Over the past six months, the MAGA movement has undergone a dramatic transformation, shedding what little remained of its anti-establishment, anti-war identity. The populist rhetoric that once promised to end “forever wars” and put “America First” now echoes the neoconservative consensus it once claimed to oppose. Donald Trump’s foreign policy positions, especially on Ukraine, NATO and military spending, have shifted to align almost point for point with the bipartisan war machine entrenched in Washington.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump’s recent remarks on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He warned Moscow that it has just 50 days to negotiate or face dire consequences. The statement came as Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal introduced a sanctions bill that would impose sweeping secondary sanctions on countries that continue doing business with Russia. This effort to punish nations like China, Germany, India and Turkey for maintaining economic ties with Moscow reveals not only the absurdity of U.S. overreach but its lack of strategic vision.
Trump’s hawkish posture marks a stark departure from his earlier campaign promises to disentangle the United States from foreign entanglements. His current stance mirrors not just Biden-era policies, but also the goals of the military-industrial complex. This is a bipartisan project aimed at preserving global dominance at any cost.
The war in Ukraine is not an isolated conflict; it is part of a broader regional context. It is entangled with mounting tensions in Iran and Lebanon, where the U.S. and its allies continue applying military and economic pressure to weaken regional actors like Hezbollah and the Iranian government. Lebanon, meanwhile, remains under the financial thumb of Western institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
All of this rests on a persistent blind spot in U.S. foreign policy: the refusal to understand how Russia perceives NATO expansion and Western encroachment, which it sees as existential threats. Believing that sanctions, arms shipments and proxy escalations will break Moscow’s will is more fantasy than strategy. Far from collapsing, Russia’s economy has adapted, forging stronger ties with non-Western partners and embracing a full-scale war economy.
The push for secondary sanctions, which target strategic or neutral partners, signals desperation rather than strength. Threatening to sanction countries like Germany or India risks destabilizing global markets and undermining key alliances. But for many in the Washington foreign policy establishment, that’s irrelevant. If NATO members increase their defense spending and weapons manufacturers post record profits, the mission is considered accomplished, regardless of the long-term consequences.
On the battlefield, the Russian military has shown considerable improvement. What was once perceived as a bumbling force has evolved into a more professional, well-coordinated operation. Its early missteps in Ukraine have given way to a dug-in, adaptive war machine prepared for the long haul.
What began as a populist realignment has collapsed into the imperial consensus. The rhetoric has changed. The policy has not. The forever war continues. Only the salesman is new.
Greg Stoker is a former US Army Ranger with a background in human intelligence collection and analysis. After serving four combat deployments in Afghanistan, he studied anthropology and International Relations at Columbia University. He is currently a military and geopolitical analyst, and a social media “influencer,” though he hates the term.
