To understand political events, it is important to approach them from a historical perspective, but things change rapidly, and we must also adapt to the present. This requires grounding our thinking in the current circumstances. The historian’s perspective, essential for putting things into context, can and should be complemented by analyses that demonstrate a concern not to be overtaken by significant events with “historical” implications, opening up new perspectives. Certainly, the past is the crucible of the future. By focusing on the long term, one might believe that there is almost nothing new under the sun. Nevertheless, certain events often bring about historical novelties.
In our previous article (https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/state-sponsored-kidnapping-a-new-tool-in-the-imperialist-arsenal/), we reported on a new stratagem implemented by the White House to subdue Venezuela. Certainly, the old tactics persist. The sanctions have been maintained. The seizure of oil tankers is reminiscent of the height of piracy. The explicit desire to seize oil resources smacks of gangsterism. But there is also something new. The kidnapping of a president, leaving the rest of the government in place, constitutes a new form of American intervention, distinct from a purely military presence involving boots on the ground, distinct from a proxy war, and distinct from regime change. It establishes a new form of protectorate.
There are a thousand ways to illustrate the speed with which events rush together to transform an old political situation into a new reality, very often opposed to the one that has remained present in some minds.
Israel
Consider, for example, the Ashkenazi Jews who were victims of the Nazi genocide during World War II. The war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel did not wait until October 7, 2023, to manifest themselves, yet this country has very quickly transformed into a genocidal state rivaling the former executioners of some of its citizens. This state displays inhuman cruelty toward the Palestinian people.
However, Europe, where the genocide of Ashkenazi Jews took place (not forgetting the Slavs and Roma), is reluctant or unable to adjust to the present time and to take the right measure of these new horrors.
China
Another example of radical and rapid change comes from China. This state, still poor at the end of the 20th century, lifted 800 million Chinese out of poverty barely twenty years later. China is now the world’s leading economic power, or nearly so, and a leader in high technology. This state jealously guards its sovereignty, and that is why it is in its interest to respect that of others. Its last foreign military intervention dates back to 1979. China does not behave beyond its borders by imposing domination by force. In the current situation, it still does not exhibit imperialist behavior. The Middle Kingdom is a kingdom in name only, and only by reference to the past.
Yet, unfortunately, we also see here the persistence of an outdated view. We think of China’s economic expansion in light of what the United States has been doing for the past 80 years. We find it difficult to imagine a foreign policy based on cooperation, involving the exchange of best practices, and which, moreover, would respect national sovereignty. In the minds of many, Chinese economic development extending beyond its borders can only drain the natural resources of third-party countries. It is difficult to envision a foreign policy based on a “give and take” relationship. It is difficult to conceive that this is actually in China’s interest. Hence the complacency of many towards the United States’ stance of wanting to “contain” China, to limit its room for maneuver, by obstructing it in the South China Sea or the Arctic Ocean. Many even accept cutting off its access to resources from Venezuela or Iran.
The United States
The United States appeared to be making strides in representative democracy. A system of checks and balances, comprised of an executive branch, a House of Representatives, a Senate, and a Supreme Court, was presented as the way to fulfill this promise. With midterm elections in addition to the presidential election to be held every four years, the political attention of the American people would be solicited on a permanent basis.
However, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Warsaw Pact, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Americans experienced a moment of unipolar hubris. They believed they could now rule the world, impose neoliberal capitalism everywhere, and foster free trade agreements that would allow major American corporations to establish themselves across the globe in order to seize the resources found there. Their “national security” extended to the borders of Iran, Russia, and China. American imperialism still aspires to the status of sole hegemon. To impose its domination by force, it is necessary to destabilize regimes, create chaos, intervene militarily, or impose sanctions.
