While the US seems to be moving away from the unipolar model and begrudgingly acknowledging the existence of rival powers, it still seeks to be the dominant force in a multipolar world. The new global boundaries have yet to be defined, and the situation remains volatile and dangerous. Whether Trump can successfully guide the US—and the world—through this transition without descending into greater conflict remains an open question.

By Nick Giambruno for International Man / Read and Subscribe to International Man

The US-led world order has undergone several distinct phases since the end of World War 2.

From 1945 to 1991, it was defined by the Cold War—a global struggle between the US and the Soviet Union.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the post-WW2 world order experienced a massive shift, with the US emerging as the undisputed global superpower. This era, often called the “unipolar moment,” lasted from 1991 until Trump’s inauguration in 2025.

Yuval Harari is a key advisor to Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF). He recently stated that if Trump were to become president again, it “is likely to be the kind of death blow to what remains of the global order.”

While I think it’s premature to declare the end of the post-WW2 world order, Trump’s return to the White House undoubtedly marks one of the most significant shifts in international relations since the Soviet Union’s fall.

Marco Rubio serves as Trump’s Secretary of State, tasked with executing Trump’s vision for America’s role on the world stage.

His statements—during his Senate confirmation hearings and in an interview with journalist Megyn Kelly—have made that vision unmistakably clear.

Here’s what Rubio stated during his confirmation hearings (emphasis added):

“Out of the triumphalism of the end of long Cold War emerged a bi-partisan consensus that we had reached ‘the end of history.’ That all the nations of Earth would become members of the democratic Western led community. That a foreign policy that served the national interest could now be replaced by one that served the ‘liberal world order.’ And that all mankind was now destined to abandon national identity, and we would become ‘one human family’ and ‘citizens of the world.’

This wasn’t just a fantasy; it was a dangerous delusion.

Here in America, and in many of the advanced economies across the world, an almost religious commitment to free and unfettered trade at the expense of our national economy, shrunk the middle class, left the working class in crisis, collapsed industrial capacity, and pushed critical supply chains into the hands of adversaries and rivals. An irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of people has resulted in a historic mass migration crisis here in America and around the world that threatens the stability of societies and governments.

While America far too often continued to prioritize the ‘global order’ above our core national interests, other nations continued to act the way countries always have and always will, in what they perceive to be in their best interest.

And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interest at the expense of ours. We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into this global order. And they took advantage of all its benefits. But they ignored all its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have lied, cheated, hacked, and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our expense.

The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.

And all this has led us to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.

Eight decades later, we are called to create a free world out of chaos once again. This will not be easy. And it will be impossible without a strong and confident America that engages in the world, putting our core national interests above all else once again.”

Here are Rubio’s remarks to Megyn Kelly (emphasis added):

Megyn Kelly: America First?

Secretary Rubio: Well, and that’s the way the world has always worked. The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what’s in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what’s in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what’s in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what’s in the best interest of the United States.

Where our interests align, that’s where you have partnerships and alliances; where our differences are not aligned, that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent conflict while still furthering our national interests and understanding they’re going to further theirs. And that’s been lost.

And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem.

And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly, and we need to prioritize those again.

So, it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.

We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.

So now more than ever we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so, to the extent possible, avoiding war and armed conflict, which we have seen two times in the last century be very costly.

They’re celebrating the 80th anniversary this year of the end of the Second World War. That – I think if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life that occurred, it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now. It may end life on the planet. And it sounds like hyperbole, but you have multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on Earth. And so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible, but never at the expense of our national interest. So that’s the tricky balance. “

Rubio’s words are a reflection of Trump’s vision and policy. Frankly, it’s a much-needed dose of realism and pragmatism.

It’s worth emphasizing several key points from Rubio’s remarks:

• The idea that the US could uphold a unipolar world order indefinitely “wasn’t just a fantasy; it was a dangerous delusion.”
• “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.”
• “We must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.”
• “It’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was an anomaly.”
• “Eventually, you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.”

Though it endured for 34 years, the notion that the US could maintain a unipolar world order indefinitely was never realistic.

President Trump seems to recognize that maintaining it is not just unrealistic but unsustainable. He appears to have decided that it is in the US’s best interest to transition to a multipolar reality on its own terms rather than be forced into it by a chaotic collapse.

We are now in a volatile adjustment period as the unipolar world order gives way to a multipolar one.

Does this mean World War 3 is over?

I don’t think so. But it does mean we have entered a new phase of it.

There is still much to be determined—most crucially, the boundaries of the US, Russia, and China’s spheres of influence in this emerging multipolar world.

