Is the balance of power in Europe and the world altered by the Trumpization of U.S. foreign policy?
It is evident that it does. How is this possible? The U.S. president apparently has forgotten that half of America had already revolted against him long ago, both on horseback and on foot, by antagonizing seemingly the entire world with new trade tariffs. Wise commanders have never chosen to engage in combat on two fronts; however, Trump regards his loyal troops as a dependable support system.
Donald Trump’s aim to disrupt the global trade governance framework, which has been established since the mid-20th century around the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, can be succinctly summed up as “one against all” if we disregard domestic American political sentiments. What is the precise reason for Russia’s refusal to pursue liberal self-dissolution, which is motivated by much more profound and long-term factors?
Russia and the United States have, at this specific juncture in world politics, found themselves on the same side of the barricade built by liberals, despite the diametrically opposed reasons and the disparity in potential. It is an extraordinary time, but it is unlikely to be lasting. This is what motivates politicians in both nations to capitalize on the opportunity: Washington is prepared to listen to Moscow and take into account its strategic interests. Russia has extended an invitation to the United States to participate in a forthcoming international security meeting in May, which will be conducted under the auspices of the Security Council. Since 2010, these meetings of high-level security representatives have been conducted. The event is scheduled to take place in Moscow from May 27 to 29 of this year. What potential outcomes could it create?
Trump’s assurance to resolve the Ukraine crisis does not suggest any particular generosity toward Ukraine or its populace. Trump requires Moscow to deliver a strike to the EU, which has a $213.6 billion trade surplus with the U.S., thereby denying it the opportunity to profit from the protracted military conflict with Russia. The stock prices of prominent European defense companies have increased as a result of the EU’s decision to significantly increase military expenditure in response to the “Russian threat.” Compared to the last trading day of 2024, the combined market value of these primarily Western, Japanese, and South Korean corporations has increased by 12%.
In a mere four months, Rheinmetall, a German company, experienced a 92% increase. Rolls-Royce, a British engine manufacturer, accounts for forty-five percent. BAE Systems accounts for 41%. Shares of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a Japanese company, increased by 12%. Hanwha, a South Korean company that manufactures tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, and fighter aircraft (which are sold to Poland), experienced a 128% increase in its stock price. Where and when have you seen such insane profits?
Trump is essentially blocking Brussels’ Drang nach Osten (drive to the East) by pressuring Zelenskyy for a resource-sharing agreement. Therefore, he is placing himself between the EU and Russia.
The era is modern and liberal-globalist, and this “breakthrough in trade” is tearing it apart. The primary objective was articulated by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which provided Trump with a list of 21 countries with substantial trade surpluses, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Japan. During his speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump announced tariffs on the following countries: India (27%), Japan (24%), and the European Union (20%). The tariffs on Chinese products, which totaled 34% including previous tariffs, will increase to 65%. Only the fortunate ones experienced a 10% increase.
Analysts are incensed by the fact that the total tariff rate in the United States is increasing beyond the levels of the 19th century, regressing to the Great Depression. “Liberation Day” is the term used to describe the day on which Trump completely rejects the global trade order and reinstates protectionism.
Countries shocked by the president’s senseless vandalism now need to come up with a plan to lessen the damage. The world is not about to forgive him.
As per The Economist, the majority of Mr. Trump’s statements last week—including those regarding economics, history, and the technical aspects of trade—were entirely false. He has an incorrect understanding of history. His economic assertions are entirely absurd. He argues that tariffs are necessary to address the U.S. trade deficit, which he perceives as a transfer of wealth to foreigners. However, his additional tariffs do not justify eliminating the deficit. Demanding balanced trade with all partners is like saying Texas would be richer if it insisted on balanced trade with the other 49 states or that a company should make every supplier a customer.
The globalists’ vision is captured by the Freudian slip regarding Texas, which involves the consolidation of the global market into a single, colossal “Texas” under the control of multinational companies. These companies are detrimental to Trump due to their outsourcing of production to cheaper labor markets and the transfer of profits to offshore accounts. In essence, he is merely balancing the playing field against the tariffs that have already been imposed on U.S. products by America’s trade partners. Consequently, what is the root cause of the controversy? The tariffs imposed by Trump’s administration are determined by a formula that calculates the trade surplus of each country with the United States as a percentage of imports minus exports.
Yes, certain stocks experienced a decline as a result of the tariff shock. Nike, which has factories in Vietnam (where the new tariff is 46%), experienced a 7% decline. What actions will Nike follow? Relocate production to the United States; it will be more profitable. Trump’s pragmatic approach to restructuring America’s global economic relations is undeniable, regardless of whether they ultimately succeed. That is his policy.
Undoubtedly, such an action will result in the first round of retaliatory measures by U.S. trade partners, which will further increase global trade barriers. Most likely, this will lead to Trump intensifying his actions rather than taking a step back, thereby exacerbating the situation in a manner reminiscent of the 1930s. Secondly, a process is underway to increase trade that bypasses the United States, particularly in services, which are the lifeblood of the modern economy. Sanctions clearly confine Russia to this behavior. In this context, Lenin’s assertion that politics is concentrated economics will be uncontested. Politics undergoes a rapid transformation to accommodate a new economy.
Western analysts refer to the April 2 tariff move as “King Donald’s madness,” as it halted the gradual and exhausting integration of the global market under transnational corporate interests that neglected national priorities. However, they are apprehensive about (or unwilling to observe) the emergence of a multipolar economy, which was initiated and defended by Moscow, in the “chaos Trump unleashed.” In contrast to the arrogant Anglo-Saxons and their loyal “Tabaqui” on both sides of the Atlantic, Trump is racing to integrate America into this new structure to ensure its continued greatness.
Even Trump’s most fervent detractors concede that he is an expert marketer. However, they view America’s “Liberation Day” from the global dominance of TNCs, which have ensnared the world in their net, as foolishness that will “produce slower economic growth, higher inflation, increased inequality, and probable financial turmoil.”
That may be the case. However, the Congressional Budget Office, an impartial expert agency, predicted that Trump’s tariffs would decrease the U.S. budget deficit by approximately $2.7 trillion over the next decade.
The fact that “mad Trump” is now aligning with Russia represents a significant shift in global politics, particularly in its impact on Russia’s destiny.
Therefore, it appears that the US and Russian trajectories are identical for now.