They still explicitly state that they are the only country capable of governing the world (as Joe Biden said during Kamala Harris’s Democratic nomination for President of the United States). Historically, they have almost certainly had the means to achieve this ideal. From 1945 until recently, they were the world’s leading economic power. The dollar remains the de facto global reserve currency, English is the lingua franca, and Hollywood imposes its cinematic style everywhere. It is now common knowledge that the United States maintains 800 military bases, spends a trillion dollars on the military-industrial complex, and has conducted more than 250 interventions around the world since 1991. It imposes “sanctions” on 18,000 entities: individuals, companies, and countries. America believes it is entitled to do anything, including participating in the genocide of Gazans, occupying a third of Syria, seizing Venezuelan oil tankers, kidnapping a head of state, coveting Greenland, and even having soldiers present on Chinese territory in the province of Taiwan!
This imperialist orientation did not emerge on January 20, 2025, with Donald Trump’s return to power. It has existed for decades. The United States’ most valuable asset does not come from Big Pharma, Big Tech, the fossil fuel industry, or the military-industrial complex. It is even less so from democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. The most valuable asset is the dollar. However, there is a dark cloud hanging over this picture. The trade deficit reaches one trillion dollars annually, the immense debt exceeds 38 trillion dollars, and debt servicing is becoming increasingly burdensome. American authorities fear the intensification of dedollarization. To avoid this consequence, and to ensure the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, it is necessary to neutralize those who, like Saddam Hussein, sold oil for euros, or like Muammar Gaddafi, sought to create a pan-African currency, or to impose 100% tariffs on those who, like the BRICS members, wish to trade without using the dollar. War is the continuation of economic struggle by other means.
It is necessary to control the payment methods for the resources that everyone needs, namely gas and oil. These essential resources must be sold in US dollars. Hence their ties with Saudi Arabia for oil and with Qatar for gas. Hence the war with Syria when Bashar al-Assad preferred the gas pipeline proposed by Iran to the one proposed by Qatar. Hence their presence in northern Iraq and in a third of Syria. Hence the animosity toward Iran. Hence the decoupling of Europe and Russia in the sale of oil and gas. Hence the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline. Hence the intervention in Venezuela.
Surprisingly, some still see the United States’ role in the world as that of a policeman seeking to establish democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. They lament the end of USAID and praise the merits of the National Endowment for Democracy, a clone of the CIA. The idealized image of an idealistic America, the lingering memory of the post-war boom years, the metaphor of the “shining city on a hill, ” still cling, however tenuously, to some minds, even if their numbers have dwindled considerably since the thunderous rise of a leader to power and his daily antics. To still believe in the American dream, one must be in a profound political coma.
Russia
An anachronism also exists in the perceptions some hold about Russia. After an era of imperialism that lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Empire was replaced by the USSR, a country that, thanks to Lenin, seemed to be gradually embarking on the path of a multinational federation. State control of the means of production was to be increasingly shared between a federal state and federated states. The 15 republics even had the right to secede. However, driven by the growing threat posed by Western hostility and the bellicose ambitions of Nazi Germany, it became necessary, on the contrary, to pursue the path of centralized power. Resources had to be collectivized, which led to famine in several parts of the USSR. The war against Germany could only be won in the form of a “Great Patriotic War.”
It was partly under pressure from the combined interests of the Americans and the Soviets that the end of European colonial regimes was enshrined and the right to self-determination of peoples was given importance. The objective of the USSR and the United States was to expand their respective spheres of influence. To achieve this, it was necessary to dislodge the old European colonial powers present in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The sphere of influence created by the Warsaw Pact was primarily a buffer zone designed to ensure the security of the USSR against invasions from the West.
The USSR dissolved into 15 republics, and Russia gradually transitioned to a market economy and capitalism. The ensuing chaos plunged the population into a massive economic crisis. The Russian state’s primary objective was to extricate itself from this crisis, to combat the corrupt power of the oligarchs by leveraging the nationalism of the Russian people. The economic recovery, largely achieved thanks to Vladimir Putin, consisted primarily of doing business with Europe. The Russian Federation comprises only 150 million people living within the largest geographical area on Earth. Expanding this territory could not be a goal for the Kremlin.
