Trump brings perestroika to America
In 1989, the Soviet army withdrew from Afghanistan after a ten-year losing battle with the Mujahedeen. Two years later, in 1991, the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact dissolved. Afghanistan solidified its reputation as the 'graveyard of empires.'
Fast forward 30 years to 2021, the US army withdrew from Afghanistan after a 20-year battle with the Taliban, the Mujahedeen's successor. Four years later, in 2025, President Donald Trump placed a bomb under NATO, effectively ending the Atlantic alliance.
The parallels between the Cold War superpowers extend beyond Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the Soviet economy stagnated, leading to widespread disillusionment with communism. In response, President Mikhail Gorbachev launched 'perestroika', a restructuring of Soviet society.
Similarly, after the Ronald Reagan era, a growing segment of the American electorate grew skeptical of the system. Inequality increased and the system seemed rigged by an entrenched ruling elite impervious to the result of elections. In 2016, Trump was elected to 'drain the swamp', promising a drastic overhaul of the American system.
Perestroika, initially proposed by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1979, aimed to modernize the stagnant Soviet system. In the 1980s, Soviet citizens frequently faced breadlines and empty store shelves, eroding faith in communism.
The Soviet government provided housing, education, transportation and free medical care, but military spending consumed 12%–17% of the national budget, draining resources from consumer goods and needs. Meanwhile, the suppression of entrepreneurship made capitalist life dull and uninspired.
Brezhnev's successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, introduced 'glasnost', or 'openness', alongside perestroika. However, entrenched bureaucrats resisted reforms, fearing loss of power and the weakening of the Soviet state.
Gorbachev's attempt to mix socialism with limited market liberalization backfired, creating confusion, supply shortages, inflation and worsening living standards. His successor, Boris Yeltsin, under the guidance of neoliberal American economists, abruptly transitioned Russia from central planning to full market liberalization. The consequences were devastating: the economy shrank by 50% in the 1990s, pushing millions into poverty.
The rushed privatization of state assets led to a fire sale of industries to well-connected insiders, who then funneled their billions abroad. The looting of national wealth only ceased after Vladimir Putin took power, reversing neoliberal excesses and implementing 'Russia First' policies that spurred economic recovery.
Three decades after Russia started its reform, Donald Trump was elected on the promise of upending Washington's bureaucracy—the 'swamp' that many voters believed controlled the country regardless of whom held office. Since the 1980s, disillusionment with the US political system had grown, with polls showing that over 60% of Americans felt the country was on the wrong track.
Neoliberal policies introduced under Reagan led to unchecked globalization and the deindustrialization of key American sectors. While the USSR marginalized entrepreneurs and elevated workers, the US did the reverse: wealth concentrated at the top, and wages stagnated. By the 2000s, millions of American workers needed two jobs to make ends meet, while CEOs earned over 300 times more than the average worker.
Despite being a billionaire with global business interests, Trump resonated with working-class frustration. Re-elected in 2024, he has since escalated his earlier war on entrenched bureaucrats, slashing government jobs, restructuring departments and initiating an unprecedented cost-cutting campaign.
On foreign policy, Trump has made waves by shifting America's stance on Ukraine. While he sent military aid to Ukraine during his first term, he has come to agree with Putin's view that prolonging the war is futile and should not have erupted in the first place.
As the world transitions to a multipolar order, Trump must navigate numerous domestic challenges. Chief among them is America's $36 trillion national debt.
For four decades, US government spending increased exponentially. In 2025, interest payments on the debt will exceed $1 trillion—more than the defense budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 120%, far above sustainable levels.
Trump faces difficult choices. Reducing the debt requires slashing military and social spending. Taxing the ultra-rich would only marginally offset the debt. Failing to reduce the debt would result in hyperinflation, devastating not only the poor but also the middle class. His handling of the national debt may ultimately define his legacy.
Trump and Putin, both successors to neoliberal globalists, now find themselves as key players in shaping a new multipolar world. Globalism will not end, but the ideological battle of the 20th century—capitalism vs. communism, left vs right, conservatism vs progressivism—is giving way to pragmatism and national self-interest.
China recognized this shift early, with Deng Xiaoping's 1980s reforms blending central planning with market liberalization. Entrepreneurs thrived within government-set boundaries and strategies that aimed at long-term common prosperity.
Trump recognizes the Chinese advantage. The biannual election cycle in the US prevents long-term planning. Asked about a drop in the stock market recently, he told an interviewer: 'What I have to do is build a strong country. You can't really watch the stock market. If you look at China, they have a 100-year perspective. We have [a perspective of] a quarter.'
The US rightly prides itself on democracy, its Constitution and personal freedoms. However, if Trump's version of perestroika fails to bring systemic political reform, his efforts will bring mostly pain and very little long-term gain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
40 minutes ago
- HKFP
Two Chinese aircraft carriers seen in Pacific for first time, Japan says
Japan said Tuesday that two Chinese aircraft carriers had been seen operating in the Pacific for the first time as Beijing boosts its military capability in far-flung areas. On Monday, China's Shandong carrier and four other vessels, including a missile destroyer, sailed inside the Japanese economic waters surrounding the remote Pacific atoll of Okinotori, Tokyo's defence ministry said. Its fighter jets and helicopters conducted take-offs and landings there, the ministry said. The fleet of five warships was also seen sailing on Saturday 550 kilometres (340 miles) southeast of Miyako Island near Taiwan, it added. China's other operational aircraft carrier Liaoning and its fleet entered Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Pacific over the weekend, before exiting to conduct drills involving fighter jets, Tokyo previously said. 'This is the first time two Chinese aircraft carriers were spotted operating in the Pacific at the same time,' a defence ministry spokesman told AFP on Tuesday. 'We believe the Chinese military's purpose is to improve its operational capability and ability to conduct operations in distant areas,' he said. China's use of naval and air assets to press its territorial claims has rattled the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Japanese and US defence officials say China wants to push the American military out of the so-called 'first island chain' from Japan down through the Philippines. Eventually, its strategy is to dominate areas west of the 'second island chain' in the Pacific between Japan's remote Ogasawara Islands and the US territory of Guam, they say. The Liaoning's recent cruise eastwards marked the first time the Japanese defence ministry has said a Chinese aircraft carrier had crossed the second island chain. In September, the warship sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan and entered Japan's contiguous waters, an area up to 24 nautical miles from its coast. At the time, Tokyo called that move 'unacceptable' and expressed 'serious concerns' to Beijing. Under international law, a state has rights to the management of natural resources and other economic activities within its EEZ, which is within 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) of its coastline.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong warns residents about Los Angeles unrest as Trump deploys National Guard
Hong Kong authorities have urged residents to remain vigilant and prioritise safety when travelling to the United States due to ongoing immigration-related protests in Los Angeles. Some Hongkongers living in California's largest city criticised US President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard, stating that it would likely escalate the situation further. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's operation against illegal immigrants in Los Angeles on Friday triggered days of demonstrations by local residents, leading to clashes with law enforcement officers. Trump, who has made illegal immigration a prime focus of his presidency, ordered some 2,000 National Guard to Los Angeles during the weekend over the objections of Newsom and the city's mayor, Karen Bass, who have accused him of manufacturing a crisis. Late Monday, the US Pentagon ordered 700 members of the US Marine Corps to Los Angeles and an additional 2,000 National Guard members to quell the unrest. The extra contingent doubles the number of National Guard troops to more than 4,000. The Hong Kong government urged residents to attend to personal safety in light of protests across the country. 'The government reminds Hong Kong residents who are planning to travel to the United States, or are already there, to stay aware of the local situation, increase their vigilance, prioritise their safety, avoid crowded areas, and pay close attention to local announcements regarding the latest developments,' a spokesman said on Monday. 'Hesitant' Hongkongers worry Trump has shattered dreams of studying in US The Security Bureau's website was updated with the warning, saying protests had 'occurred across multiple cities including Los Angeles' since early June, resulting in 'violent clashes and injuries'. The government also reminded Hong Kong residents in the United States who required help to call a 24-hour hotline at (852) 1868, or reach out to the Immigration Department with its mobile app, among other means. Some Angeles-based Hongkongers defended the need for the protests. A 50-year-old university professor, who only gave his surname, Lam, said the scale of the social unrest was not even close to the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020 or the Rodney King protests of 1992, sparked by a court acquitting four police officers accused of beating an unarmed black man. 'The protests are very localised,' Lam said. 'A little fire with one or two [self-driving] Waymo cars set on fire.' Lam said protesters were expressing their anger at what Trump and the immigration authorities were doing. 'Many of them live with undocumented immigrants and have done so for years. They stand by them with compassion because they want to protect their neighbours and friends who have lived peacefully in the community for years,' he said. Protesters gather with signs and flags near a federal building in Santa Ana, California, following reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on June 9, 2025. Photo: AFP Lam said he and some of his US-born colleagues had started to bring along their identity documents to avoid being mistakenly arrested. 'Even for us, because we do not look like a regular 'white person', we have started to carry a federal ID on top of our driving licence to show that we're actually citizens,' he said. 'There have been a lot of mistaken arrests; we just want to be safe.' A 29-year-old college lecturer from Hong Kong, surnamed Li, joined the protests as well as the rapid response networks to help defend immigrant workers against raids. 'While the mainstream media is demonising the protesters as 'violent rioters' defending 'criminals', what I saw instead were local community members looking to defend their families, friends and other communities from state violence,' Li said. He said he had seen rubber bullets and tear gas being fired amid the clashes. 'I do not feel safe with the federal government overriding state authority to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles, which further exacerbates the state-sanctioned violence that is already heightening,' he said. Law, a 52-year-old Hongkonger who has lived in Los Angeles since 1991, expressed reservations about the deployment of the National Guard. 'I think it's borderline unconstitutional,' said Law, who works in marketing and lives in Santa Monica. 'The only consequence I can see with the arrival of the National Guard is that there may be an escalation, which is the opposite of the intention.'
Asia Times
3 hours ago
- Asia Times
From Kent State to LA, using soldiers on civilians is high-risk
Responding to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard into the city on June 7, 2025, to protect agents carrying out the raids. Trump also authorized the Pentagon to dispatch regular US troops 'as necessary' to support the California National Guard. The president's orders did not specify rules of engagement about when and how force could be used. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard and asserted it was not needed, criticized the president's decision as 'inflammatory' and warned it 'will only escalate tensions.' I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation's past. My recent book, 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio. The confrontation escalated into violence: troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life. In my view, dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are better prepared today than in 1970 to respond to riots and violent protests – but the vast majority of their training and their primary mission remains to fight, to kill and to win wars. Protests in Los Angeles began after federal agencies conducted immigration raids across the city on June 6, 2025. The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer. Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest. Examples include riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington DC in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd. Presidents rarely deploy National Guard troops without state governors' consent. The main modern exceptions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied federal court orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the federal government sent troops to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters. The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, a narrower federal statute that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in situations including 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Trump did not limit his order to Los Angeles. He authorized armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at any 'locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.' ICE officers and national guards confront protesters outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces' Reserve Officer Training Corps program. In response, Republican Governor Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of the university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities. Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn't going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. 'We're going to put a stop to this!' he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3. Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers. There was confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon's expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard's presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures. Archival CBS News footage of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State, May 4, 1970. The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly. In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that he had ordered Guardsmens' rifles loaded with live ammunition. As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers' responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops' discharge of weapons. When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted 'Fire in the air!' in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students' heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus' order, and fired at the students. The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were. Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. 'Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,' one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, 'Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?' Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4, 1970. National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds. In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that 'the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.' In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. The application of force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force. Aggressive displays of force, in fact, can heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive that authorities are acting with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrated that using military force in these situations is an option fraught with grave risks. Brian VanDeMark is professor of history, United States Naval Academy This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
