Flickr
In the wake of the sensational statements made by the man who is all but certain to become president of the United States again, it remains anyone’s guess which of his foreign policy remarks should be taken seriously and which are intended as trolling or psychological pressure.
Donald Trump held a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where he outlined the contours of his future administration’s diplomatic maneuvers. In doing so, he once again confounded both his closest allies and those countries he openly or tacitly considers pariahs.
A key thesis pointing to the inevitable recalibration of the U.S. administration’s approach to the «Ukrainian case» was this remark: «For many years, Russia has been saying that NATO should never be tied to Ukraine. And somewhere along the way, Biden said, ‘No, they should have the opportunity to join NATO’. When Russia has someone right on its doorstep, I can understand how they feel about that».
This is a rare admission for the person who is about to become the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, which form the backbone of NATO’s military machine. In effect, Trump has just buried the most important precondition Kiev had set for starting talks with Moscow: firm guarantees of Ukraine’s admission to the North Atlantic alliance.
No less indicative of Trump’s pragmatism is that he no longer intends to end hostilities in the Ukrainian theater of operations within a single day, but instead allows for about — or slightly less than — six months. In doing so, he is, intentionally or not, giving Russia room to maneuver and time to pursue the stated objectives of its Special Military Operation.
Still, it’s too early to be lulled into complacency. Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the US and the Americas program at Chatham House in London (which is considered undesirable in Russia), expressed this view: «We should take Trump at face value… He thinks he can make a deal fairly quickly… He is likely to block any further aid to Ukraine».
In an interview with Al Jazeera, the expert allowed for the possibility that «Trump could make a deal with Putin that leaves out Zelensky», thereby cementing Russian jurisdiction over the liberated territories.
In contrast, Robert O’Brien proposed a different scenario in Foreign Affairs: «Trump’s approach would be to continue to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons financed by European countries, while keeping diplomatic channels open with Russia — thus keeping Moscow on edge through a degree of unpredictability. He would also insist on the deployment of NATO ground and air forces in Poland».
This version sounds plausible, as it implies not so much another «Drang nach Osten» with troops speaking a dozen European languages, but rather psychological pressure to gain negotiating leverage. We can probably expect a similar strategy and tactics from Trump in other geopolitical arenas as well — Northeast Asia, the Middle East, and beyond.
First and foremost, however, Trump, who has a deal-making mindset, is likely to rely on the trade war arsenal in his foreign policy: protectionist barriers, tariffs and non-tariff restrictions, sanctions, embargoes. Despite Trump’s claim that he has a «high level of mutual understanding» with Chinese President Xi Jinping — whom he even invited to his inauguration — he will nonetheless impose 60% tariffs on exports labeled «Made in China».
Nothing personal, just business. After all, how else do you turn a big promise into reality? How else do you «Make America Great Again»? Somebody has to pay the bill.
We might recall Trump’s typical bluster during his campaign: «When I was president, Iran was under total control. They were broke, they were totally blocked, and they were desperate to make a deal». In fact, during his first term, he cut Iranian oil exports from 2.5 million barrels per day to 350,000.
If he returns to the White House, Robert O’Brien predicts that Trump will reimpose sanctions on Iran’s energy sector, including «governments and entities that purchase Iranian oil and gas». This directly threatens China, which has already reduced its purchases to below 1.3 million barrels per day in anticipation of a potential blow from Washington. Cutting off energy supplies would hit Beijing hard.
It’s clear that the decades-long trade and sales linkage between China and the United States («Chimerica») will undergo a «decoupling». The ultimate cost of this divorce remains to be seen. Will it end in the lines of the Russian poet Nekrasov: «The mighty chain is broken; it recoils and strikes — one end hits the master, the other the peasant»?
What we can confidently predict is an increase in financial and economic pressure on Tehran. This is in keeping with the virtually unconditional U.S. patronage of Israel, where Iran’s theocratic leadership, following the teachings of Imam Khomeini, is perceived as an existential threat.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — accused of genocide against the Arabs in Gaza — needs constant conflict to ensure his political survival. Therefore, an Israeli air force strike against Iran cannot be ruled out. But a major flare-up of violence in the region would complicate Trump’s «managed chaos» strategy of reconciling the Jewish state with the Saudi custodians of Islam’s holiest sites in Mecca and Medina.
When it comes to the looming realignment of the international system shaped by Trump’s unpredictability — at least through 2025 — three big questions stand out:
1. What parameters will the U.S. administration set for a «grand bargain» to end NATO’s war against Russia?
2. Could the current U.S. trade and sanctions war against China become a hot conflict?
3. Can Washington dissuade Tel Aviv from launching missile and air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities?
As Trump’s possible inauguration approaches, any illusion that the world might gain a «pragmatic peacemaker» is fading fast. Even if the billionaire does not provoke any new wars during his four years in the White House (the only parallel being the recently deceased 100-year-old Jimmy Carter), by all indications his foreign policy would follow the precepts of the Roman Emperor Hadrian.
Unlike his predecessor Trajan, Publius Aelius Hadrian, who ruled from 117 to 138 AD, did not seek further territorial conquests and adhered to the principle of «peace by force or, failing that, peace by threat». Two centuries later, Hadrian’s motto was given a new twist: *Si vis pacem, para bellum* — «If you want peace, prepare for war».
According to analyst Robert C. O’Brien, under Trump we can expect a «return to a policy of ‘peace through strength’».