Trump, Gorbachev and the fatal parallels

XULIO RIOS

In 2025, when convicted US President Donald Trump takes office, it will be 40 years since Mikhail Gorbachev took over as Soviet leader. There are some interesting parallels between the situations faced by both leaders.

Although the differences between the USSR in the 1980s and the current state of the US are not minor, there are some notable similarities. If perestroika emerged to get the USSR out of Brezhnev’s stagnation, Trump’s policies are equally aimed at “making America great again”, admitting a certain paralysis, clearly noticeable in the loss of momentum of its industrial vigor and economic power, which he would try to reverse.

On another level, Gorbachev, aware of the unbearable nature of the war in Afghanistan, opted for a withdrawal of Soviet troops. Meanwhile, Trump, who now also says he is promoting peace in Ukraine (where Washington provides a very significant level of military funding), and in the world, also warns of the inability to permanently sustain a global military effort of the calibre to which we are accustomed by the leading power, urging a greater contribution from its allies, inside and outside NATO.

Yet one, Gorbachev, wanted to end the Cold War, and the other, Trump, now wants to resurrect it (through decoupling, technological fragmentation and an emphasis on security), albeit with a shared goal: halting the decline.

Tension with allies is a common theme. Gorbachev's policies ended up destroying the CMEA, the common market of socialist countries, or the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance. Trump has already announced his intention to abandon the IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework) and uncertainty looms over other acronyms in the security field, such as the QUAD or the AUKUS. As for NATO, we'll see.

Taiwan is being asked for a risk premium and to “give back” the chip industry. This enthusiasm alienates partners and threatens to reopen major rifts with an EU that could once again rethink its strategic autonomy. Or die trying.

Gorbachev wanted to renew the foundations of the Soviet political system. Trump says he also wants to update the American liberal model. Gorbachev advocated proletarian democracy with an intellectual who whispered in his ear, Alexander Yakovlev. Trump advocates the opposite path, a strengthening of authoritarianism, with the inspiring help of a billionaire, Elon Musk.

The Soviet leader sought to institutionalize a legitimacy that would resolve the uncertainties of succession crises and limit the power of the gerontocracy. Trump, at 78, finds systemic limits uncomfortable, admires the strength of those who can transcend them, and yearns for an opportunity to transgress them. For a good cause, of course.

In the eyes of the world, the chances of Trump dealing a death blow to the American liberal system, with an increasingly divided and polarized society, a primarily chrematistic vision of democracy or human rights, flags of the United States' soft power in the world, a discrediting of the values ​​that ensure the community of ideals that sustain alliances with the hegemon, from democracy itself to the rule of law, can produce the opposite effect to that desired.

Trump's greed for trade issues and profits as defining axes of American foreign policy and the resulting degradation of the traditional approach to ideological and geopolitical issues may lead to strange pairings. It will be all a matter of finding the trade-off that satisfies him.

Face to face, Gorbachev's humanism is at the antipodes of Trump's anti-humanism, which, paradoxically, may end up with the same result: accelerating the decline that he intends to contain by turning the unpredictable tone that unites both into the accelerator of systemic volatility.

Xulio Ríos is an emeritus advisor to the China Policy Observatory.