from prison letters May 25, 2026
On the World Order of 1945
Aleksandr Skobov: What matters is what the new system will represent. What matters is what world order you are fighting for in this war.
In this text, conveyed in several letters, Aleksandr Skobov responds to criticism from Boris Stomakhin, who said of his texts that “the world order of 1945 meant half of Europe simply handed over to Stalin for complete and unlimited ownership; it meant the communist bloodbaths in Budapest in 1956, in Prague in 1968; the internment of Poland’s finest people, fighters for its freedom, in 1981; the mass murders of ordinary Afghans by aggressors from 1979 to 1989.”
Three Regulators of the Legal System
In every legal system (especially international), three levels of regulatory mechanisms can be distinguished. The first consists of norms enshrined in legal acts. The second consists of non-formalized rules. They do not contradict the enshrined norms but rather complement them. No set of paragraphs can foresee all the nuances of real life. There are always gaps. The third level I would call by the slang term ‘ponětí’. These may directly contradict legal norms and replace them when reality cannot be squeezed into a theoretical scheme. They concern the permissible degree of violation and circumvention of legal norms.
Foundations of the World Order of 1945
Now let us look at the Yalta-Potsdam system. Its cornerstone was the Atlantic Charter, signed by Churchill and Roosevelt in the autumn of 1941. It defined the goals of the two Anglo-Saxon powers in the war: the elimination of Nazi tyranny, the restoration of independence to the nations enslaved by it, and ensuring their right to decide their own destiny. In its broadest form, it outlined the contours of the post-war order: peace, security, freedom. Stalin was not invited to sign and was greatly offended: how could such an important and excellent document be adopted without him? He was allowed to join later. Subsequently, other participants of the anti-Hitler coalition joined the Charter.
I will list other most important documents that determined the ‘face’ of the world order of 1945: the Yalta Declaration on Liberated Europe, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Act). And that is far from all.
Where is the legitimization of Soviet totalitarianism here? Where is the division of the world into spheres of influence? They did not agree on that at Yalta and Potsdam. The ‘Project of 1945’ aimed at a unified world of the rule of law and the priority of human rights, equality of people and nations, their freedom of choice. The world split into rival camps because Stalin ‘deceived’ his partners. One can blame them for naively believing Stalin or hypocritically pretending to believe him. But the ‘Yalta betrayal,’ which handed half of Europe over to the absolute power of a cannibal, is at the very least a highly simplified and superficial rhetorical cliché.
Aleksandr Skobov | On the World Order of 1945
“Where is the legitimization of Soviet totalitarianism here? Where is the division of the world into spheres of influence? This was not agreed upon in Yalta and Potsdam. The ‘1945 Project’ aimed for a unified world of the rule of law and the priority of human rights, the equality of people and nations, and their freedom of choice.”
The 1947 Split and the Cold War
The split of the world that established itself in 1947 did not stem from the Yalta-Potsdam project. On the contrary, the split was a violation of it, a departure from its principles. At the same time, it was a test of the resilience of the new international system—a test of the difference between ideal and reality.
The split significantly weakened first-level regulators (legal norms). They were designed to function effectively only with the consent of the major players. Consequently, the role of second-level regulators (informal rules) and especially third-level regulators (unwritten “understandings”) grew. It was these that determined the means of the struggle for “spheres of influence.” Incidentally, the boundaries of these spheres were never firmly established or anchored. They were fought over. The parties did not miss an opportunity to undermine the opponent’s sphere from within and support anti-system forces there. Methods were regulated “according to the understanding.” In principle, it was assumed that the “master of his sphere” could afford to do more within it than the opponent.
In the “free hunting zone” (the Third World), the hunt was also not entirely free. The USA and the USSR could wage “proxy wars” through third parties all over the world, violating many points of the UN Charter in the process. Nevertheless, they avoided direct combat between their own armed forces in every possible way, fearing that escalation would lead to a frontal clash. This was a very important informal limiting factor.
The direct military occupation of a foreign capital with the aim of installing “one’s own” government (with a retroactively written “request for assistance” and further deception) undoubtedly fell under the internationally recognized definition of aggression (directly contradicting formal regulatory norms). Such things happened rarely. “The understanding” required speed in the execution of such special operations, so that the shocked world would be presented with a fait accompli and avoid getting bogged down in a long war. Getting bogged down was already “against the understanding” and brought heavy international consequences—primarily for the one who got stuck. The USSR got stuck in Afghanistan in this way…
Second-level regulators (informal rules) include the readiness of the parties to refrain from threats of using nuclear weapons to advance current political demands. There was a silent agreement that nuclear weapons exist exclusively to deter the opponent from a first nuclear strike (the doctrine of nuclear deterrence). This was not anchored in any treaty or other international legal act, but it was observed.
Finally, at all three levels, a fundamental prohibition operated that allowed the system’s stability to be maintained even in the most turbulent times: the prohibition of annexations and the unilateral armed redrawing of internationally recognized borders. I have written repeatedly about the importance of this prohibition, the violation of which led to world wars twice.
The international system of 1945 stood the test of the Cold War. Firstly, it did not allow it to escalate into a new “hot” world war. Secondly, despite all deviations from its principles, it preserved the main thing: a focus on limiting state violence, both external and internal. Human rights were part of the global agenda. Negotiations were held about them. Progress in this area made its way despite all the winding detours, failures, and excesses. Dictatorships became more “bashful,” trying at least to pretend to follow certain rules of decency. And the Cold War ended with the mass collapse of dictatorships, both of the Soviet type and “anti-communist.” For a time, the division of the world seemingly disappeared. And it was not the collapse of the “1945 system,” but the overcoming of its deviations, a return to the original norm.
I will not analyze here the question of what happened next, why the “end of history” proclaimed by Fukuyama did not occur, and due to what original and later sins the world order of 1945 failed today’s test. I merely state that today those foundations that remained inviolable even in the most turbulent years of the Cold War have been overturned. Primarily the prohibition of annexations, after the breach of which other principles predictably began to collapse. International institutions tasked with maintaining the world order are proving to be completely dysfunctional. And today, everyone acts regardless of them. Some out of necessity, because these institutions protect no one from anything. And some have wished for it this way for a long time.
Trump, Venezuela, and the Collapse of the World Order
Trump is not only finishing off the international legal system of 1945, which was already fractured before him. He is fundamentally changing the very goals of any global war. Just as the Second World War began as a war over the world order, way of life, and values, Trump is increasingly making it something similar to the First World War—a clash of predators over the division of spoils.
Reagan sought to destroy the “communist” system of party dictatorships. Trump dreams of appointing general secretaries of ruling communist parties. And at the same time, supreme ayatollahs. Exclusively for the sake of control over resources.
I recently wrote that it is not important whether the repair of rotten structures is still possible, or whether they are hopeless and destined for demolition. What is important is what comes after. Such a picture is already being drawn: “A mixture of coalitions, conflicts, and balances, where every disruption of the balance of power leads to a clash, and only after it are new dividing lines drawn—and these will then need to be guarded from both sides… Commercial cargo ships will sail in convoys under the protection of someone’s warships and will acquire some cannons themselves. And migration routes will be determined not only by the demand for labor, but also by the demand for mercenaries.” This is the program of a new Middle Ages. This is the cross over the “great European modernization project” that stems from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. It is possible. But in this “brave new world,” there will be no place for either democracy or human rights.
In capitalism (as in many other things in our world), two principles are anchored—the predatory and the humanistic. Liberal capitalism followed the path of the gradual displacement of the former by the latter. With all the dramatic detours, but it followed it. That is precisely how I understood progress. Trumpism is the bared animal snarl of capitalism, which threatens to erase its progressive achievements over several centuries. And that will mean the historical defeat of Western civilization. That is what its enemy strives for. It tries to make it similar to itself.
Democracy is a political system that limits the dominance of the strong through the collective will of society. It is from this that the international system originates, which limits the arbitrariness of the strong through collectively accepted rules, i.e., international law. And a legal system is a system precisely because its various elements are interconnected. The right to overthrow a dictatorship from the outside due to human rights violations is linked to the supremacy of international law over “national sovereignty.” The subject of such a decision can only be the international community. A world in which an individual democracy appropriates the right to judge dictatorships at its own discretion will not be a world of democracies. It will be a world of archaic imperialism.
If we discard hypocritical political correctness, it can be formulated as follows: a new international legal system will be created by the victors after the end of a new world war. But it is not important whether the specific historical Yalta-Potsdam system can still be restored (with certain changes, of course), or whether a new system will need to be written “from scratch” after the collapse of the old one. What is important is what the new system will represent. What is important is which world order you are fighting for in this war.
Aleksandr Skobov
March 2026, Prison T-2 “Yeletskaya Krytka”
Write responses to Aleksandr Skobov at the following address:
Skobov Aleksandr Valeryevich, born 1957
399783, Lipetsk Region, Yelets, Proletarskaya St. 1B, T-2 Yeletskaya Krytka
Responses can be sent via the “ZT” service
RESISTANCE MOVEMENT MONITORING | PATRON
Together, we are making the resistance movement against the Russian regime visible.
Let us push this topic into the public debate. Let us defy the Russian regime as well as our own prejudices. When we talk and write about them—and when there are many of us—propaganda will have a harder time. And that is already something. Every bit counts.
