Position of Major Players in light of Putin – Trump new rapprochement
Some basic facts
The basic text regarding triangle game is presented in “Triangle game of great powers” and the basic text regarding foreign policy of great powers is presented in “Key drivers of political capabilities” on my website. Moreover, I have analyzed the subject, American foreign policy and foreign political doctrine several times in my articles like
January 9, 2025 | Big Picture at the turn of the year 2024 / 2025
September 3, 2024 | Great Powers and Hot Spots
August 7, 2023 | American Affair
June 27, 2023 | Great Power relations heating up, June 2023
December 8, 2022 | The US, Ukraine crisis and the context of great powers
NATO expansion eastward – the beginning and root of evil
Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turning what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly.
NATO expansion has been the source of the Ukraine War as it advanced a zero-sum security system based on hegemony and thus abandoned the decades-long path to a security architecture based on indivisible security. Many American and European leaders recognized that NATO expansion would redivide the continent and revive the logic of the Cold War. Yet, NATO believed a hegemonic peace would not trigger a security competition, if Russia remained weak and thus have no other options than to adjust to new realities.
Recognizing NATO’s role in undermining pan-European security and triggering the Ukraine War is necessary to resolve the Ukraine War and prevent new wars. However, the narrative organized around the notion that NATO dominance is a “force for good” has prevented a debate and review of the evidence for the dangerous path we are currently on.
NATO Expansionism & the Collapse of Pan-European Security – Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen, February 2, 2025
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs (clip 26.02.2025) EU Stands Alone Against Diplomacy and Negotiation Efforts
Glen Diesen, March 2, 2025 “MUST WATCH VIDEO”
Join professor Jeffrey Sachs and professor Glenn Diesen discussing shortly, why European leaders are so pro-war and even furious warmongers. They simply want to continue war in Ukraine, although Trump and Putin are ready to end it as soon as possible. Many affiliations and connections between European leaders and American “Deep State” are still shrouded in mystery. Perhaps those investigations by DOGE may bring to light still big and unpleasant surprises.
Conversation with Prof. Glenn Diesen, The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order
USDSN, January 7, 2025
In this video, professor Jeffrey Sachs and professor Glenn Diesen discuss Diesen’s new book, “The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order”. Diesen explains Europe’s fractured security framework which he believes has steered the continent toward conflict with no clear way to reverse course. The conversation focuses on Ukraine in the deadly geopolitical chess game between NATO and Russia.
I analyzed this topic of NATO eastward expansion in this article December 6, 2021| Not one inch eastward
Monroe doctrine re-updated
The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European (and others’) intervention / interference in the Western Hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.
First time, President James Monroe articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress (though it would not be named after him until 1850). At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence. Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to US security. In turn, the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
The full document of the Monroe Doctrine, written chiefly by future-President and then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, is long and couched in diplomatic language, but its essence is expressed in two key passages. The first is the introductory statement, which asserts that the New World is no longer subject to colonization by the European countries. The second key passage, which contains a fuller statement of the Doctrine, is addressed to the “allied powers” of Europe; the US remains neutral on existing European colonies in the Americas but is opposed to create new colonies among the newly independent Spanish American republics.
Monroe’s speech did not entail a coherent and comprehensive foreign policy. It was not until the mid-20th century that the doctrine became a key component of US grand strategy.
Now, with no real external enemy, Trump’s administration has named Denmark, Canada and Panama as potential threats to national interests. President Trump said that Greenland and the Panama Canal should come under US control, not ruling out the use of military force to do so and even threatened “economic force” to annex Canada to the States.
Each of these cases seem to contain a lot of various features (political, economic, military) and their future solutions remain to be seen.
The Case for dismantling the Rules-Based International Order
The so-called “rules-based international order” is widely misunderstood and misused. Its basic idea aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law but this entails contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states.
Constructing the hegemonic rules-based international orderto facilitate sovereign inequality began with NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 without a UN mandate. The violation of international law was justified by liberal values. Even the legitimacy of the UN Security Council was contested by arguing it should be circumvented as Russia and China veto of humanitarian interventionism was allegedly caused by their lack of liberal democratic values.
