The U.S. Election and the Post-Westphalian World

Russia, Europe, and America: Towards a Post-Westphalian World Order

The transformation of the current world order, frequently discussed by numerous experts and scholars as a “global restructuring,” is largely driven by a crisis in nation-states and the underlying cultural code of modern civilization. For centuries, the nation-state has been the principal actor in what is known as the Westphalian model, named after the two foundational peace treaties — those of Münster and Osnabrück — which concluded the Thirty Years’ War of 1618–1648. Moreover, it could be argued that the nation-state has served as the foundational subject of the entire modern world system. However, today, national sovereignty faces a rising tide of dysfunctions, bringing to the forefront certain realities that remained on the periphery or in a “dormant” state throughout the modern European era but played a significant role during the preceding periods of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

This resurgence involves phenomena such as ethnic groups, ethno-worlds, civilizations, cities, and regions, which, based on the experiences of the 19th–21st centuries, can be expanded to include corporations, transnational companies, and large banking and financial-industrial conglomerates, often bearing a supranational character. By abandoning the theory of linear progress in favor of a dialectical, spiral conception of history, it becomes plausible, under the laws of dialectics (particularly the law of the negation of the negation), to anticipate the revival or a unique renaissance of these entities. Once seemingly consigned to the past, they are reappearing in the world of the 21st century, blending with the latest phenomena and technologies. Thus, the trajectory of world history, characterized by Jean-François Lyotard in the 1970s as the “postmodern condition,” marked by the deconstruction of “grand narratives,” reemerges half a century later as an archeofuturistic hybrid of dystopias of a “new Middle Ages” and the technocratic dominance of corporations.

The challenges of our time have brought to the fore the question of the post-Westphalian world order in global politics — whether it will be globalist or marked by a resurgence of nation-states and regional alliances. Within this context, the civilizational choice facing our country, as well as its opponents — the United States and the European Union — in today’s geopolitical confrontation, is of particular importance.

The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly confirmed Russia’s commitment to building a multipolar world. In 2023, he stated: “This trend, this move towards multipolarity is inevitable. It will only strengthen. Those who fail to understand or follow this trend will lose out. This is an absolutely evident fact. It’s as obvious as the sunrise. Nothing can change that.” The multipolar world envisioned by Russia’s president can be understood and described through a civilizational approach.

The classic civilizational approach is based on the premise that the plurality of cultures and civilizations is a vital source and resource for development. This specificity in understanding progress and development distinguishes the classical theorists of local civilizations from “globalists” and “cosmopolitans,” who view globalization as cultural-historical unification with the ultimate goal of creating a universal global civilization. Unlike globalists, “civilizationists” see cultural-historical and civilizational distinctions not solely as a threat of a “clash of civilizations” but as an opportunity for cooperation and partnership.

As Samuel Huntington emphasized, “… clashes of civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace, and an international order based on civilizations is the surest safeguard against world war.” Hence, the contemporary ideas of a “dialogue of civilizations,” “civilization partnership,” and civilizational integralism emerge as sources and driving forces of development. The globalist-driven movement towards uniformity rather than diversity threatens the loss of civilizational alternatives and, consequently, the disappearance of alternative future projects.

Following thinkers like Oswald Spengler, Nikolay Danilevsky, and Alexander Panarin, the civilizational approach can conceive of human existence as a kaleidoscope, a mosaic of cultures or civilizations, each evolving in cycles similar to the life cycles of organisms. In Hegelian dialectical terms (thesis–antithesis–synthesis), the theory of world history as a unity is the thesis, while the concept of cultural pluralism is the antithesis. Adhering to the logic of German idealism, a dialectical synthesis of both worldviews that preserves the valuable aspects of each becomes natural. Such synthesis is already visible in the works of Russian civilizational thinkers like Yuri Yakovets and Alexander Panarin around the turn of the 21st century, representing a unique universalist version of the civilizational approach to global development.

The issue of Russia’s civilizational sovereignty and independence is closely intertwined with the question of Russia’s self-determination in relation to the West, particularly Europe, within various civilizational frameworks. The dynamics of Russian-European relations resemble a civilizational dialectic of struggle and unity of opposites. This raises the question: is it possible to move from divisions and a clash of civilizations towards a Russian-European dialogue and civilizational integralism?

