According to the Trump administration, the war in Ukraine is coming to an end… After three and a half years of bloody conflict, the culmination of a decade of unrest in eastern Ukraine, US diplomats are seeking to impose a 28-point peace agreement. A line has been drawn to separate the disputed territories: Ukraine must agree to cede territories that are not all fully controlled by the Russian army and, above all, commit to limiting its military capabilities. But Trump’s “deal” offers Ukraine a security guarantee based on NATO’s Article 5 and does not recognize Russia’s territorial claims as “legal.” In fact, Russia will have to evacuate certain portions of the occupied territories. In addition, $100 billion in Russian assets abroad will be seized to help rebuild Ukraine.

The Trump doctrine is at work. The war in Ukraine is coming to an end. Despite European bluster, Donald Trump is imposing his peace plan by exerting intense pressure on the warring parties. The same method was applied to the war in Gaza. Beyond the chaotic style, we are witnessing a geostrategic shift in American policy. Asia and Latin America are now at the forefront, with Europeans on the sidelines. The situation is therefore accelerating, and European capitals – which stubbornly repeat their support for Ukraine – seem stunned. There is talk of a new reversal by Donald Trump, who is often portrayed as capricious. He has indeed put strong pressure on Moscow in recent weeks, imposing new sanctions affecting the Russian economy. And now a peace plan is on the table, leaving no room for the Europeans. This is hardly surprising, however, as the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict is only part of the US strategy to disengage from European and Middle Eastern theaters. The European elites, who are very often Atlanticists, remain convinced that alignment with the United States is a strategic necessity.

A new geopolitical century is dawning, as the world’s leading power seeks to guarantee its hegemony. U.S. foreign policy is at a crossroads as the world grapples with President Donald Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” – a reinterpretation of President James Monroe’s 1823 Monroe Doctrine. This twist in U.S. foreign policy¹ has significant implications for international relations, such as handling the Ukrainian crisis at the White House, which led to the support of the UK. The Trumpian version of this concept, which heralds the onset of the “American golden age” and prioritizes domestic interests over multilateral commitments, is poised to redefine how the U.S. interacts with its neighbors and beyond. Could this new doctrine merely reflect an era of heightened tensions, or is it a transformative moment for American diplomacy? The potential for reshaping international relations is a compelling aspect of Trump’s foreign policy.

Why Trump is not an anomaly, but the logical outcome of capitalism. In recent weeks, Donald Trump’s violence has intensified. He bombed Venezuela to remove President Maduro and seize its oil, covets Greenland, and threatens Mexico, Iran, and Syria. Trump is pursuing an imperialist policy, even against his historic allies, Europeans, and NATO members. Is this policy the result of one man’s madness? Or are the causes more global and systemic, linked to capitalism itself? In the 18th century, with the advent of capitalism, a new philosophy emerged: international trade would be beneficial for everyone. This liberal idea is still strongly rooted today. Globalized capitalism thus acquires a dual legitimacy: economic, since it enriches everyone, and moral, because it enables universal peace.

In reality, the 19th and 20th centuries were marked by wars and colonial massacres, even though trade had never been stronger in Europe and the United States. The list is long and it’s not accidental. For decades, the United States has backed or directly supported right wing military coups across Latin America² , often in the name of fighting communism, protecting business interests, or maintaining regional control. From Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973 to Argentina in 1976, these interventions regularly led to dictatorships, mass killings, disappearances, and generations of trauma. Democratically elected governments were overthrown, unions crushed, and human rights erased, all while Washington called it stability.⁠ Seeing Venezuela added to this timeline should alarm everyone. History shows that U.S. backed regime change rarely brings freedom or democracy. It brings violence, corruption, and long term instability that ordinary people pay for. This is not about defending democracy. It’s about power, resources, and control, and the record is painfully clear.⁠ ⁠

The world order that had prevailed since 1945 is well and truly over. It was a structure that rested on three pillars for Washington. First, ensuring the stability of Western Europe in the face of the Soviet threat by relying on the Marshall Plan and NATO. Second, it involved massive investment in the Arabian Peninsula—replacing the former British protectorate—to guarantee access to oil. Finally, it involved controlling the Pacific by ensuring that the Asian countries bordering the ocean remained stable and open to global trade. The world has undergone profound changes since the fall of the USSR, the emergence of new regional powers, and above all, China’s arrival on the global stage. Previous US administrations have done little to respond to these tectonic shifts. They have maintained a strong military presence in Europe and retained their ability to monitor and influence the domestic policies of their European vassals. They also carried out a series of bloody interventions throughout the Middle East. Despite former President Obama’s announcement of a “pivot to Asia” at the turn of 2010, American eyes, dollars, and missiles remained focused on Libya, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Mozambique, and Ukraine…

Trump’s foreign policy demonstrates his assertive approach to international trade relations with his tariff policies, his stark criticism of NATO and global alliances, as evidenced by his stance on the Russia–Ukraine war, and his forceful stance toward China. He has consistently criticized international organizations, arguing that they undermine U.S. sovereignty and economic competitiveness. For instance, Trump has criticized NATO for bearing a disproportionate financial burden in defending Europe and has suggested withdrawing US support from NATO if allies fail to meet financial commitments. This policy has raised concerns among European leaders regarding the reliability of the U.S. as a security partner. Analysts argue that such policies could weaken NATO’s deterrence capabilities, though Trump insists they would make the alliance more equitable. Consequently, Trump avoids positioning the U.S. as the leader of a coalition in the Global North, indicating he is not interested in maintaining or strengthening traditional alliances. Instead, he emphasizes U.S. dominance on its own terms, focusing on its economic and geopolitical advantages. This may reflect an “America First” strategy that prioritizes national self-interest and suggests a move away from global leadership. Trump’s doctrine could potentially reshape the relationship between the Global South and the Global North as they navigate their unique challenges and opportunities.

