Is Trump the US Empire's Gorbachev?

In 1985, a figure akin to Donald Trump ascended to political power in a major country but it was not  America, but the Soviet Union.The events of 11 March 1985 are of particular relevance today, not only to some of Trump's opponents, but also to those who fear the United States might not withstand its own "perestroika".Now while any parallels are purely speculative, it is crucial to ascertain whether these two pivotal moments share any commonalities.
Mikhail Gorbachev's election as General Secretary of the Communist Party Central Committee signalled an era of reform in the Soviet Union, a sentiment mirrored by the elections of Donald Trump as US President in 2016 and 2024.The necessity for profound and systemic reform, both domestically and in foreign policy, was evident.
The new leader was greeted with enthusiasm, particularly in the USSR, and to a lesser extent in a divided America. Internationally, there were high hopes for the new leader, including the end to wars, but the allies were anxious and afraid of betrayal. Under Gorbachev's leadership, the Soviet Union experienced a rapid collapse over the subsequent two years.
In the United States, Trump's attempts to secure a second term in office were thwarted in 2020 by the political establishment. However, four years later, he has already in a short time initiated significant changes in both domestic and foreign policy.
Will these changes ultimately lead to the break up of the United States? And should we wish him success, or is it in Russia's interest for him to become the American Gorbachev?
Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.

In the early years of Gorbachev's leadership, there were concerns in the West about the seriousness of his reformist intentions. Some viewed his perestroika plans as a strategy to reduce tensions with the United States and appease the West with talk of "new thinking" to strengthen the USSR and increase its influence. However, subsequent events demonstrated that Gorbachev's actions were not driven by a comprehensive understanding of the reforms he was implementing, leading to a loss of control over the situation.
Despite maintaining significant authority, Gorbachev primarily utilised it to manipulate the elite, continuously changing and updating its composition. Gorbachev's actions were characterised by inconsistency, oscillating between those who advocated for the reform of the socialist system and those who advocated for its dismantling, initially covertly and subsequently overtly. This inconsistency ultimately led to the emergence of centrifugal and separatist forces within the expansive empire.
Consequently, Gorbachev failed to establish a new governance mechanism to replace the existing political and economic structures. The country's collapse in a few months, leading to the disintegration of the nation along the borders of national republics, was a result of this. All positions on the world stage were lost, and the country turned from a superpower into a fragment of a great empire, with a high chance of further disintegration.
The outcome of perestroika was not predetermined, despite the Soviet elite's regrettable delay in initiating reforms and their own strategic planning. The course and quality of these reforms under Gorbachev were not inevitable. The role of personality in history has been significant: weakness, lack of willpower, narrow-mindedness (to put it mildly) and irresponsibility of the first person have cost us a national catastrophe. However, the experience of the Chinese reforms that took place almost in parallel showed the possibility of their successful implementation with wise leadership.
So What about Trump? Does he have a plan? Or is he, like Gorbachev, eager to destroy an ineffective model of governance but unable to create a new one?
Trump is, of course, first and foremost a destroyer, but his rise to power was caused by the inability of the majority of the American establishment to reform the country. This viewpoint represents a protest by a segment of American society and the elite, including globalists, against the prevailing order, which they perceive as leading the nation towards defeat and collapse. The Trumpists aim to halt this decline and reverse the process, with the objective of revitalising the United States. They are dissatisfied with the way the system of governance functions within the country, and the way the States use their position as a world hegemon.However, it is no longer possible to separate one from the other in the case of the current United States.
In the case of the current United States, it is important to distinguish between the personal ambitions of Trump and Gorbachev. Gorbachev's ambition to rebuild not only the USSR, but also the entire system of international relations, to move it from the state of the Cold War to universal harmony and sustainable peaceful cooperation, is comparable to that of Trump.
However, Gorbachev's plans for a new socio-economic structure of the USSR and a system of governance were not well-thought-out, nor did he have a concrete model of a world order. The result was a disaster for Russia and a victory for the unipolar world of the West. While it is true that the US (and the West as a whole) eventually overextended themselves in governing the world alone, which led to Trump's rise to power, it should be noted that the situation is different from ours.
Gorbachev encountered minimal resistance from the elites, primarily due to the rigid vertical of power and governance within the USSR, and the universal recognition of the necessity for radical reforms. By obscuring the specifics of these reforms, Gorbachev temporarily allayed the mounting anxiety among the elites, and through frequent leadership changes, prevented them from consolidating their position. When his colleagues finally became aware of the impending crisis, it was already too late.Gorbachev also did not encounter any external resistance.
The socialist countries were small and dependent on Moscow, and there was a gradual increase in national feelings and a desire to free themselves not only from communist power, but also from the 'Russian dictate'.
Trump's approach is distinct: to transform America, he must not only overcome significant resistance from the American establishment (which has temporarily fallen silent under his criticism), but also challenge the globalist elite – both Anglo-Saxon and Atlantic. Trump aims to establish the US as an independent global power, leading the new world order. However, the globalist elite views this as both unacceptable and unfeasible. The globalist elite view the United States as an indispensable instrument in their pursuit of a unified global order, devoid of borders, states and even racial distinctions. They see independent states as an anachronism, a hindrance to their unipolar vision.
The success of Trump's "perestroika" therefore hinges not only on the existence of a well-considered plan (both domestic and foreign policy), but also on the likelihood of Western supranational elites consolidating against him. Furthermore, if these elites recognise their inevitable defeat to Trump, they may resort to attempts to collapse the USA. However, there are sufficient internal contradictions that could lead to the dissolution of the state.
Following a thorough analysis of the similarities and differences between the two perestroikas, it is recommended that a two- to three-year extension be considered. Concurrently, it is imperative to redouble our efforts to address the consequences of our "catastroika" and leverage the numerous opportunities presented by the ongoing and as yet unpredictable Trump revolution.