Civilizational integralism can be defined as a philosophy of integration that encompasses the idea of civilizational unification, which brings together spaces of world civilizations and fosters the concept of a dialogue among them. The core question for this concept could be framed as follows: “Is a greater Pan-Europe possible — a project of continental integration from Lisbon to Vladivostok — based on civilizational integralism?” Notably, some European thinkers, including New Right intellectuals, see Russia as an inseparable part of the European world, without which Europe would struggle to establish itself as an independent center of power in an emerging polycentric world order.

A critical condition for this civilizational integration and solidarity is the transition from the classical integration of nation-states, as derived from the Westphalian order, to an alternative integration within the emerging post-Westphalian system. This system envisions not merely a multipolar world but a poly-subjective world order characterized by multidimensionality, multi-layered structures, and diversity.

Beyond purely economic interests, many integration projects subtly rest on a shared civilizational pan-identity, suggesting the possibility of alternative integration. Integralism has the potential to transcend local civilizational boundaries and adopt a more global character, linking several world civilizations. This worldview assumes the inevitability of civilizational dialogue in a multipolar world, raising hope that, in the future, conflicts between Russia and the “greater West,” which share a common cultural-civilizational root in antiquity, will be overcome.

At the same time, a productive civilizational dialogue within a post-Westphalian world is only possible if there are no existential disagreements on core worldview issues between the parties. There are signs that this is possible; in both Europe and the United States, nationalist-oriented forces opposing the globalist agenda are gaining popularity. However, in the current moment, power in the West is held by their opponents — left-wing globalists, who are highly hostile to civilizational integralism and adhere to a value system best described as “woke liberalism,” conceptually rooted in the extended evolution of neo-Marxist ideas.

The U.S. presidential election in 2024 will serve as the primary battleground between supporters of civilizational and globalist values, a battle whose axiological aspects are examined in this article.

The Civilizational Context of the U.S. Presidential Election and the Clash of Ideologies: Donald Trump’s Political Platform

Given the civilizational ties among Russia, Europe, and America, the upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5, 2024, is exceptionally important — not only because of the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the West (as the winning side could significantly influence either the continuation or cessation of this conflict) but also because of the civilizational self-determination of the American people. In casting their votes, Americans will effectively choose a long-term developmental path: one associated with either strengthening the neo-Marxist, left-liberal trend championed by the Democratic Party or a return to America’s original political-cultural tradition, represented by Donald Trump and his supporters.

In our previous article on a hypothetical values-based alliance between Russia and European conservatives, we outlined a series of clear oppositions delineating the “left” from the “right.” The former is characterized by materialism, egalitarianism, progressivism, mechanistic thinking, economism, and materialism, while the latter values idealism, elitism, a cyclical view of history, an aspiration for organic coherence, and a belief in the primacy of the political over the economic. This theoretical framework for classifying political values also applies to the current American political landscape: in the U.S. context, the Democratic Party (particularly its radical faction) is a strong proponent of “left-wing” values, while the Republican Party (especially Trump’s supporters) advocates “right-wing” values.

The current political platform of the Democratic Party, represented by President Joe Biden, reflects a “new left” or neo-Marxist vision of the political. American Democrats focus on advancing equality (manifested, for instance, in the trend of “reverse discrimination,” as seen during the active phase of BLM protests, which normalized the concept of organized mass looting of small businesses in public consciousness; the political support for LGBT movements; the “diversity” policy promoting representation of various “perversions” in politics); undermining traditional institutions (e.g., the crisis of the traditional family and the practical implementation of gender theory); population replacement (seen in the immigration crisis at the southern border); the “progressive” reinterpretation of American history (in alignment with the left-wing dogma of history moving from the “darkness of the past” to the “light of the future,” systematically discrediting previous historical periods, including the Founding Fathers); and the dominance of “politically correct” censorship in the public sphere under the guise of combating “disinformation.” These are hallmarks of left-liberal ideology, while the measures adopted represent the “woke” movement, the radical wing of the Democratic Party.

In contrast, the opposing political platform, most clearly embodied by Donald Trump and his supporters, expresses values that could be characterized as conservative: support for traditional gender roles, family values, the significant role of religion in public life, respect for American history and the values of the Founding Fathers, the sanctity of private property and a deep respect for entrepreneurship, the preservation of gun rights, and a “right-wing” conception of freedom as an unconditional and genuine value in its constructive and creative sense, rather than as a rhetorical tool used to pressure groups that are “insufficiently free” (in fact, simply dissenting from the left-wing agenda). This set of values was typical of the average American household from the 1950s to the 1980s, but in the 2020s, under attack from the left-liberal agenda, it appears conservative and almost “reactionary.” (However, the anti-liberal trends in American politics, personified by Donald Trump, emerged much earlier. The political roots of Trump’s future support base can be traced back to George Wallace Jr.’s 1968 campaign, the rise of Christian conservatism in the 1970s, and policies supporting the working class and domestic manufacturers during Reagan’s presidency.)

Thus, the contest between the Democratic candidate (whether it be Joe Biden or another candidate) and the Republican candidate (almost certainly Trump) in the presidential election is not solely political but fundamentally about values: a clash of ideological trends, worldviews, and ultimately conceptions of human nature, one’s place in society, and one’s goals and responsibilities.

The phenomenon of Donald Trump’s popularity, which represents the hopes of the conservative segment of the American electorate, has been the subject of numerous academic studies. Trump is characterized as a “nationalist and protectionist” whose policies oppose globalist processes. In his successful 2016 presidential campaign, he declared, “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.” By “Americanism,” Trump signifies a rejection of both the concept and the political language of Pax Americana — specifically, the idea of the U.S. as the “world’s policeman” — and a prioritization of domestic over foreign affairs. In 2017, the updated U.S. National Security Strategy stated, “… the American way of life cannot be imposed upon others, nor is it the inevitable culmination of progress.” This sentiment is embodied in the slogan “America First!” which Trump continues to champion in his 2024 presidential campaign.

Thus, Trump, in his first presidency, clearly demonstrated a departure from the idea of “American exceptionalism,” a concept strongly associated with his neoconservative predecessors. The notion of “American exceptionalism” arises from the belief that the U.S. fulfills a unique mission in world history: freed from the bonds of European imperialism during the War of Independence, Americans are tasked with building an exemplary society based on natural rights, democracy, and liberty, thereby leading the way for the world to the best political order. Historically, Trump was not the first U.S. president to question this providential vision of America, common among modern American “right-wing” circles. Half a century before Trump, the 37th president, Richard Nixon (also a Republican), argued that there was no need to impose America’s dominance worldwide, asserting it was no longer necessary. In this way, Nixon signaled to U.S. allies the impossibility of another land campaign in Asia and the need for allies to shoulder more costs for collective security and defense. Half a century later, we hear the same message from Trump.

Unfortunately, Nixon’s perspective did not set a long-term trend in American politics; after the Cold War ended in 1991, a new phase of exceptionalist dominance took hold in U.S. policy, manifesting, among other things, in NATO’s eastward expansion, which ultimately forced Russia to undertake a special military operation in Ukraine and strained the political relations between Russia, the U.S., and the European Union.

In this context, Trump’s first term was relatively calm and non-confrontational. His “America First!” approach — echoing Nixon’s deliberate rejection of global leadership and the hypocritical rhetoric of “democracy export” — focused on domestic issues, such as achieving sustainable economic growth and increasing employment. This approach was not only well received by the American people but also garnered Trump considerable global popularity among “right-wing” intellectuals due to his realistic political pragmatism. Trump’s controversial defeat in the 2020 election, amid the economic difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and disputes over election integrity, interrupted the steady implementation of his policies as the 45th U.S. president.

Having refused to concede the election, Trump has not abandoned his efforts and is determined to win in the 2024 campaign. What are his key campaign points, and what might they mean for Russia? In the current campaign, Trump emphasizes domestic issues. He advocates prioritizing the resolution of the southern border crisis (stopping the “Mexican invasion and immigration crisis” and deporting illegal immigrants), reestablishing federal recognition of only two genders at birth (arguing for restrictions on gender therapy and a ban on hormone therapy for minors), introducing elements of patriotic education in public schools, and increasing funding for law enforcement to combat crime. Additionally, Trump argues for the need to “cleanse the deep state” (known as “Schedule F”), which would involve a massive restructuring of the government apparatus and dismissal of officials disloyal to his ideas.

Trump’s economic program is closely linked to his foreign policy beliefs. It includes protectionist elements (imposing tariffs to support domestic manufacturing) and a focus on economic confrontation with China, which he views as the key foreign policy challenge for the U.S. in the coming years. As for the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump insists on a decisive halt to American aid to Ukraine and asserts that he could “end the war in one day.”

In this way, Trump’s current presidential campaign aligns with the core values and interests of conservative groups within the American electorate and stands in stark contrast to the policies implemented by the Democratic Party under President Joseph Biden.

However, to fully understand the true nature of this confrontation, culminating in the upcoming November presidential election, a standard political analysis is insufficient. We must delve into the philosophical foundations of politics to grasp its essence.

The Esoteric Politics of Trumpism: American Cultural Tradition Against Woke Liberalism

The philosophical significance of this political confrontation is explored in a recent monograph by contemporary German intellectual Constantin von Hoffmeister, editor-in-chief of the well-known conservative English-language publishing house Arktos. In Esoteric Trumpism, published in January 2024, von Hoffmeister places Trump’s bid for the U.S. presidency within a Spenglerian framework, focusing not so much on Trump as an individual but rather on the cultural-political movement resisting the “woke ethos” he embodies, as seen through the lens of classic American literature.

Drawing on metaphors and examples from Edgar Allan Poe, Robert E. Howard, H. P. Lovecraft, and other classic authors, von Hoffmeister, like a classical artist, paints an epic canvas depicting an existential civilizational conflict between two forces — chthonic (embodied by woke liberalism) and solar, aimed at the ideal and harmonious in the classical sense, embodied by reinterpreted Trumpism.

Describing modern America, von Hoffmeister writes: “This realm, christened as the ‘Land of the Free,’ once the proverbial shining light on the hill for the world to hope for, now stands at a turning point, bringing to mind the grim words of the quintessential American writer Ernest Hemingway: ‘The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places.’ It seems as if the land’s spirit is now tested at these fractured junctures.” He attributes this to an inversion of values, which has taken hold in the U.S. during the rule of the “Swamp Party,” with the woke agenda becoming state policy.

In von Hoffmeister’s historiosophical narrative, America is depicted as embodying the Promethean and Faustian spirit. He concludes that both key aspects of America — the practical and the intellectual — are essentially Faustian, celebrating pragmatism and an allure with the infinite. At the same time, invoking the legacy of Jack Kerouac, a Catholic and a conservative, he adds that the original American spirit also yearns for boundless freedom and independence, possessing an innate drive towards anarcho-individualism.

The current U.S. policy, directed by the so-called “Swamp” — a term encompassing not only the Washington establishment but also other proponents of the woke agenda — fundamentally contradicts the true American spirit. In Spenglerian terms, this represents an unequivocal decline of American culture. Yet, von Hoffmeister does not consider America’s fate sealed. Could America, like Conan in Robert E. Howard’s sagas, rise from the depths to reclaim its former glory? Von Hoffmeister believes the answer lies in the outcome of the current presidential race. Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, loathed by the “deep state,” represents the hope of America’s “forgotten majority” — conservative Christians, the Rust Belt, and the working class.

According to von Hoffmeister, Trump is a Faustian figure entering the fray against the decline engulfing modern America and the West as a whole. Trump embodies the spirit of true America and its national identity, and his potential victory in the November 2024 election could mark a pivotal moment towards a new rebirth, defying the dominant Western trend of degradation and rejection of its own culture, values, and civilizational strengths.

Von Hoffmeister notes that Trump’s experience as a former president has inevitably transformed him: “He resembled those heroes of Lovecraftian tales who, after gazing upon the unimaginable horrors of the cosmos, are changed forever. They become heralds of truths too vast and too terrifying for most people to grasp.” In this sense, the “esoteric Trumpism,” the spirit of the anti-woke reaction, has become far larger and more substantial than Trump himself as a mortal man, with his strengths and weaknesses. Trumpism has become a new hope for a world where values remain undistorted and the twisted woke universe — this “hall of distorted mirrors” — loses its primary support base, which under Biden has become the broadly defined American state (not only the government apparatus itself but also the network of foundations and other agents of influence).

Von Hoffmeister suggests that Trump could play a role similar to George Washington, essentially re-founding the bastion of the “New World,” a vision well-aligned with the ambitions inherent to the American spirit. Returning to his favored Spenglerian lens, the German intellectual remarks that Trump best fits Spengler’s image of the “new Caesar” — a titan of the age of great denials, capable of establishing a new order in defiance of pervasive decay and corruption.

With a broad cultural-philosophical perspective, von Hoffmeister places great hope in Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign: “Thus, the trumpet soundeth across the land, calling forth the sons and daughters of America to stand, to face the coming storm with hearts of courage, and to reclaim the heritage that was their forefathers’ bequest. For in the twilight of the West, in this hour of decision, the fate of a civilization hangs in the balance, and the actions of the few shall decide the future of the many.”

The Importance of the U.S. Election in the Context of Russia’s Civilizational Self-Consciousness: Towards the Idea of the “North”

Previously, we identified the U.S. presidential election as a critical focal point in the civilizational struggle between two models of possible futures. What significance (beyond lines of confrontation escalation or resolution) does this event hold for Russia? Productive insights are found in the ideas presented by V. Yu. Surkov in his article “The Birth of the North,” particularly his notion of a distant prospect for forming a union of Northern Hemisphere states (U.S., EU, Russia). At this moment, amid ongoing confrontation, such an idea seems fantastical; however, Surkov himself clearly states that reconciliation and a civilizational compromise within the Northern Civilization concept would take decades rather than years to achieve. Yet, even given the current situation, on the brink of open war, it must be acknowledged that it is not the elites but the people of the nations — those Surkov and we associate with the North — that have shared interests, both selfishly national and globally aspirational, tied to a broader vision of world development. This idea of the North could provide a pathway out of potential dystopian scenarios and herald a new era in world history.

The Idea of the North and Russia’s Civilizational Self-Awareness

Viewing the North from the perspective of Russia’s civilizational self-consciousness, the choice between “West” and “East” seems a false dichotomy, one misaligned with Russia’s national interests and the essence and nature of Russia as a civilization. A shift in geopolitical focus from horizontal to vertical inevitably positions Russia within the Northern world (recall that British geopolitician Halford Mackinder referred to northern Eurasia as the “pivot area” and “heartland”). Russia’s northern geography implies that its climate, too, is primarily northern. This shapes a distinct northern identity.

For Russia, the idea of the North and its northern civilizational identity is significant and worth considering independently of the concept of a state and civilizational alliance. This idea of civilizational self-awareness already has substantial roots in Russian culture, science, and philosophy. The concept of “northernness” is well-articulated in the works of Russian philosopher A. A. Kara-Murza. The identification of Russia as a distinct northern civilization, according to Kara-Murza’s work, traces its origins to the era of Peter the Great and continued in the works and ideas of M. V. Lomonosov and G. R. Derzhavin. Later, a primary division in Russian philosophical and political thought emerged between the Slavophiles and Westernizers. However, by the late 19th century, Russian thought had become much more complex, and debates about Russia’s eastern or western nature became not only a dead-end stage long since surpassed but also irrelevant in the context of the 21st century.

Russian Academy of Sciences member and author of The Northern Nature of Russia, A. Golovnev, emphasizes that “northernness has historically defined Russia”s uniqueness (beginning with the key role of Ladoga and Novgorod in ancient times), economically (in view of fur, oil, gas, gold, and other resources), and geopolitically (due to spatial dominance in high latitudes).” Other authors focus not only on the broad historical and geopolitical significance of this idea but also on the need to reorient Russia’s internal, regional development and resource flows towards the country’s northern, Arctic, Siberian, and Far Eastern territories — an effort that is gradually coming to fruition.

The notion of Russia’s northern civilization derives not only from intellectual constructs and self-reflective exercises of Russian scholars or geographical and climatic factors, though the term “North” indeed has a direct geographic and climatic origin. It can be argued that the geographic-climatic context of Russian civilization’s development, its unique yet interconnected evolution within the global context, has created a cultural-historical type best encapsulated by the term “northernness” or “northern Civilization.” Subsequently, the convergence of historical destinies between Europe, the United States, Russia, and many other states during the transformative, revolutionary period of modernity — as well as global interconnectedness, reconfigurations of primary global players, and emerging challenges — has set the conditions under which the idea of the North could become not only inherently Russian but also a central foundation for forming an alliance among currently adversarial states and civilizations.

From a substantive analysis perspective, Russia’s societal macrostructure, or “civilization-state,” reflects a northern identity rooted in historically conditioned collectivism and state-centered organization — necessities for survival and salvation. This ethos is embodied by the Russian people, who are among the most anarchic and, contrary to stereotypes, individualistic in history. The northern mode of social organization, balancing collective and individual interests, is an adaptive strategy shaped by survival needs, larger ideological or religious goals, and development. It combines a necessary collectivism with individualism essential for creativity and labor. This unity of individualisms within the state structure serves grand purposes. Russian northern identity has given rise to large and highly effective organizational structures that tackle complex tasks of survival, development, space colonization, and high culture transmission. This northern approach is fundamentally similar to Western civilizations, which also developed effective structures for global-scale progress, promoting social and technological advances for the entire world.

Regarding a global understanding of the North, the concept extends beyond mere geographic conditions. Even the West can be divided into north and south, and the modern North — comprising Europe, the U.S., and Russia, and including Eastern countries such as China, Japan, and the Koreas — forms a key world belt, contributing the most intellectual, technological, and economic impact to global development.

In a potential “northern” model of multipolarity, the idea emerges of a “gentleman’s club” of leading nations, united by a minimal set of shared values (primarily a heritage rooted in antiquity), that still compete within established rules, avoiding direct wars and hysteria, and even fostering common development projects. Ideally, this approach could serve as a foundation for an expanded version of the “concert of powers” similar to that of 19th– to early 20th-century Europe.

Russia can act as a harbinger of a possible new future, distinct from paths leading towards a “new Middle Ages” as proposed in recent years by figures like Klaus Schwab. This idea could foster cooperation, engaging forces within the West (including the U.S.) that wish to preserve traditional values and uphold the progress of healthy, non-globalist elements worldwide. The alliance must involve civilizations with common roots, not merely integration projects within Western civilization, which, under left-globalist control, has been pursuing self-destruction.

In this light, the idea of the North may benefit Russia, the current EU nations, the U.S., and other potential participants in the future. The North can only emerge if the current version of globalism is defeated, as victorious national forces would have no use for a new globalist project.

Participation in a “northern project” could become the last hope for remnants of the West that have resisted pseudo-values, aiming to preserve their heritage. To realize such an alliance, all parties involved must undergo a renewal of their culture and identity — a “world of identities.”

Russia could employ this concept now as an offer to counter-elites in the U.S. and EU, as a basis for potential contacts with ideological and political groups often referred to as “Trumpists” in the United States. This approach could appeal to real counter-elites who challenge the ideology of leftist globalism and the erosion of nation-states.

A specific political proposal that Russia could offer has many directions, but the most optimal and attractive is one that envisions a world of sovereign national states, each with the right to its culture and development, embracing healthy competition and promoting a conservative worldview that opposes woke liberalism, which distorts a healthy understanding of human nature.

If successful, this new, ostensibly conservative course that seeks to rekindle development through a return to values recently dismissed by the globalist establishment could gain worldwide acceptance among forces interested in progress — those unwilling to dissolve into a global woke-liberal dystopia. This is the classical path of initiating great transformations: both the Renaissance and the Reformation in Europe began by appealing to certain ideals and values of the past. This conceptual idea could serve as a model for all healthy forces, including the Global South, especially in economically developing nations lacking a conceptual framework comparable to the European or Russian traditions.

The idea of rethinking Russia’s place within global civilization does not entail abandoning cooperation with Asia or the Global South. As modern proponents of a geopolitical understanding of Russia as the North, like A. A. Dynkin (President of IMEMO RAS named after E. M. Primakov), point out, Russia must reimagine itself as a self-sufficient, developed northern partner to greater Asia and the Global South, an active participant in a future multipolar world order.

With the concept of a northern civilization directed at itself, a disintegrating West, and potentially the broader world, Russia could initiate a revival of values, ideals, and development models seemingly lost or erased by woke liberalism and globalism. The reference to the Renaissance is no coincidence — just as that era sought to revive various aspects of the classical heritage, today’s “neo-Renaissance” offers the chance to birth a productive, just, and dignified future.

The idea of a “Northern Civilization Alliance” is a long-term project with a distant potential launch date. Currently, the most practical strategy for Russia aligns with V. Tsymbursky’s concept of “Island Russia,” though not in its literal form but as an internal transformation, a rebirth — a neo-Renaissance. Meanwhile, the U.S. presidential election outcome could be a blow to the left-globalist alliance, severely damaging the anti-human project represented by leftist globalism and bringing a harmonious future closer.