Assessing Political Turning Points: The Fragility of Trump’s Legacy and Geopolitical Continuity
The article opens by contrasting the pivotal historical moments of 1989, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Malta summit, with the question of whether such shocks create lasting changes in global trajectories. It argues that many purported turning points, including the Arab Spring (2010–11), 9/11 and the subsequent global war on terror, as well as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, have not produced enduring transformations.
Using Donald Trump as a case study, the piece highlights the limited solid achievements of his leadership. It notes that efforts at peacemaking were weak, tariffs faltered, and his tenure was characterized by ego, ignorance, vulgarity, and narcissism. The upheavals of the Trump era are portrayed as fleeting. By 2025, at age 79, Trump’s MAGA coalition is fracturing, and even a 2028 loyalist victory would be unlikely to replicate his earlier appeal.
The US national security strategy under Trump is described as an authoritarian, anti-European charter that ruptured the transatlantic alliance. Meanwhile, Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is framed as a disaster for Russia, and Brexit as a chastening event. These developments are presented as part of broader geopolitical continuity despite disruptions.
The article stresses that democracy remains the preferred global system. Hard-right and neo-fascist parties remain fringe movements, authoritarian leaders lack recognized successors, and reforms often follow the departure of such figures, as seen historically after Stalin and Mao. The author urges focusing on continuities and connections rather than dramatic upheavals and expresses hope for no major geopolitical turning points in 2026, advocating for peaceful, stable governance.
