Last updated:February 10th, 2025, 16:02 IST
Russia supports the separatist regime and interferes with the issues of Syria and African countries, China militarizes small islands in the South China Sea, but Trump wants to reclaim the Panama Canal and take over Greenland
Are Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping ginping the joint architects of the new multipolar world order?
There is a certain similarity between President Donald Trump, his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Under Putin, Russia supported the separatist regime, fought wars in Georgia and Ukraine, interfering with the operations of the Middle Eastern countries, including Syria and African countries.
China militarizes a few deserted islands in the South China Sea and maintains its claims against Taiwan. Trump has repeatedly argued that the US should reclaim the Panama Canal and take over Greenland. He also spoke about making Canada the 51st province, converting the Gaza Strip into the “Middle Eastern Riviera.”
Can Trump, Putin and Xi become co-craftsmen of the new multipolar world order?
Similarities between us, Russia and China
Until recently, the rise and fall of the empire ruled much of recorded history. Nation-states only appeared at the end of the 18th century. And as those states became prominent, many people also showed imperial trends.
American futurist Lawrence Taub noted in the 1980s that both the US and Russia were born from a revolution to the European empire and were based on humanitarian political ideals (freedom and social equality, respectively). Both expanded in the 19th century by taking over indigenous lands.
Moreover, both countries have federal governments with political structures and primarily European cultural roots. Both are multicultural and have multiethnic groups, but are dominated culturally, economically and politically by major groups (the wasps of the US and Russians).
In his book The Evering of the Super-Powers in “The Emergence of the Super-Powers” (1970), Paul Dukes has recently revealed that both the US and Russia have each been the mission of the world, the fate of the manifesto, and He writes that others believed it was a major obstacle to its success.
Both countries are superpowers with the spirituality of superpowers. They are similar in size, population, climate, temperate location and topography. Both countries have large weapons and weapons and have decades of experience in space exploration.
When Mikhail Gorbachev visited China under Den Xiaoping in the 1980s. Deng integrated the principles of capitalism into China’s socialist system, promoting economic growth while maintaining central control of the Communist Party.
Gorbachev sought to include similar transformations through “perestroika” (economic restructuring) and “glasnost” (political openness). However, his vision was not politically self-sufficient. However, instead of economic boost, his policies led to a financial crisis and political collapse, leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
When Boris Yeltsin took over Russia as president, he instead of refined it, he aimed to dismantle socialism and transition the country into a Western-style democracy and market economy. However, the outcome was widespread corruption, poverty, and the rise of oligarchs.
When Putin snatched the reins of Russia, the oligarchs were restrained and the country reattacked on the world stage. His strategy combined nationalism, economic management and national sovereignty.
His authoritarian methods are controversial, but President Putin has once again transformed Russia from a chaotic Soviet state into a horrifying force.
In the US case, Barack Obama has the opportunity to implement reforms during the 2008 financial crisis. But rather than pushing for structural change, he bailed Wall Street, exacerbated economic inequality, fostered populist backlash, leading to Trump’s rise.
How Trump demonstrates empire trends
President Trump had similarities between Yeltsin. Both leaders disrupt political establishment, challenged existing policies, and thrived with populist rhetoric.
His first terminology was characterized by confusion, institutional paralysis, and focused on the dismantling of the old order. His policies, such as the trade war, deregulation and focus on nationalism, reflect a broader rejection of the post-Cold War globalist consensus.
In his second term, Trump has already cited greater control over the status device, just like his Russian counterpart. In addition to asserting control of the Panama Canal, Trump also refers to the American “manifesto fate,” a 19th-century belief that American settlers are destined to expand to the Pacific coast.
Trump also renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the US Gulf in a declaration signed on February 9th, citing the importance of the Gulf to the United States.
But unlike Putin, who was detained by the oligarchs to ensure that the nation remains dominant, Trump coincided with the ultra-rich people who benefited from tax policies.
How about other countries?
The world today consists of 200 independent countries, but the empire trends of some regimes have not disappeared.
France, for example, frequently interfered in many of the former African colonies. However, these military interventions were not intended to permanently occupy new territory.
The increasingly authoritarian leader Recept Tayyip Erdogan, another regional power with the power of another Turkey, finds inspiration in the Ottoman Empire.
How other empires have built the nation-state model
Newly minted nation-states such as Italy and Germany have acquired overseas empires, involved themselves, altered success, and proved to be relatively short-lived colonial empires in Africa and elsewhere. It’s built.
After World War II, most countries began to pursue decolonization, as witnessed by the power of traditional empires such as Britain and France. The transitions and consequences of various imperial governments focused on the construction of an egalitarian federation, and maintained some influence.
This happened under extreme obsessions, as in Algeria and Vietnam’s France, or under great economic pressure, as in the UK and India. The actual era of nation-states did not begin until the 1960s.
