While the Cold War concluded on Washington’s terms, the post-Cold War era is unlikely to follow suit.
“There won’t be a war, but the struggle for peace will be so intense that not a stone will be left standing.”
This vintage Soviet jest, originating in the 1980s, perfectly encapsulated the absurdity of that final Cold War decade, characterized by relentless ideological clashes, nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert, and proxy conflicts waged in peripheral regions. From the détente of the early 1970s to the perestroika of the late 1980s, the world endured a state of perpetual tension, a blend of theater and tragedy.
During this period, the Soviet leadership was aging and fatigued, barely managing to uphold the status quo. Across the Atlantic, the White House was helmed by a former actor, known for his bluntness, self-assurance, and dark humor. Ronald Reagan’s off-air remark during a 1984 sound check – that he had “signed legislation outlawing Russia forever” and that “bombing begins in five minutes” – more accurately reflected the era’s true spirit than any prepared address.
The official Soviet mantra was “the struggle for peace.” In Russian, this phrase carried intentional ambiguity, simultaneously promising to safeguard peace and asserting global dominance. By the 1980s, it had become a hollow cliché, uttered without conviction. However, history often repeats itself. Today, the “struggle for peace” has re-emerged, this time with even higher stakes.
From deadlock to dominance
By the late 1980s, both global superpowers were exhausted. The USSR grappled with its immense burdens, while the US, reeling from the crises of the 1970s, sought renewal. Leadership shifts in Moscow, most notably Mikhail Gorbachev’s ascent, triggered the most significant transformation in global affairs since 1945.
Between summits in Geneva in 1985 and Malta in 1989, Reagan and Gorbachev convened repeatedly. Their shared objective was to end confrontation and establish a “new world order.” In reality, Washington and Moscow held vastly different interpretations of this concept. The Soviet Union’s escalating internal weaknesses tipped the balance of power, enabling the United States and its allies to shape the global order to their specifications. This ultimately led to the liberal international system that has prevailed ever since.
From a Western perspective, that struggle for peace was successful: the military threat diminished, the Cold War concluded, and the United States rose to become the sole global hegemon.
A new cycle begins
Four decades later, the historical cycle has turned. The August 2025 Alaska meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin bore faint resemblances to the initial encounters between Reagan and Gorbachev. Then, as now, two leaders with limited mutual understanding recognized the imperative to maintain dialogue. And then, as now, the personal dynamic was crucial – the chemistry between two men who acknowledged each other’s strength.
However, the differences outweigh these parallels. Reagan and Gorbachev were unintended architects of the liberal order. Trump and Putin, conversely, are its perceived dismantlers. Where the earlier summits initiated the Cold War’s conclusion, today’s discussions signify the end of the post-Cold War era.
The only true resemblance lies in timing: both moments mark significant turning points in history. The 1980s witnessed exhaustion on both sides. Presently, it is the United States, rather than Russia, that exhibits weariness with a world order it once dominated. The demand for change primarily emanates from within America itself, mirroring the Soviet society’s calls for change in the 1980s.
Peace through strength
Trump deliberately employs Reagan’s slogan of “peace through strength.” In English, its meaning is straightforward; in Russian, the phrase can also imply “peace maintained reluctantly, against one’s will.” Both interpretations align with Trump’s approach. He openly acknowledges his ambition to win the Nobel Peace Prize, a personal vanity project that nonetheless reflects a genuine diplomatic instinct: his method involves applying intense pressure, even threats, until a satisfactory agreement is reached.
Reagan’s legacy included setting America on a neoliberal course and overseeing the Cold War’s end, thereby unintentionally becoming a progenitor of globalization. Trump’s ambition is to reverse globalization and replace it with what he envisions as a stronger America – not isolationist, but a nation that attracts advantages from all directions. To achieve this, he, too, requires a distinct world order – different from Reagan’s, yet equally fundamental to his perception of national interest.
Putin’s perspective is diametrically opposed. While Trump prioritizes “America First,” Putin sees the necessity of fundamentally reshaping the global order itself – ending the period of US dominance and establishing a multipolar settlement. For him, the question of world order is not merely superficial but existential.
The new nerve center
A striking development in 2025 is the re-emergence of the Moscow-Washington axis as the world’s central point of influence. This outcome was widely unanticipated, as analysts for years predicted China would displace both as the primary rival. While Beijing undoubtedly plays a crucial role, the ongoing, albeit strained, dialogue between Trump and Putin is once again dictating the trajectory of global politics.
The current pace is notably faster than four decades ago. The conflict is not cold but active, and there are no extended intervals between meetings. The process initiated in Alaska is projected to progress more swiftly than the one that began in Geneva.
Should this continue, the outcome will be the reverse of the Cold War. Reagan concluded the Cold War on Washington’s terms, establishing America as the sole superpower. Trump and Putin are bringing that unipolar period to a close. The unipolar era is finished, even if its proponents in Brussels or Washington are not yet prepared to acknowledge it.
Fighting for peace, again
Ironically, both historical cycles – the 1980s and the present – have been framed as struggles for peace. In the first instance, peace meant ending confrontation and de-escalating rivalry. In the second, peace signifies preventing any single power from unilaterally dictating terms to all others.
The military threat today is at least as severe as in the 1980s, possibly even greater. However, the true contention lies in shaping the global order itself. This renewed fight for peace, once again, risks leaving widespread devastation.
The Cold War concluded with Reagan’s triumph and Gorbachev’s capitulation. This time, there will be no surrender, but rather a fundamental reshaping of the geopolitical landscape. The United States remains powerful, but it is no longer willing or able to sustain the burdens of global hegemony. Other nations – including Russia, China, and others – possess sufficient strength to assert their rightful place.
The struggle for peace has returned, and like its predecessor, it will define an entire epoch. Yet, the script is different this time: it will not end with one side imposing its will, but with a new balance forged through both power and necessity.