With the advent of the impetuous "Trump era," global politics is visibly in a state of chaotic disorder.
Trump's former "yes man" and national security advisor John Bolton, harshly condemned Trump for his foreign policy blunder and warned Americans that Trump's foreign policy may be costlier for the United States and could seriously jeopardize American security. Bolton claims that only Trump gains from his foreign policy, not America or the American people. Perhaps Trump has not considered the situation that the rivals who are blindly trusted and the allies who are badly treated at the moment could one day turn against the US.
The world has been witnessing an unprecedented “shifting of global balance of power” in international politics following varied phases of “distrust”, “gap of trust”, or “over-trust” with allies, partners and rivals. While long-standing rivals are being drawn closer to the margins of trust, former allies are gradually driven out from the alliance and trust's periphery.
Approximately eight decades have passed since the US assumed global leadership of the unipolar order following the end of World War II. History reveals that the course of international politics and world order has been shaped after great wars, while US President Donald Trump has dared to alter the dictum of global politics before any such transitions. Trump has disregarded not only the idea of alliance, multilateralism, and international diplomacy, but also defied the essence of the theory of “balance of power” in international relations. This has shocked a number of IR scholars, thinkers, analysts, and foreign policy experts worldwide.
Meanwhile the world witnessed a bizarre diplomatic showdown in the Oval Office last week in a live television broadcast as the presidents of the US and Ukraine were “cowardly” debating. The meeting seemed more like a coercive business deal rather than a genuine peace deal. Evidently, there was a “clash of interests” between the leaders of the two allied nations, while the world’s two most powerful persons were trying to push their “wild interests” on the country that is in a pathetic condition due to war. The gesture and language were equally unacceptable to the diplomatic community.The visuals seem more like a “coordinated drama” where the Ukrainian president was humiliated and pressured to sign the critical mineral deal.
Ironically, it resembled a childish argument in which two muscular inebriated teenage boys were torturing a helpless orphan in the street for "not thanking" them for the chocolate they voluntarily gifted. The events that transpired in the White House that day may have been truly unbelievable for any sound person to accept.
Has the US president been successful in advancing American interests by orchestrating such a “horror show”, question many Americans?
Following this disastrous diplomatic encounter in the White House, Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky was applauded as a "dignified hero" by the majority of EU leaders, including US Democrats. Zelensky dared to stand up for his country with "immense guts"in the highest office of the most powerful nation in the world. The rest of the world would have complied with any orders or wishes from the superpower in the same office until yesterday. Zelensky, however, demonstrated his great sense of patriotic morality by refusing to bow to the “greatest” president in history or give in to another powerful “aggressor”.
Even so, did Ukraine win the game? Definitely not. But maybe the United States disgracefully lost the match.
The “furious row” in the White House might set a strong precedent in the history of US foreign policy. One of the immediate repercussions has been that the US and the EU split into opposing sides on the Ukraine issue, with a possible (re)shuffling of alliances. Some multilateral organizations, such as the NATO and Transatlantic Alliance, as well as other international organizations in which the United States has a direct stake, would face a crisis in their functioning and sustainability, argue analysts.
The American muddle
Perhaps no president in American history has misunderstood trade, tariffs, multilateralism, diplomacy, foreign policy or international relations as much as Trump does, blame the critics (CNN). Americans would undoubtedly continue to misgiving their head of state's sense of patriotic morality in the future. Trump's former "yes man" and national security advisor John Bolton, harshly condemned Trump for his foreign policy blunder and warned Americans that Trump's foreign policy may be costlier for the United States and could seriously jeopardize American security. Bolton claims that only Trump gains from his foreign policy, not America or the American people. Perhaps Trump has not considered the situation that the rivals who are blindly trusted and the allies who are badly treated at the moment could one day turn against the US.
Pretending to be reliable partners and allies, some countries—including India, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Japan and South Korea among others—are quietly watching the US's embarrassment on the world stage and waiting to take advantage of its foreign policy maneuver. Whether Trump realizes it or not-India, China, Russia are its primary competitors and rivals, not allies or partners. These three nations can readily challenge the US's long-standing unipolar hegemonic leadership when three or only two of them collaborate closely, either in partnership or alliance.
While Trump has shown a great deal of love and trust towards American adversaries, will they do the same for the US?
