The geopolitical landscape has been significantly shaped by US President Donald Trump’s transactional approach to international relations. His administration’s policies regarding Panama, Canada, Mexico and the broader Gulf of Mexico region, as well as his handling of crises in places like Gaza, provide a distinct lens through which to view his mindset. 

The framework under which he operates is one that embraces power politics, a belief that the strongest force holds sway and deals are transactional — each party gives something up in exchange for tangible benefits. This is the essence of his philosophy, one that redefines diplomacy as a zero-sum game. This ideology was dramatically evident in his recent AI-generated video, which paints an idyllic, fantastical version of Gaza’s future — one in which violence and despair are replaced with beachside leisure, belly dancers and the inevitable presence of billionaires like Elon Musk. This is all set to the backdrop of a new world order with Trump as its architect.

The absurdity of the video is apparent, but its most striking element is the way it is embraced by those around Trump. Instead of distancing himself from such a fantastical portrayal, he has leaned into it. The video, which was meant to showcase a utopia, reveals a mindset in which Trump sees the world as a place where countries, particularly those in the developing world, are reduced to mere settings for the grandeur of global elites. This worldview, troubling as it may be, garners support from certain quarters.

Many have reacted to this video. Commentors praise Trump’s vision for a world where these “pesky” developing nations are reduced to backdrops. Their comments focus on economic growth and the notion that such areas like Gaza should simply be incorporated into a commercial system that benefits those in power. It reflects a dangerous, imperialistic outlook that distorts how we should view global cooperation and power dynamics.

However, this vision is not one that is universally accepted, even among those who support Trump. While the video highlights his transactional style — offering deals, even at the cost of human suffering — it also reveals the continued support of those on the far-right and isolationist factions of the population. This underscores how Trump’s appeal lies in his ability to portray himself as a figure who can solve problems with direct, albeit harsh, solutions.

The real threat lies not in his policies alone, but in the fact that his worldview is growing popular. For countries like Ukraine, this presents a terrifying prospect: The reality of international law and collective defense systems is increasingly under attack.

Russia, Ukraine and the limits of military power

Trump’s approach to Russia, particularly in relation to Ukraine, further underscores his transactional nature. He has consistently hinted at providing Russian President Vladimir Putin with an exit from the Ukraine conflict, claiming that his pragmatic approach could bring about peace.

However, Trump’s focus on Russia’s military power misses the real threat: Russian intelligence. It is not the Russian military that should be feared most, but rather the country’s ongoing, sophisticated espionage efforts aimed at destabilizing democracies. These operations are often low-cost but high-reward, changing the trajectory of a nation through subversive means. Whether it’s influencing public opinion, assassinating political figures or shaping electoral outcomes, Russia’s intelligence services have been successful in destabilizing countries and shifting their allegiances.

In Ukraine, Russia’s intelligence services have capitalized on divisions, turning the situation into a proxy war of influence. Meanwhile, Trump continues to downplay the conventional military threat posed by Russia. He focuses instead on superficial geopolitical concerns, like Ukraine’s access to rare-earth minerals, which he cites as a key point of leverage in his negotiations.

Ukraine is caught in the middle. Its sovereignty is threatened by not just Russian military aggression, but the geopolitical manipulations of the United States, which seeks to extract concessions from the country. The idea of a “transactional” peace is, at its core, about securing economic resources and political influence, rather than seeking a lasting solution to the conflict.

NATO and the decline of multilateralism

Another crucial aspect of Trump’s geopolitical approach is his treatment of NATO, which he has openly criticized. He has repeatedly said that the US should not be responsible for defending Europe unless European nations increase their defense spending. While this stance has garnered support from certain segments of the American population, it has left Europe in a position to navigate the complexities of security and defense without reliable American support.

The fragility of NATO is becoming evident. Trump refused to commit to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. Now countries like Germany question the alliance’s future.

This shift in US policy could have dramatic repercussions for Europe, particularly as internal divisions grow. Countries like Germany and France, historically the anchors of European unity, are struggling to maintain cohesion in the face of external threats. With Trump’s isolationist rhetoric and the growing instability within the European Union, the idea of a unified European defense system seems increasingly distant. The concept of NATO, originally designed to counter the Soviet threat, now risks irrelevance as Trump’s insistence on transactional deals further erodes its foundations.

The future of global diplomacy and economic fallout

Looking beyond Europe, Trump’s transactional approach to global diplomacy has far-reaching consequences. For instance, if China–Taiwan tensions further escalate, Taiwan could be left to navigate its fate without American intervention. Trump’s reluctance to engage in foreign conflicts or intervene in disputes unless it serves American economic interests represents a broader trend of disengagement from traditional global leadership roles. This shift is particularly concerning for smaller nations that have relied on American support for their security and sovereignty.

The Global South is similarly vulnerable in this new era of transactional diplomacy. Countries in this region, often caught between the competing interests of global powers, are left with few options other than to accept deals on the terms of stronger nations. As the world moves toward a more fragmented, bilateral approach to diplomacy, smaller countries are finding it harder to assert their interests or secure meaningful alliances. The return of de facto gunboat diplomacy, in which stronger powers impose their will on weaker nations, signals a regression to a more imperialistic world order, one in which global cooperation and multilateral institutions are sidelined.

The world in flux

The global order, as we have known it, is in a state of flux. The erosion of multilateralism, the rise of transactional politics and the growing dominance of strongman figures like Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping signal a dramatic shift in international relations.

For nations like the US, this might seem advantageous in the short term. After all, bilateral deals can offer immediate benefits. However, the long-term consequences for global stability are profound. With Europe increasingly on its own, Ukraine stuck between competing powers and the world’s smaller nations left vulnerable, the future of international diplomacy seems uncertain at best.

For investors, this geopolitical uncertainty signals a need for caution. With protectionist policies and nationalist sentiments gaining traction, global markets may experience volatility. Domestic producers may benefit from these shifts, but the broader implications for global trade and investment are yet to be fully realized. As the global power structure continues to evolve, those who navigate this new world with foresight will be best positioned to weather the coming storm.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.