The fragmented West: How Trump’s ‘America First’ 2.0 is redrawing the global geopolitical map

Extremely rapid and dynamic processes are currently taking place in global politics. To a large extent, this is linked to the policy of Trump, who introduced a high level of turmoil, unpredictability, and radicalism into the system of international relations, while events evolve with increasing intensity. Before our eyes, the concept of the "collective West"—that is, a cohesive and relatively predictable policy of the key Western powers and the countries that fully follow the Western line—is collapsing. This consensus no longer exists. Globalist plans are creaking, and even Euro-Atlantic unity, the fate of NATO, and the UN are being called into question. Trump stated directly that international law does not concern him and that he acts based on his own perceptions of morality. Trump's demand for the annexation of Greenland to the US and threats to annex Canada, the clearly different stance from European powers toward Ukraine and Israel (lack of unconditional support for the Zelensky regime and, conversely, full support for Netanyahu and his Middle East policy) further intensify the looming and nearly complete split. In this situation, where the collective West as a single political, ideological, and geopolitical entity no longer exists, a new map is gradually forming, in which several separate and sometimes conflicting entities begin to appear in its place. This is not yet a complete model, but a process with an open end. However, we can already assume that in place of a unified West, five distinct geopolitical entities will form. Let us try to describe them.

No. 1: The USA of the Trump 2.0 era

The geopolitical views of Trump differ radically from the globalist strategy of previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican (such as under George Bush Jr.). Trump openly proclaims a direct, multi-level American hegemony. First of all, he seeks to establish US dominance over the space of the entire American continent. This is reflected in the new National Security Strategy, where he invokes the Monroe Doctrine, adding his own interpretation. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated by President James Monroe on December 2, 1823, in his annual message to Congress. The central idea was achieving complete independence for the New World from the Old World (i.e., from European colonial powers), and the United States was seen as the primary political and economic force for the liberation of the states of both Americas from European control. While it was not explicitly stated that one form of colonialism (European) was being exchanged for another (American), a certain degree of American hegemony in the region was implied.

In its modern version, the Monroe Doctrine, with Trump's additions, means:

• Full and absolute US sovereignty and independence from any supranational institution, rejection of globalization;

• Prevention of substantial geopolitical influence in the countries of the American continent by other major powers (China, Russia, as well as European countries);

• Establishment of direct military-political and economic US hegemony on the continent and in the adjacent oceans.

This doctrine includes the promotion of US-aligned regimes in Latin America, the removal of politicians who do not comply with Washington, and interference in the internal affairs of any states in this region—sometimes under the pretext of combating drug trafficking, illegal migration, or even communism (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua). Overall, this does not differ much from the policy followed by the US in the 20th century. The innovation of Trump's doctrine lies in his claim to annex Greenland and Canada, as well as in his dismissive attitude toward Europe and his NATO partners. Essentially, the United States is declared here as an empire surrounded by frontier states, which are to be vassals of the mother country. This is reflected in the main slogan of Trump's policy, "Make America Great Again," or its synonym, "America First."

The European Union as West No. 2

The European Union, which finds itself in a very difficult situation, is becoming the second largest power in the West. For decades, EU countries oriented their policy, security, and even their economy toward the United States within the Atlantic partnership, always choosing between European sovereignty and submission to Washington. Meanwhile, previous American leaders pretended to consider Europeans as almost equal partners and listened to their views, creating the illusion of a collective Western consensus. Trump destroyed this model and brutally forced the European Union to recognize its vassal status. Thus, in January 2026, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever spoke directly about "happy vassals" and "unhappy slaves" in the context of Europe's dependence on the United States. Previously, European elites were "happy vassals." Trump viewed this situation from a different perspective, and they felt like "unhappy slaves." He emphasized the choice between self-respect and the loss of dignity in the face of Washington's pressure to annex Greenland, but the European Union is clearly not yet ready for such a choice. In this new situation, the EU has become, against its will, something independent. Macron and Merz have spoken about the need for a European security system in a context where the United States is not so much a guarantee of this security as a new, serious threat. While the EU has not yet taken decisive steps, the outlines of West number two are becoming increasingly clear. The EU's position on Ukraine also differs significantly from Trump's: the US president wants to end this unnecessary war with Russia (or at least claims to), while the EU, on the contrary, is committed to pursuing it to the end, leaning toward direct involvement. The West's position on Netanyahu and the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza also differs. Trump supports it fully, while the EU is more condemnatory.