No matter how well the rivals are treated, they may still be rivals, possibly assessing additional information and intelligence from the former rival. However, if the allies, friends, and partners are mistreated, they may turn to enemies with lasting pain and ego. This may lead to a "cycle of distrust" with both allies as well as rivals by instigating major causes of global geopolitical mistrust, which may have a crucial impact on the rebalancing of power in international political spectrums.
Instead of bringing the Gaza war to a logical end and showing sympathy for the innocent children who are being killed for no crimes they committed, the world’s greatest president made fun with an AI video “Trump Gaza” shared on “Truth Social” platform, perhaps, in the name of “Free World”.
While the US national interest can be “merciful” in Jerusalem, how can it be so "inhumane" in Gaza and Kyiv, ask innocent victims?
Trump, who touted for “Free World”, is inducing threat to “Freedom and Peace” both in Ukraine to Europe, and Gaza to the Middle East, blame the critics. Unlike Trump’s so called “Rivera of the Middle East”, the “Arab League”, that is more united than ever, reportedly proposed a vision of rebuilding Gaza as “Dubai of the Mediterranean”.The international community is suspecting why the “peace” prospect proposed by Trump, Putin, Zelenesky, and the EU carries ambiguity. While Zelensky questioned the Trump administration’s diplomatic decency, the rest of the world questions the impulses of the “Free World” that Trump has envisioned.
Trump’s Gaza interest has been a naked secret-“Trump Gaza”. What is American interest in Ukraine, given that Trump ordered the immediate halt of all military and financial aid along with intelligence sharing for the country after “humiliating” Zelensky in the Oval Office? Is it just amassing Ukrainian critical minerals or flaunting for the so called “Free World” for domestic political gain?
Trump would possibly propose a similar coercive plan with Taiwan or back out of Taiwan, like Ukraine. If Trump were to abandon US foreign policy in Taiwan, China would effortlessly integrate it with the mainland, which would be the greatest accomplishment in the history of the nation.
What stance would the US take in South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, and how would the QUAD and AUKUS alliances fare if Trump adopted similar policies? Perhaps no ally would be left on the side of the US on this planet, other than Russia and North Korea.
For Trump, perhaps it remains to decide "whether to bring Russia into NATO or to dismantle NATO". Surprisingly, Trump’s key advisor Elon Musk has reportedly suggested walking out from NATO and UN. Who knows, Trump might withdraw from significant international organizations, such as the IMF, WB, G7, B3W, and the UN.
The US, under Trump's presidency, has included massive volatility and coercion in its foreign policy. The crucial concern for the world is whether it is a “foreign policy shift” or a “foreign policy slip” from the 250 years of grandeur American legacy. Great thinkers around the world are speculating that "this is not a US world," as it was in the post-Cold War world order following the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
While Trump asserts that he is bringing about world peace, the entire world is suspecting that he may be causing an insensitive global disorder. A major global war has not yet broken out, though it might transpire in the foreseeable future. What if, during Trump's second term, a massive global “hyperwar” breaks out? Meanwhile China's warning that "Beijing is prepared to fight a war with the US—be it a trade war, tariff war, or any type of war—till the end" in response to Trump’s tariffs is a grave concern to the international community. At a time when US-EU, US-Canada and US-Middle East relations are strained due to constant hatred to the EU, Canada and the ME, they along with Russia would less likely back the US in a war between the US and China (if any), unlike they are being longtime allies along with Trump’s continuous love for Russia.
Unfortunately, if the war goes nuclear, perhaps no power would prevail, yet humanity would suffer a catastrophic defeat.Nevertheless, every sensible human on the planet, including this author, opposes all forms of warfare.
While discontent and outrage have already erupted in the US due to Trump’s insensitivity, the country may witness a historic political upheaval to amend the constitution, potentially restricting the president's executive authority. Unlike Trump’s “MAGA” saga, patriotic Americans may come out in the street enchanting “Save America, Save American Legacy”. Still both the Houses may impeach the president with two-thirds majority votes. The possibility that the US could witness an extreme form of civil war in the future cannot be ruled out. One cannot foresee that such a day will not come in the history of American foreign policy—the defense force and bureaucracy would defy the directives of their own president.
Meanwhile with the integrated plans, policies, and developments, the Europeans, Asians and the Arabians would likely boycott Trump in their respective regions. The US presence on all continents would be insignificant if the EU and China could work together to increase their fair influence in Asia, while China has already made a significant influence in the ME and Africa.
