Trumps America In The Geopolitical World!

By Matthew Clark

January 2025 will witness the reincarnation of a Donald Trump Presidency. Within the United States there will most probably be a focus on the new administrations domestic policy. Meanwhile inhabitants outside the United States will place the bulk of their attention on the new/old presidents foreign affairs platform. In this regard both allies and adversaries of the United States will likely be afflicted with a mixture of curiosity and apprehension, while attempting to determine what the Trump administration will do, or is doing.

First and foremost President Trump will define Communist China as America's main adversary in all meaningful spheres of international relations; economics, politics, and Military. In economics the rivalry between mainland China and the U.S. will give the President the excuse he needs to try and use tariffs to build, or rebuild, America's manufacturing sector. In this endeavor the Commander In Chief is trying to repeat Abraham Lincoln's tactic, or that of John A. MacDonald in Canada, of using tariffs to shut out products from abroad, thereby creating a powerful manufacturing sector within the nation. Trump will combine this action with a repudiation of international trade deals, or a renegotiation of them, to suite the advantage of the United States. These trade deals, often misnamed as free trade deals of which they are nothing of the kind, are hugely unpopular with the Presidents voting base as well as the public at large. It will not take much political courage to enact tariffs and rearrange the trade landscape between America and the international community. Expect Donald Trump to follow the path of convenience (for him) on these matters.

In the field of geopolitics it is important to note that Donald Trump sees himself as a realist, not a liberal, and furthermore he believes most of the world, including United States allies, are hostile to America. Just as important he believes, probably correctly, that that hostility is extended to him personnally. During his first administration the President waxed poetical on the opposition, sometimes vehement opposition, he encountered from friend and foe alike. There is no indication this attitude has changed on his part, or that of others. Indeed the opposite can be credibly argued.

Although he would prefer to concentrate on China a combined domestic and foreign political culture will demand the President initially deal with Ukraine and the Middle East. In neither of these areas will he, or the United States, be coming from a position of strenght!

On the battlefield Russia has enjoyed a string of successes over the last year. Daily their armed forces advance against the Ukrainians while inflicting unsustainable casualties on their enemy. Even the so called Ukraine success of the Kursk incursion , an invasion of an area sparsely inhabited with little economic activity, has over time worked against the Ukrainians. Ukrainian armed forces within the Kursk salient are in danger of entrapment while being constantly bombarded by effective Russian artillery.

Any call by Mr. Trump to President Putin seeking a peace deal will likely be met with an attitude that under the favourable circumstances she enjoys on the field of battle Russia will agree to peace only if the Ukrainians pony up to Russian demands. These requirements will probably consist of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, as well as Eastern Ukraine to the Dneiper River. Further conditions will be that Ukraine not pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons, will not seek or be granted NATO membership, and will accept the status of permanent neutrality. If feeling bold President Putin might also demand Russian possession of Odessa, thus depriving Ukraine access to the Black Sea, and occupation of Kiev, the original capital of historic Kievan Rus.

Refusing these demands could well be futile as the Russians might achieve them on the battlefield in the not too distant future. Military media analysts, such as Weeb Union, report that the Ukraine armed forces are on the verge of collapse. Add to this the fact the U.S. President elect has put pressure on himself by claiming he could find a peaceful settlement to the Russian military incursion "in a day." Having boxed himself in President Trump will be under tremendous to make a deal. To the extent Mr. Trump has any leverage in this conflict it is with the Ukrainians, who are entirely dependent on United States support to sustain their war effort. Therefore expect a peace deal on Mr. Putins terms to conclude the "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine!

In the Middle East the reincarnated President faces a tenuous situation. As a whole hearted supporter of Israel the President mirrors the position of every United States government since the one led by Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1968). America is a staunch ally of Israel. Israel is not a staunch ally of the United States! A case in point is Syria. Although mainstream media treats the fall of Assad Syria as a victory for the United States it is nothing of the kind. America gains little, if anything, for the demise of Assad. Instead two of her superficial allies, Israel and Turkey (whose governments in turn do not like or trust each other) are the victors in this conflict. Erdogan (Turkey's political leader) as a result of recent events, currently gets to rule the Syrian Kurds, thus preventing them from giving support to their brethren Kurds in Turkey who have long harbored aspirations for national independence.

Israeli military forces are on the march in Syria, their tanks presently are a mere 18 kilometres (ten miles) from Damascus. What form of poitical rule they will exercise in Syria, beit through local lawmakers or outright annexation, can only be revealed through time. Political representatives in Israel and Turkey, despite their enmity towards each other, will work out the fate of Syria. A weaker America can at best be a secondary player in Syria, it's role far more slight than that of Israel or Turkey. President Trump cannot alter this state of affairs without antagonizing either a fellow Nato member (Turkey) or a foreign nation with a formidable political lobby within the U.S. (Israel). He might be willing to test these two nations resolve on others matters but Syria is not an importance enough interest to America for him to do so.

Where President Trump will be prepared to challenge Israel is over Iran. Multiple Israeli governments over the years have tried to embroil the United States in a war with Iran. During Mr. Trumps first term the President adroitly averted war with Iran despite the machinations of Israeli and American security/military interests. Most probably this new Trump administration will be preoccupied with opposing Iran diplomatically while avoiding war with that country. Israel will play the role of mischief maker as they continue to try and mire America in a military conflict with Iran. While this diplomatic tight rope is occurring President Trump will be pressuring Saudi Arabia to continue insisting on payment for their oil in U.S. dollars only. Last summers diplomatic agreement deal (treaty?) between the Saudis and Iran, a concorde brokered by Communist China, has left Washington very nervous. Could the Saudis be planning to ditch the $U.S. in favour of a gold backed BRIC currency? Time will tell. Mister Trump will do all he can to prevent this development.

Other challenges in the Middle East will be keeping the sea lanes open and propping up regimes such as those that rule Egypt and Jordan. With unrest due to economic pressures spreading in these nations, and while debt saddles United States resources even further, the future is cloudy to say the least. The 2nd Trump administration will concentrate their resources in the Middle East on what is good for energy. Keeping the sea lanes open will be a priority. So will any issues regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran. Israel will keep American attention due to its poweful lobby in Washington. On the other hand propping up Arab and North African governments traditionally sympathetic to the United States will not be given the same focus. It is not unreasonable to argue that multiple governments in the Middle East and North Africa might go the way of Assad while President Trumps America gives a very limited response.

Africa is an area often ignored in North America's halls of power. Given some of the important developments on the dark continent this is a counter productive characterisitic. One such situation is what has occurred amongst the Francophone countries in Africa over the last several years. Within this group nations such as Ni-ger (to give one example) have thrown off the yoke of their traditional political masters in Paris. In this effort they have been greatly aided by the Russian Wagner group(s). This has put the domestic energy situation within France in a highly vulnernable position. France needs cheap uranium from Africa for her nuclear plants reactors. As a result of these multiple coups new lawmakers in French Africa have demanded the French pay full market value for African uranium. Russian uranium is an alternative to the African product yet it is just as expensive as it's African counterpart. French ruler Macron could well turn to President Trump for assistance in this matter. Mr. Macron will point out that both American and French troops have been forced to abandon Francophone Africa while Wagner military forces have filtered into the area. This argument will likely gain small headway with a President who has invested so little into the area, and who views this as a problem for France alone. Expect France to experience dire energy challenges in the near future. African leaders will start to be far more politically assertive over the next few years.

Switching to Asia the businessman turned politician will try to forge tighter U.S. Indian relations to strenghten the American position versus China. This tactic will probably be echoed in his dealings with Japan. South Korean and Taiwan might be another matter. In his first kick at the Presidential can Donald Trump took turns trash talking North Korean political leader Kim Jong Un than holding peace conferences with him. President Trump was also not pleased with the rather benign economic relations South Korea and Chinese businesses enjoy with each other. In a move to lighten the military burden Donald Trumps administration might well come to a peace deal with Kim Jong Un which leaves South Korea in a more vulnernable position, military and otherwise, vis-a-vis her northern neighbour! Or Mr. Trump might demand economic concessions from the South Koreans in return for continued American geopolitical support on the Korean peinsula.

Surprisingly this might also be the case with Taiwanese United States political relations. The President elect makes continued reference to the unfairness in Taiwanese semi-conductor business practices. He views Taiwanese government-business policy as highly prejudicial to the United States at a time when the U.S. military employs vast resources to protect Taiwan from Communist Chinese forces. These musings often appear to fall on deaf ears in Taipei City, although a semi-conductor manufacturing plant is at present being built and opened in America by Taiwanese business interests. Nevertheless it is possible that Mister Trump will pull back on United States commitment to the Island Nation.

In the event of an invasion of Taiwan by Communist Chinese military forces the President could very well follow a pattern set by the Biden administration in Ukraine. Forego the threat of nuclear war by not getting American armed forces directly involved in the fighting. Also avoid fighting in a powerful enemies backyard where he has most of the advantages. Instead give your ally immense amounts of munitions to weaken and wear down a powerful adversary. Given Donald Trumps accounting approach to many geopolitical matters this appears to be a credible approach.

