The United States became under Donald Trump a predatory hegemon," says Stephen M. Walt in essay published in the March-April issue of abroad Affairs magazine. Walt is simply a contemporary political figure no little monumental than John Mearshimer or the late Kenneth Waltz. A neorealist representative, Harvard prof. and 1 of the strongest critics of politics of the current U.S. President. No wonder Walt has been opposed to military interventionism for years. In Poland, his book, written jointly with Mearshimer, “Israeli lobby and US abroad policy”, besides explains a lot erstwhile it comes to the ongoing war in the mediate East.
Walt's article, although saturated with a hard to conceal dislike of Trump, is notable due to the fact that it just came out of the pen of a neorealist and, in addition, the husband of a Jew. Walt contrasts the U.S.'s behaviour during the Cold War, and then the contract-single-polar world, with the current attitude.
Yes, you may object to any of his assumptions or arguments. For example, opposition to the White House's criticism of the course taken by a large part of Europe seems to be based on Walt's insufficient knowing of the European situation. JD Vance's reasoning, presented at the Munich safety Conference in February 2025, repeated by Marco Rubio a year later in the same place (though in a milder form), besides included in the US safety Strategy, has strong grounds. Indeed, the current EU course weakens it – not only financially but besides ideologically. As Vance said – to defend your country, you request to know what you are fighting for.
Similarly, Walt's criticism, although not explicitly expressed, of the US's force on allies to make greater financial effort in defence matters is unfounded. There are more specified questionable points in the text. Walt besides suggests, but without giving any specifics, that Trump's household and his colleagues are rich in the American administration. The author of the essay does not include a social origin in the addition, so that the strategy of a predatory hegemon is mostly a consequence to the expectations of American voters – and that is what all politician must number for.
At the same time, it should be noted that we are not dealing with venomous pashquil, which we could usually find in Polish obsessively anti-trump media. Although “Foreign Affairs” is simply a letter alternatively related to liberal tradition, it is besides a very serious letter that does not let itself to exceed certain limits. There were besides texts defending Trump’s policy. Walt's text is so kept in speech despite all the elegant publicity and factual analysis.
Having said all this, it must be admitted that the description of predatory hegemony, cultivated by the United States under Trump's leadership, seems highly accurate. The United States has actually always been a hegemon since entering the planet scene by joining planet War I. But this hegemony had different faces. 1 of the popular terms describing it was benevolent hegemone, or charity hegemony. This attitude was based on the belief that the success of vassal hegemon besides determines his situation, so in exchange for cooperation it is worth providing them – sometimes even at a considerable cost – economical benefits and security.
Trump totally broke up with that vision. As Walt writes, the basic presumption of predatory hegemony is that hegemon must always accomplish greater benefits from a common agreement with his vassals and only this comparative profit and failure account counts. This means that the U.S. will always effort to make this the effect, even if their absolute profit could be greater in a strategy in which the partner achieves a benefit comparatively higher than Washington. It would appear in numbers that the consequence of a given arrangement must be, for example, 2 for the US and 1 for the partner, even if the alternate is 3 for the US and 4 for the partner. The only crucial criterion is that on a given arrangement the best is relatively.
Another feature described by Walt is the same treatment of partners and rivals. It does not substance whether you are a competitor for America, possibly even an enemy or an ally – the force will look the same. The best example is the temporarily extinguished dispute over Greenland due to the mediate East – and it must be remembered that Denmark is 1 of the more pro-American countries of Europe.
Walt besides writes – and this is the most problematic thread of his diagnosis – with a symbolic dimension of predatory hegemony, which requires constant tribute to hegemon from vassals. Walt, however, does not blame Trump for his character. He analyses this request in political terms, pointing to historical analogys and explaining that specified a request stems from the necessity to convince others that hegemon is clearly stronger than them and, in the event of disobedience, could actually harm them. Even if we consider this diagnosis to be wrong, without seeing the grounds for it, it is worth noting that Walt shows it as an component of rational, deliberate policy, alternatively than as most Polish mad anti-trumpists – as a manifestation of Trump's egocentricism.
The criticism of predatory hegemony by Stephen Walt is not based on idealistic opposition to national selfishness. Walt's yet a realist. Instead, it indicates that it is simply a counter-productive strategy in the longer term, although in the shorter word it can actually produce results. However, in the long term, according to an American scientist, there will be rebellion among the oppressed vassals who will usage all chance to embezzle the hegemon. It is besides economically unprofitable and besides makes hegemon no longer the first choice erstwhile it comes to alliances. Already now – sharply indicated Walt – China gains from US actions, presenting itself as a calculated country and trying to keep a global balance in contrast to the shaky, erratic United States. And remember, Walt wrote his essay even before the war started with Iran.
Of course, all of this is just Stephen Walt's opinion, with which 1 can disagree even in its entirety. And yet it is worth paying attention to and due to the rank of the author, and due to the fact that it cannot be classified as the other of Trump's idealist camp. It's a criticism coming theoretically from the same camp.
Recently in the cycle “Warze vs.” on the Super ringing channel I made conversation with Michał Wosi, associate of the Law and Justice. I asked him, among another things, to fascinate the PiS with Donald Trump. The answers I heard, referring mainly to the ideological offensive of the American President, with the exception of the effects of his actions on Poland and the global order, reassured me that in the PiS camp fewer people tried to critically analyse the White home policy. However, if 1 of the Polish Trumpists wanted to, he should definitely scope for Walt's text. I mean, possibly to grow my perspective.
Luke Warches
