When it comes to conspiracy theories, everything can be connected to everything.
“Trump is in power for only four years. Let’s roll over those four years, and everything will go back to the way it was—a relentless West-East (or, as some call it, Global South) struggle, complete with proxy wars and the full arsenal of Western ‘soft power.’”
This approach assumes that global events are shaped by Trump’s eccentric personality, as well as by those who “brought him to power” and those who will “remove him from power.” Such simplistic thinking is always rooted in conspiracy theories.
These patterns can also be observed at the local level. I recently read an analysis on a Russian website that was entirely based on a classic conspiracy narrative. According to it, the “patriotic” and “non-commercialized” Robert Kocharyan was succeeded by the “unpatriotic” and “commercialized” Serzh Sargsyan. According to the authors of this theory, this was not yet a conspiracy—just a mistake. Perhaps Kocharyan was too naive.
Read also
The actual conspiracy, they claim, began after that.
From Serzh Sargsyan to the Vatican, MI6, the CIA, Soros—and, naturally, that’s how Nikol Pashinyan came to power.
When invisible forces and imaginary connections drive the narrative, then everything can be linked to everything—without a single shred of evidence.
This is how propaganda operates.
“Neighbor Vardush wore a green dress yesterday, and green is the color of the Islamist flag. Clearly, the foundation of the recent events in Syria was laid right in our building.”
Unlike propaganda, journalism and public discourse should reject such approaches. And in science, where the goal is to identify patterns, this kind of reasoning is outright unacceptable.
The idea that a handful of “super-influential” figures can simply agree to place Trump, Putin, Pashinyan, or Zelensky in power is a fantasy.
To explain how I see the actual mechanics of history, let’s take a step back.
I believe that history follows a certain logic—an idea, if you will. But it is not the idea of specific individuals or groups, no matter how powerful they may be.
Asking questions about the “meaning of history” is foreign to Western European political thinking. Instead, since the 17th century, the dominant principle has been:
“He who has power has faith.”
This was the core idea behind the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and every major power agreement up to Yalta (1945).
In other words, ideals, faith, and beliefs beyond the material world are secondary to raw power.
This understanding was first shaken on September 11, 2001, and it is no coincidence that it was non-Western minds that disrupted it.
Now, that same way of thinking has entered Western political culture itself—sometimes called the “conservative turn.”
Which brings us to a photo taken recently, on March 20—Trump, J.D. Vance, and religious leaders of various faiths praying together in the Oval Office.
It was an exceptional moment, not just in form but in substance.
What does it mean? What message does it carry?
One could, of course, say that some “dark forces” put Trump in power and are now directing his every move.
But it would be far more accurate, I think, to say that historical momentum creates the demand for a particular type of leader.
Yes, personal qualities matter. But the decisive factors lie beyond personal traits—or even party affiliation.
That’s why, even if a Democratic candidate wins the 2028 election, it will not turn back the wheel of history.
The era of pushing “liberal democracy” on the entire world is over.
Take note of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, standing to the left in that photo. At least theoretically, he has a chance to become the next U.S. president. Like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who frequently emphasizes his Catholic faith, Vance openly opposes traditional liberal global expansion.
The most extreme example of outdated thinking was, of course, the Cold War—a world divided into absolute “good” and “evil”, constantly engaged in proxy wars, always on the verge of full-scale global conflict.
The authors of that Russian article I mentioned earlier follow this exact logic: to them, “black” is the Vatican-Soros-CIA, while “white” is, naturally, Putin and Kocharyan.
And on the opposite side, some of today’s European leaders (not all), as well as the “pro-Western” supporters of Armenia’s government and certain NGOs, reverse the roles—they see themselves as “white” and Putin and Armenia’s so-called “fifth column” as “black.”
And then there’s J.D. Vance’s keynote speech in Munich on February 17.
Its central message could be summed up in a single word:
“Just quit it”
I believe that, in the foreseeable future, the world will move in this new direction.
The problem isn’t individual leaders.
It is, I suspect, history’s inevitable rejection of political adventurism.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