Russia is surrounded by NATO and has only about ten military bases outside its borders, in neighboring former Soviet countries. Its military equipment is concentrated within its own territory. Its foreign military interventions are extremely rare. In 2020, before intervening in Ukraine, its military budget was US$60 billion per year. It spent approximately 13.5 trillion rubles by 2025, or about US$162 billion, compared to US$1 trillion. Like China and Iran, it displays a nationalist resistance to the United States. It does not want the US to be able to deploy missiles on Ukrainian territory, as this would force the Russian state to be on high alert 24/7, facing an existential threat and catastrophic decisions that would have to be made in a matter of minutes. Its war in Ukraine is therefore defensive.
Is the past a guarantee of the present?
One might think that Russian imperialism will be reborn, but for the moment, this is not the case. The vision of Vladimir Putin as a parallel to Catherine the Great of Russia is being fostered by a unanimous West, as in times of war. Demonizing the adversary, essentializing the evil embodied in that adversary, perpetuates war and encourages escalation. This is an old tactic regularly employed with regard to Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad. The Americans have always been very successful in this regard, especially since these leaders were not without their own flaws.
The Russian oligarchs, initially very powerful, submitted to control because the political authorities had the support of a population that had suffered greatly from the anarchy resulting from the collapse of the USSR. Furthermore, unlike in the United States, many Russian oligarchs are nationalists. Those who are not emigrate to the West. The Russian people favor a strong, lasting political authority that exercises tight control over the direction of the state. The United States is much closer to oligarchic governance, since billionaires control Big Tech, Big Pharma, the fossil fuel industry, and the military-industrial complex, in addition to controlling the major media outlets and political power.
To maintain, against all odds, an imperialist interpretation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one might be tempted to exploit an argument based on history. If the past is the crucible of the future, shouldn’t we adopt this ancient analytical framework to understand the present? We ourselves have called for the necessity of placing events back into their context. A historical perspective was needed to understand the war in Ukraine. But doesn’t history itself present us with the image of an imperialist Russia?
We demonstrated the opposite in Le conflit mondial au XXIe siècle, published in 2025 by L’Harmattan. The American sanctions were not a reaction to an unprovoked act of aggression. Rather, they were the true objective, and the provocation was intended to force a Russian intervention in Ukraine. The 2008 precedent in Georgia allowed the Americans to hope for a similar intervention on Ukrainian territory. This “unprovoked aggression,” as described throughout the West, was the best way to convince Europe to relinquish its access to Russia’s oil and gas resources. The old images of the American policeman, driven by good democratic intentions and an age-old imperialist Russia, were able to convince European heads of state to accept the American sanctions, which suited the United States but placed Europe in a decidedly disadvantageous economic position. Today, European leaders are grappling with the consequences of their decision.
Conclusion
One doesn’t need to be left-wing to see the monstrous nature of American imperialism as it unfolds before our eyes. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has just distanced himself from the “rules-based world order. “. We’ll see if he’s serious, but it’s never too late to do the right thing. The difficulty some have in adapting to new realities can be a significant factor explaining the persistence of conflict. Political anachronism can be manipulated to justify military confrontation. The willful blindness of Western allies to the imperialist ambitions of the United States has wreaked havoc around the world: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, and Palestine. It took the West itself becoming victims for the beginnings of awareness to emerge. This is the great innovation of American imperialism, Trump-style: in addition to fighting its adversaries, it mistreats, extorts, and absorbs its allies, however compliant and docile they may be.
The true victims of the war in Ukraine are the Ukrainian people. To place the blame for the war on Russia stems from a profound misunderstanding of American imperialism and Russia’s security concerns, but it also rests on an anachronistic, Russophobic image that the United States has deliberately fostered and propagated. It is by clinging to the chimerical civilizational vision of a West beholden to the Enlightenment that Europe has been inclined to blindly follow the directives of the United States. It is also thanks to the illusions of an outdated American dream that everyone has accepted the warmongering of this rogue state.
History sheds light on things, provided we don’t believe that it doesn’t change.