The current international system is long overdue for a major confab. Is the new Trump administration equipped to navigate the new geopolitical landscape?
IMAGE: President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation on July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Freddie Ponton
21st Century Wire
YALTA 2.0, a term which was quickly captured by Trans-Atlantists and hegemonists to undermine potential peace negotiations between Trump and Putin, actually signifies a crucial opportunity to redefine historical pathways. For those responsible for having orchestrated the conflict in Ukraine, the prospect of confronting the grim realities of their violent engagement, and the loss of life, alongside the emerging geopolitical dynamics, has stirred the latent forces reminiscent of the original Yalta Conference.
The Yalta Conference held in Crimea, in February of 1945, represented a pivotal gathering of the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union during World War II. The primary focus of this meeting was to deliberate on the postwar restructuring of Germany and Europe. In light of contemporary global challenges, and the never-ending war in Ukraine, could a second iteration of the Yalta Conference serve as a pathway to achieving enduring peace?
Debates surrounding the concept of a “New Yalta” or “Yalta 2.0” have been ongoing for several years. A significant moment occurred in 2014 when Russian President Vladimir Putin, during a speech in Crimea, conveyed his aspiration for a “New Yalta” arrangement with Western powers. He emphasized the need for a framework that would delineate and acknowledge Moscow’s sphere of influence, particularly in Europe and Eurasia, focusing on political and security issues.
Putin has explicitly indicated his reluctance to lead Russia into a state of international isolation. On the contrary, he has frequently articulated his economic and geopolitical ambitions, positioning Europe and the Global South at the forefront, while maintaining Russia’s defense and deterrence capabilities. Lord George Robertson, former Labour government Defence Secretary and NATO’s 10th Secretary-General (1999 to 2003), remarked how during their first meeting Putin conveyed his aspiration for Russia to become integrated with Western Europe – and even to pursue NATO membership, provided that Russia would be regarded as an equal partner. Similar sentiments were also expressed by Putin during his early tenure to then President Bill Clinton.
Throughout the years, Putin has expressed increasing frustration regarding NATO’s persistent expansion into Central and Eastern Europe, perceiving the Alliance’s actions in the east as both unjust and a direct threat to Russia’s legitimate security interests. It is widely recognized that NATO’s expansionist trajectory stands in stark contrast to the security guarantees provided to Soviet leaders by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, who famously stated “not one inch eastward” during his discussions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. Declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents housed at the National Security Archive at George Washington University attest to that.
During the 1990 “Forum for Germany” conference held in Berlin, leaders from Central and Eastern Europe advocated for the disbandment of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In contrast, influential figures from the Cold War era such as Paul Nitze who was based at the Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies, along with the backing of several Western European nations, pursued an alternative agenda. They emphasized the significance of NATO as a cornerstone for stability and a continued U.S. presence in Europe.
Even in contemporary discourse, it remains challenging to rationalize NATO’s continued presence in Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, particularly when considering the implications of U.S. hegemony and its far-reaching effects, both within Europe and globally.
DOCUMENT: Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about “Forum for Germany” meeting in Berlin (Source: National Security Archive)
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about “Forum for Germany” meeting in Berlin.
.
The disintegration of the USSR was primarily instigated by the Russians, notably through the actions of Boris Yeltsin and his chief advisor Gennady Burbulis, along with other leaders from the Soviet republics, particularly those from Ukraine, in December 1991. In spite of President George H.W. Bush’s well-known “Chicken Kiev speech,” which presented a challenging dilemma for Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost and perestroika, as well as democratization, was fundamentally aimed at fostering prescribed ‘western values’ like individual freedom, and economic liberalization and independence. This reformist rhetoric is not unlike what we often hear today, with western leaders constantly reiterating the virtues of ‘western values’ and the “rules based international order.’
The predominant narrative within Western mainstream media frequently draws parallels between Stalin’s fixation on Poland in 1945 and Putin’s Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine. This discourse often seeks to evoke memories of August 1939, when Germany and the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact, infamously known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which ultimately led to significant geopolitical turmoil and divided eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Proponents of militaristic and globalist agendas utilize this historical reference to frame Russia’s geopolitical and economic ambitions as a menace to Europe, portraying the modern-day Russian Federation as an unreliable partner in the pursuit of peace. However, this oversimplified interpretation, encapsulated in the notion that “history repeats itself,” lacks a solid basis and fails to account for the complexities of the contemporary geopolitical landscape.
The Yalta Conference, which played a pivotal role in the division of Europe, and facilitated the establishment of oppressive communist regimes under Soviet influence, is an undeniable historical reality. However, the question arises: how can the global community aspire to achieve peace if Moscow is not offered a viable means to withdraw from the conflict and leaving them with the perception that the United States and its NATO allies do not pose a continual threat?
The trajectory of history necessitates intervention by a powerful individual or entity to prevent its repetition. The prevailing attitudes of NATO and the European Union are insufficient to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Many foreign policy pundits have lamented ‘the death of diplomacy’ when it comes to Ukraine. Perhaps a viable solution lies in fostering open dialogue and rapprochement between the United States and Russia, despite the significant erosion of trust between Washington and Moscow. After such a long hiatus, achieving any real progress in the area will no doubt required years of continual efforts in earnest.
