Eurasia Press & News
In world politics, very rapid and dynamic processes are taking place. This is largely due to Trump’s policy, which brought to the system of international relations a high level of turbulence, unpredictability and radicalness, and events are developing rapidly.
Before our eyes, the idea of the collective West, that is, the solidary and quite predictable policy of the main Western powers and those countries that fully follow in the wake of the West, is falling apart. There is no such consensus anymore. Globalist projects are being cracked at the seams, even the Euro-Atlantic unity, the fate of NATO and the UN are being questioned. Trump bluntly stated that international law does not concern him and he acts on the basis of his own ideas that is moral and what is not. The Trump demand for Greenland’s accession to the United States and the threat of annexation of Canada, sharply different from European powers attitude towards Ukraine and Israel (lack of unconditional support for the Zelensky regime and, on the contrary, full support for Netanyahu and his Middle East policy) further exacerbate the emerging and almost held split.
In such a situation, when the collective West as a single political, ideological and geopolitical whole no longer exists, a new map is gradually looming, where several separate and sometimes conflicting entities begin to appear in its place. This is not yet a complete model, but only a process – with an open finale. Nevertheless, it can already be assumed that five separate geopolitical entities will be formed on the site of a single West. Let’s try to describe them.
The U.S. of Trump 2.0 as the West Number One
Trump’s geopolitical views are sharply different from the globalist strategy that was adhered to by previous administrations, not only under the power of the Democrats, but also under Republicans (as under George W. Bush). Trump openly proclaims direct American hegemony, which has several stages. First of all, he wants to approve the dominance of the United States in the space of both Americas. This is what is reflected in the latest edition of the National Security Strategy, where Trump directly addresses the Monroe Doctrine, adding his own vision to it.
The Monroe Doctrine was formulated by President James Monroe on December 2, 1823, in an annual message to Congress. The main idea was to achieve the full independence of the New World from the Old (that is, from the European metropolises), and the United States was considered as the main political and economic force to liberate the states of both Americas from European control. It was not explicitly stated that one form of colonialism (European) is changing to another (from the United States), but a certain US hegemony in the region was implied.
In the modern reading, taking into account Trump’s innovations, the Monroe Doctrine presupposes the following:
full and absolute sovereignty of the United States and independence from any transnational institutions, the rejection of globalism;
suppression of significant geopolitical influences on all countries of the Americas from other major powers (China, Russia, as well as European countries);
establishing direct military-political and economic hegemony over both Americas and the adjacent ocean spaces from the United States.This doctrine includes the promotion of US vassal regimes in Latin America, the removal of Washington-in-desirable politicians and interference in the internal affairs of any states of this range — sometimes under the pretext of combating drug trafficking, illegal immigration and even communism (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua). In general, this is not much different from the policy that the United States adhered to in the twentieth century.
The novelty of Trump’s doctrine is his claim to annex Greenland and Canada, as well as the disdain for Europe and NATO partners.
In fact, the United States is proclaimed here by an empire surrounded by limitrophs, which should be in a Vassal dependence on the metropolis. This is reflected in the main slogan of Trump’s policy Make America Great Again or its synonym for America First.
Trump during the second presidency spends this line much more rigidly than at the first term, which dramatically changes the balance of power on a global scale.
We can consider such a Trumpist American-centric West as the number one West.
The European Union as the West Number Two
And the number two of the West is the European Union, which is in a very difficult situation. For many decades, EU countries have been oriented in their policies, security, and even the US economy as part of the Atlantic partnership, each time choosing the latter between European sovereignty and obedience to Washington. At the same time, the former American rulers pretended to consider Europeans almost equal partners and listen to their opinion, which created the illusion of consensus of the collective West. Trump destroyed this model and brutally forced the European Union to recognize its vassal status.
Thus, Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever in January 2026 at the World Economic Forum in Davos directly spoke about the “happy vassal” and “unhappy slave” in the context of Europe’s dependence on the United States. Previously, the European elites were “happy vassals”. Trump looked at this state of affairs from a different angle, and they felt like “unhappy slaves”. He stressed the choice between self-esteem and loss of dignity in the face of Washington’s pressure over the annexation of Greenland, but the European Union is clearly not ready for such a choice.
