The Tectonic Shift In Global Order Under Trump 2.0 – OpEd

February 24, 2025February 25, 2025 Nicholas Kong 0 Comments

As the world watches the unpredictable steps taken to implement President Trump’s declared policies of “Resuming Peace through Strength” and “America First,” a tectonic shift in the global order occurred when, on his 30th day in office, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator.” This marked the beginning of a geopolitical tsunami spanning both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Diplomacy is full of signaling, bluffing, and testing, and it can easily descend into conflict and war¹The art of diplomacy and the balance of power have long shaped the modern world, creating a system in which nations constantly negotiate and adjust their influence to maintain stability. American foreign policy has historically been guided by its unique global position, strong idealism, and an inherent distrust of “Old World” politics. ²While the 21st century will largely be defined by the evolving relationship between the U.S. and China—initiated through Ping-Pong diplomacy and Henry Kissinger’s secret trip to China in 1971—the shifting alliances and conflicts of the past continue to shape contemporary geopolitics. By exploiting the deteriorating alliance between the two communist giants—the Soviet Union and China, the U.S. successfully altered the world order and balance of power.

At the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. emerged as the world’s sole superpower, assuming the thankless role of global guarantor of free trade and stability. This mission included countering the Russia and, more recently, China—often at the direct expense of U.S. national interests. The repeated failures of past foreign policy led to the rise of the America First doctrine. Trump does not see the U.S. as the world’s “indispensable defender” but rather deeply resents Europe’s complacency in its own security—echoing President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning of turning Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker. ³

As Secretary of State Marco Rubio observed, a unipolar world was always an anomaly, and a multipolar world order is now emerging.⁴ Unlike the hawkish foreign policy team of Trump 1.0, the Trump 2.0 administration—while advocating for peace through strength—has taken a more transactional approach, leveraging economic pressure rather than direct military intervention. Within his first week in office, Trump dispatched Rubio to Latin America and envoy Steve Witkoff to broker a ceasefire in Gaza. While these efforts were relatively successful, his rhetoric about acquiring Gaza, reclaiming the Panama Canal, seizing Greenland from Denmark, and making Canada the 51st state alienated allies.

Ukraine and the Unraveling of U.S. Commitments

After a four-week diplomatic sprint across Latin America and the Middle East, Trump delivered a stunning reversal in U.S. policy on Russia and Ukraine.³ By blaming Ukraine for provoking Russia’s February 22, 2022, invasion and calling Zelensky a “dictator,” Trump signaled a pragmatic yet controversial shift aimed at ending the war. While stopping the bloodshed is a rational goal, it is deeply short-sighted and unconscionable to allow a military aggressor to claim victory—a precedent that could ripple across Europe.

The roots of this conflict partly trace back to U.S. failure to uphold Ukraine’s territorial integrity after persuading Kyiv to relinquish the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. ⁵The U.S. response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the subsequent Donbas conflict (2015) was toothless, with the Minsk I and II agreements failing to deter further aggression. When Putin dismissed all past agreements and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the war dragged on due to delayed and indecisive support from the U.S. and NATO.

Ending the war makes strategic sense, but the method of doing so raises concerns about U.S. reliability and credibility. Instead of leveraging America’s substantial geopolitical influence to set terms of peace, Trump’s zero-sum, winner-takes-all approach suggests that deals will be dictated solely by what benefits the U.S. at any cost. This shift sends a dangerous message worldwide: survival depends not on principles, alliances, or past agreements but on raw transactional power.

The fate of Ukraine may now rest in Moscow’s hands, with Washington potentially accepting economic incentives in return. This underscores paradox of Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic achievements—Putin, once isolated, now has an opportunity to split the U.S. and Europe. The Ukraine deal could also foreshadow Trump’s next move with China. While Washington has imposed tariffs on Beijing, Trump is unlikely to pursue direct confrontation. Instead, he may strike a deal with Xi Jinping at Asia’s expense.

As Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen bluntly observed, the U.S. has shifted “from liberator to great disrupter to a landlord seeking rent…America’s primacy has now become the polestar of foreign policy, even at the expense of bilateral ties or multilaterals” ⁶With geopolitical bargaining chips like Taiwan,North Korea, andMyanmar in play, Trump’s unpredictable approach can introduce either positive outcomes by deterring bad actors to limit their own behavior or further instabilities.

The Global Realignment and a New World Order

Trump’s strategy risks triggering a seismic realignment of global alliances for the nations seeking to insulate themselves to the sorts of risks that the United States now creates:

NATO and the EU face possible fragmentation.
Latin America could fall under U.S. dominance or split between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.
The Middle East may fracture further along Sunni-Shiite lines.
Africa could be divided into a three-way struggle for influence.
Japan remains a closed ally.
India is likely to align with the U.S.
Pakistan and South Korea will have to play by the ears.
ASEAN nations may split, with island states leaning pro-West and mainland states gravitating toward China.
The Arctic is now firmly in Trump’s scope of strategic interest.
BRICS may find itself in Trump’s crosshairs, subject to yet another round of economic maneuvering.

While there is no defined roadmap for handling this tectonic shift in geopolitics, one thing is clear: nothing can be taken for granted. As Vice President J.D. Vance stated, America’s foreign policy must be guided by strategic realism—not by moralism or historical illiteracy.⁷Despite Trump’s unapologetic America First stance, secretary Rubio reassured allies that “America first does not mean America alone. It is not an abandonment of our values. It is simply based on realism rather than utopian ideology.” ⁸ The challenge now lies in balancing economic leverage, military deterrence, and diplomatic finesse.

David Frost famously said: “Diplomacy is the art of letting somebody else have your way.” Perhaps, for Trump, it must instead be the art of the deal. Yet, as history has proven, two wrongs do not make a right. “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.” —a lesson Trump himself reminded the world of during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁹

The world must now hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

References: