America's midterm elections are revealing divisions that extend far beyond the contest between Democrats and Republicans. Russian foreign-policy analyst Fyodor Lukyanov argues that the political upheaval reflects a deeper transformation in Western society, where national identity, sovereignty and cultural traditions are challenging decades of liberal globalisation. As the United States and Europe increasingly disagree over their shared values and political direction, the consequences could reshape international relations — including New Zealand's place in a changing world.
INR Report: Based on analysis by Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, published by RT on 4 November 2026, What the US Midterms Tell Us About the Changing World Order HERE.
More Than an Election
The United States midterm elections have attracted international attention not simply because of their potential effect on the balance of power in Washington, but because they expose profound changes taking place within American society. In an analysis published by RT, Fyodor Lukyanov argues that the country's political struggles reflect a much wider transformation of the international order.
Lukyanov's central argument is that America's internal divisions can no longer be separated from the wider geopolitical environment. Immigration, international trade, cultural identity and foreign policy have become interconnected political issues, with domestic disputes increasingly influencing relationships between countries.
He contends that although American influence over international affairs is declining relative to other powers, the United States remains sufficiently important that its domestic political developments continue to affect governments and societies around the world.
The significance of the elections, in this interpretation, lies less in which political party wins individual contests and more in what those contests reveal about the direction of American society.
Globalisation's Legacy
Lukyanov traces the present political transformation to the period of liberal globalisation that dominated international affairs from the 1980s through the 2010s.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Western political and economic institutions gained unprecedented international influence. Liberal democracy and market-oriented economics were increasingly presented not merely as successful Western systems, but as models towards which other countries would eventually converge.
Economic integration, expanding international trade and the growth of multinational institutions reinforced expectations that national differences would gradually become less significant.
Lukyanov argues that this expectation has not been fulfilled.
Instead of producing a politically and culturally uniform international community, globalisation has been accompanied by renewed disagreements over national sovereignty, cultural identity and the legitimacy of international institutions.
This interpretation challenges the assumption that greater economic interdependence necessarily produces greater political agreement.
The West Divides
One of the most significant developments identified by Lukyanov is the growing political distance between the United States and Western Europe.
For much of the twentieth century, their relationship was reinforced by a common strategic objective: opposition to Soviet communism. Following the Cold War, that partnership continued through NATO, economic cooperation and a broadly shared commitment to liberal international institutions.
Yet the political foundations of that relationship are now being contested.
Lukyanov argues that European political establishments have increasingly aligned themselves with opponents of US President Donald Trump, while Trump and his supporters have demonstrated a willingness to intervene rhetorically in European political debates.
The result, he suggests, is a transatlantic relationship in which domestic political divisions increasingly influence foreign policy.
This does not mean the United States and Europe have abandoned their military or economic partnerships. NATO, trade and longstanding diplomatic institutions remain important.
However, the analysis raises the possibility that shared strategic interests may no longer guarantee agreement over political values, immigration, national identity or the role of international institutions.
The Return of Civilisation
A central theme in Lukyanov's argument is the renewed importance of civilisation and cultural identity.
He contends that Western political discourse increasingly replaced references to distinctive historical and cultural traditions with the language of universal human values during the period of global liberal expansion.
In his interpretation, those values became associated with an international political project that sought to extend Western institutions and standards beyond their original societies.
As that expansion encounters resistance, Lukyanov argues that Western countries are rediscovering questions about their own cultural foundations.
What defines a nation? Which traditions should be preserved? How should societies reconcile immigration, cultural change and historical continuity?
These questions are increasingly prominent in American and European politics, although the answers vary considerably between countries and political movements.
Lukyanov sees the resulting disagreements as evidence that political identity cannot be reduced to a single universal model.
His argument is an interpretation of political developments, rather than proof that liberal democratic values are inherently incompatible with national traditions.
Sovereignty Returns
The wider implication of Lukyanov's analysis is that national sovereignty is re-emerging as a central organising principle in international politics.
Globalisation encouraged governments to coordinate economic policies, regulatory standards and international commitments through institutions that operated across national boundaries.
Supporters argued that such arrangements improved cooperation, reduced conflict and allowed countries to address problems that could not be managed independently.
Critics, however, have questioned whether the transfer or sharing of decision-making authority has weakened democratic accountability and reduced the ability of individual countries to determine their own priorities.
Lukyanov's analysis reflects the latter concern, suggesting that societies are increasingly seeking to recover a stronger sense of national identity and political independence.
