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”