Yup.
Fukuyama fancies himself a conservative Hegelian, meaning he interpreted the “victory” of the US as the final synthesis between liberalism and Marxism. Except that in Hegelian philosophy the synthesis of two antagonistic ideas is supposed to result in a new thesis, and that doesn’t really imply there won’t be a new anti-thesis to that.
To explain these terms so I don’t cause any confusion: the thesis is the idea, the anti-thesis is the opposite of it. The merger of which is the synthesis where the contradictory ideas between the two are shed and they merge together into a new idea after a period of conflict or antagonism. Even if Hegel himself may not have used those terms exactly, it’s typically how his ideas are expressed.
So the immediate failing of the proposal is that he generally doesn’t acknowledge any push-back against the new world order that was supposed to arise from the ending of this conflict as being a natural progression of historical ideas. Or that one could borrow from the Japanese Communist Party’s stance on the dissolution of the USSR as being the collapse of Stalinism, and not of socialism; the Japanese Communist Party being notable because they didn’t suffer an ideological meltdown after the end of the Soviet Union. So it’s if anything the end of one strand if you’re willing to overlook several things, or a clearing of the air on the left in a Chomsky way: the fall of the USSR is a way to simply excuse them from the conversation and restart the conversation on the left with new ideas without the ghost of Stalin.