President Trump is on a war path, neither with Russia, nor with China, but with Western allies and US establishment. Apparently, he has opened a dozen fronts at home and abroad with wide ranging consequences. This has been reflected in the first six weeks of his presidency and every coming day is becoming more eventful and interesting as friends and foes of America try to figure out what is happening in the White House.
While addressing the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) near Washington on February 22, President Trump welcomed the conservative invitees from across the world, prominent amongst the MAGA crowd were former president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico, Reform UK's Nigel Farage, former British prime minister Liz Truss, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Argentinian President Javier Milei.
As reported by the VOA, the President of Argentina, wielding a chain saw, electrified the CPAC crowd when he shared the stage with Elon Musk and presented him with his signature campaign prop. "This is the chain saw of bureaucracy," Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, shouted, waving the tool.
The chainsaw has already started cutting through the Pentagon. Trump has, through his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, started firing senior military commanders and staff in the Pentagon and placing the likes of Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard in critical intelligence agencies – something which shows that the war with the US establishment is in full swing.
On the foreign front, Trump's policies are on a head-on clash with the EU due to significant divergences in strategic priorities, values, trade and tariffs, the Russia-Ukraine war and approaches to global order and governance. Trump has criticised European NATO members for not meeting the defence spending target, threatening to cut down on US commitments. Trump's transactional diplomacy and skepticism of alliances has eroded decades of transatlantic cooperation. The EU, while seeking to assert strategic autonomy, faces challenges in navigating US unilateralism. These tensions highlighted differing visions of global order, with the EU prioritising rules-based multilateralism and Trump favouring power-centric bilateralism.
The biggest bombshell on the Western allies is Trump's policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. The Trump camp is propagating the policy shift based on three major factors: one, the war has cost massive casualties in Europe and is unending, threatening the very existence of Western civilisation; two, the US has spent more money than the EU members combined on "this fruitless effort"; and three, the Trump administration could persuade Russia to distance itself from China.
While the first two arguments may have substance, the possibility of Trump persuading Putin to distance from China may not be that easy; it's a very complex relationship and hinges on multiple geopolitical, economic and strategic factors.
Both Russia and China share a goal of countering US-led global dominance, their partnership is rooted in mutual opposition to Western sanctions, criticism of human rights interventions, and resistance to US influence in regions like Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific. A Trump administration's unilateralist or transactional approach might not fundamentally alter this shared strategic objective.
Since 2014 (post-Crimea sanctions), Russia has pivoted toward China for trade, energy exports and financial systems (e.g. using China's CIPS as an alternative to SWIFT). China is now Russia's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade exceeding $200 billion in 2023.
Russia and China collaborate on advanced weapons systems (e.g. missile defence, hypersonic technology) and joint military exercises. Both seek to reduce reliance on Western technology. The US has limited leverage to disrupt this cooperation without offering Russia comparable military or technological partnerships, which would face bipartisan resistance in Congress.
Trump could theoretically offer to lift sanctions imposed over Ukraine, cyberattacks, or election interference. However, the US Congress has codified many sanctions into law (e.g. CAATSA), making unilateral removal difficult. Even if possible, Russia might view such relief as temporary, given the volatility of US politics. Trump's rapport with Putin could foster symbolic gestures (e.g. joint summits, rhetoric about "resetting" relations). However, substantive shifts would require addressing core Russian demands, such as recognition of its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe - a non-starter for NATO allies and US strategic interests.
Trump may offer an expanding US-Russia energy cooperation (e.g. LNG exports, easing restrictions on Russian oil), which might appeal to Moscow. However, this would clash with US climate goals and face opposition from European allies reliant on diversifying away from Russian energy.
Beijing could likely respond to US overtures by doubling down on economic and military support for Russia, potentially offering better terms (e.g. discounted energy purchases, technology transfers) to maintain alignment.
European allies would resist a US-Russia détente that undermines Ukrainian security or weakens NATO cohesion. Trump's prior criticism of NATO and affinity for Putin alienated key partners, limiting collective leverage. During the Cold War, Nixon exploited Sino-Soviet tensions to "split" communist powers. However, today's Russia-China partnership is less ideological and more pragmatic, focused on mutual survival against Western pressure.
Xi's China is far more integrated into the global economy than the USSR ever was, reducing its vulnerability to US wedge strategies. While Trump's transactional style and personal rapport with Putin could produce symbolic gestures or limited deals (e.g. temporary sanctions relief, energy projects), structurally decoupling Russia from China is improbable.
For Russia to pivot toward the US, Trump would need to offer a comprehensive package addressing Moscow's core demands: recognition of its sphere of influence, permanent sanctions relief, and security guarantees - terms incompatible with US alliances and values. Absent such a radical shift, the Russia-China entente is likely to endure, even under a Trump presidency.
For the US, the coming days and months are bound to remain chaotic. The million dollar question is: can a 79-year-old Trump continue to be on the war path with his western allies and the entrenched US establishment?
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