The efforts to establish alternative sources of authority continued in 2003 to gain legitimacy for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, called for establishing an “Alliance of Democracies” as a key element of US foreign policy.
International law in accordance with the UN Charter is based on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality as “all states are equal”. In contrast, the rules-based international order is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. Such a system of sovereign inequality follows the principle from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that stipulates “all animals (states) are equal but some animals (states) are more equal than others”.
In Kosovo, the West promoted self-determination as a normative right of secession that had to be prioritized above territorial integrity. In South Ossetia and Crimea, the West insisted that the sanctity of territorial integrity, as stipulated in the UN Charter, must be prioritized over self-determination.
When there are competing “rules” (for example sovereignty versus self-determination), there is an incentive to manipulate, moralize and propagandize as the solutions to international disputes are to be determined by a tribunal of public opinion. Deceit and extreme language have thus become commonplace. In 1999, the US and UK especially presented false accusations about war crimes to make interventionism legitimate. Uniform rules were replaced with a tribunal of public opinion
The rules-based international order fails to establish common unifying rules of how to govern international relations, which is the fundamental function of world order. Both China and Russia have denounced the rules-based international order as a dual system to facilitate double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Xie Feng, asserted that the rules-based international order introduces the “law of the jungle” insofar as universally recognized international law is replaced by unilateralism. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized the rules-based international order for creating a parallel legal framework to legitimize unilateralism.
The rules-based international order does not consist of any specific rules, is not accepted internationally and does not deliver order. The rules-based international order should be considered a failed experiment from the unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a requirement for stability and peace.
US multidimensional foreign policy & peace plans, Trump – Putin Talks
The Republican administration in Washington seems to be ready to change its approach to Russia. In a recent statement, White House’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that the country plans to completely renovate bilateral relations, effectively starting a new chapter in the history of both countries.
Waltz said that President Trump is interested in ending the wars that began during the previous administration of Joe Biden – specifically, the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. He stressed that this process will require a revival of relations between Washington and Moscow, with the Trump administration deeply interested in reversing the problems created by Biden’s policies. “We reformulate how the United States deals with Russia. We saw this first step with President Trump talking to both Putin and Zelensky,” he said.
Waltz also said the US is working to reach a consensus with the Russians and Ukrainians on the best way to strategically explore Ukraine’s minerals. He reiterated Trump’s view that Ukraine should “compensate” the US through a strategic minerals deal. Obviously, this deal must respect Russian territorial interests, since Moscow’s demands are the main prerequisites for any peace talks. So, in order to reach a fruitful and peaceful agreement, Trump wants to include the Russians in the negotiations on mineral exploration – contrary to what did the Biden administration.
It is important to understand that a new era is beginning in US-Russian relations. Both countries are finally re-engaging in peaceful relations, abandoning the legacy of hostility created by the Democrats. This does not mean that both countries will become “allies” but rather that they will return to direct and peaceful negotiations, despite their political and ideological differences.
President Donald Trump has a new vision of global politics and economy. Trump’s leadership has set forth the button for the “America First” and “Make America Great” again, which acknowledging Washington’s desire to rightly sustain the system of hegemony. Trump capitalizes on using ‘tariffs’ to contain China’s trade and to play the same with many countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. As clearly seen, the impact of crashing USAID, resonates across the world. Trump has withdrawn from World Health Organization and likely in future will exit a number of other multinational institutions and organizations.
In addition to above, the multiple implications of Putin-Trump’s newly carved relations are steadily emerging and shaping geopolitics and determine the level of impact and consequences on world economy. The readiness to explore the huge untapped mineral reserves in Ukraine, will strengthen the US presence and foothold in that part of the former Soviet space.
Trump’s new geopolitical initiatives have also sparked tensions between the US and Europe / Canada / Mexico and China, with the instrumental position been played by Trump. South Africa’s first meeting of G20 foreign ministers was wrapped but overshadowed by the absence of the United States, as it accused Pretoria of an “anti-Americanism” agenda. South Africa insisted in reports that it remains committed to supporting the dialogue process between Russia and Ukraine.
