2/28 – International Relations Analysis Piece

The global order that emerged after World War II is unraveling at an accelerated pace, with major power shifts and the ditching of international norms occurring in real-time. Last week at the United Nations, the world saw the United States unexpectedly siding with Russia and North Korea against Ukraine and Europe, signaling a dramatic deviation from longstanding alliances. Faith in NATO and its guarantee of transatlantic security is lower than it’s ever been, and the world appears to be veering toward an era where raw power dictates international relations and dominant states make deals among themselves while smaller nations face coercion.

Under the Trump administration thus far, foreign policy has undergone a fundamental shift. The new American approach mirrors a ruthless business model—where national interests are pursued through direct, high-stakes negotiations rather than traditional diplomacy. Nowhere is this more evident than in their approach to Ukraine. A nation whose fate and territorial sovereignty could soon be primarily determined by a private agreement between Trump and Putin. The administration appears united in its belief that the old post-1945 system—characterized by multilateral trade agreements and security pacts—has disadvantaged America, compelling it to bear the economic and military burdens of global stability without sufficient returns. President Trump and his advisors carry the notion that America can secure better outcomes through direct negotiations with individual states rather than through overarching international frameworks.

This shift in strategy will have significant implications. Everything is now negotiable: territory, resources, technology, and security arrangements. The administration’s envoys—many with business rather than diplomatic backgrounds—are already engaging in a flurry of transactional diplomacy. This includes attempts to broker a deal where Saudi Arabia would recognize Israel in exchange for U.S. security commitments, as well as efforts to reintegrate Russia into global diplomacy through economic agreements that could lift sanctions.

In this emerging system, the U.S. positions itself as the dominant force, prioritizing negotiations with countries that possess strategic resources or wield significant regional power. Nations that are neither economically nor militarily independent find themselves vulnerable to exploitation. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, aims to restore its status as a major global and imperial force, while Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman seeks to modernize the Middle East and counter Iran’s influence. Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping envisions a global order that accommodates a strong and ascendant China.

America’s traditional allies—especially in Europe—find themselves increasingly sidelined, as their reliance on U.S. military protection and economic integration is now perceived as a weakness to be leveraged rather than a partnership to be upheld. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East—spanning Israel, Lebanon, and Syria—have blurred territorial lines, with some global players indifferent to these developments. Trump himself has mused about the strategic potential of territories like Gaza and even Greenland, raising concerns that China might adopt a similar approach, seeking territorial concessions in exchange for economic deals concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea.

The U.S. is no longer relying on traditional mechanisms of global commerce. The shift toward state-controlled economic negotiations marks a departure from the idea that trade should be governed by neutral and impartial rules. Instead, Washington now engages in direct bilateral talks with key economic players—including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and Ukraine—to negotiate terms involving oil production, sanctions, technology investments, and even space-based communications infrastructure. These discussions encompass everything from Elon Musk’s Starlink services to constructing new semiconductor plants and organizing international sporting events.

The new proponents of dealmaking argue that this approach will ultimately benefit global stability by allowing nations to negotiate their interests directly rather than relying on outdated diplomatic frameworks. The Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, are frequently cited as an example of how unconventional negotiations can yield positive outcomes. However, the complexity of these negotiations introduces significant risks. For instance, Saudi Arabia desires a defense pact with the U.S. to counter Iran, which Washington may grant in exchange for Saudi recognition of Israel. Yet, such a deal is contingent on a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a scenario that remains highly improbable given Trump’s previous rejection of a two-state solution. Contingencies like these might prove that some of the world’s most contested diplomatic issues are too complicated to simply be solved through bilateral talks forced by the big kid on the block.

Possible Consequences for America & the World

The rapid decline of institutional agreements and the erosion of established international norms are likely to generate lasting instability. The more fluid borders become, the higher the risk of conflicts escalating. Even nations like India—previously secure in their regional dominance—may feel increasingly vulnerable in a world where territorial disputes are no longer settled by international treaties but by power-driven negotiations.

Another critical vulnerability stems from Trump’s highly personalized view of power. Rather than anchoring international agreements in enduring American institutions, he treats them as individual business deals. This approach raises doubts about the long-term reliability of U.S. commitments. Unlike previous strategic thinkers such as Henry Kissinger, who sought to balance global power through consistent diplomatic engagement, Trump’s erratic and transactional style makes it difficult for other leaders to trust that agreements made today will hold tomorrow.

While Trump envisions a world where the U.S. leverages its economic and military might for maximum advantage, the reality may be far less favorable, especially once he’s out of office. America’s global influence has traditionally been underpinned by its ability to set the rules of international engagement—providing a stable environment in which trade, diplomacy, and security could function predictably. Although maintaining this role has come with costs—including military expenditures and some economic trade-offs—the benefits have far outweighed the burdens. The dollar’s centrality in global finance saves the U.S. over $100 billion annually in interest costs while allowing for high fiscal deficits. American corporations thrive under a rules-based global economy that promotes fairness over corruption and short-term bargaining.

The assumption that America can retreat from its alliances without consequences is deeply flawed. Trump’s belief that oceans provide a natural barrier ignores the reality of modern warfare, which extends beyond land and sea to space and cyberspace. The U.S. relies on a network of global military installations and intelligence-sharing agreements, including bases in Germany, Australia, and Canada, to project power and maintain national security. If America’s credibility and benevolence as an ally erodes, access to these critical strategic assets may be restricted.

As Trump pushes a dealmaking-driven approach, America’s leverage could rapidly decline. If European allies, sensing abandonment, seek alternative security arrangements, the U.S. may find itself with fewer international partners. A weakened system of alliances could quickly lead to greater global instability. In a world where norms are disregarded in favor of short-term transactions, America may discover that credibility, alliances, and the rule of law are ultimately more valuable than any single economic deal. The world is already adjusting to a more unpredictable and transactional era. However, there is still room for course correction. Yet, as things stand, the world is preparing for a future where power is the only currency, alliances are temporary, and the rules-based order that once provided a framework for stability is increasingly obsolete.