What’s Really Behind the Events Unfolding in World Politics?

 

We are indeed all living in a time of great change....

I have to confess, until very recently I've been somewhat perplexed about the direction of travel in world politics, and have had trouble understanding why everything suddenly seems to be happening all at once....and I suspect I won't have been the only one.....

Being someone who likes to try and make sense of it all, rather than just take things at face value and move on, I have to admit that the complete upheaval we seem to have experienced since the start of Trump’s 2^nd term did at first sight seem incomprehensible and illogical, almost to the point of absurdity. 

Why on earth would anyone with such a weighty responsibility on their shoulders risk ruining an economy still growing and prosperous, and until recently unchallenged as the largest on the planet, by deliberately trying to upset our hard-won, tried and tested world order ?

But then I thought…what if it's not just about the random whims of yet another geriatric US president ?......

On the political front, at first sight, Trump’s overt abandonment of Biden’s unconditional support to Ukraine seemed counter-productive to US interests….and almost perverse in its disregard of the traditional East-West rivalry.

Admittedly, isolationism, which seemed to be Trump's ultimate objective, is one legitimate option for focusing economic growth on the home territory, albeit a rather extreme and risky one. The MAGA doctrine, however, trumpeted so loud in the US since January as the new guiding principle for US homeland and foreign policy, also demands a robust defence of the homeland against all external threats, and not just those attempting to infiltrate the US's southern borders in search of richer pickings and drug revenues. 

Thus you would think that abandoning Ukraine to Putin’s 'tender mercies' made no sense at all, as far as protecting the US homeland was concerned. After all, a resurgent and thus unfettered Russia would always be likely to pose a threat to US dominance, and to its western European allies in particular. Arguably, the only way to ensure US interests abroad aren't challenged would be to retain a presence in Europe, and in strength - as indeed the US has done consistently since the 3rd Reich was defeated in 1945.

A particular problem, Islamic fundamentalism, remains an ever present ‘thorn in the flesh’ of the western way of life, and will always continue to act against US interests, given the US's close alliance with Israel. Its terrorism will always need to be actively controlled, both inside and outside of US borders, to avoid a repeat of 9/11.

So much for the application of logic....but what might be the real motivation behind Trump's actions that could help explain them ?

I think we'd be quite wrong in making the assumption that the 'old order' issues discussed above, which have effectively driven US foriegn policy since WW2, are what really matter to Trump.…his behaviour is designed to be disruptive, and he actually wants to upset the old order and forge a new one which he sees as more beneficial to US, and his own, 'business' interests.

Trump’s greatest foreign policy concern is actually China. This is established fact, and the rivalry is not just an economic one. He is genuinely concerned about the ‘rise and rise’ of the Chinese military – hence his recent threat to develop a ‘Golden Shield’ anti-missile system. However far-fetched and expensive this project might actually appear, it would be designed to be the ultimate counter to Chinese military ambitions by intercepting incoming missiles before they reach US soil (or that of any other ‘subscriber’ territory - more about territorial acquisitions later). Trump wants at all costs to avoid being 'caught out' by Chinese military developments, which are proceeding at what he sees as an alarming rate. He also wants to avoid being overahuled by China economically - hence the tariff war, whose most punitive early salvo of sanctions were directed at...the Chinese.

By contrast, Trump sees Putin's Russia as far less of a threat to US dominance, both economically and militarily, and something that could even be turned into a business opportunity, if handled correctly.  This is largely because Putin’s Ukraine war effort since the 2022 invasion has cost his country dear, both in cash terms and exhaustion of his existing military resources.

The ‘might’ of the Russian army was unable to stop Ukraine destroying a significant portion of its strategic bomber force with just a handful of well-placed drones last week; it wouldn’t be remotely capable of a viable challenge to NATO in Eastern Europe without a great deal of restocking and reorganisation, even if the Ukraine conflict stopped tomorrow. The Russians have form for over-spending on defence and economic mismanagement - look at what happened to the old Soviet Union in the late 1980s, which effectively 'died of its own bankruptcy'. 

Moreover, the Russian population are also getting sick and tired of seeing their young male offspring returning home in body bags, and probably wouldn’t tolerate a major escalation of the Ukraine conflict in the name of Phases 2 and 3 of Putin’s empire-building obsession. Trump also feels he has a 'rapport' with Putin as a forceful leader, much more so than with Xi Jin Ping.

Thus Trump’s strategy when dealing with Putin is the one he knows and loves, and does best…namely maintaining their mutual 'friendship' (despite the occasional manufactured 'spat' contrived for the cameras), and striking a deal when the time is right.

Putin on the other hand knows that Trump, if provoked, could impose further crippling economic sanctions, which would hasten Russia’s economic demise, and put paid to any territorial ambitions he might still have. He also realises that Trump is essentially unpredictable and volatile in his temperament. If things at home got too bad, it might even lead to the end of his tenure as self-imposed supreme Russian leader, and he is well aware of that particular risk. In truth, despite the unpredictability element, Putin was mightily relieved when Trump was elected to a second term, (despite at one point during the campaign rather disingenuously saying that he would prefer Biden to win the 2024 election!). He knew well that the democrats would continue military support to Ukraine no matter what if re-elected, and he judged, quite rightly, that Trump was much less likely to. 

It’s no coincidence that Russia was implicated in interference with the 2024 election – 'dirty tricks' campaigns are second nature to the Russian regime….and they are very good at it.

A 'receptive' Putin therefore would provide an excellent opportunity, then, for a resurgent 2nd term Trump to offer to help Russia back into the international fold, remove most sanctions, and strike a deal. The offer from Trump during one of his phone calls, might have gone something like this:

“…I’ll hold off any further sanctions and stop actively re-supplying Ukraine in return for your support against China, and an agreement not to attack any NATO countries on my watch. I’ll let you keep whatever territory you’re able to acquire in Ukraine as part of the final settlement. We’ll strike deal that's beneficial to both of us on how to divide up Ukraine, and we'll announce this as the foundation for the peace settlement once we’ve forced an election in Ukraine and got Zalensky out of the way. Once we have someone else more 'amenable' in place (I can't stand Zelensky either, Vladimir!), we can put to bed any question of letting the rest of Ukraine join NATO, which is pretty irrelevant now anyway (don’t tell the Europeans I said that, Vlad)….Oh, and I’ll also need you to keep out of the Iran-Israel conflict when it's time for me to let Netanyahu take out the regime…I'm sure you'll agree with the rest of us that we can’t let those religious maniacs in Teheran develop a working A-bomb. Don't forget, there might well be some good pickings there for us both once the Ayatollah and his cronies have been dealt with…it’s a big place with plenty of natural resources, and we'll also need to make sure we keep the Chinese off our patch...”.

Not a bad offer for a leader who’s already an indicted but unrepentent international war criminal and has already caused so much destruction to one of his neighbours.  It's an offer which, I suspect, even a resolutely empire-building Putin might find hard to refuse.A much better one, moreover than he could ever have got from Biden or Harris.

But would we not have heard something about such a far-reaching and devious plan ?  Possibly not, despite the intensity and immediacy of modern press scrutiny. Even if anything along those lines had been leaked, Trump would just deny it as 'Fake News'.

As an ‘arch’ deal maker, Trump is adept at concealing such under the counter deals such as this; like any seasoned poker player, he would not want the world at large to know what his ‘hand of cards’ actually contained...or indeed how he planned to play it. Indeed his frequent references to 'holding cards' gives us a useful insight into his thought processes, in which he seems to be likening US foreign policy to a complex game of cards. Only his closest advisors and those of the opposition negotiators are ever allowed access to the private discussions that really matter in 'the game' and they are always sworn to secrecy. Its also unlikely that any of his close team ever get the full story of what he's planning themselves.

Re Ukraine, Trump is in reality perfectly happy to let the war drag on…it suits him nicely when it comes to keeping Europe in line. He wants to maintain the pressure on EU countries in particular to fund their own defence against the apparent threat from the ‘Russian Bear’, thereby cutting out the huge expense the traditional US ‘European shield’ Biden was continuing to impose on the US treasury and the debt pile. He would far rather use the cash to supplement MAGA projects at home, such as his 'beautiful bill', which has effectively ended his relationship with Musk. Trump's influence has also resulted directly in a NATO leadership demand of up to 5% of GDP defence expenditure increases from member states, who are already responding with promises of their own. This would never have happened under a Harris presidency.

Trump also sees a Ukraine ‘carve up’ with Putin as beneficial the the US (and, I suspect, his own personal business interests) economically – his opportunistic and forced advance agreement with Zelensky on mineral rights is a good case in point. He badly needs a hedge against Chinese control of rare earths in particular (all those nice new iPhones we're offered every year don’t make themselves, after all) , and he sees Ukraine as an excellent alternative source, as well as something of a potential cash-cow. His territorial acquisition bids for both Canada and Greenland, though almost laughable to most of us, are serious for him, and are both part of the same strategy, i.e. to ‘internalise’ natural resources and their extraction within an expanded US territorial base.

But what about the inevitable opposition to such a 'pact' would encounter in Europe ?

As long as European nations and their leaders still think Putin is 'out to get them', they will comply with Trump’s every wish and continue trying to placate him at all costs. Look at NATO's recent insistence on 5% Defence expenditure...and the agreement of most NATO members to do it, despite the major implications for balancing their books.

He does, after all, have 'all the cards', doesn't he ? 

Trump's many threats of trade tariffs since April have also been a powerful and effective economic weapon in bringing both Europe and China to the negotiating table. The shrewd observer will note that many of the early announcements on the more extreme tariffs were just threats and haven’t actually materialised in full, although more modest ones are already generating a nice additional income stream for the US treasury. It's noteworthy that the ‘evil day’ when a particular punitive tariff starts applying has always seemed to be postponed at the last minute.

Trump knows full well that if he disrupts the world economy too much it will make the markets ‘yippy’, as he so graphically puts it. This does matter to him because it is likely to increase servicing costs on the vast $36 trillion debt pile, and thus rebound on the dollar, and US economic fortunes generally. Thus he will ‘duck and dive’ on tariffs for as long as he can to achieve what he wants i.e. recouping the US’s dominant position as the world’s foremost economic and military power…and maintaining it.

To do this effectively, however, he must ensure his sphere of influence extends far enough to obtain the necessary resources to keep his economy strong… and his electorate happy. Thus, full-blown isolationism of the sort the US indulged in once before (and so disastrously) in the 1930s really isn’t an option, however much the 'MAGA faithful' might be wedded to the idea – the world is just too globalised and inter-dependent now. 

One thing is certain, though. Neither of the two predominant world economies can afford to stop trading with the other, despite their mutual protestations. The recent announcement of a ‘trade deal’ with China is a case in point. This highly specific 'accomodation' was needed quickly to restart supplies of the rare earth metals on which US electronics manufacture so depends, so negotiations were prioritised. In time, Trump hopes to reduce his dependence on these expensive externally-sourced raw materials, as we’ve already discussed, but in the meantime, needs must. He is also actively building up the chip production industry within US, with a new Taiwan Semiconductor facility in Arizona already under construction…an obvious attempt to bring at least some of the Taiwan-based capacity and expertise in-house, in anticipation of that particular source in SE Asia drying up.

Trade deals apart, as the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military, Trump knows he must, however reluctantly, also engage fully with other global powers. The South China Sea is a potential flash point, with Taiwan at its focus, and Trump must limit China’s expansionism in the area if he is to retain some control in the pacific region, and avoid a threat to his west coast. Nearer home for us in Europe, the Middle East is still a 'festering sore', and is in danger of erupting into a major conflict within the region. Trump has long been wary of the Iranian regime, who he sees as a major challenge to US influence in the Middle East and an avowed direct existential threat to his principal ally, Israel.

Until very recently, things appeared to be relatively stable there, with the Gaza conflict dragging on and Israel holding Iran's 3 'proxies' firmly at bay, having destroyed much of their capabilities. However, it became obvious recently that all was not well. The protracted negotiations with a recalcitrant, and increasingly desperate, Iran over uranium enrichment had all but stalled, with US withdrawing personnel from threatened US bases in the region, and Israel reported to be ‘ready for military action’ against Iran. 

The general impression, up to June 12^th, was that this might just have been ‘sabre rattling’; the Israeli attacks thereafter showed that Netanyahu was deadly serious about eliminating the threat of Iran getting the bomb. Whether or not Trump actually gave his approval for the first strikes 'on the day', once things were finally under way, Netanyahu was determined to continue with further pre-emptive strikes ‘until the job was done’, or Trump stopped him. The nature of the attacks and the media rhetoric indicated that it wasn't just the nuclear facilities he wished to destroy…regime change was his real objective.

Trump carefully distanced himself initially from the action by vetoing any overt US participation, and was quick to inform the Iranians of this and, more importantly  warn them not to take reprisals on any US assets in the region. This was a clear warning of 'much more severe' consequences if they did. Since the Tehran regime has already shown its intent to act against US assets, this provided an easy justification for the US to weigh in with it 'bunker busting' munitions which the Israelis knew would be required to complete the destruction of the underground elements of the Iran nuclear project. This was effectively a 'last chance saloon' moment for the regime, but one which the Ayatollah seemed to be intent on rejecting...In the event, the 'hard knocks' that Israeli civilian infrastructure is currently took from Iranian missile salvos and Iran's continued refusal to negotiate without an Israeli cease fire was sufficient to bring Trump to the rescue without a direct Iranian assault on US interests. Trump initially declared a 2-week 'window' for negotiations, but obviously decided that Iran was 'beyond negotiation' without further military degradation. Fortunately both combatants realised it would be folly to defy Trumps cease fire 'imposition'...we saw Trump's reaction when Netanyahu overstepped the mark after the dealine was imposed.  Although Trump has always denied he wants to see regime change, I suspect that any futher 'infringements' by Iran will be met with renewed action, this time aimed at regime change. We can only hope that what eventually replaces the Ayatollah's doomed theocracy is a little more conducive to Middle East peace, and the country doesn't descend into anarchy.

On a practical note, Israel appears to have been very successful so far in knocking out Iranian air defences, inflicting major damage on some of the more exposed Iranian nuclear facilities, and effectively 'taking control of the Iranian skies'. They also ‘went for the jugular’ by eliminating many of the most senior Republican Guard leaders, and several key nuclear scientists, whic is likely to have had a greater effect on Iran's nucelear development capability that the much questioned bunker busting activity earlier this week.  We also learnt also that Mossad had been ‘active’ on the ground in Iran for many months prior to the start of the Israeli campaign, and actually launched some of the early strikes themselves from within Iran. Sounds familiar ? A certain Ukrainian leader had some similar success against Putin’s regime only a few weeks past, confirming that sophisticated electronic ‘guerilla warfare’ with embedded 'sleeper' agents is highly effective against battlefield weapons, and is here to stay.

But what of Putin's role in all this ? Apart from an early condemnation of Israel's action as 'dangerous and disruptive', Moscow was strangely silent. Their agreement with Iran last year didn't extend to military support, and none has been promised. Why is this ? 

Apart from any behind the scenes agreement between Trump and Putin, Putin will see the Iranian's plight as politically advantageous to him for 3 good reasons:1) It will increase the oil price at a time when Putin is largely dependent on whatever he can raise himself via sanctions-busting oil sales, 2) The loss of Iranian oil output, and possibly also any threat of interference with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, will remove competition from his own oil and gas sales and 3) It took the world's attention away from Ukraine at a time when he was going 'hell for leather' to destroy as much of its infrastructure as possible before some form of settlement is reached.