The tragic demise of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme, and his assassination in 1986, is a stark reminder of the peril faced by advocates of détente with Russia. Palme also engaged in support for peace and liberation movements globally, such as those in Palestine and South Africa, and revealed the clandestine submarine operations conducted by the CIA and MI6 in Swedish waters, an international resumé which have also proven to be fraught with danger. The attempted assassination of of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, on May 15, 2024, also underscores the existence of malevolent western forces, likely nested in centers of power like the City of London and Washington, D.C., all of which are opposed to the concept of peace and harmony in the international system.
Today, President Donald Trump is being characterized by Atlanticist war hawks as a kind of ‘traitor’ for even considering the prospect of peace with Russia. However, this approach may represent one of the most significant opportunities for the world to achieve a much-needed resolution to the war in Ukraine. While it remains uncertain whether the Trump administration will alter America’s position regarding its political, military or energy supply control over Europe, there are indications that suggest Trump may be prioritizing the strengthening of US interests within the near Western Hemisphere, with a particular eye on expanding its control and influence over Latin America. This inclination is partially reflected in his decision to appoint Marco Rubio as U.S. Secretary of State.
The unpopular ambition of Trump to assert dominance over Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal may not seem irrational when one considers his “America First” strategy, particularly in relation to revitalizing the manufacturing sector and achieving self-sufficiency in the United States. This endeavor necessitates access to substantial natural resources, rare minerals, and a robust distribution network. These elements are essential for American enterprises to leverage opportunities, control expenses, and strategically navigate an evolving economic environment, especially in light of the rapidly expanding BRICS+ coalition.
Having said that, the aforementioned objectives can be effectively realized by advocating for Greenland’s sovereignty, thereby allowing the Greenlandic people to determine their future and partnerships without becoming a United States vassal state. It is crucial to note here that the issue of Greenland is not mere imperialist bravado on Trump’s part. This region has suddenly become a top priority for U.S. and NATO geostrategic interests with the emergence of the Northern Sea Route, or “Northern Passage”, as a new maritime trade and naval military choke point, transforming the Arctic and its ports and waterways into prominent pieces on the new Grand Chessboard.
It can be argued that Trump is not abandoning the European Union; rather, he is actively challenging it by targeting globalist elements within Europe, particularly those affiliated with the European Union’s extensive European People’s Party (EPP). This political network has increasingly influenced European policies and institutions over the years and certainly not for the best, especially when it comes to European most important socio-economic actors, the citizenry. In his approach to Europe, Trump is likely to support conservative right-wing factions that advocate for greater sovereignty, a pragmatic perspective, a reduction in “woke” ideologies, and potentially for some, a diminished commitment to NATO. However, this seemingly ‘conservative’ vanguard led by Trump and Elon Musk might also be a thin ideological veil designed to conceal the expansion of U.S. transnational corporate interests in Europe. Time will tell how this new political trajectory develops over the next two election cycles in Europe.
The coinciding events of Trump’s inauguration and the start of the 2025 World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos are significant. While some commentators noted the U.S. President’s conspicuous absence, although he participated in a live video conference, it might be more revealing to view this as a conscious statement of Trump’s determination to challenge certain aspects of the globalist agenda, namely their relentless pursuit of conflict and expansion – which brings us back to the central issue of achieving a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. This could ultimately lead to a legacy where he is remembered as either “Trump the Unifier” or “Trump the Pacifier.”
The intention of Trump to capitalize on the extensive natural resources of the United States and to seek further opportunities in adjacent regions such as Canada, Greenland, and the Arctic, conveys a distinct indication that the energy transition in Europe and its associated ‘green new deal’ do not rank high on his agenda. This sentiment was underscored by his recent remarks at the WEF in Davos, which further corroborate this perspective:
“My message to businesses worldwide is: come and manufacture in America, and you will get the lowest possible taxes,”
IMAGE: US President Donald Trump speaking at the World Economic Forum – Davos, 23 January 2025 (Source: Eunews)
The European Green Deal, as outlined in the Paris Agreements, appears to be of minimal concern to Trump, whose primary focus lies in rectifying the United States’ trade deficit and, consequently, its financial shortfall. One of his first actions after being sworn in was an executive order directing the U.S. to again withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement – dealing another major blow to globalist ‘climate action’ agenda.
The rationale behind this de-globalization plan is that the U.S. can exert its “energy independence“, and make concerted moves to reconfigure global supply chains, secure its critical minerals, and ultimately produce its own necessary goods rather than relying on imports from Canada, the EU, and China. This can be viewed as a resumption of similar efforts made during his first term, albeit in what is arguably a much more tense and competitive geopolitical environment.
With the anniversary of the Yalta Conference on February 4th rapidly approaching, numerous nations have already indicated their willingness to host peace talks between Putin and Trump, and to address winding-down the conflict in Ukraine. It is only a question of time before the global community learns the location and format of these discussions. It is likely that Yury Ushakov, the former Russian Ambassador to the United States and the current foreign policy aide to the Russian president, who is responsible for organizing the BRICS+ 2024 Summit in Kazan, Russia, will play a significant role in facilitating this process.
