltrate them – including by facilitating the infiltration of "Islamic terrorists" into the West. Naturally, this also reactivated all the terrorist networks that had been established by the USSR across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.
The de facto defeat of the West – first in Iraq, then in Afghanistan – gave Russia even greater opportunities to undermine the West from within. (And was this defeat caused solely by U.S. miscalculations in the Middle East, or did Russia also play a covert role in these conflicts – perhaps by infiltrating terrorist groups?)
But the most destructive processes unfolded within Russia itself, obliterating the last remnants of democracy and transforming the country into a de facto nazi dictatorship.
Yet the West was unable to fully grasp the destructive potential of post-Soviet Russia. It was unwilling to step out of its comfort zone – an unprecedented luxury in human history. It could not shift away from the pacifist foundation of its civilization and, therefore, made a strategic decision: to continue full-scale relations with Russia, turning a blind eye and burying its head in the sand. After all, where there is trade, there is no war.
Meanwhile, Russia’s subversive forces collided with the West’s own time bombs—hidden within the very course of Western civilization’s internal development.
The Destruction of Political Centrism as a Civilizational Foundation
At present, we are witnessing a head-on collision between Russia’s destructive forces – systematically aimed at dismantling Western civilization – and the inherent developmental trends within this civilization itself. This has manifested as a rapid shift away from the centrist foundation of political life – toward the extreme left of the political spectrum. A variety of social groups, feeling sidelined and abandoned, have merged into a single wave of discontent: industrial workers whose industries are vanishing due to technological revolutions and “green technologies”; racial groups who feel victimized by “positive discrimination” in favor of minorities; residents of U.S. states bordering Mexico, who bear the brunt of both legal and illegal immigration; and citizens who believe that U.S. aid to allies is excessive (without considering how crucial America’s reputation as a reliable guarantor of global security is to their own interests).
Under the influence of these trends – as well as the direct involvement of Russian agents – the political “pendulum” has swung sharply to the far-right, bypassing the center entirely.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the United States. In the 2024 election, there were candidates who represented centrism: Nikki Haley from the Republican Party (right-centrism) and Kamala Harris from the Democratic Party (left-centrism; yes, she leaned further left, but with the system of checks and balances, she could have been steered toward the center – unlike Trump, as we will see below). (In Europe, these processes have not yet fully overtaken centrism but are steadily gaining momentum.)
Trump capitalized on all these tendencies at once. His speeches – deliberately stripped of traditional diplomacy and filled with hate speech – eliminated centrism as a systemic foundation that had previously restrained attempts to incite conflict and establish dictatorship.
Trump’s entry into the White House – both the first and second time – was a symptom of the deep crisis engulfing the West. This crisis was expressed in Trump’s direct assault on American government institutions, which form the backbone of the country’s democratic, political, economic, and moral-cultural systems.
This attack, which failed during Trump’s first term, is now well-prepared and systematic. Loyal personnel have been carefully selected in advance—individuals who had proven their willingness to protect Trump from the forces that opposed his attacks on the American system. These individuals now carry out their leader’s orders without hesitation or resistance.
Having assembled his bureaucratic "bulldozer," Trump has launched a rapid, massive, and relentless assault on the economic, political, legal, and ideological-moral system embodied in the highest levels of U.S. government institutions.
The strategic goal of these attacks is the destruction of the system of checks and balances and its replacement with unilateral “presidential” control.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is swiftly replacing prosecutors at various levels with individuals willing to prosecute anyone Trump points to. Trump himself has repeatedly stated his intention to bring legal action against all those who have criticized or opposed him.
Efforts to downsize the federal government have been attempted by various presidents in the past, and in each case, the bureaucracy ultimately prevailed. It is likely that some level of restructuring was necessary even now. However, the current situation is far more alarming.
Tens of thousands of employees across various government agencies are being dismissed under the directives of newly empowered oligarch Elon Musk, who has no understanding of how these institutions function yet carries out Trump's orders without hesitation. Under the guise of drastically reducing excessive budget spending and cutting a bloated bureaucracy, the system of internal checks and balances within the government is being dismantled.
“Musk, the world’s richest man, along with a number of aides, has fired over 10,000 employees and eliminated programs across the entire U.S. government, from the Department of Education to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Most of the dismissed employees had only been in their positions for the past year, meaning they were considered probationary hires – status that provides them with fewer job protections than other government workers.” — mention Idrees Ali and Nathan Layne, Reuters
Mass purges are taking place at the Pentagon, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and beyond.
These purges not only impact over 10,000 government employees – many of whom are the least protected, young workers hired just a few months ago – but also leave entire government agencies understaffed. Entire departments are being dismantled – not only those perceived as “far-left” (such as diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives) but also those responsible for maintaining operational oversight and preventing abuses.
The Most Dangerous Blow: The Destruction of U.S. Intelligence and Counterintelligence The most devastating blow is being dealt to the U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence agencies. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard poses a direct threat to national security.
Here’s how she is characterized by Alexander Vindman – who, during Trump’s first presidency, served on the National Security Council and was the first to raise the alarm when he overheard Trump’s infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which Trump demanded dirt on his political opponent, Joe Biden – a scandal that led to Trump’s impeachment:
“Tulsi Gabbard presents a serious problem for the core functions of the U.S. government and the long-term security of the American people. Her sympathies toward the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad and her ideological alignment with Russian media outlets like RT suggest that her tenure as DNI will be marked by hostile relations with the broader intelligence community. The best-case scenario for the United States is that Tulsi Gabbard’s willingness to embrace narratives peddled by America’s adversaries stems from a lack of understanding. The worst-case scenario is that she is deliberately working to weaken U.S. intelligence capabilities. Regardless of which scenario is closer to reality, the United States will face serious shifts in how its allies approach intelligence sharing.
We can expect our allies to limit the amount of intelligence they share with their American counterparts and for the U.S. to become increasingly isolated from key multilateral intelligence-sharing agreements such as Five Eyes, AUKUS, and NATO. We can also anticipate that intelligence operations supporting covert assistance programs – such as CIA support for Ukrainian military and drone programs – will come under intense scrutiny and restrictions. Depending on Gabbard’s actions and her willingness to advance the administration’s agenda of supporting European far-right political figures, our allies may even begin subjecting American operatives to counterintelligence measures.
Intelligence sharing enables the United States to counter threats from terrorists and hostile states. With Gabbard at the helm of the DNI, Americans will face a more dangerous world with fewer friends and diminished tools at their disposal. While some intelligence functions may be partially insulated from Gabbard’s direct control, her presence alone will lead to significant shifts in how our allies cooperate with the U.S. intelligence community in the foreseeable future.” (Quote from Alexander Vindman, via his online publication Why It Matters*, which is distributed via email subscription.)*
Is Trump Bankrupting the U.S. to Russia’s Advantage?
Many political analysts are most bewildered by Trump’s overt – often even demonstrative – admiration for Putin. Even as Putin wages the most horrific war in Europe – the aggression against Ukraine – the leader of the most powerful nation, who has sworn to “Make America Great Again,” behaves toward Putin with a display of obsequiousness for the entire country and the world to see. In his eagerness to appease an international war criminal who poses the greatest threat to Western civilization, Trump is willing to alienate U.S. allies and abandon the commitments America made 75 years ago to guarantee Europe’s security through NATO. The speech delivered by Vice President Vance at the Munich Security Conference became a defining moment, signaling the U.S.’s abrupt pivot away from defending Europe.
Some political analysts interpret this shift as an attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and China, arguing that China poses a greater threat to the U.S. than Russia. (Oh, really? Can we name a single prominent political figure assassinated by China? If such cases exist, they are far fewer than the victims of Putin’s Russia—not to mention the bloodthirsty dictator who recognizes no limits, compared to a cunning economic swindler like China.)
But will this strategy succeed? Perhaps – but at the cost of granting putin even greater opportunities to dismantle the West.
Will China preemptively strike by invading Taiwan? And if that happens, will Trump also abandon the commitment to defend the real Republic of China?
However, Trump’s flirtation with putin is driven by far more than just the “China factor.”
As some political analysts, journalists, and commentators have noted, Trump has long been compromised by Moscow. It is well known that Russian oligarchs have made significant investments in Trump’s real estate ventures. More than that, according to some reports, Trump was recruited by Soviet intelligence during his 1987 visit to Moscow – at the dawn of perestroika, when the USSR was opening up to the West.
The Irish Star cites the testimony of Alnur Musayev, former head of the KGB in Kazakhstan:
“In 1987, our department recruited Donald Trump under the alias Krasnov,” – the newspaper quotes Musayev’s Facebook post.
“Musayev’s post contained no evidence to support his claim, but in a subsequent comment, he made another shocking assertion,” the newspaper adds, continuing with another quote:
“Today, the personal file of agent ‘Krasnov’ has been removed from the FSB’s archives. It is now privately managed by one of Putin’s closest associates.”
The Irish Star provides further context:
“Musayev’s claims emerged against the backdrop of years of speculation about Trump’s ties to Russia, dating back to his first visit to Moscow in 1987. or something far more sinister.
At the time, Trump—then a rising star in New York’s real estate market – traveled to the Soviet Union to explore the possibility of building a hotel in the capital. Soviet officials facilitated the trip, raising questions among intelligence analysts about whether this was merely a business opportunity
A few years ago, a report surfaced detailing how, in 1985, the KGB updated a secret personal recruitment manual circulated among its officers, outlining how to identify and recruit influential Western figures.
According to intelligence sources, the document instructed agents to target ‘prominent figures in the West’ in order to ‘engage them in some form of cooperation with us… whether as an agent, a confidential informant, or an unofficial contact.’ Musayev’s post suggests that Trump may have been one such target,” the Irish Star reports.
These speculations have never been either definitively confirmed or convincingly debunked. The only serious attempt to officially investigate Trump’s potential ties to Russia – the Mueller investigation in 2017–2018 – was limited to probing Russian election interference and potential collusion between Russian agents and Trump’s campaign. The investigation found no direct evidence of collusion, but it never explored older potential connections – such as Trump’s links to oligarchs, let alone to the KGB-FSB.
If such connections existed, why didn’t the FBI uncover them long before a flashy real estate developer, TV personality, and beauty pageant owner decided to run for the highest office? Why was no attention paid to his strange fascination with America’s strategic adversary – an obsession he flaunted openly? Answers to these questions may surface much later – or perhaps never at all.
For now, one thing is clear: Trump and Putin share similar personal and ideological traits. These traits can lead to either mutual attraction or competition over who is the tougher leader. At this stage, they are in their “honeymoon phase,” with Trump bending over backward for the Russian dictator – even to the point of serving up long-suffering Ukraine on a silver platter, all in the name of “peace” – because “thousands of young soldiers are dying every day on both sides.”
To appease Putin and certain segments of his voter base, Trump is attempting – under the guise of pseudo-pacifism (a caricature of the genuine pacifism of the 1990s – to distance himself not only from Ukraine but also from America’s commitments to European security, much like Neville Chamberlain in 1938.
This does not necessarily mean that Ukraine will be forced to surrender to its ruthless enemy.
First, Europe is waking up. It may step in to provide Ukraine with aid and unite to defend the centrist foundation of Western civilization (assuming far-right forces do not gain the upper hand).
Second, Trump has not yet fully dismantled the American system of democracy and checks and balances, which will likely be able to counteract his most dangerous political moves.
Third, Ukraine is prepared to defend itself. President Zelensky is also ready to strike a mutually beneficial deal with Trump regarding Ukraine’s natural resources—a deal that would entangle Trump in new obligations, making them harder to break due to their economic incentives. (At this stage, the agreement still requires refinement.)
Moreover, one can hope that America’s institutions will not allow themselves to be dismantled entirely. The country is already awakening from the initial shock. One can also hope that Europe will hold firm.
And one can hope that Ukraine will be able to defend its sovereignty and preserve its independence.
However, the destruction of America’s system and the civilizational foundations of the West cannot be fully stopped. The U.S. will, at the very least, partially default on its commitments – politically, morally, and to some extent, economically.
The world will never return to the “golden era” of recent history. What it will become remains uncertain.
Author: Nadiya Banchyk