Yet the sustainability of EU-China relations depends upon the epitome of EU-Russia relations, as China-Russia relations are said to have close ties. Given that Trump's "draconian" policies—be it “sweeping” tariffs, a walk-out from Ukraine, a radical Gaza plan, or “sympathizing” with Russia—have embarrassed nearly all of the US's friends and allies, the only "free world" that remains for the Trump-Musk duo alliance to exploit as a sphere of influence is possibly the only virgin red planet—the "Mars.".
Nevertheless, Ukraine needs genuine advice from its friends, allies, well-wishers, and global thinkers now. Both Ukrainians and Palestinians lives, living, survival, well-being, and humanity are critically important at the moment. Even though Ukraine is getting strong support from the EU, Canada, the UK, and a few other countries, its chances of winning the war, without direct talks and negotiations with Russia, remain slim. While Russia asserts that "Neutral Ukraine" or "NATO Ukraine" is crucial to Ukraine's future, Russia perhaps still expects Ukraine to address its security concerns.
Had President Zelensky initiated direct talks with President Putin, perhaps Ukraine would have been losing less. Putin possibly knows Zelensky, Ukraine, and Russia better than any other world leader, and maybe so does Zelensky to Putin and Russia. Putin, a “statist” (a “man of history”), reportedly possesses extensive knowledge of Russian history and geography. Perhaps no leader in contemporary world politics possesses as much political knowledge, experience, and shrewdness as Putin. Conversely, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and President Xi Jinping of China are thought to have substantial political backgrounds.
Given that the EU has already started experiencing incongruity with regard to the defense plan in Ukraine, perhaps, the west may not be able to defend Ukraine in the war for another three years. Thus far, the most difficult, yet perhaps inevitable, reality to accept is that Russia is arguably the only nation in the world with the capability and willpower to further "invade" Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine must mend its relations with its immediate neighbor without being provoked by these powers again. While Israel could negotiate with Hamas—a designated “terrorist organization”, Ukraine too can negotiate with Russia.
In one way or another, Russia is getting stronger, Ukraine is intentionally pushed into geopolitical “black hole”, India is playing shrewder, Saudi Arabia is silently leveraging, the EU would possibly partner with China with a hope to rejuvenate European legacy, the US is largely getting weaker by partnering with Russia, and China is partially winning the game just by watching the show.
Yet, it may not be so easy for any of the powers to chart out the path ahead, without a common prospect of “peace”.
After all, the best way to (re)shape the world is to sit for dialogue, diplomacy and negotiations. In light of this, all the countries that provoked Ukraine ought to cooperate in order to establish lasting peace and stability. Beyond the actual situation on the ground and the underlying causes of conflict, the EU should also refrain from inciting Ukraine for war. While Zelensky has pleaded for 250 thousand NATO defense force to (de)escalate the war, the west should now “share” a common prospect of “peace” if they all want broader security, peace, stability and development, instead of spending billions of dollars on arms, ammunition, military aid, intelligence and military sharing, or nuclear deterrence threat.
Perchance, neither the US nor the EU can alone end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine without direct involvement of the latter two. The mediation or facilitation of China, India and Saudi Arabia would possibly be widely accepted. While there are nearly five dozen countries dealing with various forms of conflict worldwide at present, establishing a balanced peace, stability, law and order might not be so smooth without an integrated multilateral collaboration, cooperation and trust.
The time has now come for Nepal to survive the potential upheaval and thrive ahead by leveraging from the victors and the would-be victors of the changing dynamics of world politics, including the immediate growing neighbors. With the advent of the impetuous "Trump era," global politics is visibly in a state of chaotic disorder. Given Nepal's increasing geostrategic significance, the powerful countries may still attempt to incite Nepal and push into Ukraine’s path.
Nevertheless, Nepal must focus on promoting “internal order” in light of the possible global upheaval. The country may have a better opportunity to develop "self-thriving" strategies, now. In order to achieve this objective, Nepal should leverage its own values by emphasizing some of the “nation’s thriving elements”, including good institutions, cultured political commitment and functioning, disciplined bureaucrats, and civilized citizens. Additionally, several development indicators must be elevated to international standards, including political stability, economic competitiveness, academic recognition, scientific and technological innovation, data sovereignty, social integrity, quality of life, public services, foreign policy, and diplomatic influence among others. Perhaps Nepal will not have to plead to powerful nations for leniency, if it could be equipped with a vigorous national power capability. In essence, Nepal's foreign policy must "shift" towards immediate neighbors in a pragmatic manner until the international order takes shape, but it should not "slip" from its core values—nonalignment and "amity with all and enmity with none".
