The 47th president wants to end conflicts but not resolve them
The flood of headlines about US President Donald Trump’s first days back in the White House are stunning but unsurprising. We have grown accustomed to his hyperactivity. Yet, unlike eight years ago, the reaction now feels different. Back then, Trump’s ascent was widely regarded as a political anomaly – a shock that many attempted to explain by pointing the finger at alleged Russian meddling. Trump himself seemed caught off guard by his unexpected victory.
Today, the picture has changed. The Republican’s return to power is no accident; it is a deliberate comeback. He carries himself with an air of inevitability, bolstered by a party now united under his leadership and an establishment that, reluctantly or otherwise, has adjusted to his dominance. With control of Congress and a handpicked team ideologically aligned with him, Trump has two years to pursue his vision with minimal resistance. This time, his rhetoric could very well translate into reality.
Trump’s worldview has been consistent for decades. Public declarations from the 1980s, long before his political career began, reflect the same core beliefs he holds today. Trump’s ultimate goal is American supremacy – but not the liberal global leadership championed by his predecessors. His version of supremacy is transactional and utilitarian. Alliances, institutions, and relationships are only valuable if they benefit the US materially. Those that demand sacrifices without offering returns are liabilities to be discarded.
Trump’s America is not interested in moral authority, global stability, or solving the world’s problems. It is focused on extracting the maximum benefit from every interaction, whether in economics, security, or politics. If others refuse Trump’s ‘deal’, coercion quickly becomes his preferred strategy.
While Trump champions a tough, combative approach, he is reluctant to engage in armed conflict. This is not due to pacifism but practicality. Trump the developer views war as wasteful and counterproductive. Destruction does not align with his instincts to build and acquire assets. For him, conflict is best resolved through negotiation, merger, or purchase – not devastation.
This aversion to military conflict explains his preference for economic warfare. Trade wars and aggressive negotiations are his tools of choice, often targeting close US allies rather than adversaries. This approach unnerves traditional partners and challenges the post-Cold War ‘rules-based’ international system, where alliances are valued for their collective stability. Trump sees no inherent value in these alliances unless they provide tangible benefits to the US.
Implications for Russian-US relations
For Russia, Trump’s return brings mixed prospects. On the one hand, Trump’s disdain for the liberal world order signals a departure from the ideological rigidity of previous administrations. The post-Cold War system often dismissed Russia’s national interests in favor of US-centric global dominance. In contrast, Trump’s ‘America First’ policy focuses on national interests, which opens the door for pragmatic deals based on mutual benefit.
However, Trump’s approach remains deeply flawed. He is uninterested in addressing the root causes of conflicts. In Ukraine, for example, his goal is not a comprehensive resolution but a simple cessation of hostilities. A stable ceasefire along existing lines would suffice for him, leaving the deeper security issues for Western Europe or others to resolve. For Russia, this falls short. Moscow seeks a long-term solution that addresses the imbalance in European security – a concern Trump is unlikely to prioritize.
Trump’s disinterest in complex international designs further complicates matters. He prefers straightforward deals, as evidenced by the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. These agreements worked because they bypassed entrenched historical disputes in favor of pragmatic, economically driven solutions. However, applying this model to Ukraine is unrealistic. The conflict’s deep historical and geopolitical roots require a level of nuance and patience that Trump lacks.
Transactional leadership
Trump’s transactional leadership style also extends to his perception of governance. He measures other governments not by their ideology but by their efficiency and willingness to align with US interests. Leaders who reject his advice or fail to meet his standards are dismissed as incompetent. While this approach is less ideologically driven than previous administrations, it still results in the US dictating terms to other nations, often disregarding their sovereignty.
This attitude underscores a continuity in American foreign policy: The belief that the US has the right to define the ‘legitimate interests’ of other nations. Trump may abandon the ideological justifications of his predecessors, but the outcome – a US-centric worldview – remains unchanged.
A New era in international relations
Trump’s return marks the beginning of a new era in global politics. His presidency is not an anomaly but a reflection of broader sociopolitical changes. The old model of global leadership, symbolized by Joe Biden’s fading presidency, has run its course. Trump’s disruptive approach may rationalize politics by prioritizing national interests, but it also sharpens contradictions and risks creating confusion.
For Russia, Trump’s pragmatism offers opportunities and challenges. While his disdain for liberal ideology aligns with Moscow’s critiques of the West, his lack of interest in addressing systemic issues limits the potential for meaningful collaboration. Trump’s focus on short-term gains and his tendency to dictate terms may lead to friction, even as he seeks to avoid direct confrontation.
Ultimately, Trump’s presidency embodies the logic of a changing world order. As traditional alliances and institutions falter, new dynamics emerge, driven by national interests and pragmatic calculations. Whether this shift leads to greater stability or heightened tensions remains to be seen. One thing is certain: The era of ‘global leadership’ as we knew it is over, and Trump is its most prominent symbol.
This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
