Zeihan’s latest analysis paints a stark picture: the sheer breadth and speed of Trump’s policy decisions—freezing Ukrainian aid, gutting American industrial competitiveness, dismantling federal infrastructure, and severing alliances—align too neatly with longstanding Russian strategic objectives to be written off as mere incompetence. This isn’t just a reckless president making erratic choices; it looks increasingly like an intentional restructuring of American power in ways that benefit Moscow at every turn. As Zeihan notes, this is the first time in his 25-year career that he’s genuinely afraid for the future of the United States. That fear, echoed by many sober European analysts, suggests that we are no longer dealing with just a geopolitical rivalry but with an internal unraveling driven, knowingly or unknowingly, by forces hostile to American interests.
If American power is a great ship, it is no longer merely drifting—it appears someone is deliberately punching holes in the hull while disabling the pumps. The question is whether this is an act of sabotage from within or a captain so deluded he believes he can scuttle the vessel and somehow still reach port. Either way, the storm is already upon us, and those who refuse to acknowledge the water rising at their feet will find themselves drowning in history’s tide.
I had occasionally wondered what Zeihan's take on Trump 2.0 would be. His position on things has been something like "with the cold war over, America's major geopolitical rivals are all just going to fall apart for various reasons, and America will safely retreat from being the world police, because its own fundamentals are so strong".
Meanwhile, in power we have Trump, who also says that America holds all the cards, and who wants to use them for national advantage rather than international order. And Peter's take on Trump 2.0 turns out to be, "The Russians did it".
I will just say that, even if the KGB had a codeword for Trump, the forces that have gathered under him are clearly American - they're just not part of the establishment consensus. More on this in a moment.
Maybe Zeihan vs Trump can even define a new political axis. Zeihan is a post-globalist liberal and Trump is a post-globalist conservative.
Anyway, I haven't had time to listen to Zeihan's new series or to sit through the video I'm about to link, but as a counterpoint, one might want to compare this recent speech by Eric Weinstein:
Weinstein, like Vance, has been part of Thiel-world, he actually worked for Thiel for years. Weinstein also is or was a Democrat, but one who has been very alienated by the post-cold-war Democratic Party. (In the lecture he mentions that his son went to the same high school where Musk's son became a daughter.) He also has plenty of idiosyncratic ideas to push, above all the rival to string theory that he dreamed up when at Harvard.
Nonetheless, what he's doing here, is articulating a thesis that offers a good counterpoint to Zeihan. As I said I've only skipped through the lecture, but his clear thesis is that tools of information war, that were refined in the war against Al Qaeda, were turned into tools of governance within America. Trump 2.0 is the return of the repressed, all the ideas that the genteel Cass Sunsteins of the world consigned to the Internet margins, now coming to power on the back of the populist revolution.
The Russians are in the mix, because great powers take advantage of turbulence in their rivals, and because there are plenty of repressed ideological currents native to America that don't want Russia as an enemy, and ultimately because any American regime has to have some kind of stance on Russia. Zeihan, incidentally, isn't opposing MAGA in toto, he's just proposing that Trumpian actions which make him particularly uncomfortable, might be due to some Russian influencer. Well, I'm sure they're in there, but in the end this does look to me like a very American revolution.
Weinstein is a crank and an unhinged conspiracy theorist. Not as bad as his pathetic brother, but still not someone to be taken seriously. He has a flair for narratives and story telling. But his judgement is horrendous.
"This is too much, too soon, too holistic—and to deleterious to United States, and too advantageous to Russia—for us to understand this in terms of conventional political science."
Is it even possible to use a word like "holistic" in reference to Trump's decision making? He's mentally ill. What a lot of people are concluding is that it is not necessary to understand Trump's motivations. We can note he's had a multidecade pattern of supporting Russia, as I heard you mention on podcast with Tim Mak.
Actually a bit concerned about Claire - she hasn't posted here in over a week. Though she did post something brief on Bluesky yesterday.
Waiting for your recording with Sergei with bated breath!
Zeihan’s latest analysis paints a stark picture: the sheer breadth and speed of Trump’s policy decisions—freezing Ukrainian aid, gutting American industrial competitiveness, dismantling federal infrastructure, and severing alliances—align too neatly with longstanding Russian strategic objectives to be written off as mere incompetence. This isn’t just a reckless president making erratic choices; it looks increasingly like an intentional restructuring of American power in ways that benefit Moscow at every turn. As Zeihan notes, this is the first time in his 25-year career that he’s genuinely afraid for the future of the United States. That fear, echoed by many sober European analysts, suggests that we are no longer dealing with just a geopolitical rivalry but with an internal unraveling driven, knowingly or unknowingly, by forces hostile to American interests.
If American power is a great ship, it is no longer merely drifting—it appears someone is deliberately punching holes in the hull while disabling the pumps. The question is whether this is an act of sabotage from within or a captain so deluded he believes he can scuttle the vessel and somehow still reach port. Either way, the storm is already upon us, and those who refuse to acknowledge the water rising at their feet will find themselves drowning in history’s tide.
Very well and creatively stated. Thank you for your comment.
I had occasionally wondered what Zeihan's take on Trump 2.0 would be. His position on things has been something like "with the cold war over, America's major geopolitical rivals are all just going to fall apart for various reasons, and America will safely retreat from being the world police, because its own fundamentals are so strong".
Meanwhile, in power we have Trump, who also says that America holds all the cards, and who wants to use them for national advantage rather than international order. And Peter's take on Trump 2.0 turns out to be, "The Russians did it".
I will just say that, even if the KGB had a codeword for Trump, the forces that have gathered under him are clearly American - they're just not part of the establishment consensus. More on this in a moment.
Maybe Zeihan vs Trump can even define a new political axis. Zeihan is a post-globalist liberal and Trump is a post-globalist conservative.
Anyway, I haven't had time to listen to Zeihan's new series or to sit through the video I'm about to link, but as a counterpoint, one might want to compare this recent speech by Eric Weinstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdJtrXYBZs
Weinstein, like Vance, has been part of Thiel-world, he actually worked for Thiel for years. Weinstein also is or was a Democrat, but one who has been very alienated by the post-cold-war Democratic Party. (In the lecture he mentions that his son went to the same high school where Musk's son became a daughter.) He also has plenty of idiosyncratic ideas to push, above all the rival to string theory that he dreamed up when at Harvard.
Nonetheless, what he's doing here, is articulating a thesis that offers a good counterpoint to Zeihan. As I said I've only skipped through the lecture, but his clear thesis is that tools of information war, that were refined in the war against Al Qaeda, were turned into tools of governance within America. Trump 2.0 is the return of the repressed, all the ideas that the genteel Cass Sunsteins of the world consigned to the Internet margins, now coming to power on the back of the populist revolution.
The Russians are in the mix, because great powers take advantage of turbulence in their rivals, and because there are plenty of repressed ideological currents native to America that don't want Russia as an enemy, and ultimately because any American regime has to have some kind of stance on Russia. Zeihan, incidentally, isn't opposing MAGA in toto, he's just proposing that Trumpian actions which make him particularly uncomfortable, might be due to some Russian influencer. Well, I'm sure they're in there, but in the end this does look to me like a very American revolution.
Weinstein is a crank and an unhinged conspiracy theorist. Not as bad as his pathetic brother, but still not someone to be taken seriously. He has a flair for narratives and story telling. But his judgement is horrendous.
"This is too much, too soon, too holistic—and to deleterious to United States, and too advantageous to Russia—for us to understand this in terms of conventional political science."
Is it even possible to use a word like "holistic" in reference to Trump's decision making? He's mentally ill. What a lot of people are concluding is that it is not necessary to understand Trump's motivations. We can note he's had a multidecade pattern of supporting Russia, as I heard you mention on podcast with Tim Mak.
Thanks, Claire!