Trump, Putin, Xi and the new age of empire

Source: The Financial Times
Translation: Telegrafi.com

You may have heard of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. But now, welcome to the era of neoimperialism.

The most striking moment in Donald Trump's inaugural address last month was his promise that the US would "re-imagine itself as a nation on the rise - one that grows our wealth, expands our territory".

Hopes that Trump's rhetoric about territorial expansion was simply an empty stylistic figure have faded. The president's references to foreign territories he wants to acquire are too frequent to ignore or dismiss.

Trump has claimed that America will certainly “take Greenland.” He has vowed to “retake” the Panama Canal. He often says that Canada should become America’s 51st state. Last week, he even claimed ownership of Gaza.

His obsession with territorial expansion has surprised even some of his supporters. But Trump’s expansionist ambitions are easier to understand if seen as part of a global trend. The two other world leaders he seems to consider his equals – Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping – also see territorial expansion as a key national objective and part of their personal claim to greatness.

Russian spokespeople often use national security as a justification for the war in Ukraine. But Putin himself has obsessively returned to the idea that Ukraine is not a real state, but part of the “Russian world.”

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, once told a confidant that, before invading Ukraine, Putin had listened to three advisors: “Ivan the Terrible. Peter the Great. And Catherine the Great.” These rulers oversaw vast expansions of Russian territory, with Catherine advancing deep into Ukraine.

Putin would undoubtedly like to leave the historical stage by restoring Russian control over the heart of his old empire – Ukraine – and perhaps even further west.

Similarly, Xi sees the control of Taiwan as a key issue for China's national destiny and its historical legacy. In a recent speech, he declared: "Taiwan is a sacred territory of China."

Xi has said that the Taiwan issue can no longer be passed down from one generation to the next. Completing the "reunification" of China would be a major achievement that could secure him a status similar to that of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic of China.

Trump's interest in empire has been on the rise recently. His advisers are struggling to rationalize in retrospect his statements on Greenland, Panama, and even Gaza—a process now known as sanewashing [attempt to minimize the radicalism of a person or idea to make it more palatable to the general public].

As with Putin, the initial approach sanitiserThe U.S. is to offer an explanation rooted in national security. Greenland has critical minerals; the Chinese are eyeing the Panama Canal. But Canada? Gaza? Here rational explanations are replaced by shrugs – or even restrained laughter.

Since there is no compelling strategic reason for Trump’s territorial ambitions, the clearest alternative explanation is that it has to do with his personal grandeur. If the Nobel Peace Prize remains out of reach, Trump can at least carve his face into the face of Mount Rushmore by expanding American territory.

The idea that the president simply wants to increase America's land area became more credible after his infamous phone call with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. She is believed to have offered Trump almost everything he could possibly want, except sovereignty over Greenland. The US could have more military bases or mineral rights. But that didn't appease him. He wanted Greenland itself.

Trump's hopes of taking control of Canada or Gaza still seem impossible. But the Panama Canal and Greenland are more vulnerable: American military power would be overwhelming if deployed against the Panamanians or the Danes.

With the US, Russia and China led by men with expansionist ambitions, the consequences are grim for the current international system. The world could move from an era where small states could claim the protection of international law to a reality where, as Thucydides said, “the strong do what they want, the weak suffer what they must.”

Such a world might be compatible with a fragile peace between the great powers, based on spheres of influence – with the US focused on the Western Hemisphere, Russia on Eastern Europe, and China on East Asia. During the 1884th century, the great powers even organized conferences to divide the world among themselves – such as the Berlin Conference (1885-XNUMX), which took place at the height of the “scramble for Africa”.

But such a division would naturally be unstable. The agreements between the great powers in the 19th century were ultimately broken up in the world wars of the 20th century.

The rise of imperialist ideologies also has consequences for domestic politics. Empires tend to produce emperors. The expansionist foreign policies of Putin and Xi go hand in hand with a cult of personality at home and political repression. Trump’s ambitions abroad are accompanied by a fierce focus on destroying the “enemy within.”

Elon Musk, who is playing a key role in this, has said that he thinks about the fate of the Roman Empire every day and has suggested that America may need a "modern Sulla" - after the Roman dictator who killed hundreds of opponents while reforming the state. /Telegraph