The dynamics of international relations are constantly evolving, and recent developments highlight the complexities involved in the interactions between major powers. This article examines the strategies of former President Trump regarding his dealings with China, Russia, and India, as well as the resultant geopolitical repercussions.
Yves here. It’s important to note that while Andrew Korybko provides a valuable overview of Trump’s attempts to undermine China’s partnerships with Russia and India, some of his descriptions may be open to debate. Korybko’s language can sometimes lack the precision we might prefer. For instance, I wouldn’t characterize Russia as “pivoting” toward China. From the outset of the Special Military Operation, China’s economic backing was crucial to Russia, both in its own right and as a means of encouraging other nations to resist U.S. pressure and continue trading with Russia. Moreover, we must remember that China and Russia formalized a comprehensive partnership agreement of 5,000 words in early February 2022, before the conflict began.
However, what stands out is the unwavering conviction of Trump and his team that their singular approach—extreme dominance—will prove effective, despite numerous setbacks. It seems the observers are mistakenly interpreting their objective as promoting American interests rather than as a theatrical display of Trump’s dominance on the global stage.
By Andrew Korybko, an American political analyst based in Moscow who focuses on the shift to a multipolar world amid the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO. This article was originally published on his website.
The global transition towards a multipolar system is currently taking a different direction than previously anticipated due to recent changes in the international landscape. Up until now, Trump 2.0 has pursued resource and military partnerships with Russia and India, hoping to decelerate China’s rise as a superpower and establish a junior partnership in potential “G2” or “Chimerica” agreements. Nevertheless, this balancing act has faltered primarily due to Trump’s overbearing and confrontational approach toward all three nations.
Relations with Russia deteriorated after the Anchorage Summit, coinciding with concerning developments involving U.S. plans to bolster NATO support in Ukraine. These actions alarmed Putin, prompting him to abandon his own Eurasian balancing approach and move closer to China, exemplified by the recent agreement for the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline. The U.S. strategy of forming a resource-centric partnership with Russia to elicit concessions regarding Ukraine now seems much less feasible.
As for India, relations soured during its spring clashes with Pakistan, during which Trump appeared to favor Pakistan while misleadingly claiming that India had agreed to a U.S.-mediated ceasefire. The U.S. then discreetly imposed punitive tariffs on India due to its ongoing trade with Russia while exempting China from similar measures. Meanwhile, Trump leveled harsh insults at India, leading many to conclude he was intent on hindering its rise as a Great Power. Rapidly, India resolved its issues with China and distanced itself from the U.S.
With Russia now aligning with China through the Power of Siberia 2 and the ongoing Sino-Indian rapprochement, any potential efforts to slow China’s rise through partnerships with these nations have effectively been nullified. Consequently, the balance of any prospective “G2” or “Chimerica” deal now favors China. President Xi Jinping has subsequently adopted increasingly assertive rhetoric aimed at reshaping the global order, as seen in his speeches during the SCO Summit and V-J Day. In response, Trump accused him of “colluding” against the U.S.
The interim Sino-U.S. trade agreement now faces uncertainty following Trump’s recent threats to impose 100% tariffs on China by November 1 or sooner, contingent upon China’s export controls on rare earth minerals. Coupled with his accusations of Xi “conspiring” with Putin and Kim Jong Un, this may ignite future military-strategic tensions, even indirectly through proxy conflicts. Such actions could further destabilize Eurasia, aligning with the U.S.’s traditional divide-and-conquer tactics.
The potential methods of sowing discord could include: instigating Color Revolution disturbances in Mongolia to undermine the Power of Siberia 2; provoking incidents at sea involving Japan, Taiwan, and/or the Philippines in contested waters; obstructing China’s access to rare earth minerals in Myanmar’s Kachin State; and/or creating instability in Central Asia through NATO member Turkiye via the new TRIPP Corridor. In response, China might provide military support to Russia, including sending troops to Ukraine.
Xi has observed how Trump has treated his ally Modi, who could have participated in the U.S. anti-Chinese coalition, and how he has betrayed Putin following the Anchorage summit concerning Ukraine. Therefore, Xi anticipates similar treatment if he were to agree to a “G2” or “Chimerica” arrangement. Additionally, with China now a target following the imposition of tariffs and Trump’s conspiratorial allegations, it’s unsurprising that Trump 2.0’s Eurasian balancing strategy, characterized by arrogance and hostility, has ultimately failed.
