January 2025
The return of Donald Trump to the White House in January 2025 marks the beginning of a new political cycle, which poses a serious dilemma for the international system. The American public is expressing deep polarization between expectations of economic recovery and the fear of institutional erosion. At the same time, the global actors are attempting to adjust to the pattern that can be explained as the “new American realpolitik isolationism”. This is opening up a series of questions about the sustainability of the order, which depended on American predictability for decades.
The first moves of the new Administration point to continuity with the previous mandate. The revision of the American participation in NATO missions, announcements of a reduction of aid to Ukraine, and pressuring European allies to take up the majority of the expenses of defense represent clear signals of shifting priorities. In other words, the United States is redefining its political DNA, shifting from global responsibility to selective engagement, which is changing the balance of power within the Western alliance.
Europe, faced with this trend, is showing the symptoms of strategic stress. The announcement of the “revision of trans-Atlantic obligations” has activated a political reflex of self-defense in Berlin and Paris, while the Eastern NATO member states are expressing concerns over the possible “security vacuum”. This sheds light on a series of questions about the ability of the European Union to develop its own defense system and preserve social immunity in the conditions of external pressure. In other words, the continent is currently in between dependence and autonomy, between the need for independence and the fear of isolation.
The American economic patriotism openly promoted by Trump is growing into a pressure mechanism for the allies. The return of industry and capital to the American soil is a part of a broader strategic reindustrialization. Such a policy does not only represent an economic instrument, but also the method of geopolitics – a form of controlled drawback to preserve internal stability. This opens up a series of questions about the long-term resilience of Western economies and the possible collapse of global value chains.
In Relation to China and Russia, the new Administration is exerting asymmetric approaches. Moscow is expecting mitigation of sanctions and a de facto admission of reality in the field in Ukraine. However, Trump’s politics remain transactional and not ideological. If Russia can contribute to the American goal of limiting China, it will be tolerated; if not, it will be under pressure. Beijing, at the same time, assesses that American isolationism could open up a space for the Chinese penetration into Indo-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. This brings along a series of questions about the new global balance, especially given the fact that China is combining economic influence with cautious diplomacy, deflecting confrontations.
In the Middle East, Trump’s administration is returning to the policy of maximum pressure on Iran and strengthening its support for Israel. Still, regional dynamics are complex now. Saudi Arabia and Israel are leading somewhat decent normalization of relations processes, under the mediation of China, while Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are using American hesitation to strengthen their own regional positions. In other words, the American drawback from the region is functioning as a virus of instability – it makes up space for new actors and increases the risk from unpredictable alliances.
In parallel, the global South is increasingly openly leaving the Western-centric institutions. From Latin America to Africa, new cooperation networks, led by China, India, and Russia, are being formed. The absence of American interest in multilateral formats is accelerating this process. This opens up a series of questions regarding the sustainability of the international system, which, for decades, rested on the American guarantee framework.
In conclusion, the first days of the Trump administration do not represent a revolution but a potential evolution of political reality, which threatens to turn into a retrograde step. The United States is not completely drawing back, but is redefining its concept of global presence. The focus is shifting from universal values to pragmatic interests. Short-term, this could bring along internal stability, but in the long run, it threatens the social immunity of the international system.
In other words, the return of Trump is not only an American political event. It is a symptom of a wider change in the world order, where every state must once again assess its political DNA, question its own resilience, and define the scope of dependence it can bear without losing sovereignty. This raises a series of questions about the future of global stability – and whether the world is prepared for the post-hegemonic era without a clear center of gravity.
Author: Miloš Grozdanović