If the past is any indicator of future events than the next four years will see turbulent times between Europe and her American NATO partner. President elect Trump has opinioned on many occasions that he views America's NATO allies as freeloaders in the military as well as the economic sphere. In some cases it is difficult to disagree with him. The last time Britain had an army as miniscule as it is today was 1715 when the Island was a nation of between 1-2 million people. France has a slightly larger army yet one that is poorly trained, well below British standards. Those days of the mighty German Wehrmacht are long gone. Poland does have a credible military which makes her a lone wolf in the European NATO world. Despite this glaring weakness European politicians have, until recently, resisted the call to arms. Defense spending was consistantly well below the 2% budget level set for most nations. American suspicions are unlikely to be suspended now that European governments, due to the Russian Ukraine conflict, have seen the light. United States diplomats, politicians, and military figures, led by the President, will constantly be scrutinizing the Europeans for any backsliding. Meanwhile in financial and economic areas the Europeans will be seen as adversaries by the new administration. German trucks for instance, will still face high tariffs, impeding their viability in the North American market. Overall the Trump administration policy toward Europe and the United Kingdom will follow his general philosophy of quid-pro-quid. A mutual washing of the backside.

Mexico, South and Central America will not experience much change in policy with a United States led Donald Trump. Migration will increasingly effect government to government relations, yet that was already the case before Trumps arrival. Brazil, Venezuala, Nicauraga, Cuba, and perhaps Mexico will suffer through a high degree of tension with the North American giant. Argentina and El Salvadore, due to the philosophical leanings of their political leaders, will enjoy good relations with the new United States administration. The rest of the America's will be hit and miss.

This state of events could change in a hurry if the Communist Chinese gain a sudden headwind in the area. If that were to occur the gloves would come off to reveal a United States government once again re-asserting the Monroe Doctrine!

Sleepy, unimportant, self righteous, sensitive Canada might well become an unaccustomed sore spot for Trump America. Canada is at present mired in a crisis condition. Her political leaders are very unpopular with the general public. Capital is fleeing in the country, both in citizens investing abroad while foreigners fail to invest in Canada. Both public and private debt load is troublesome. Worker productivity is at a poor level, falling 1.8% in 2023, the last year numbers are available in this category (reference Stats Can). Real Estate accounts for forty per cent of the total Canadian economy. This last figure is a red neon sign flashing Danger, Danger. It means that housing must stay unaffordable for the average citizen. To lower the cost of housing means a loss of revenue for rich and poor alike. Financial collapse therefore appears probable!

At the best of times many Canadians question the wisdom of their nationality. For many different reasons large numbers of Quebecers, Albertans, Saskatchewanians, and Newfoundlanders have an opinion that their provincial jurisdiction should in fact be an independent nation. Small numbers of British Columbians and Manitobans also hold this view. In other cases many individuals in all parts of the Great White North subscribe to the conviction of Empire. Canada, they believe, should join the United States in a political union!

Being a well informed man the incoming President has obviously decided to take advantage of this circumstance to further America's and his, ambitions. Unhappy with the trade regimen between the two countries President Trump has already ruffled Canadian sensibilities by suggesting Canada should become the 51st state in the U.S.A. Many Canadians, including Ontario premier Doug Ford, succumbed to the politics of outrage and denounced the President. By doing so they weakened the Canadian position by revealing Mr. Trump had struck a nerve.

Expect Trump America to put a lot of pressure on the federal government in Ottawa to increase military spending, tighten security along the border between the two nations, sweeten trade to America's advantage, including providing nature resources, particularly energy resources ( petroleum and electricity), at bargain basement prices. A failure to do so will result in direct and indirect support to separatists (called seccessionists in the United States) as well as those Canadians who desire political union with their southern neighbour. Needless to say all nature of methods will be used to harm business within Canada if the Trump administration believes Canada's goverments (provincial as well as federal) are being non-compliant to American government goals.

In all liklihood a federal Canadian government, all to aware of the kingdoms weaknesses (Prime Minister Mackenzie King once uttered that his country had "too much geography and too little history") will give way to the "Donalds" demands. This even though a multitude of Canadians will resent the surrender.

Since at least the 2000 election, perhaps even previous to that event, politics in America has been in increasing turmoil. Everyday life in the United States has come to mirror this political development. Vaccines, race relations, masks, songs, environmental issues to name a few categories, provoke violet reaction among not only the entire body politic yet the general public as well. These issues have penetrated the entire American government right up to the military itself. Many in the Republic, not just Donald Trump, want to address these issues by ridding them from any public institution. Other sides of the political ledger desire to coerce the population by forcing them to follow measures regardless of their personnal opinion. A case in point is the reaction that Diversity, Equity, Inclusiveness (DEI) engender on both the left and right of American politics. As a result of this politicization of everyday life these many issues will be the focus of much of domestic America, including the media. Thus barring a major war, foreign affairs will receive scant attention compared to internal actions. Needless to say in this atmosphere the U.S. federal government, led by Donald Trump, will have a freer range (not to be confused with free range) to handle foreign affairs without being burdened by widespread public opposition.

This being the case political leaders who forego emotion and outrage, while sticking to a realistic approach in international government to government relations, will maximize their nations position in the international community. Those lawmakers who pursue the 30 second soundbite on the six o' clock news, or the one line headline on the morning paper, will become easy fodder for the man with the

"GREAT ORANGE GLOW."