How things will develop with the Iran 'problem' from here on in is anyone’s guess. The Iranian regime is still smarting from its gross humiliation and has vowed vengeance. They will be in no position to do much via conventional military means, and will now focus their attention on rooting out anyone suspected of aiding 'the enemy'. The key question now is: how far was the nuclear programme actually degraded, and what happened to the 400 kg of enriched Uranium the Iranians were reputed to have 'spirited away' before the bunker-busting attacks. An additional risk is that the regime will go looking for external rogue suppliers.  If they were able to source more powerful conventional, or even nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them, by some ‘rogue’ external agency, however, then all bets would be off. Mossad and the CIA will no doubt be monitoring actively for any sign of intervention by the likes of N. Korea, or other 'sympathetic' nuclear states as we speak. You can be sure of one thing - the Iranian theocracy will not rest until either it or Israel is destroyed. Thus its eradication is, sadly, the only real hope for restoration of Middle East peace.

On a historical note, it's interesting to speculate on what might have happened if GW Bush had taken the same approach as his father in the 2nd Gulf war by not bringing down Saddam Hussein's regime. Bush senior was wary of doing this for fear of unleashing turmoil in Iraq following the creation of a power vacuum. Events after the 2003 'shock and awe' campaign of the 2nd war, without a viable 'after-plan' for Iraq, essentially proved his fears. Amongst other things, it allowed a Shia takeover in Iraq once the Sunni regime had gone, and a resurgence of Iranian regime, which had fared badly in Saddam's earlier war against it. This in turn contributed to allowing Iran's renewed onslaught against Israel via its proxies, and bolstered its continued ambition to control middle eastern affairs. 

Had Saddam not fallen, and been allowed to continue in power in Iraq (with of course appropriate restrictions against any further 'adventurism' against Western interests), Iran would have been restrained and history might have been very different....

How are world politics likely to evolve ?

The other question relating to Trump’s influence on world politics is how long he intends to continue in his role as US president. Nominally, the US constitution (Amendment 22) allows only two presidential terms. However, there are precedents for exceeding this limit – Franklin D Roosevelt actually served 4 terms, but his last 2, in 1940 and 1944, were made possible by wartime exemptions, and he died in post before completing the 4th. The have been no 3^rd terms served by anyone else since Congress ratified the 22^nd amendment in 1951. Trump is quoted as saying he has “no aspirations to serve a third term”.  I do find this somewhat difficult to take at face value, however, given his behaviour so far, and his obvious obsession with power and influence. He is quite capable of ‘challenging’ any election result he doesn’t like, and has plenty of ‘form’ for this. He also has the Supreme Court 'in his pocket', having ensured a republican majority there during his first term. 

It's perhaps ironic that, had he not managed to get re-elected in 2024, and thereby effectively immunise himself against prosecution, he would in all probability now be serving jail time for his role in the Jan 6^th 2024 attack on Congress.

Expect some interesting developments, then, in the run up to the 2028 election….

The relevance of Trump to World Politics

In case you’re wondering why Trump figures so large in this article when there are many other players involved in world politics, it’s fairly simple – as already discussed, he has single-handedly challenged, and already managed to disrupt, the established world order since regaining office, and appears to have wrong-footed pretty much every other nation on the planet by doing so. The world appears to be still 'in shock' and have little idea as to how deal with it. Some argue that this would eventually have happened anyway without Trump, given China’s rise and Putin’s empire building obsessions, but Trump has certainly played a ‘catalytic’ role in hastening the process, if nothing else.

What he does from here on in will determine whether we regain some form of equilibrium and a return to something resembling the original status quo, or remain in turmoil for the remainder of his term and possibly beyond. Putin probably still believes he can outwit Trump, but is in a poor economic and military position in which to do so. 

Trump may also have ‘trouble at t’mill’ in store at home himself in the form of civil dissent, particularly over his immigration policy. The riots in LA resulting from forced imprisonment and deportation of anyone without ‘valid’ immigration paperwork confirm that the MAGA-induced policy, and his enforcement of it, is widely seen as OTT. It is, in any case, almost bound to be ineffective, and it will simply drive the illegals underground, and straight into the hands of organised crime which will continue to flourish. The only viable solutions to the immigration issue in the US, and for 1st world nations more generally,  are: Stricter control of the borders, Active and forceful destruction of the smugglers’ business model, and Positive integration into society of any non-criminal illegals who are judged to have been useful members of their communities for many years. We in the UK might do well to prioritise the first two; we do seem to be doing significantly better than the US with the 3rd....