Russia has long argued that it was forced to launch the “special military operation” to protect Russian-speakers in Ukraine and defend itself by making sure that Ukraine could not join NATO. Ukraine and the West say these were pretexts for a colonial-style land grab.
Donald Trump’s whirlwind approach widely to geopolitics and geo-economics and particularly to Russia-Ukraine crisis has, so far, sparked tensions and intensive discussions around the world. Nevertheless, in order to chart a path to peace, the global powers and multilateral groupings and organizations, including the United Nations Security Council, apparently have to determine the fate of Ukraine by getting involved to negotiate a peaceful settlement to end the three-year-old crisis.
Trump seems to accept Putin’s terms for Ukraine peace, because Xi Jinping is coming to Moscow. Xi Jinping accepted Vladimir Putin’s invitation to Moscow for Victory Day. If they form a military alliance, Ukraine is not going to be the only loss for Trump.
Trump personally confirmed that he has spoken with Putin quite a number of times. When asked about a possible meeting with Putin, Trump responded that he could envision meeting the Russian leader “at the right and appropriate time.” Putin has not commented on these statements, while his press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, evasively stated that he had no information on the matter. It appears that negotiations are ongoing, but the phrase “appropriate time” suggests there is no consensus yet.
Trump’s disclosure of the talks suggests he is trying to cover up a weak negotiating position. Putin won’t accept a temporary compromise on Ukraine. Based on the nature of the discussions, it appears that Putin seeks a peace settlement that includes the demilitarization and “denazification” of Ukraine, along with recognition of the current territorial realities. Trump, on the other hand, is reportedly offering only temporary measures: a ceasefire and recognition of Russia’s control over “occupied territories” without further concessions. Additionally, Putin may be pushing Trump to renegotiate the global order.
The only real leverage against Russia would be pressuring China and India to stop buying Russian oil, or persuading Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices by increasing production. However, Saudi Arabia has actually raised oil prices and is not eager to cut its revenues, while businesses in China and India continue to find ways to purchase Russian oil. Time is not on Trump’s side, as Russia cannot be defeated in a war of attrition due to its historical resilience and ability to mobilize resources.
Trump has already stated that the US will recover the $300 billion it spent on Ukraine through “partnerships with Ukrainians in their rare earth metals, natural resources, oil, and gas, as well as purchases of our resources.” In other words, unconditional aid is over. Additionally, Trump appears to be leveraging Ukraine’s upcoming elections to pressure Zelensky. The elections must take place before any peace deal is signed, leaving Kyiv with no good options: Accepting the US peace plan would end the conflict on Moscow’s terms.
Rejecting negotiations would lead to a complete freeze on aid, Ukraine’s collapse and its subsequent disintegration. Ukraine’s demand for security guarantees is being brushed off by the US, with Washington implying that Europe must take responsibility for future conflicts. This places the European Union on the brink of a severe political and economic crisis.
Following Trump’s remarks, Chinese President Xi Jinping formally accepted Putin’s invitation to attend the 80th anniversary celebration of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This suggests that Beijing now fully understands Washington’s strategy. Trump is abandoning Ukraine to the EU and shifting focus to a proxy war with China.
In Moscow, Xi is expected to negotiate further joint actions, including the one thing Trump fears most: a military alliance between Russia and China, similar to the agreements between Russia and North Korea. If that happens, Trump won’t just lose Ukraine – he will face a completely new geopolitical reality.
The diplomatic tango between Washington and Moscow is underway but Trump’s promise to bring a quick end to the war in Ukraine on Trump’s terms appears more unlikely with each passing day. Trump is sending a message to both Putin and NATO — i.e., Ukraine is no longer viewed as a US priority and that Europe is responsible for pulling Ukraine from the fire.
Putin SHOCKED The WEST with His Tough Decision: There Will Be No Concessions For The US and UKRAINE
BORZZIKMAN; February 10, 20225
Colonel Douglas Macgregor: End of the American Empire?
