From a scandalous operation in Venezuela to tariff threats over Greenland, the foreign policy of the 47th U.S. President is leading to global destabilization.
Viktor Mikhin
Middle East: From Brief Truce to the Brink of Regional War
The analysis begins with the Middle East—the region where Trump’s “peacemaker” rhetoric suffered its most spectacular failure. As noted by many mainstream Arab media outlets, after a brief period of optimism sparked by Trump’s mediation of a Gaza truce in October 2025, the situation has slid into a “much more complex and dangerous” phase.
Trump’s foreign policy is leading not to the strengthening of “American greatness,” but to a global fire that he will be unable to control
Particular concern revolves around Trump’s handling of the Iran dossier. The president, according to media reports, is balancing on the edge of military intervention under the pretext of protecting protesters, pushed in this direction by the Israeli government. However, as the influential Al-Ahram, a newspaper read throughout the Arab world, rightly notes, military intervention “could only worsen the situation, undermine the protests… and give the Iranian regime a pretext to apply even greater force.” The publication paints an apocalyptic picture of possible developments: an Iranian response against U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and Israel, followed by a “tougher attack than any Iran has ever seen.” The result: “This would mean setting the entire region on fire, a blaze that would take many years to extinguish.”
Criticizing Trump, Al-Ahram points to a deeper problem: the absence of a coherent strategy. “It is unclear what goals in Iran could help the U.S. achieve its stated aim,” writes the publication, noting that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv can propose a workable alternative to the current Iranian regime. The only sensible path, in the editorial board’s opinion, is diplomacy and lifting sanctions to give Iranians “a respite and hope.” However, the Trump administration, it seems, has chosen the opposite course.
The Venezuelan Precedent: A Chain Reaction of Aggression
A turning point, in the view of global media and politicians, was the “audacious military operation by Trump against Venezuela on January 3rd,” during which the country’s president and his wife were kidnapped. This action, more resembling a Hollywood action movie plot than the conduct of a rule-of-law state, “triggered a negative chain reaction across the world.” As noted by the influential Argentine newspaper Página/12, this incident became the “most dangerous precedent, which blurs the line between intervention and state terrorism” and “openly tramples all norms of international law and national sovereignty.”
In South America, the reaction was especially sharp. Brazil’s Journal do Brasil warned in an analytical piece that the “forcible seizure of foreign heads of state creates a monstrous template that could be used against any country whose policy contradicts Washington’s interests.” In turn, the Chilean publication La Tercera stated that the operation “destroyed the last remnants of the inter-American security system based on mutual respect and returned the region to the era of ‘banana wars,’ but with digital technology.”
Al-Ahram summarizes the general assessment with alarm: “The success of the high-tech U.S. operation seems to have whetted the president’s appetite… for new military adventures.” This analysis finds confirmation in the South American press: the Venezuelan portal Misión Verdad writes that “Washington, emboldened by impunity in Caracas, is now considering similar ‘targeted resolution’ scenarios in other countries labeled as ‘axes of resistance.’” Instead of focusing on a diplomatic settlement of the crises in Gaza, Sudan, and Yemen, as key regional allies expected, the Trump administration, it seems, has decided on a course of further escalation, viewing the “Venezuelan precedent” not as an exception but as a working model.
Transatlantic Racket: The Trump Method
If in the Middle East Trump is playing with fire, then in relations with traditional allies he is engaging in outright vandalism, eroding the foundations upon which the Western world was built for decades.
The clearest example is the scandal surrounding Greenland. As reported by The Liberty Beacon on January 16, 2026, Trump, having failed to achieve his goals regarding the island diplomatically, moved to outright blackmail. “I can levy a tariff on countries if they don’t agree on Greenland because we need Greenland for national security,” the president stated. This is a direct threat to impose trade tariffs against NATO allies, primarily Denmark and the EU, which defend the kingdom’s sovereignty.