With the war in Ukraine all but lost and the prospect of victory in Taiwan shrinking by the day, the US government appears to have accepted that the complete subjugation of Russia and China under its unipolar dominance is no longer an achievable goal.

The goalposts of World War 3 have shifted.

Rather than total victory and preserving the unipolar world order, the US is now focused on maximizing its power within the new multipolar landscape—while limiting the influence of its most formidable rivals: Russia, China, and their allies, including Iran.

While the US seems to be moving away from the unipolar model and begrudgingly acknowledging the existence of rival powers, it still seeks to be the dominant force in a multipolar world.

The new global boundaries have yet to be defined, and the situation remains volatile and dangerous. Whether Trump can successfully guide the US—and the world—through this transition without descending into greater conflict remains an open question.

On a smaller scale, this mirrors how powerful criminal organizations—such as mafias and street gangs—operate within a city. Ideally, a gang or mafia would eliminate all rivals. However, when certain rivals prove too strong to destroy, the conflict shifts toward defining boundaries until a formal arrangement is reached that divides territories.

The same dynamic is now unfolding on a global scale between the US, Russia, and China as World War 3 plays out.

Each side is maneuvering to expand its power and influence until a new arrangement is reached that defines the balance of the multipolar world.

“The Unipolar Moment” or the End of History?

BY ALEXANDER DUGIN FOR THE BURNING PLATFORM / READ AND SUBSCRIBE TO THE BURNING PLATFORM

Alexander Dugin argues that the collapse of the unipolar world signals the beginning of a grand metamorphosis, as the fading light of Western liberalism gives way to the awakening of ancient traditions, deep civilizational identities, and the promise of a vibrant, multipolar era full of boundless possibilities.

In the 1990/1991 issue of the prestigious globalist journal Foreign Affairs, American expert Charles Krauthammer published a programmatic article titled “The Unipolar Moment.”1 In this work, he proposed an explanation for the end of the bipolar world. Following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact countries and the disintegration of the Soviet Union (which had not yet occurred at the time of the article’s publication), a new world order would emerge in which the United States and the collective West (NATO) would remain the sole pole of power, ruling the world by establishing rules, norms, and laws, while equating their own interests and values with universal, global, and mandatory standards. Krauthammer called this de facto global hegemony of the West the “unipolar moment.”

Shortly thereafter, another American expert, Francis Fukuyama, published a similar manifesto titled The End of History.2 Unlike Fukuyama, who prematurely declared that the West’s victory over the rest of humanity was complete and that all nations would henceforth adopt liberal ideology and accept the US and the West’s dominance, Krauthammer was more restrained and cautious. He chose to speak of a “moment,” referring to a de facto situation in the balance of global power, without rushing to conclusions about how durable or long-lasting the unipolar order would be. The signs of unipolarity were evident: the near-universal adoption of capitalism, parliamentary democracy, liberal values, human rights ideologies, technocracy, globalization, and American leadership. Yet, Krauthammer acknowledged the possibility that this state of affairs was not permanent but merely a phase — one that could evolve into a long-term model (validating Fukuyama’s thesis) or might instead conclude, giving way to a different world order.

In 2002/2003, Krauthammer revisited his thesis in an article titled “The Unipolar Moment Revisited,”3 published in the realist (rather than globalist) journal National Interest. This time, he argued that a decade later, unipolarity had indeed proven to be a moment, not a stable world order. He suggested that alternative models would soon emerge, fueled by growing anti-Western trends globally — especially in Islamic countries, China, and a resurgent Russia under the strong leadership of Vladimir Putin. Subsequent events further confirmed Krauthammer’s belief that the unipolar moment was over. The US had failed to consolidate its global leadership, which it genuinely possessed in the 1990s, and Western dominance entered a phase of decline. The opportunity for global hegemony, which Western elites had practically held in their hands, was squandered. Now, at best, the West would have to participate in constructing a multipolar world in a different capacity, without striving for hegemony, to avoid being left on the sidelines of history altogether.

Putin’s 2007 Munich speech, Xi Jinping’s rise in China and the country’s rapid economic growth, the 2008 events in Georgia, Ukraine’s Maidan revolution and Russia’s reunification with Crimea, the 2022 Special Military Operation, and the large-scale war in the Middle East in 2023 — all confirmed in practice that the cautious Krauthammer and Samuel Huntington, who foresaw an era of “clash of civilizations,”4 were much closer to the truth than Fukuyama’s overly optimistic vision (for the liberal West). Today, it is clear to any reasonable observer that unipolarity was merely a “moment,” now giving way to a new paradigm — multipolarity or, more cautiously, a “multipolar moment.”5

We revisit this discussion to emphasize the importance of the concept of a “moment” in analyzing global politics. It will remain a central point in our further analysis.