Glenn Diesen , February 13, 2025
John Mearsheimer: Zelensky Doomed, Ukraine’s COLLAPSE Unstoppable as Putin & Trump Prepare War’s End
THE FACE OF WAR , February 14, 2025
Scott Ritter: Russia Crushes Ukraine As NATO Collapses And US Influence Fades
THE FACE OF WAR
Trump To Force Ukraine Peace on Europe – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
The Duran, February 15, 2025
Special Military Operation ending in Ukraine … but new kind of war is emerging
Russia’s terms for peace negotiations remain intact:
- Ukraine must withdraw its troops from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, which Russia has annexed.
- Ukraine must formally renounce its intention to join NATO.
- Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and parts of Donbas.
- Ukraine must undergo “de-militarization,” which implies drastic disarmament.
- Ukraine must agree to “de-Nazification,” suggesting potential regime change and restrictions on expressing Ukrainian national identity.
- Ukraine must legally guarantee the rights and interests of “Russian-speaking citizens” in the remaining parts of Ukraine.
Russia is not likely to compromise on any of these points in light of being scammed under the Minsk II agreement. The US has another agenda in mind in trying to reach a deal with Russia — it wants to split Russia from China so that it can focus on the Chinese threat. To this end, the Trump administration is proposing a massive new sale of weapons to Taiwan and is erasing the One China policy. Doubtful that Russia has any interest in playing the US game.
Western military aid failures and strategic miscalculations. Since 2022, the United States and its NATO allies have funneled tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, hoping to degrade Russia’s military capabilities. The provision of advanced Western weaponry (HIMARS, Leopard tanks, Patriot missile systems, F-16 fighter jets etc.) was seen as critical to Ukraine’s ability to withstand Russian offensives. However, despite this massive investment, Ukraine’s counteroffensive in 2023 failed to make meaningful territorial gains. AFU’s position has deteriorated significantly since then. Reports of depleted ammunition stockpiles, manpower shortages and NATO’s inability to sustain long-term logistical support signaled the growing fragility of the Ukrainian war effort.
Despite ongoing military operations in Ukraine, the war is going to be effectively over, with Russia emerging as the decisive victor. Russian armed forces are running over Ukrainian armed forces along the whole front line. The implications of this assertion extend far beyond Ukraine, challenging NATO’s credibility, altering global power structures and forcing the West into an inevitable strategic recalibration.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has become more than a regional battle, it has become a fundamental test of the Western alliance system, which, according to this perspective, has failed. The US, through suspending military and other aid, has ensured that Ukraine is no longer capable of continuing the fight for a long time. The Russians defeating Ukraine, means they are defeating NATO.
This assertion suggests a paradigm shift in the perception of military power and strategic influence in Eurasia. It implies that NATO’s massive military, financial and intelligence backing for Ukraine has not only failed to achieve its intended objectives but has instead cemented Russia’s dominance in the region. The outcome of this war will be interpreted as a Russian victory, further reinforcing Moscow’s influence in key geopolitical arenas, particularly in the Global South.
The changing US political landscape. With the return of Donald Trump looming over the 2024 election cycle, there has been a growing shift in Washington’s strategic posture regarding Ukraine. Trump has been vocal about de-prioritizing military aid to Ukraine, arguing that NATO should not be dependent on the US taxpayer. This aligns with reports that Washington is quietly negotiating an end to hostilities, seeking to shift its focus toward China and other geopolitical concerns.
Russia’s military and economic resilience. Contrary to early Western predictions of economic collapse and military exhaustion, Russia has not only maintained but expanded its war economy. The Russian military has adapted to NATO-supplied weaponry, fortifying its positions and leveraging its superior artillery and air power. The ruble, despite sanctions, has remained relatively stable and Russian energy exports to China, India and other nations have allowed Moscow to continue financing its war effort.
NATO’s Credibility Crisis. When Russia has truly secured victory, NATO’s ability to project power and deter adversaries will be called into question. European allies who relied on the US for security guarantees may begin to reassess their strategic calculations, potentially seeking more independent defense policies.
Ukraine’s fate is a negotiated surrender. When the war is over, Ukraine’s role in future negotiations will be minimal. Ukraine would hardly get a seat at the negotiating table. This suggests that Ukraine will have little leverage in dictating the terms of any peace agreement.
