Trump's tariffs: a step toward waging a swift, triumphant war

Focusing sanctions on penguin islands instead of confronting China is a far greater folly than merely calling the sanctions foolish.

1. From a psychological perspective, Trump’s second election victory represents the pinnacle of his life — a sort of final chapter in his story. It's a victory driven entirely by a mindset of "having a rematch," nothing else. All of Trump’s actions can be seen as manifestations of this quest for revanche, and should be interpreted primarily through that lens, amplified by a sense of divine providence (following the failed assassination attempt).

We are often tempted to compare Trump and Putin. The fundamental difference between these two men is that Trump does not (at least for now) think in historical terms. His comeback is an attempt to prove that he was right four years ago and that those four years were stolen from him. These are two entirely different logics.

2. It seems to me that, in Trump’s worldview, the decision to impose sanctions represents the ultimate deal in his worldview — a masterstroke in which he raises the stakes with all his global counterparts simultaneously. He genuinely believes that this move will force most countries to come to the negotiating table — and to some extent, that belief is grounded in reality.

The logic behind this “deal,” as he sees it, is rooted in advancing his broader vision of “making America great again.” And what does that vision entail?

• Maintaining the United States as the world’s dominant military power;
• Ensuring the U.S. dollar remains the primary global currency;
• Preserving American leadership in technological innovation;
• Promoting ideology outside the metropolis, necessary for fulfilling utilitarian goals to establish world order.

All the arguments that this won’t solve the national debt issue, that it will break the global system, and lead to rising prices — are secondary for Trump. He believes that these sanctions will partly balance trade and attract new technologies to the U.S., which will, in the foreseeable future (hence the talk of a second term), bring economic gains. We cannot say now whether this will come true. But the game is about risking everything to win everything — and to “make America great again.”

3. The logic behind such sanctions very likely implies a follow-up step: a swift and triumphant war to demonstrate the resolve behind these actions. Therefore, the possibility of a war in Iran (or elsewhere) in the next 2-3 months is increasing. It’s not inevitable, but the probability is certainly rising.

4. The opposition to these sanctions will likely take the form of a battle for global influence. So far, it's clear that Trump is pushing for the creation of a bipolar world, where regional powers are increasingly expected to submit to the “hegemon.” The current “and-and” principle will shift to an “either/or” scenario. The rules of this new game are still being shaped and will evolve in the course of the game, but the momentum is building. In this context, if a peace agreement over Ukraine isn't reached by the summer (though this remains unlikely), it’s important to consider that Russia may accelerate its alignment with China. This shift could make the Ukraine war a significant part of U.S.-China negotiations.

Trump believes that through all these developments, he will emerge in direct competition with China. After all, the White House does not foresee any "rebellion of regional leaders." The key question in this context is how the EU will behave. In fact, the global configuration — and the course of the war against in particular — will depend on that.

And finally, when analyzing Trump, it's easy to overlook one crucial point: he will remain president for almost four more years. If we weren’t living in Ukraine, we might see this as just another moment in history. But we are at the epicenter of a global crisis. Without the United States, the equation of this war cannot be resolved. We must keep this in mind in everything we do or say.

Source

About the author: Vadym Denysenko, political scientist.

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.