Great Britain as West No. 3

Against this Atlantic rift, another pole is emerging in the United Kingdom post-Brexit: the West in third place. On one hand, the left-liberal government of Keir Starmer is close to the EU on key points; on the other, London traditionally maintains close ties with the US, acting as Washington's overseer in European processes. At the same time, Britain is neither a member of the EU nor supports Trump's line, which relegates it to the unacceptable role of the same vassal-slave of which the Belgian prime minister speaks. Britain can no longer play the role of international mediator, having become an interested party in a series of situations. Primarily, in the Ukrainian conflict, where it has sided fully with Kyiv and, moreover, has initiated an escalation in relations with Russia, even to the point of direct military involvement on the side of the Zelensky regime. It was British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's visit to Ukraine that derailed the Istanbul Agreements of 2022. But the third-largest West of Britain cannot return to its previous imperial policies. The resources of modern England, its economic decline, and the collapse of its migration policy—and its overall scale—prevent it from playing a truly leading role within the British Commonwealth of Nations or becoming the hegemon of Europe.

The globalists as West No. 4

If we take into account the ideology, organizational networks, and institutions of the globalists such as George Soros, the World Economic Forum, and other international organizations that embrace the idea of a world government and a unified world, we arrive at West number four. It was this West that set the tone in the previous stage, acting as the main and unifying force, allowing for the discussion of a "collective West." These circles were represented by the globalist elite within the United States itself—the very "deep state" that Trump began to fight. This includes primarily the leadership of the Democratic Party, as well as some Republican neoconservatives who hold an intermediate position between Trump and his "America First" movement and classic globalism. Most EU leaders and Starmer himself belong to this globalist project, whose position has weakened significantly under Trump, leading to the division of the West into various poles. A typical example of the position of the West as a fourth power, which until recently was the only and most important, is Canada's position. At the recent Davos Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that the existing global order is collapsing and the world is in a state of rupture, not transition. Major powers use the economy as a weapon—tariffs, supply chains, and infrastructure—to exert pressure, which, in his view, leads to deglobalization. He rejected Trump's claims regarding Canada's dependence on the United States, calling on middle powers to unite against the hegemony of Trumpism, to diversify ties (including rapprochement with China), and to resist populism. This is an indicator of how West number one is gradually emerging as a separate entity on ideological and geopolitical grounds—primarily in direct and increasingly intense opposition to Trumpism as West number one.

Israel as the fifth West

Finally, in recent years, and particularly since the start of Trump's second term, another West is making its presence felt—West number five. This is the Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu. A small country, vitally dependent on the United States and Europe, with a limited demographic and local economy, increasingly claims to be an independent civilization and plays a significant—and, from the Israeli perspective, unique—role in the fate of the West as a whole, of which it is a bastion in the Middle East. Until recently, Israel could be considered a proxy of the United States, another vassal, albeit a privileged and beloved one. However, the policies of Netanyahu and the radical right-wing Zionist movement on which he relies, as well as the revealed scale of influence of the Israeli Zionist lobby on US policy, have forced a new perspective. First, the scale of the destruction of the civilian population of Gaza by Netanyahu and the rise to prominence of radical political and religious figures openly proclaiming their commitment to building a Greater Israel (Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, Dov Lior, and others) caused rejection in the West—primarily in the second, third, and fourth largest powers of the West. Neither the European Union, nor Starmer's Britain, nor globalists like Soros supported Netanyahu in his most extreme actions—including the war with Iran. Second, Trump's full and unconditional support for Netanyahu divided the Trumpists themselves, who unleashed a massive wave on social media against Israeli influence and its networks in American politics. Every Republican or Trump administration official, in public appearances and on social media, was bombarded with demands to answer: America First or Israel First?

What is more important to you: America or Israel?

This left many stunned and destroyed their careers. Admitting to either one or the other proved fraught with ostracism, either from the masses or from the incredibly powerful lobby. The release of the Epstein files only increased the concerns of those who believed that Israel's influence on American politics was excessive and disproportionate. The impression was created that Tel Aviv and its influence network constituted an autonomous and extremely important entity, capable of dictating its will to powerful first-tier countries. Thus emerged West number five—with its own agenda, its own ideology, and its own geopolitics.

Five autonomous poles of power

Let us conclude this brief analysis of the divided West with a comparison of the attitudes of these poles toward the war in Ukraine. West No. 5 is least interested in this conflict. For Netanyahu, Putin's Russia is not his main adversary, and the Kyiv regime does not enjoy the unconditional support of right-wing Zionist networks. To the extent that Russia supports strategically, politically, economically, and, most importantly, militarily the anti-Israeli forces in the Middle East—especially Iran—Israel objectively finds itself on the opposite side from Russia in a series of local conflicts. But this does not translate into direct support for the Zelensky regime. Although, of course, Israel is not on the side of Russia either.

Trump's stance

Generally, the West—that is, Trump—does not consider Russia the main enemy or its main target. From time to time, he puts forward anti-Russian arguments (in particular, justifying the annexation of Greenland based on American security concerns in the face of a potential Russian nuclear attack), continues to exert multilateral pressure on Moscow, and supplies Kyiv with weapons. We cannot characterize Trump's policies as friendly, but compared to other powers in the divided West (which Trump himself has divided), his anti-Russian position is not extreme.

The... rest of the West

The situation is entirely different with Western powers number two, three, and four. The European Union, Starmer's Britain, and globalist networks (including the US Democratic Party and the Carney government in Canada) hold radically anti-Russian positions, unconditionally support the Zelensky regime, and are ready to continue providing every possible support to Ukraine, including direct military force. The dominant globalist narrative here is that Putin's Russia, which has embraced traditional thinking and conservatism, is firmly committed to building a multipolar world and claims its cultural sovereignty. It is ideologically and geopolitically opposed to globalist plans for a world government and a unified world.

The world of the globalists

The model for such a globalist state is the European Union, whose model, according to globalists, should be gradually extended to all of humanity—without nation-states, religions, nations, or ethnicities. But for West No. 2, and particularly for West No. 4, not only Putin but also Trump himself is the real enemy. From here began the political myth that Trump works for Russia. The US president has divided the collective West and, in fact, has displaced the previously dominant globalists from their central position. But he did this not in the interest of Putin or Russia, but based on his own ideas and convictions.

Turning to Russia

If the trend of division between the first and second powers of the West continues in the future, it is possible that the differences between Brussels and Washington will intensify to such an extent that European leaders will begin to consider the possibility of turning to Russia to offset the growing appetites and overall aggression of Trump. Faint hints of this possibility can be found in separate statements by Macron and Merz amid the escalation of the situation around Greenland. While this is extremely unlikely for now, the worsening division of the West into five entities could make it more realistic.

The hatred of the British

Finally, the third power of the West, represented by Britain, is one of the main hotbeds of hostility and hatred toward Russia. This is difficult to explain rationally, as Britain has no real chance of restoring its hegemony. While the Great Game between England and Russia once constituted one of the main, if not the main, power dynamics in global politics, in the second half of the 20th century England completely lost its status as a global power, handing it over to the United States, its former colony. But the incredibly high level of Russophobia among current British elites cannot be explained by the simple phantom pain of a distant dominance. Thus, the collective West is divided into five fairly independent centers of power. How this mosaic will unfold in the future is difficult to predict, but it is clear that we must take these circumstances into account when analyzing the international situation, especially when clarifying the geopolitical and ideological framework in which our strategic military operation in Ukraine is unfolding.

www.bankingnews.gr