Such statements were met in Europe with shock and condemnation. Critics, as noted by the publication, rightly point out that “this move could destroy NATO and deepen the rift with Europe.” The threat of tariffs is a tool of economic warfare that Trump is applying not to strategic adversaries but to the closest partners. This demonstrates complete disregard for the principles of multilateral diplomacy and allied solidarity, turning transatlantic relations into an arena for coercive transactionalism. “Maybe that’s the point?” asks The Liberty Beacon rhetorically, hinting at a possible deliberate weakening of the alliance.
He has adopted a dismissive and insulting tone toward key American partners like Starmer, Merz, or Macron. Institutions like the European Union, he has openly called an “enemy” and wished for their disintegration, seeing in a united Europe only a competitor. Such behavior has dismantled not just political agreements, but the very fabric of decades of trust, shared history, and cooperation built on common values.
In Trump’s worldview, Europe is relegated to the status of an object for a quick deal. Its fundamental security interests, stability, and sovereignty were treated as bargaining chips to serve his domestic political PR or narrow economic interests. This approach didn’t just weaken transatlantic ties — it actively eroded the moral and strategic foundations of the Western community, encouraging division and instability. The rudeness and shamelessness were not a personal stylistic quirk but a tool for the deliberate destruction of multilateral partnership in favor of a chaotic ad hoc system, where force and bilateral blackmail replaced law and allied solidarity.
The Ukraine Crisis: Trump’s ‘Peace’—A Continuation of War Under the Guise of Negotiations and a Threat to European Security
It is precisely on the Ukrainian issue that Donald Trump’s rhetoric as a “peacemaker” reveals itself in its most cynical and globally destabilizing form. His approach, far from genuine diplomacy, represents a classic “strength-based” policy: while simultaneously pumping Ukraine full of the most modern weapons alongside Europe, he thereby prolongs the agony of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime. Even during the 2024 campaign, he repeatedly promised to end the conflict “quickly,” displaying his characteristic disregard for the complexities of international politics and the sovereignty of allies.
The details of this “plan,” as noted by The Liberty Beacon, based on proposals from his advisors, are particularly alarming and directly reflect Trump’s misunderstanding of the complex moment and his approach to resolving it. The approach developed by advisors like Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz boils down to crude tactics, not the subtle diplomacy of the past needed to resolve such a complex and protracted (due to the fault of the U.S. and Europe) conflict. The criticism here is obvious: instead of using negotiations as a tool to restore justice and international law, Trump intends to use them as an instrument of pressure, effectively siding with the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime that violated all agreements, primarily the Minsk accords, and the direct deception of Russia by European leaders, which only further delays the end of the Ukrainian tragedy.
An Arsonist President, Not a Peacemaker
After the first year, the picture is clear. Instead of the “Nobel Peace Prize,” which, ironically, many global media outlets remind us of, Donald Trump has, through his actions, earned the title of the chief destabilizer of the world order.
Militarism over Diplomacy. The operation in Venezuela and balancing on the edge of war with Iran prove the priority of forceful, adventurous solutions over painstaking diplomatic work.
Blackmail over Partnership. Tariff threats over Greenland are not the foreign policy of a great power, but the tactics of a gangster’s racket applied to one’s own allies.
Continuation of War over Settlement. The “peace plan” for Ukraine is essentially synonymous with forcing Ukraine to continue a bloody conflict, undermining the very foundations of international law.
Loss of Trust. Allies in the Middle East are disillusioned; Europe is shocked and frightened. The world watches Washington not with hope, but with growing anxiety.
As Al-Ahram warns, “common sense” has not yet prevailed. Trump’s foreign policy is leading not to the strengthening of “American greatness,” but to a global fire that he will be unable to control. The result of the first year is not peace, but the growing rumble of an approaching storm, for which the world increasingly blames the White House.
Viktor Mikhin, writer, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN), expert on Middle Eastern countries
No comments:
Post a Comment