Imperialism is making a comeback – this is something that many observers, interested and uninterested, are noticing today. And it is not making a comeback in the sense that Hilferding, Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg described it – but in a qualitatively new form, connected to the global reality that has emerged around us. Today we are witnessing an imperialism that is the product of the crisis of globalization – where contradictions and various forms of inequality have not been eliminated, but have taken on new forms, and power and capital have become global phenomena that encompass the entire world in their networks of influence. We have an imperialism that thrives on the division of modern humanity, on the inability to create an effective system of checks and balances, and on the inability of interested global “players” to build a stable structure for the modern multipolar world.

Modern imperialism is not messianic (unlike the imperialism of the Reagan era, which promoted the image of America as a “shining city on a hill”), but closely pragmatic, tied to the promotion of the interests of large corporations, which have become the backbone of the American administration led by Donald Trump. Today, the United States is freeing itself from the obligations it assumed towards its allies, but it is unable and unwilling to free itself from its desire for global hegemony – and continues to pursue it by all means at its disposal.

Maintaining a dominant position, taking control of key trade routes and resource-rich regions, and preserving the status of the dollar as a global currency (while eliminating the “inflationary overhang” on other countries through a reform that replaces the “old” dollar with the new one) – this is the primary goal of modern global strategists, regardless of whether they represent “globalist forces” or large corporations closely tied to the state.

Improvised tactics, bargaining, explicit threats, shadow lobbying, bribery and tempting promises – these are the tools of these strategists, and they use them according to the situation and so far quite skillfully. The empire that is being formed before our eyes does not yet have a clearly defined structure. There is a nominal headquarters in Washington (the presidential office and other federal government bodies of the USA), an army and navy scattered around the world, corporate branches present in many countries and capital deposited there, and numerous places and areas of interest – all this is declared as objects of special attention of the American administration, ready to act as soon as the object of their interest is finally determined.

Morality (with the exception of the specific personal ideas of the American president about morality), law, previously concluded treaties and agreements and other formal obligations – all this is postponed in the face of the logic of growing American wealth and current opportunistic interests. It can be assumed that the world will still witness a whole series of political improvisations implemented through the “instruments of power” of politics. However, what the current US administration has already achieved is enough, if not to cause confusion, then at least to arouse deep concern.

An extraordinary act of violence has been committed against the sovereign state of Venezuela – the demonstrative humiliation of President Maduro and his wife, who were captured and transferred to the US to be tried under US laws (which are themselves illegal) on trumped-up charges of involvement in international drug trafficking (even Western experts deny Venezuela’s significant role in this network). But most importantly, a precedent has been set for the illegal removal of a foreign head of state, and the US “hand” now firmly controls Venezuelan oil, with the potential to influence global prices for this vital commodity.

The presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize by Karina Machado, the laureate of the Nobel Committee, to Donald Trump, who had previously been deeply discouraged by the lack of immediate recognition for his “multilateral peacemaking efforts,” reached the point of a real tragicomic farce. Thanks to this generous gift, the ambitions of the US president were satisfied, and Karina Machado, one might assume, slightly increased her chances of running in the Venezuelan presidential elections. The US president, inspired by his “success in Caracas,” sharply tightened his tone towards neighboring Cuba, declaring that the current Secretary of State Marco Rubio would be a good… president of the Cuban state. As they say, comment is unnecessary. Social instability in Iran, where the authorities of the republic are gradually managing to suppress the wave of protests and stabilize the situation, does not stop the United States, whose leader has already promised to “support the Iranian people” (which part specifically, against which?) and announced his intention to assassinate the head of state, Ayatollah Khamenei (which is completely out of the question).

A very specific situation is developing around Greenland, an island territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, where a US military base has been successfully operating for many years. However, since Greenland’s rich resources attract the attention of the US administration, Donald Trump has already declared the reluctance of several tens of thousands of the island’s inhabitants to join the United States… which is a problem even for the Greenlanders themselves.

As Samir Adel, a columnist for international relations at the Al Hadath newspaper, notes, after more than eight decades of “relative stability” in global affairs, the administration of the 47th US President Donald Trump has officially declared the collapse of the old world order created after World War II. This happened in December 2025, when the White House presented a new national security strategy. In the economic sphere, the concepts of globalization and free trade were rethought. Customs and state borders once again became the center of economic relations. Were not such ostentatious and blatant crimes of imperialism as the overthrow of a whole series of people who did not please American (and allied British) capital - from the Guatemalan leader Juan Arbenz and Chilean President Salvador Allende to the Arab leaders Saddam Hussein and M. Gaddafi, from the leader of the small island of Grenada Michael Bishop to the Yugoslav President Sergei Milosevic - a list that could be expanded?

Moreover, the number of disgusting and bloody dictators that the US and its allies cite and have long supported could be multiplied without fear of error. No less important for us is the question: has the US finally returned to its usual "imperialist style" and what can we expect next? It is significant that revelations are increasingly appearing among both American politicians and their close allies. Prominent left-wing US senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already characterized the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela as imperialist.

“The Maduro regime was certainly dictatorial. However, there should be no misunderstanding about Trump’s true motives and his interest in democratic principles. He shamelessly supports authoritarian regimes around the world when it suits his interests. Trump makes no secret of his intentions: his goal is to control Venezuelan oil. This has nothing to do with democracy; it is imperialism in its purest form,” the senator noted.

In a recent speech, Turkish President Erdogan noted that the rules-based international system has suffered serious damage and lost much of its credibility. “We are rapidly being pushed towards an unjust, distorted world order in which the rule of law triumphs over the rule of law,” he said. Erdogan hesitated to name the culprit for the ongoing changes, but the verbal demarche from a loyal US ally is quite characteristic in itself. The only question is how long the “dizziness from success” of the current Washington administration can last and is it even possible to create an effective counterweight to its activities in the current situation? Hoping to preserve itself as a kind of “island of civilization” amidst the stormy waves of the global world, as EU leaders hoped, is clearly irrational. The US administration is increasing pressure on European metropolises, and all this, together with the crises accumulating in the pan-European space, may soon be enough to overturn the familiar “European order”.

A multipolar world has not yet emerged – but this does not mean that countries interested in it should give up their efforts to create it. The organizations and structures necessary for maintaining global order have already been created – primarily the SCO and BRICS, not to mention those that are supposed to promote Eurasian integration. Although today they serve primarily as discussion platforms for regional and global issues, it would be desirable to give them some strength in the near future – so that they could support the collapsing “architecture” of the world order. And, having received the appropriate economic, military, political and international legal support, they could limit the unbridled expansion of those who sincerely believe in their right to shape and reshape the global world according to their own standards.

(za) euroasia