The U.S. is dismantling old principles. Ilia Kusa explains why their policy is not beneficial for Ukraine.

On the new American world order.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview that suggests the United States has been compelled to assume the role of a global policeman and to support the liberal world order based on rules.

However, something went awry, and this order began to work against the U.S., becoming a burden around their neck. As a result, Americans now feel they must abandon it and cease their support, returning to a more "natural state" of international relations.

The natural state, according to Rubio, is a great power rivalry amid actual multipolarity, economic nationalism, and the primacy of the law of power over the power of law.

I thought I would never hear such sentiments from the U.S., but it seems they have decided it's time to return to the politics of the first half of the 20th century. Economically, this can be logically explained in terms of American interests, and it will work in their favor.

Politically and ideologically, the U.S. is dismantling the old principles upon which their leadership was built, yet they have not offered any new ones (at least, from Rubio's interview, I did not see any new vision).

Essentially, the Trump administration has done what the Biden administration was reluctant to do: it has aligned itself with the conceptual positions of other political leaders who have long advocated for a multipolar world order: India, Turkey, Russia, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Algeria, and many others.

In this political reality, the losers are the EU countries, most of which still do not wish to adopt this stance and continue to view it as anti-Western and a threat to their moral superiority, ideological project, and political leadership.

Additionally, small and medium-sized states are at a disadvantage, lacking sufficient resources for independent maneuvering, such as Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Belarus, etc. In my view, in this configuration, they face a choice among three options:

1. Join a major player as a junior partner to survive tough times through such an asymmetric alliance and stay afloat.

2. Create their own alliance of small states at a sub-regional or regional level to collectively endure this period and fend off external threats, but this requires developing an understanding of collective interests and consistently making mutual compromises for the common good.

3. Cement neutrality to remain outside the main conflict. However, such a policy must be resource-backed and tied to a specific function that will explain and ensure the neutrality of that state, communicating why its existence in such a status benefits major players.