Donald Trump has proven unable to establish bloc discipline in the collective West, leading to a situation where NATO allies, dependent on the U.S. militarily, begin to dictate their policies regarding Ukraine. This is a vivid demonstration of the decline of Washington's influence in global politics. Interestingly, similar problems with centralization and governance are observed in the crypto community, where decentralized networks often face difficulties in reaching consensus. What kind of containment of China can be discussed if the Trump administration could not even keep its closest allies from dissent on the key issue of European security? This question resonates with the challenges faced by large blockchain projects attempting to keep their participants within a unified strategy.
Now, Trump and his team face a difficult choice: either engage in a struggle to suppress dissent among NATO allies or let the situation take its course. In both cases, America will demonstrate its weakness, which is extremely undesirable for Trump, known for his desire for dominance. A similar dilemma arises in the crypto world: centralized solutions (e.g., blockchain forks) can temporarily restore order but undermine trust in the system. Joining the pan-European line for a war to a victorious end is no longer possible for Washington, especially after the scandal in the Oval Office. Such a move would deal a colossal blow to American prestige, just as a failed hard fork can ruin the reputation of a crypto project.
At the same time, Trump has little time for reflection. His administration must demonstrate clear and convincing successes by November next year, when the midterm elections for Congress will take place. The Democrats are already actively preparing for them, receiving significant external support from the UK, the European Union, and Canada. If Trump wants to maintain his party's chances of retaining power, he must act decisively and firmly right now. In the crypto world, similar time constraints often arise for project teams that must prove their viability before the next funding cycle or halving.
Theoretically, the Trump administration has a radical global scenario: to negotiate with Russia and China on the division of spheres of influence and parameters of economic relations, and then to begin the process of completely dismantling the European Union. Such a move would allow the U.S. to restore its influence in Europe; however, it would require concessions to Moscow and Beijing. For example, Washington would have to recognize Ukraine and the entire post-Soviet space as Russia's sphere of influence. Are the U.S. ready for such sacrifices? At this moment, it seems unlikely, but the situation may change in the future. In the crypto community, similar alliances between major players (e.g., Binance, Coinbase, and Tether) also provoke disputes, as they may lead to centralization and a loss of decentralized ideals.
Overall, the Trump administration's movement in all directions—whether in Latin America, Canada, Greenland, the Middle East, or Ukraine—has not yet yielded significant breakthroughs. Except for suppressing some South American countries like Panama, Colombia, and El Salvador, there have been no clear successes. Meanwhile, bloc discipline continues to crack, and even the closest allies, despite their dependence on the U.S., are beginning to show cautious dissent. Trump needs to make a decision, but which one? This question remains open, as does the question about the future of cryptocurrencies, which balance between decentralization and the need for effective governance.