In this new situation, the EU has become something independent against its will. Macron and Merz talked about the need for a European security system in a where the U.S. is not so much a guarantee of this security as a new serious threat. So far, the EU has not taken decisive action, but the contours of the West number two are becoming clearer and more clearly. Significantly different from the tram and the EU’s position on Ukraine: the US president wants to end this unnecessary war with Russia (at least declares it), and the EU, on the contrary, seeks to lead it to the end, inclined to direct participation.
There are also different between the number one and the West number two positions on Netanyahu and the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Trump fully supports this, the EU is more dening.
Britain as the West Number Three
Against the background of such an Atlantic split in the face of the UK after Brexit, another pole is manifested – the West number three. On the one hand, Starmer’s left-liberal government is close to the EU, however, on the other hand, London is traditionally in close relations with the United States, acting as a warlord over the European processes by Washington. But at the same time, Britain is not a member of the EU, and does not support the line of Trump himself, where it is given the unenviable role of the same wvassal slave, which the Belgian Prime Minister speaks about.
Britain can no longer play the role of an international broker, becoming an interested party in a number of situations. First of all, in the Ukrainian conflict, where it fully took the position of Kiev and, moreover, initiated an escalation in relations with Russia up to direct military participation on the side of the Zelensky regime. It was the visit of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Ukraine that thwarted the Istanbul Agreements of 2022.
But the number three of the British West cannot return to the previous imperial policy. The resources of modern England, its economic decline and the collapse of migration policy — and scale as a whole — do not allow it to play a truly leading role within the British Commonwealth of Nations or to become the hegemon of Europe.
Globalists as the West Number Four
If we take the ideology, organizational networks and institutions of globalists such as George Soros, the World Economic Forum, other international organizations professing the idea of world government and a single world, we will get West number four. It was this West that set the tone at the previous stage, being the main and unifying force, thanks to which we could talk about the “collective West”. These circles were represented by the globalist elite in the United States itself – in the face of the very “deep state” with which Trump began to fight. This is primarily the top of the Democratic Party, as well as part of the neocon Republicans, who take an intermediate position between Trump with his America First and classical globalism. Most of the EU leaders and Starmer themselves belong to this globalist project, whose positions have significantly weakened under Trump, which led to a split in the West into somewhat distinctly different poles.
A typical example of the Western number four, most recently the only and main, is Canada’s position. At the recent Davos Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that the existing world order is being destroyed, and the world is in a state of rupture, not a transition. Great powers use the economy as weapons – tariffs, supply chains and infrastructure to pressure, which, in his opinion, leads to deglobalization. At the same time, he rejected Trump’s claims about Canada’s dependence on the United States, urging medium-term powers to unite against the hegemony of Trumpism, diversify ties (including rapprochement with China) and resist populism.
This is a marker of how the number four West gradually stands out in a special community on an ideological and geopolitical principle – primarily in direct and increasingly tough opposition to Trumpism as the number one West.
Israel as the West Number Five
And finally, in recent years and again, especially brightly after the start of the second term, Trump makes itself felt another West – the number five West. A small country, vitally dependent on the United States and Europe, with a limited demographic resource and a local economy, is increasingly claiming what constitutes an independent civilization and plays an important, and from the point of view of the Israelis themselves, an exceptional role in the fate of the West as a whole, of which it is an outpost in the Middle East.
Until some point, Israel could be considered a proxy of the United States, that is, another, albeit privileged and beloved, but vassal. However, Netanyahu’s policy and the radical Orthodox wing on which he relies, as well as the revealed scale of the influence of the Israeli Zionist lobby on the policy of the United States, were forced to look at things in a different light.
First, the extent to which the civilian population of Gaza is destroyed by Netanyahu and the forward of radical political and religious figures who openly proclaim a focus on the construction of Great Israel (Itamar Ben-Guir, Betsalel Smotrich, Doov Lyor and others) caused rejection in the West – primarily in the West with numbers two, three and four. Neither the European Union, nor the British Starmer, nor the globalists like Soros, did not support Netanyahu in his toughest actions, including the issue of war with Iran.
Second, Trump’s complete and unconditional support for Netanyahu split the Trumpists themselves, who raised a gigantic wave on social media against Israeli influence and its networks in American politics. Any Republican or representative of the Trump administration in public speaking and on social networks was thrown by the demand to give an answer: America First or Israel First? What is more important to you: America or Israel? This has put many at a standstill and brought down careers. Recognize either that or the other was fraught with ostracism or the masses, or an incredibly influential lobby.
The story of Epstein’s files only heightened fears of those who believed that Israel’s influence on American politics is over and disproportionate. It seemed that Tel Aviv and its network of influence were an independent and extremely important authority capable of dictating its will to the mighty powers of the first order.
Thus appeared the number five West – with its agenda, its ideology and its geopolitics.
Conclusion
Let us complete a cursory analysis of the split-settled West by comparing the attitude of these poles to the war in Ukraine. For us, this is perhaps the most important criterion.
West Five is least interested in this conflict. For Netanyahu, Putin’s Russia is not the main enemy, and the Kiev regime does not enjoy unconditional support for Orthodoxy networks. To the extent that Russia supports strategically, politically, economically and, most importantly, militarily, anti-Israel forces in the Middle East – and especially Iran, the number five is objectively with the opposite of Russia in a series of local conflicts. But in direct support of the Zelensky regime, this does not result. Of course, Israel is not on our side.
In general, it does not consider Russia the main enemy and the number one goal, that is, Trump. From time to time, he cites anti-Russian arguments (in particular, justifying the need for Greenland to annex American security considerations in the face of a possible nuclear strike by Russia), continues to exert multilateral pressure on Moscow and supplies Kiev with weapons. We cannot call Trump’s policy friendly, but in comparison with other forces, his anti-Russian position is not an extreme.
It is quite different with the West under the numbers two, three and four. Both the European Union, and the British Starmer, and the globalist networks (including the US Democratic Party, as well as the Carney government in Canada) stand on radically anti-Russian positions, unconditionally support the Zelensky regime and are ready to continue to provide all – including direct military support to Ukraine. Here is dominated by the globalist attitude that Putin’s Russia, which has turned to traditionalism and conservatism, is firmly intentional to build a multipolar world and asserts its civilizational sovereignty, both ideologically and geopolitically, is in the opposite way for the plans of the globalists to create a world government and a single world. The model of such a globalist state is the European Union, whose model should be, according to the globalists, is gradually extended to all mankind – without nation-states, religions, nations, ethnic groups.
But for the West, number two and especially for the West number four is not only Putin, but also Trump himself is a real enemy. Hence the political myth that Trump works for Russia was born. The US president split the collective West and actually shifted the previously dominant globalists from their central position. But only he did this not at all in the interests of Putin and Russia, but based on his own ideas and beliefs.
If the trend of splitting between the Wests with the numbers one and two into the future, we can assume that the contradictions between Brussels and Washington will increase so much that European leaders will begin to think that in such a situation it would be nice to turn to Russia to balance the growing appetites and common aggressiveness of Trump. Weak hints of this can be read in separate statements by Macron and Merz against the background of the escalation of the situation around Greenland. So far, this is very unlikely, but the aggravation of the split of the West into five entities can make such an opportunity more realistic.
Finally, the number three West in Britain is one of the main poles of enmity and hatred of Russia. It is difficult to explain this rationally, because Britain has no real chance of restoring its hegemony. If earlier the Great Game between England and Russia was one of the main, if not the most important force line of world politics, then in the second half of the twentieth century, England completely lost the status of a world power, transferring it to the United States, its former colony. But the simple phantom pain of long-departed domination of the incredibly high heat of Russophobia in modern English elites can not be explained.
So, the collective West is split into five rather independent centers of power. How the mosaic will develop in the future is difficult to predict, but it is obvious that we must take these circumstances into account in our analysis of the international situation. And especially when clarifying the geopolitical and ideological context in which our SVO is deployed in Ukraine.
