Trump’s proclaimed course, intentionally or unintentionally, may be a harbinger of one of the pillars of classical geopolitics: the division of the world into spheres of influence. Obviously, such a division, whether by soft or other power, already existed in the ‘non-Trump’ modern world. But the fact is that under the US foreign policy framework, the new administration’s unwitting supporters would primarily be authoritarian Russia and China. And this, in fact, creates a special challenge for compact countries (such as Georgia) that authoritarian regimes perceive to fall within their sphere of influence.
In time, this challenge will become even more acute if the decline of international law continues and the political and legal instruments that ensured order after the Second World War are replaced by commercialization and mercantilism in relations between countries. As a result, the importance of diplomacy and law will be overshadowed by motives driven by ‘value’ and ‘monetary compensation,’ and interstate contacts will effectively be governed by the same laws as the stock exchange. When discussing this issue, it is enough to recall that when announcing a possible deal on Ukraine’s mineral resources, Russia – on the principle of ‘who has more?’ – offered its mineral resources to the USA.
The next step in the ‘net’ commercialization of international relations could be the ‘trade’ in territories, which would not only destroy the rule-based order, but also lead to the establishment of total disorder. And as a result, one of the most important pillars of any system that even pretends to be civilized – inviolability of borders – will become the new practice of ‘resolving’ conflicts.
Again, judging by its declared course, the Trump administration’s objective is to give primacy to the interests of the United States and to take into account the interests of the average American in positioning the country in the world. In both cases, the necessary method of achieving these goals is to get the other side or opponent to agree to the best terms.
However, introducing a policy of ‘deal-making’ with spheres of influence and territories as ‘business as usual’ would mean a return to the times when powerful countries imposed their will on weaker countries unconditionally and without asking them. It goes without saying that such a ‘disorderly order’ in international relations will significantly increase risks and at the same time significantly reduce the necessary capabilities to repel them.
‘The Russian Trail”: for fans of conspiracy theories
One of the hallmarks of our time is the fascination with conspiracy theories. It is one thing for ordinary citizens to be obsessed with conspiracy theories, and another, almost tantamount to a national threat, for government circles to make such theories the basis for policy decisions. Unfortunately, the Georgian reality also offers us an extremely counterproductive experience of being fascinated by or manipulating with conspiracy theories. However, back to Trump and his administration…
In this regard, one of the manifestations of conspiracy theories is considered to be Trump’s purposeful defence of Russia’s interests. This is such a serious accusation that one should not allow oneself to talk about it so openly, nor should one allow one’s audience to listen to it lightly.
At the same time, some of Trump’s promises and declared desires naturally cause the Western political community and its partners to be naturally surprised and, in some places, even protest.
The reader is well aware of such promises or statements, and I see no point in describing them in detail. However, the main point is that the Trump Doctrine turns upside down one of the most important achievements of the post-war world and a critical component of security: Western military, political and economic unity based on alliances. And this is the greatest gift you can inadvertently give to those who want to rewrite the order based on the rules already mentioned.
What is also suggestive here is not only Trump’s personal ‘geo-taste’ but also the way he is forming his team, where the main principle, at this stage, is the complete sharing of such ‘taste’ and personal loyalty. And this creates great prospects for the development of the above approach.
If such a ‘doctrinal’ line becomes an everyday reality, not to mention freedom and democracy, an additional threat will arise, first of all, for those countries that have not yet completely left the geography of authoritarian regimes’ spheres of influence. As a result, the content of American policy has never been more critical for geopolitically ‘frontier’ countries; Nor has the ‘step from the great to the ridiculous’ in American foreign policy ever seemed so short.
What would make the new administration more ‘predictable’ and ‘stable’?
We’ve already talked about the premature conclusions and I think the reader will share that observation. The fact is that the Trump administration’s handwriting so far also has a so-called ‘in progress’ status. At the same time, I will briefly and subjectively focus on a few issues that are most relevant to us, namely a return to the usual, ‘normal,’ beginnings of American geopolitics.
Leaders like Trump often create their own reality and thus attempt to continue their activities. Any criticism or ‘attack’ on this so-called ‘detached’ reality from the outside is a futile and, most importantly, counterproductive effort. Thus, by properly ‘authenticating’ their reality, one or another delicate attempt to find points of contact between ‘his’ and ‘our’ realities is of particular value. In general, such points contribute to the convergence of evaluations and the gradual creation of a common reality.
The post-20 January period shows that in pursuing the ‘America First’ line, Trump is largely acting with a Machiavellian approach: the end justifies the means. For a world tired of excessive sentimentality and unresolved problems, this will probably not be completely unacceptable or incomprehensible. However, even in such a case, the United States, as one of the key systemically important actors in world relations, is obliged to observe certain ‘red lines’.
For example, the call to ‘Make America Great Again’ requires a clear understanding of what ‘greatness’ means. To better understand this specific content, a number of fundamental questions need to be addressed, such as: what should the ‘greatness’ of the United States be in terms of hard and soft power? What does an effective transformation of the so-called Pax Americana look like and, more generally, what constitutes US leadership in the context of the existing or emerging ‘order’? These and many other questions require conceptualization: not only for the good of the United States itself, but also for the good of all its partners.
Europe has a special role to play in the process of returning the US to the ‘normal’ beginnings I have already mentioned. Here, Trump’s European colleagues should remind him of several fundamental aspects, namely:
1) proper participation in European security is an optimal investment for the United States to reap significant geopolitical benefits;
2) such participation serves to deter unwanted rivalries against Western interests on the European continent;
3) the preservation and strengthening of the US role in European military and political affairs as a result of the world war favors the expansion of American business interests and capital on the European continent.
The interest in ‘stability’, ‘predictability’ and ‘normalization’ in the approach of the US administration is quite obvious. All of this, besides being of interest, is extremely important for the national and state affairs of our country. This is also relevant in this new world with ‘disorderly order’ so that the Georgian side can establish different relations – identifying mutual interests with our partners – for gaining practical benefits.
Analysis by Victor Kipiani, Chairman, Geocase
