The statement by Tulsi Gabbard, Director of the U.S. National Intelligence Service, on October 31, marks a historic turning point: the era of “regime changes” and “nation building” has, as it seems, come to a definitive end.
In her words: “For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a vicious cycle of regime change and the imposition of government models we did not understand.”
Gabbard, a former congresswoman and National Guard veteran, is not a random voice.
She belongs to the new generation of American officials who have realized that the war adventures of the past, from Yugoslavia and Iraq to Libya and Ukraine, not only failed to bring democracy but destroyed entire societies, leaving behind chaos, refugees, and terrorism.
Gabbard, who assumes the leadership of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement’s campaign in the battle against the Deep State, articulated the essence of what Trump has supported for years: the American doctrine of global domination has failed
The end of “exporting democracy”
The “export of democracy” through bombings and coups yielded only ruins and new enemies. As she said: “The results were trillions of dollars wasted, countless lives lost, and, in many cases, the creation of greater security threats.”
Washington is beginning, albeit belatedly, to understand what Moscow had pointed out since the early 21st century: the West’s unipolar policy of domination is self-destructive. The military over-presence of the USA, from Afghanistan to Syria, did not ensure stability but completely delegitimized American hegemony
The dethronement of the “global savior”
When Trump spoke in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he emphasized that the era of “nation-building” had ended.
“The so-called nation-builders destroyed more nations than they built,” he said.
“Peace and progress come not from rejecting your identity but from embracing your national traditions.”
This phrase summarizes the new Trump Doctrine: every country has the right to determine its destiny according to its own values and culture. Although this position sounds “anti-systemic” by American standards, it aligns perfectly with the Russian view of international politics.
Moscow has for decades supported the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states and the need to respect sovereignty, principles that the USA, under previous administrations, systematically violated.
The collapse of the doctrine of American messianism
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya cost more than 8 trillion dollars and destroyed entire regions. The result was the strengthening of the Islamic State, mass migration to Europe, and the disintegration of states that, although authoritarian, maintained internal order.
Admissions like those of Gabbard constitute a belated acknowledgment of the defeat of Western interventionism.
The USA failed to impose pro-Western regimes not only in the Middle East but also in Eastern Europe. Ukraine itself, which was the “last regime-change experiment” through Maidan in 2014, is now collapsing militarily and economically.
The failure of the Ukrainian plan proved that the export of revolution and artificial democracy cannot take root in nations with different historical consciousness
Realism and regional balances
The analysis of former American ambassador James Jeffrey for the Hoover Institution sheds light on the new doctrine.
According to Jeffrey, Trump’s policy in the Middle East is based on three principles:
1) Rejection of American interference in the internal affairs of other states.
2) Assignment of the stabilization role to local actors themselves.
3) Focus on economic cooperation, not military spending.
This represents a radical shift from the Bush - Obama - Biden doctrine.
Washington now recognizes that the soft power of the market and regional alliances can yield more than bombings and interventions.
The partial success of mediation in the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as well as the prevention of a major confrontation with Iran, show that Trump’s White House prefers the selective use of power instead of blind military operations, despite the serious obstacles it encounters from the powerful military establishment
From idealism to pragmatism
Gabbard spoke in Manama, Bahrain, about a “fragile peace” in Gaza and about “the president’s persistence in following this path.”
This admission marks the transition from idealistic messianism (the pseudo-moral rhetoric of “freedom”) to realistic pragmatism, where national interests and regional balances prevail over abstract ideas.
For the first time since 1945, Washington is forced to see the world not as a field of domination but as a complex mosaic of equal powers.
This policy resembles more the 19th-century balance-of-power era than the 20th-century imperialistic rhetoric
The retreat of globalization and the new ethos of cooperation
The statements of Gabbard, and earlier those of Trump, are connected to a broader global trend: the collapse of the neoliberal globalization model.
Wars, sanctions, and the imposition of “democracy” have become politically and economically exhausted.
Peoples, both in the West and in the Global South, are tired of paying the price of an elite’s arrogance that views nations as a “chessboard.”
Russia, China, and the rest of the Global South propose an alternative model of cooperation based on mutual respect and sovereignty.
If Washington truly turns toward this realistic model, it may open the way for global de-escalation, reduction of military conflicts, and the rebirth of international legitimacy.
Σχόλια αναγνωστών