The assertion that Russia has defeated Ukraine and, by extension, NATO, will be highly contentious in Western policy circles and the geopolitical consequences will be profound:
- NATO will be forced into a defensive posture, reconsidering its role in global conflicts.
- Russia will emerge as a dominant power in Eurasia, with renewed leverage in international diplomacy.
- The United States may pivot its military focus toward China, leaving Europe to fend for itself.
For now, the world watches as the West scrambles to manage the fallout of what could be the most significant geopolitical shift since the Cold War’s end.
Security Council of the United Nations and the peace in Ukraine
The Security Council managed to make a decision regarding Ukraine crisis, resolution 2774, “a swift end to the conflict”. The resolution was adopted with 10 votes in favour, none against and 5 abstentions. This was a significant decision and legally binding among UN member states.
However, as seen later in this article, several European countries including even Nordic countries, are preparing to continue or increase military activities in Ukraine, against the UNSC resolution!!!
Trump – Zelensky fiasco in the Whitehouse
Trump and Vance just hammered Zelensky in the Oval Office
This is definitely one of the worst days for Ukraine and Kiev’s first encounter with reality in recent years. Elon Musk concluded that Zelensky “destroyed himself in the eyes of the American people.” The Ukrainian clown vividly demonstrated his inability to negotiate, but only to make a show and engage in demagoguery. Zelensky’s behavior led to the worst-case scenario for Kiev: the war continues without American support.
European warmongering: European leaders decide to continue war in Ukraine, on March 2
The EU globalists are in panic mode as the EU is sidelined, when Trump seized control of the Ukraine peace talks—and the EU has been kicked out of the conversation! In a desperate bid to stay relevant, president Macron and PM Keir Starmer have summoned European leaders to urgent meetings in Paris and London.
This is because their worst nightmare is coming true: The world is moving forward without them. Brussels bureaucrats want endless war—now they’re being cut out of the peace process! The EU is scrambling to form the “Weimar+ alliance” to escalate the conflict without NATO or the US. This is their last-ditch effort to stay relevant! The multipolar world is coming and it does not include the EU!
The meeting in London was attended by the leaders of Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Finland, France, the Czech Republic, Sweden, as well as European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
European leaders decided in London that they want to go on with the war instead of opting for peace. They decided that Ukraine must continue the war. This is dangerous and erroneous decision.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said after the meeting that European countries intend to develop plans to ensure military supplies to Ukraine even after the conflict ends. Starmer announces “coalition of the willing” to guarantee Ukraine success. For her part, von der Leyen suggested continuing military aid to Ukraine in order to “turn it into a steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a four-point plan to work with Ukraine to end the war and defend the country from Russia. The UK, France and other countries will step up their efforts in a “coalition of the willing” and seek to involve the US in their support for Ukraine, Starmer said.
This comes two days after a fiery exchange between the Ukrainian leader and US President Donald Trump in the White House. “We are all working together in Europe in order to find a basis for cooperation with America for a true peace and guaranteed security,” Zelensky said after the summit.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron told Le Figaro newspaper that Paris and London wanted to propose a one-month truce between Russia and Ukraine “in the air, at sea and on energy infrastructure”. Speaking at a news conference shortly after the meeting of leaders, Starmer said four points had been agreed:
- to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine and to keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia
- that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security and Ukraine must be present at any peace talks
- in the event of a peace deal, to boost Ukraine’s defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion
- to develop a “coalition of the willing” to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee peace afterwards
Starmer also announced an additional £1.6bn ($2bn) of UK export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles. This comes on top of a £2.2bn loan to provide more military aid to Ukraine backed by profits from frozen Russian assets.
The prime minister did not state which countries had agreed to join this coalition of the willing, but said that those who had committed would intensify planning with real urgency. The UK, he said, would back its commitment with “boots on the ground, and planes in the air”. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that there was now an urgent need to “re-arm Europe”. She will organize a joint debt program pack up to beur 800. These sentiments were echoed by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who said the meeting had seen European countries “stepping up” to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to “stay in the fight as long as it has to continue”.
The EU is using the Ukrainian conflict to undermine Trump administration, nothing is happening by accident. The British are also involved in a coordinated attempt to politically isolate Trump and discredit him. It is worth to remember that they all supported Harris & Democrats in the recent presidential elections in the US.
Another reason Zelensky cannot allow this war to end, is because he is covering up Deep State bioweapon development in Ukraine. Elon Musk/DOGE already found the paper trail via USAID Project PREDICT, which means Trump knows also. This is why Fauci and Hunter’s pardons begin in 2014. This is why Zelensky ordered the destruction of all files associated with Hunter Biden’s biolab company, Metabiota. This is why the media mercilessly attacks anyone who talks about the biolabs in Ukraine, to include RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. This is why Zelensky can’t surrender.
Many keep asking about what will be found, when investigated, where the money went in Ukraine. Eventually, we will end up at crimes against humanity.
The expansion of NATO and the EU as exclusive blocs also imposes an “us-or-them” dilemma on the deeply divided societies like in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Societies prioritizing closer relations with Russia rather than NATO and the EU are delegitimized for rejecting democracy, while their leaders are dismissed as authoritarian “Putinists”, who deprive their people of their European dream.
The moral framing of the world convinced European leaders to support a coup to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit. It was common knowledge that only a small minority of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and that it would likely trigger a war, yet liberal democratic rhetoric still convinced European leaders to ignore reality and support disastrous policies. Common sense could be shamed.
Two big NATO losers in light of improved Russia-US relations, Turkey and the UK
The latest phase of Russia-US relations, which began with a high-level phone call between the two leaders, has already created unease among those, who have politically benefited from the years of confrontation between Moscow and Washington.
For years, Turkey’s leadership has leveraged a bold and assertive foreign policy to maintain influence. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to have miscalculated. When political circumstances change, the perceived power of a nation often reverts to match its actual capacity. The risk Turkey faces is clear – what once looked like skillful balancing between NATO and the Global South now appears less like strategic genius and more like a desperate scramble to maintain relevance.
The situation is further complicated by Turkey’s economic struggles. While trade with Russia has been beneficial, it has not been enough to offset deep-seated systemic issues in Turkey’s economy. Moscow appreciates Ankara’s pragmatism and willingness to engage but when it comes to long-term strategic partnerships, Russia has wealthier and more stable options.
The UK faces a similar dilemma. London also finds itself at a crossroads. Successive British leaders have attempted to bolster their country’s geopolitical standing by taking aggressive initiatives, often pushing the boundaries of diplomatic decorum. Yet the UK lacks the military and political strength to act independently on the world stage and its economy remains in a fragile state.
For years, the US allowed Britain to play an active role, sometimes giving the illusion of independent policy-making. This suited Washington when it needed a loyal ally to carry out specific tasks. Now, the mood in Washington is shifting and the need for intermediaries has diminished.
A country that relies too heavily on playing the role of mediator or leveraging short-term diplomatic gains risks overestimating its importance. When the great powers decide to engage directly, these intermediaries can quickly find themselves sidelined.
Turkey and the UK provide clear examples of this phenomenon. Both have spent years attempting to position themselves as indispensable actors in the shifting global landscape. However, as the contours of the new world order take shape, their ability to maintain this balancing act is diminishing. The period, when medium-sized powers could exploit great-power rivalries to enhance their own status is coming to an end.
Tensions accelerating, US vs. China: How is the world prepared for this?
The renewed tensions between the U.S. and China under Trump’s leadership has intensified global tensions – and are now reshaping trade policies and geopolitical dynamics. From allegations of espionage through TikTok, cozying up to Taiwan and now the tariffs and technology bans, the US has effectively started a high-stakes battle with China, which as an economic superpower in its own right, is now starting to retaliate in kind.
China and the United States, the two biggest economies of today’s world, are consequently the most important bilateral relationship. Even though there have always been tensions between the two countries, diplomatic relations and economic were relatively stable between them till 2018. Donald Trump’s “America first” policy marked a big shift, changing the relationship from polite co-operation to outright contention. The changes were mainly brought about because of heavy trade tariffs, technology bans, America’s closeness to Taiwan and direct diplomatic confrontations, including closures of consulates and accusations of espionage. The coronavirus pandemic also really damaged the relationship and now all these tensions – which have led to a diplomatic fallout – have proven difficult to repair.
Even under the Biden administration, many Trump-era policies (from his first tenure) remained intact and there were limited efforts of détente, suggesting a fundamental and lasting shift in Sino-American relations. The implications extend beyond the two great powers, affecting global trade, regional stability and international institutions. With Trump back in office, this ongoing rivalry continues to reshape the global economic order and power dynamics in the Asian-Pacific region, with implications extending far beyond bilateral relations.
With Trump’s election won, the economic rivalry between the US and China has entered a new phase of heightened tensions. After assuming office, President Trump levied 10% duties on all Chinese imports, a move that will certainly raise prices of many goods. In retaliation, China’s President Xi Jinping has taken both tariff and non-tariff measures. These include a 15% tariff on US coal and LNG imports, 10% on oil and machinery, and strategic export controls on rare earth metals. Beyond tariffs, China has launched investigations into the tech giant Google and declared certain US brands to be ‘unreliable entities’, escalating the economic tensions to new sectors. Chinese authorities have also lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization about America’s “discriminatory and protectionist” policies that are in direct violation of trade rules.
Another point of contention between the two countries is the technology rivalry and the AI race. The US views China’s rapidly increasing technological advancement, particularly in telecommunications and artificial intelligence, as a strategic threat. In response, it has sought to curb China’s progress by restricting the country’s access to the global semiconductor supply, particularly from Taiwan—a self-governing island that China claims as its own, adding to long-standing tensions. The development of China’s DeepSeek AI sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley, leading to the largest single-day stock market loss for several leading American tech corporations.
The International Monetary Fund has previously warned countries against unilateral measures like tariffs. Tariffs distort market efficiency, raise the costs of production, limit consumer options and increase inflation, thus both countries face significant risks. While Trump is framing them as bargaining tools as well as measures to halt contraband supply and control the trade deficit, tariffs will prove counterproductive for the American public.
Tariffs on China will have far-reaching repercussions for economies worldwide. While China may attempt to diversify its export markets, a decline in demand for Chinese goods could also reduce demand for raw materials, adversely affecting resource – dependent economies like those in Sub-Saharan Africa.
As the US and China compete for influence, smaller countries may face increasing pressure to align with one side or the other, potentially fragmenting the global economic order into competing spheres of influence. The Asia-Pacific region may find itself at as crossroads, as countries try to navigate relationships with both the US and China.
Trump’s tariffs on China are not just economic tools, but strategic instruments shaping global geopolitics. The US- China rivalry has catalyzed a restructuring of the global economic order. As China strengthens its strategic partnerships, particularly with Russia and through initiatives like BRICS, we are witnessing the emergence of new economic systems. These new tariffs are likely to accelerate efforts to reduce global reliance on the US dollar, which has been long weaponized by the US. We could see a surge in yuan-based settlements and alternative financial networks.
Yalta Conference 2
Eighty years ago, on February 4, 1945, the Yalta Conference brought together the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition to lay the groundwork for the post-war world order. This was a landmark event that shaped global relations for decades. While the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 marked another milestone, it was an extension of Yalta’s principles rather than a new foundation. Since the end of the Cold War, however, there have been no binding agreements that define the global order.
The world has changed fundamentally and the current dynamics make it unlikely that a similar agreement could be reached. The end of liberal globalization – often framed as the “rules-based order” – marks a significant turning point. The unraveling of established norms and increasing geopolitical competition have sparked calls for a “new Yalta” – a grand treaty to establish principles for today’s reality. With US President Donald Trump’s return to the political stage, such discussions have intensified.
Trump’s new, pragmatic foreign policy recognizes multipolarity and he has redefined US diplomacy—from managing North American relations and the Middle East to engaging directly with Russia over Ukraine. If/when a historic summit with Putin and Xi will take place, reshaping global power dynamics is likely to accompany the economic global reset underway.