Moment or Not?

The debate over whether a particular international, political, or ideological system represents something irreversible or, conversely, something temporary, transitional, or unstable, has a long history. Advocates of specific theories often vehemently assert the inevitability of their favored social regimes or transformations. In contrast, skeptics and critical observers propose alternative views, treating such systems as mere moments.

This dynamic is clearly visible in the example of Marxism. For liberal theory, capitalism and the bourgeois order represent humanity’s destiny — a permanent state in which the world becomes uniformly liberal-capitalist, and all people eventually join the middle class, becoming bourgeois. Marxists, however, regarded capitalism as a historical moment in development. It was necessary for overcoming the preceding feudal moment but would itself be superseded by socialism and communism. The proletariat would replace the bourgeoisie, private property would be abolished, and humanity would consist only of workers. For Marxists, communism was not a moment but, essentially, the “end of history.”

The socialist revolutions of the 20th century — in Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, and elsewhere — seemed to validate Marxism. However, a global revolution did not occur, and a bipolar world emerged instead. From 1945 (following the joint victory of communists and capitalists over Nazi Germany) to 1991, two ideological systems coexisted. Each camp claimed the other was merely a moment — a dialectical phase rather than the end of history. Communists insisted capitalism would collapse and socialism would triumph, while liberal ideologues argued that communism was a deviation from the bourgeois path and that capitalism would endure forever. Fukuyama’s End of History thesis echoed this belief. In 1991, it appeared he was correct: the socialist system collapsed, and both post-Soviet states and Maoist China transitioned to market economies, confirming liberal predictions.

Some Marxists remain hopeful that capitalism will falter, paving the way for proletarian revolution, but this is uncertain. The global proletariat is shrinking, and humanity appears to be moving in an entirely different direction.

Liberal thinkers, however, embraced Fukuyama’s view, equating communism with a moment and proclaiming “endless capitalism.” Postmodernists explored the contours of this new society, proposing radical approaches to resist capitalism from within — ranging from individual transformation to subversive technological strategies. These ideas found traction among left-liberal elites in the US, influencing policies on woke culture, cancel culture, ecological agendas, and transhumanism. Yet proponents and critics of victorious capitalism agreed that it represented humanity’s final stage — beyond which lies post-humanity, as foreseen by futurists discussing the “Singularity,” where human mortality is replaced by machine immortality. Welcome to the Matrix.

Thus, in the ideological clash, the bourgeoisie triumphed, shaping the dominant paradigm of the “end of history.”

Trump as a Factor in World History

The very possibility of applying the term “moment” to the era of the global triumph of capitalism, even from within the Western intellectual sphere (as Krauthammer did), opens up a unique perspective that has yet to be fully explored and understood. Could the current, evident collapse of Western leadership and the inability of the West to serve as a universal arbiter of legitimate authority also carry an ideological dimension? Could the end of unipolarity and Western hegemony signal the end of liberalism itself?

This idea is supported by a critical political event: the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for two terms. Trump’s presidency represented a striking repudiation of globalism and liberalism, reflecting the emergence of a critical mass of dissatisfaction with the ideological and geopolitical direction of the liberal elites, even at the heart of unipolarity. Moreover, Trump’s chosen Vice President for his second term, JD Vance, openly identifies as a proponent of “post-liberal conservatism.” During Trump’s campaigns, liberalism was consistently invoked as a negative term, specifically targeting the “left-wing liberalism” of the Democratic Party. However, among broader circles of Trump supporters, liberalism became a byword for degeneration, decay, and the moral corruption of the ruling elite.

For the second time in recent history, a political figure overtly critical of liberalism triumphed in the very citadel of liberal ideology, the United States. Among Trump’s supporters, liberalism has come to be demonized outright, reflecting its association with moral and political decline. Thus, it is increasingly plausible to speak of the end of the “liberal moment.” Liberalism, once thought to be the ultimate victor in historical progression, now appears as merely one stage in the broader course of history, a phase with a beginning and an end, constrained by its geographic and historical context.

The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. Along with it, the “unipolar moment” described by Krauthammer and the broader cycle of singular Western colonial domination over the globe, which began with the age of great geographical discoveries, has also ended.

The Post-Liberal Era

Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.

Humanity is overcoming liberalism not through a socialist, materialist, or technological phase but by reviving cultural and civilizational layers that Western modernity deemed obsolete and eradicated. This return to the pre-modern, rather than a continuation of the postmodern trajectory rooted in Western modernity, defines the essence of post-liberalism. Contrary to the expectations of left-wing progressive thought, post-liberalism is emerging as a rejection of the universal claims of the Western modern order. Instead, it views the modern era as a temporary phenomenon, an episode driven by one specific culture’s reliance on brute force and aggressive technological exploitation.

The post-liberal world envisions not a continuation of Western hegemony but a return to civilizational diversity, akin to the era before the West’s sharp rise. Liberalism, as the last form of Western global imperialism, absorbed all the key principles of European modernity and pushed them to their logical extremes: gender politics, woke culture, cancel culture, critical race theory, transhumanism, and postmodernist frameworks. The end of the liberal moment marks not only the collapse of liberalism but also the conclusion of the West’s singular dominance in world history. It is the end of the West.

The Liberal Moment in Hegel

The concept of the “end of history” has surfaced repeatedly in this discussion. It is now necessary to revisit the theory itself. The term originated with Hegel, and its meaning is rooted in Hegel’s philosophy. Both Marx and Fukuyama adopted this concept (via the Russo-French Hegelian Alexander Kojève), but they stripped it of its theological and metaphysical foundations.

In Hegel’s model, the end of history is inseparable from its beginning. At history’s start lies God, hidden within Himself. Through self-negation, God transitions into Nature. In Nature, God’s presence is latent but active, and this latent presence drives the emergence of history. History, in turn, represents the unfolding of the Spirit. Societies of different types emerge over time: traditional monarchies, democracies, and civil societies. Finally, history culminates in the great Empire of Spirit, where God becomes most fully manifest in the State — not just any state, but a philosophical state guided by Spirit.

In this framework, liberalism is but a moment. It follows the dissolution of older states and precedes the establishment of a new, true state that marks the culmination of history. Both Marxists and liberals, rejecting Hegel’s theological basis, reduced his theory to materialist terms. They began with Nature, disregarding Hegel’s conception of God, and ended with civil society — liberalism — as the culmination of history. For liberals like Fukuyama, history ends when all of humanity becomes a global civil society. Marxists, meanwhile, envisioned history ending with a classless communist society, although it remained within the framework of civil society.

By restoring Hegel’s full philosophical model, it becomes evident that liberalism is only a transitional phase — what Hegel would term a “moment.” Its conclusion paves the way for the ultimate realization of Spirit, which Hegel envisioned as an Empire of Spirit.

Postmodernism and Monarchy

In this context, the idea of monarchy acquires renewed significance — not as a relic of the past but as a potential model for the future. The global era of liberal democracy and republicanism has exhausted itself. Efforts to establish a global republic have failed. By January 2025, this failure will be definitively acknowledged.

What comes next? The parameters of the post-liberal epoch remain undefined. Yet the recognition that all of European modernity — its science, culture, politics, technology, society, and values — was merely an episode, culminating in a dismal and inglorious conclusion, suggests that the post-liberal future will be radically unexpected.

Hegel offers a clue: the post-liberal era will be an era of monarchies. Contemporary Russia, while still formally a liberal democracy, already exhibits the characteristics of a monarchy: a popular leader, the permanence of supreme authority, and an emphasis on spiritual values, identity, and tradition. These are the foundations for a monarchical transition — not in form, but in essence.

Other civilizations are moving in a similar direction. India under Narendra Modi increasingly reflects the archetype of a sacred monarch, a chakravartin, akin to the tenth avatar Kalkin, who ushers in the end of a dark age. China under Xi Jinping demonstrates the traits of a Confucian Empire, with Xi embodying the archetype of the Yellow Emperor. Even the Islamic world may find integration through a modernized Caliphate.

In this post-liberal world, even the United States could see a monarchical turn. Influential thinkers like Curtis Yarvin have long advocated monarchy in America. Figures like Donald Trump, with his dynastic connections, might symbolize this shift.

An Open Future

The term “liberal moment” holds revolutionary implications for political thought. What was once considered an inevitable destiny is revealed as merely a fleeting pattern in history’s broader tapestry. This realization opens the door to boundless political imagination. The post-liberal world is one of infinite possibility — where past, future, and even forgotten traditions may be rediscovered or reimagined.

Thus, the deterministic dictates of history are overturned, heralding an era of plural timeframes. Beyond the liberal moment lies a new freedom, with diverse civilizations charting their paths toward the unknown horizons of a post-liberal future.