Three Theories of Trump’s Strategy for American Power

DW News (2025)

Film Review

The purpose of this documentary is to try to make sense of Trump’s impulsive and chaotic foreign policy according to “established” foreign policy principles. I found it extremely disappointing as it makes no mention whatsoever of BRICS (which represents half the global population and 41% of global GDP) or China’s Belt and Road initiative. In addition to the 10 current BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates), another eight partner countries (Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan) are on the path to become full members. Any realistic US foreign policy would surely need to take account of this growing multipolar alliance.

It also makes several serious misstatements of fact. The most serious is its claim that Russia “seized” Crimea and Eastern Ukraine following the CIA installation of an openly Nazi government in Kiev in 2014. The historical record indicates the mainly Russian-speaking residents of Crimea, Donestsk and Luhansk and voted (with a 90+ plus majority) voted to rejoin the Russian Federation in 2014. The filmmakers also fail to acknowledge the official US and international recognition of China’s One China policy under both Carter and Obama and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in October 1971 (see http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/16215516.html).

The three strategic foreign policy goals set out are Realism, Reverse Kissinger and Spheres of influence. The foreign policy analysts consulted include Gautan Chikermane (Vice President Observer Research Foundation Delhi), Liana Fix (Council on Foreign Relations), Alexander Gabuev (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Amanda Hsiao Amanda Hsiao (director in Eurasia Group’s China practice covering China’s foreign policy and cross-strait relations) and Steve Wertheim (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).

1. Realism

In a realism-based foreign policy, results are based on power rather than principle (like the so called Rules Based Order*) and normally end with some compromise on both sides. Gautam Chikermane feels that while Trump believes his foreign policy is realism-based, he fails to acknowledge that foreign policy is no longer binary but involves multiple players, that European and US economies are collapsing and that Russia no longer cares about positive US esteem.

2. Reverse Kissinger

With a Reverse Kissinger foreign policy, the main goal would be to disrupt the Chinese-Russian alliance by forming a special relationship with Russia (Kissinger destroyed this alliance by forming a special relationship with China).

Analysts supporting this view of Trump’s foreign policy see the US as a nation in “very serious decline.” They blame Biden for allowing Russia, China and Iran to form a political, economic and military alliance, and believe one of Trump’s main goals is to “un-unite” them. This approach would seek to give Russia more (mainly economic) options to make her less dependent on China.

3. Spheres of Influence

Long associated with power relations and empire, this strategy seeks to possess or dominate neighboring countries for specific political and/or economic gain. This view equates Trump’s desire to possess Greenland, Canada and Panama with Russia’s alleged “seizure of Crimea and East Ukraine,” China’s desire to “seize” Taiwan, their dispute with Japan over South China Sea islands and with India over Himalayan borders.

Although all five analysts interviewed are highly critical of Trump’s bullying and his disruptive and unpredictable behavior, Chikermane is cautiously optimistic about Trump’s approach to foreign policy. He feels the “fake liberalism” under Biden had to be called out and that Europe had to be “woken up.” For some reason, he neglects to mention that India is a member of BRICS, which clearly places his own country under China’s sphere of influence.

*The film also neglects to mention the US only adheres to The Rules Based Order when it suits its own foreign policy interests (eg its long history of illegal sponsorship of international terrorism and color revolutions).