In just ten fast-paced weeks, Donald Trump has fundamentally disrupted the international system of rules and alliances that has largely maintained peace for the last eighty years. His unconventional policy of “tariffs on everybody” reveals a glimpse of a new geopolitical landscape: a situation where the United States stands alone against the rest of the world, with Russia as its only major potential ally.
Currently, Trump has expressed frustration with Vladimir Putin’s delay in achieving a cease-fire in Ukraine, but his admiration for the Russian leader, a former KGB agent, runs deep. Furthermore, Trump has convinced America’s former European allies that he is untrustworthy, leaving him with limited options.
Convincing the American public of this shift in alliances will require considerable effort. Yet, if Franklin Roosevelt could persuade Americans to view the Soviet Union—often branded as Godless Communists—as a suitable ally against Hitler, Trump could similarly frame Putin as a religious figure who shares his “base’s” disdain for issues like LGBTQ rights and “woke” culture.
This emerging de facto alliance is likely to persist, especially as Trump is expected to collaborate with Israel on a significant military strike against Iran in the coming months, given that Russia also opposes the Islamist regime in Tehran. The pivotal question now is: What is China’s response?
China has refrained from criticizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, primarily because it too lacked alternatives. However, China is generally less expansionist than either Russia under Putin or the United States under Trump. Instead, it is a status quo power aiming to maintain the current international order.
The sole exception that has allowed China’s adversaries to paint it as expansionist is its steadfast claim over Taiwan, a leftover issue from a long-ago civil war. As long as China does not invade Taiwan, it could be considered a suitable partner for the European Union in a new alliance focused on upholding global rule of law.
While such a partnership may not be ideal and undoubtedly lacks the formal structure of the old NATO alliance, a collaborative effort between China and the EU to maintain global peace—countering the rogue states of America and Russia—makes sense and might well materialize.
This scenario is further supported by both China and the EU’s mutual interest in reviving the low- or no-tariff free trade system that has prevailed for the past eighty years, which Trump has threatened to dismantle. They could form a central alliance around which other nations like Japan, Korea, Australia, India, and Canada could collaborate to rebuild that system without the US.
Trump has significantly overestimated the United States’ ability to prevent a global trade realignment that circumvents its influence. While the US accounts for 25% of the world’s economy—a figure similar to its share in 1980—indicating that it has not been as severely exploited by trading partners as Trump claims, it contributes only 13% of global trade due to its self-sufficiency. Therefore, Trump cannot effectively coerce other nations into compliance with his demands.
While certain businesses and even some countries will experience significant hardship due to his tariffs, most supply chains will simply adjust to avoid reliance on the United States. Consequently, the US’s share of global trade will further decline as other nations continue with their activities.
Unintentionally, Trump is relinquishing the leadership role the United States has held in global affairs since World War II, all without gaining anything of value in return. This shift was unexpected, and although it’s premature to determine where it will lead, it may result in a more favorable outcome than recent history.
However, potential pitfalls remain. Major European powers might struggle to support Ukraine if the US withdraws military aid again, leading to a possible Russian conquest that would spur a remilitarization of Europe, including nuclear proliferation.
US invasions of Greenland, Panama, and even Canada could provoke similar effects on a broader scale. Additionally, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could have profound repercussions in Asia, and it’s uncertain if Beijing will distance itself from Moscow now that it has more favorable options. Overall, however, the outlook appears more positive—barring the escalating climate crisis, of course.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