Numerous potential scenarios exist for this negotiation, one of which involves a division of Ukraine akin to the partition of Germany following World War II. In Russian diplomatic circles, there is a prevailing sentiment that Donald Trump’s recent threats of sanctions against Moscow are not to be taken seriously, if at all. Those privy to the situation are likely aware of behind-the-scenes discussions occurring between the Trump administration and the Kremlin. While Moscow recognizes Trump’s propensity for exaggeration and hyperbole, there remains a belief that a mutually beneficial agreement can be achieved. Nevertheless, the primary concern appears to be the response from NATO and the European Union regarding this situation. The ongoing narrative propagated by the Atlantic Council and other mainstream media alike, which suggests that Putin not only opposes peace, but is hell-bent on reconquering Eastern Europe and beyond – underscores the feeling of fear and unease fostered by the Atlanticists within Europe. This is hysteria is illustrated by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s swift trip to France to engage in discussions with President Emmanuel Macron, highlighting the imperative for the European Union to visibly affirm its cohesion in the face of a perceived ‘Russian threat’. All of this serves to reinforce NATO’s agenda to remilitarize Europe, and extend its dominion even further afield. Balancing Atlanticist desires to expand NATO with Russia’s security concerns will be the primary challenge for Trump if he is to make any sincere headway in negotiating a lasting peace for Europe.
Given the economic divergence that has arisen between Britain and Europe after Brexit, and Trump’s overtures towards incorporating the UK closer into America’s economy sphere, the leading European economies have aimed to address Trump’s tariff threats recently leveled against the EU and its member states. Nevertheless, they face a limited range of options to effectively tackle these challenges, especially with Trump out of the Paris Agreement.
While Europe and NATO are likely to face the reality of an ongoing defeat in the conflict in Ukraine, they are still tied to Washington’s LNG energy supply chain, due to ongoing sanctions against Russia and the Nord Stream sabotage incident. This has been an economic disaster for Europe. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will seek to extract additional financial contributions and concessions from European citizens to align with NATO’s revised spending objective of between 3-4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per annum by the year 2030.
Interestingly, Trump has expressed a desire for NATO member countries to allocate an impressive 5 percent of their annual GDP towards defense spending, which significantly exceeds the alliance’s existing spending goals, and certainly won’t fail to enrich the US military-industrial complex (reading between the lines).
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Valdai Club 2013 still resonates today, but it also reminds us that the Treaty of Versailles was concluded without Russia’s participation (the Allied Powers refused to recognize the new Bolshevik government at the time). Many experts and historians believe that Versailles laid the foundation for a subsequent Second World War, not least of all because of its unfairness towards the German people. In his speech, Putin stated:
“I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945, taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace.”
In addition, Putin also mentioned Russia’s efforts and responsibility for stopping the deepening of the Syrian conflict at the time.
While Trump appears to possess a pragmatic understanding of the challenges confronting him, it is still unclear whether he and his advisors will be able to read the room’ when it comes to great power peer competitors like Russia. Although his media engagements frequently exhibit inconsistencies and a deficiency in factual accuracy, he may be the U.S. president most capable of negotiating a meaningful deal with Moscow.
YALTA 2.0 or not, it is imperative to prioritize the preservation of life and halt the ongoing violence that the likes of Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, Ursula von der Leyen, Jens Stoltenberg and others have helped to unleash in Ukraine, as well as in the Middle East, aided by their bloodthirsty European counterparts. Corrupt Ukrainian officials must also be held accountable – and not by the EU or the U.S. – but by the Ukrainian populace itself. It should be clear by now that from the outset, they have been misled by their external Western managers and western-installed puppet leaders, and as the truth regarding their failing prospects for NATO membership become more apparent, Ukrainians will inevitably have to confront their own internal demons and challenges once again.
As for the Biden family criminal enterprise and his outgoing administration, we can only hope that a reformed Department of Justice under Trump will take the necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for bleeding the U.S. Treasury of hundreds of billions in U.S. tax payer funds that have miraculously evaporated in Ukraine – will be held accountable under the law. The same should apply to EU officials, as well as those responsible for the Nord Stream sabotage.
Thus, a conference reminiscent of YALTA 2.0, involving the United States, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom, appears to be the most logical and effective approach to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear World War III. Such a multilateral effort will also have to include new arms control and missile defense pacts between the major nuclear powers. Moreover, the West will have to engage and look to try and cooperate with newly-formed multilateral structures such as BRICS, Belt and Road, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. That will take time, but the starting point could be at a 21st century Yalta-style international summit.
In summary, the United States is currently ill-equipped to sustain its costly global hegemony. Trump’s strategy to concentrate his policies on the Western Hemisphere is likely to foster greater global peace. However, the internal struggle with the entrenched deep-state interests within the U.S. permanent state is far from resolved. It is reasonable to anticipate that these powerful factions may soon resurface to undermine any peace efforts from the new U.S. administration, a political reality which Trump and his base need to be prepared for.
READ MORE RUSSIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russia Files
VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV