THE GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE UNDER TRUMP'S SECOND PRESIDENCY

Confirming the Thucydidean diagnosis, the centers of power on our increasingly multipolar planet are reshaping the global geopolitical landscape, with sole criteria their perceived national interests and the correlation of forces. And in the process, the concept of an "international legal order, which, despite being exploited as a cover for ulterior motives, continues to offer a useful framework for international cooperation, is often bypassed or entirely ignored.

Unsurprisingly, the primary impetus for shaping the global environment comes from Washington, universally recognized as the leading force in terms of key power factors. And consequently, the efforts of the new occupant of the White House to validate his campaign slogan, "America First," have a decisive impact on a wide range of international developments. With President Trump’s actions thus far making it clear that he is motivated by a perception of international relations often referred to as "transactional." An outlook quietly shared, no doubt, by all significant global players, but which only Mr. Trump publicly presents as his geopolitical compass. Unapologetically promoting policies that range from classical geopolitical and economic pursuits to unconventional commercial and business practices.

US-Russian Relations

At the onset of his second term in the White House, President Trump, in an effort to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, dramatically reset the global chessboard. The war in Ukraine is certainly a geopolitical and, primarily, a human tragedy marked by miscalculations of all its protagonists, first and foremost of the Russian president. However, the initial obsession of the West with the total military predominance of Kiev, with some Western circles even seeking to bring about, through the conflict, regime change in Moscow, has long been proven futile; and, particularly for Europeans, has entailed painful economic, political, and geopolitical costs.

But, although the actions of its leadership in Ukraine are both legally and morally condemnable, Russia does not constitute a threat to Western security, as it has neither a visible interest in "invading Europe" nor, crucially, the necessary military and economic means to carry out such an enterprise – provided that the Euro-Atlantic world maintains its cohesion, and, specifically, that Washington continues to guarantee the security of its NATO allies. And, though President Trump has pressured the latter on burden-sharing, threatening to reduce American defense commitments or even to withdraw the US from the Atlantic Alliance, it is far more likely that he is engaging in one of his characteristic negotiating tactics —one which, by the way, seems to work—and that he has no intention to put at risk major American strategic interests by carrying out his threats.

Whatever his intentions, however, as of this writing, his peace efforts appear to be yielding results. The multifaceted and dynamic, even coercive, American mediation has initiated a negotiation process closely aligned with the real power balances between the involved parties, which, one can hope, will put an end to the slaughter, and create the territorial, strategic, and economic conditions that will prevent the Ukrainian issue from becoming again a focal point for a broader, possibly global, conflict.

Among the motivations generally attributed to President Trump for his decision to redefine US-Russian relations are the financial costs of supporting Kiev; the growing opposition to this financial support among a large segment of the initially indifferent American public; maintaining the prestige of the American president — who prior to taking office had announced that he would end the war "within 24 hours"; and Mr. Trump’s interest in Ukraine's natural resources. One parameter, however, perhaps the most crucial, of the Ukrainian conflict that the American president almost certainly did not overlook in making his decisions is the high probability that peace will positively influence the power dynamics within the US-Russia-China geopolitical triangle — undoubtedly the most significant set of geopolitical interrelationships of our time.

Sino-American Relations

Already during his first presidency, Trump officially labeled China a "revisionist power” "actively competing with the US and seeking to replace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region." And the Biden administration characterized it as "America's most significant geopolitical challenge" and cautiously attempted to counter its aspirations. The downturn in US-Russian relations following the war in Ukraine, however, provided the Chinese with an unexpected opportunity to strengthen their position in their confrontation with Washington by enlisting Moscow as a minor partner. And this despite the challenge that China's expansive activities, from East and Central Asia to the Arctic, pose to the Russians.

It is therefore no surprise that Beijing appears concerned about the impact of the emerging US-Russian rapprochement on its interests; and that it reacts, not only by providing Moscow with assurances of "sincere friendship", but also by attempting to complicate and if possible to derail the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis by promoting the inclusion in the negotiations of the European Union — whose hazy and rather unrealistic positions on Ukraine objectively serve Chinese interests.

For the rest, the Sino-American confrontation continues unabated, extending from trade and technology to the Indo-Pacific and the Global South. And, despite the clear American advantage in the major components of power, it will, in all evidence, prove to be long and tenacious; while given potentially explosive geopolitical problems, such as Taiwan, it may even at some point threaten global peace.

Euro-Atlantic Dynamics and Confrontations

The necessary reset of US-Russian relations undertaken by President Trump has, however, encountered resistance even in the Euro-Atlantic region itself. In light of the unfavorable military developments for the Ukrainian side and of the realization that without direct military involvement of the West —primarily of the US—the prevalence of Kyiv on the battlefield is unattainable, the initially "unlimited" support for Ukraine has progressively given way to concerns and disagreements, regarding both the feasibility of negotiations and the terms of an agreement with Moscow to end the war. And while NATO, thanks to American leadership and despite persisting divergences among its members, maintains a minimum of coherence, Europe is engulfed in political and geopolitical confusion.

The European Union, in particular, has failed hitherto to establish a meaningful unified stance on the war in Ukraine. And the attempt by the so-called "coalition of the willing" to intervene has simply confirmed the divisions among EU member states, with fewer than half participating in the discussions led by the British Prime Minister and the French President. Discussions, which, for the rest, simply confirmed the futility of “dynamic” proclamations against the nuclear superpower Russia, in the absence of Washington.

The Ukrainian crisis has thus exposed, among other things, the structural weaknesses of the European Union's purported "Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)". The principle of unanimity, which remains at the heart of the Union, presents an insurmountable obstacle to achieving unified positions, and still more to undertaking joint actions on major, controversial foreign and defense policy issues, such as relations with Moscow and Washington. In contrast to NATO, no member state within the EU has sufficient weight to prod along the rest. As for the prospect of filling the leadership void through a "Franco-German axis," it is worth noting that both Paris and Berlin currently face internal challenges that significantly impact their influence beyond their borders. While the carefully weighed statements of the European Council and Commission tend to highlight rather than obscure the lack of consensus on matters of vital importance to the Union.

It should be added that, in the absence of a unified political center with decisive powers, the publicly proclaimed and acclaimed increases in the military spending of EU states, undoubtedly necessary in national contexts and useful for NATO — among others, as a response to Washington's not unreasonable demands — are far from contributing to the establishment of a "European army." And the same holds true for the triumphant announcements on European defense issued by the Extraordinary European Council at its March 6 meeting.

Transactionalism unbounded

Outside the confines of the narrow US-Russian-Chinese geopolitical framework, where, due to the nature and scale of the stakes, the movements of the three global nuclear powers are subject to obvious limitations, President Trump's international choices and actions are especially characteristic of the America-centric, transactional nature of his foreign policy; a typical feature of which is the unabashed invocation of American power to impose Washington's will, including the application of economic pressure through systematic recourse to tariffs.

In the Western Hemisphere in particular, the objectives of the American president — border, immigration, economic, trade, strategic, and even in some respects territorial towards Panama and Greenland — have so broadened and are so robustly supported against external influences, with particular emphasis, it should be noted, on China, that there is even talk of a "revival” of the Monroe Doctrine.

While in the broader international arena, the Trump presidency is particularly focused on the emergence of the BRICS. A coalition, known by the initials of its founding members, which comprises states otherwise highly heterogeneous, with divergent and, in many cases, conflicting strategic and economic interests, as in the case of India and China, whose primary, if not the only, substantive link is their common opposition to the pivotal American role in international economic life, and more immediately, a wish to undermine the international dominance of the dollar as a reserve currency and medium of exchange. Their apparent intention, however, to establish an alternative international currency — in any case, a very difficult, if not doomed, endeavor — has drawn a furious warning from the American president that he would retaliate by resorting to the tariff weapon. It is a confrontation the stakes of which are anything but trivial, as the dollar's international reach, in addition to its strictly economic role, serves as a powerful geopolitical tool – as evidenced by the sanctions imposed on Moscow after its invasion of Ukraine.

The above overview of the international scene is, of course, far from exhaustive. It lacks even a brief reference to the critically significant developments in the Greater Middle East, as to which, however, at the time this text was drafted, the second Trump presidency had not yet clarified its policies.

During his first term, Mr. Trump adamantly championed the positions and interests of Israel, by, inter alia, recognizing Jerusalem as its capital, proposing a solution to the Palestinian issue clearly favoring the Israeli side, and mediating the normalization of relations between the Jewish state and significant Arab countries through the Abraham Accords. And at the same time, he withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and implemented a policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran, comprising sanctions against it and military strikes on its regional proxy allies. These past actions, however, although they may to some extent prefigure the future orientations of the American president, do not necessarily preordain them, given the rapidly changing regional and broader geopolitical conditions – and Mr. Trump’s propensity for surprises.

Postscript

Although the "international legal order" is being severely tested by power politics, the explosive development of technology, the mounting environmental problems, deadly pandemics, the scarcity of natural resources, intensifying migratory flows, and the ever-present international terrorism — this list being far from exhaustive — highlight the imperative need for cooperation among states and other relevant actors, both within the United Nations and in other international fora. While Western countries, for their part, though called upon wherever and whenever conditions allow, to promote the values of Western civilization, should resist the temptation to impose them or to make their acceptance a prerequisite for cooperation with the rest of the international community. Tragic past mistakes should serve as examples to be avoided.