The Chinese Question

Xi Jin Ping, as the effective leader of the current Eastern bloc, is obviously better-placed to influence the course of world events than Putin, but is not without his own problems. Faced with a vast home population, and with a demographic time-bomb already ticking, he needs to satisfy his burgeoning middle-class who expect a continuously improving standard of living, but have recently been subjected to pandemic lockdowns and a housing crisis. He is therefore virtually bound to adopt expansionist policies – standing still just isn’t an option for China either economically or politically, if Xi wishes to survive much longer in his self-appointed role as lifetime premier. 

The continuing housing crisis, in particular, could still ‘break’ the Chinese economy, which is already mired in debt, and we should also not forget the continuing threat of another pandemic. The last three notable respiratory outbreaks (SARS-CoV-1 & 2, MERS) all started in China; The first two were effectively contained, but SARS-CoV-2 ‘escaped’ with the 2020 Chinese New Year tourist surge to Europe, and led to the worldwide Covid 19 pandemic, which is still having adverse effects to this day. Traditional chinese medicine’s requirement for exotic animals makes the appearance of another nasty virus of zoonotic origin a virtual certainty in time. Even if the Chinese do manage to contain it effectively next time round, the prolonged lockdowns likely to be involved in dealing with it could still paralyse the economy, as did Covid during the infamous ‘Zero Tolerance’ period.

Thus Chairman Xi has plenty to worry about internally, and is unlikely to want to go to war any time soon unless he has to. That said, its obvious that the Taiwan issue remains a definite personal ‘thorn in the flesh’ for him. The massive increase in the size and sophistication of the Chinese military in recent years suggest China certainly does not intend to be a ‘pushover’ when it comes to world military domination, and will respond if challenged, particular in what it sees as its own home 'patch'.

Is a 3^rd World War on the Horizon ?

I’ve considered this question in some depth in a previous blog, and have looked in detail at how things might develop. Head over to this article via the link above for a more detailed look at how warfare might develop in the next decade.

As discussed, I suspect we've avoided the Middle East conflict leading to an immediate nuclear confrontation – for now, at least. The only parties who could initiate one aren’t ready to gamble everything on a pre-emptive nuclear strike, and are conscious that the MAD principle still applies. Provide Israel doesn’t decide to resort to using its own nukes to reply to any future Iranian attack, and no one else ‘slips what’s left of the Iranian regime anything under the counter’, we should eventually achieve some sort of non-nuclear resolution to the Iran problem. As discussed, this should, ideally, involving a much-overdue regime change, given that the current regime is unlikely ever to temper its destructive urges towards Zionism. 

That was after all Israel's ultimate objective of carrying out June 12th's  pre-emptive (conventional) strike in the first place. If the ‘nuclear button’ is ever pressed by one of the superpowers, it’s likely to be accidental – see the above link for an explanation of why, including a look at whether AI could have a bearing on that particular risk.

Final Thoughts

As stated, we are in a time of great change…and living through probably the most turbulent period in our history since the 1940s. First the financial crisis of 2008, then austerity, a global pandemic…and now Trump v2.0. We could be forgiven for thinking that there’s little hope of our society actually reaching 2050, never mind achieving ‘net zero’, if and when we ever get there. 

The reader should be aware that the above interpretation of events, and where we may end up as a result, may prove to be somewhat wide of the mark. It does have a ring of truth about it, though. 

As someone who has lived on the planet more than 70 years now, and seen quite a few of our species’ comings and goings, I am, believe it or not, still optimistic that a way will be found through the current mire. I’m am quite relieved, though, that I won’t be here to see where humanity has actually got to on 1st January 2050. 

The human animal is a resilient and highly adaptive ‘beast’, and its ability to survive and prosper against the odds may yet surprise us…..I truly hope so.

First published 14.6.25 

Revised 25.6.25