Yet sovereignty in a deeply interconnected economy presents practical challenges.
Countries remain dependent on international markets, financial systems, communications networks, technology and strategic relationships.
The emerging tension is therefore not simply between globalisation and isolation, but between international cooperation and the preservation of national decision-making authority.
Politics Without Borders
Another important observation is that domestic politics has become increasingly international.
A political dispute over immigration in one country may influence electoral campaigns elsewhere. Trade policies adopted in Washington can affect exporters across the Pacific. European decisions about energy, defence and sanctions can influence international prices and investment flows.
Lukyanov argues that this interdependence has reduced the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs.
The United States provides a particularly prominent example because of the size of its economy, the international role of the US dollar and its extensive military and diplomatic commitments.
American elections consequently attract attention from foreign governments, financial markets and political movements whose interests may be affected by changes in Washington.
This influence is not confined to formal government decisions.
Political movements increasingly borrow ideas, campaign strategies and language from their counterparts overseas, creating international ideological relationships that do not always correspond with traditional diplomatic alliances.
A New World Order?
Lukyanov suggests that the emerging international system will be characterised by countries that remain economically interconnected while becoming more determined to defend their distinctive interests and identities.
This represents a departure from the expectation that political and economic integration would gradually produce convergence around a common set of institutions and values.
Instead, the international environment may become more diverse, contested and unpredictable.
Different societies may pursue different political arrangements, economic policies and cultural priorities while continuing to participate in global trade and diplomacy.
Lukyanov argues that these internal transformations could ultimately prove more influential than changes in military power alone.
That conclusion remains open to debate. Military capabilities, technological competition, economic resources and strategic alliances continue to shape the distribution of international power.
Nevertheless, his analysis highlights an important dimension of geopolitical change that is sometimes overlooked: the influence of domestic political legitimacy and national identity on foreign policy.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
For New Zealand, the implications extend beyond American electoral politics.
The country maintains important economic and strategic relationships with the United States, Europe, China, Australia and other international partners. Changes in American trade policy, security priorities or diplomatic relationships can therefore have consequences for New Zealand exporters, businesses and national decision-makers.
A weakening of political consensus between the United States and Europe could also complicate the international environment in which smaller countries operate.
New Zealand has traditionally supported a rules-based international system, multilateral cooperation and diplomatic relationships intended to provide stability beyond what its own economic or military power could achieve.
Those arrangements can offer important protections to smaller states.
However, the growing international debate over sovereignty raises questions about the extent to which New Zealand should retain independent authority over domestic policy, economic development and national strategic priorities.
These questions are particularly relevant when international commitments influence decisions concerning trade, public health, environmental regulation, technology and national security.
The central issue is not whether New Zealand should abandon international cooperation.
It is whether participation in international arrangements continues to serve clearly defined national interests while preserving meaningful democratic accountability.
Will This Make New Zealand Stronger?
The political transformation described by Lukyanov presents both risks and opportunities for New Zealand.
A more fragmented international environment could create greater uncertainty for trade, investment and security. Smaller economies may find themselves exposed to competing demands from larger powers, particularly when strategic and economic interests conflict.
At the same time, renewed international attention to national sovereignty provides an opportunity to examine whether New Zealand's domestic institutions, economic policies and international commitments are sufficiently aligned with the interests of its citizens.
A stronger New Zealand would require more than declarations of independence.
It would need a productive economy, resilient infrastructure, diversified trading relationships, reliable energy supplies and the institutional capacity to make decisions without excessive dependence on any single foreign power.
National sovereignty is most meaningful when accompanied by the practical ability to exercise it.
That requires sound public institutions, democratic accountability, economic resilience and the capacity to cooperate internationally without surrendering essential national interests.
Lukyanov's interpretation of the American midterms is ultimately an argument that the era of presumed political convergence is giving way to a renewed contest over identity and sovereignty.
Whether that produces a more stable international order remains uncertain.
For New Zealand, the enduring question is whether the country can navigate an increasingly divided world while preserving its independence, strengthening its productive capacity and ensuring that international relationships serve the long-term interests of New Zealanders.
Sources
Image credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images, reproduced in the original RT publication.
Editorial note: This report examines the geopolitical interpretation advanced by Fyodor Lukyanov. His assessment of liberal globalisation, Western political divisions and national identity represents an analytical perspective, not an independently established explanation of all the political developments discussed. The article does not independently verify specific US election outcomes.