With the 21st century already well underway, it took Donald Trump’s second term to see a significant update to US strategy. Under Joe Biden, there were fears of a return to the Cold War, with the stated intention of wearing Russia down in a war of attrition, with the Ukrainians on the front line. This illusion was short-lived, and Kiev no longer has any reserves to send to the front. A serious corruption scandal involving Zelensky’s inner circle has also called into question the legitimacy of his government. Although obscured by the White House tenant’s blunt communication style, the “Trump doctrine” cannot be described as “isolationist.” Washington is putting intense pressure on Russia and Ukraine to achieve peace, while asking Europeans to guarantee their own security. The situation is similar in the Middle East: it is still the Americans who are twisting the Israelis’ arms to impose their peace plan. Washington’s attention is focused on Asia. The new tariff regime is intended to reorganize trans-Pacific trade, while helping to reindustrialize the US. Transactional and therefore sometimes inconsistent in the long term, if the aim is to build alliances against China, this strategy is intended to ensure US economic leadership.

Breaking the thermometer won’t make the fever go away. The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) has provoked knee-jerk, defensive reactions in the European Union. However, far from being a provocation, it has acted as a mirror: the United States is now primarily concerned with itself, and it is highlighting Europe’s vulnerabilities. The NSS 2025[a] unapologetically refocuses on US national interests. It announces to the world an explicit, deliberate, and hardened return to the logic of the Monroe Doctrine, which it describes as a “corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” The NSS also clearly sets out its priorities in a strategic vision of abundant and cheap energy, a concept that was also espoused by the EU before its decarbonization policy. The text breaks with convention by removing the word “geopolitics” while practicing explicit geopolitics based on the primacy of the Western hemisphere, mistrust of multilateralism, the use of sovereignty as a pivotal concept, and the assertion of technological power backed by access to critical minerals and abundant energy. Europe is both deemed indispensable and urged to grow: appreciated as a cultural and strategic space, but described as fragile and overly dependent, it is pushed to once again become a contributing power—in defense, migration control, competitiveness, and cohesion—lest we realize that breaking the thermometer will not make the fever go away. President Donald Trump’s decision to order the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations marks a clear break with the liberal order established after World War II. Multilateralism, which for decades has been a pillar of American power projection, is now being redefined as a constraint rather than a resource. The Presidential Memorandum signed at the White House provides for the immediate withdrawal from 35 organizations not affiliated with the United Nations system and 31 UN entities accused of promoting agendas deemed incompatible with US national interests.

Today, China and Russia are challenging American hegemony in an economy in crisis. In Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, Iran, and Greenland, it is resources, control of trade routes, and competition with these two countries that are driving Trump’s offensives and the new American strategy. War is ultimately not the result of ideologies or the choices of bellicose leaders, but rather the inevitable development of capitalism. It seems that capitalism inevitably leads to war. This American imperialist push is ultimately not the work of one man, however violent and vulgar he may be, but the product of capitalism itself. Trump is a symptom, an emanation of the internal logic of the capitalist system, not a historical anomaly. It is noteworthy that the West is now paying the price for its double standards. Indeed, the role of Western powers in the erosion of the international order is remarkable, while it should be emphasized that the major nations—including those that historically shaped the rules—have often failed to respect them in certain conflicts, particularly in the Middle East.

In reality, US foreign policy toward Iran, Venezuela, Panama, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland often follows the same logic: securing vital interests (resources, routes, geographical areas of interest, etc.) through coercion—sanctions, de facto blockades, diplomatic pressure, demonstrations of force—to the point of suggesting that a strategic area never belongs entirely to those who inhabit it, but to those who can impose their will on it. What is striking is not so much this continuity as the variable geometry of the reaction. When coercion is directed at countries in the South, it is frequently described as a technocratic “normality” (levers, conformity, stability). When rhetoric of appropriation affects Greenland, the veneer cracks: there is talk of imperialism, predation, and violation of sovereignty. In other words, there are two languages for the same brutality. In the South, it is often presented as “responsible” foreign policy. In the North, it reverts to what it is, and it is this discrepancy that reveals a blind spot: an implicit hierarchy of sovereignties, where some are considered negotiable and others sacred. In areas where the exception is normalized, inhabitants slip into a state of administered vulnerability: their rights, their material security, and their access to resources become variables in the adjustment of an external sovereign decision.

In conclusion, the rules-based international order is now pure fiction. The world has entered an era in which dominant states use economic integration as a weapon of coercion. Trump’s foreign policy also marks the end of the multilateral system, and middle powers will have to unite to avoid being on the superpowers’ menu. Europeans should ask themselves the following question: How can the United States, which threatens Europeans on the western side, protect them on the eastern side of the European continent, particularly in the face of a possible Russian threat? Total dependence on infrastructure controlled by the United States is not an alliance… it is a strategic vulnerability. That is why, while remaining allies of the Americans, Europeans should stop relying entirely on the American umbrella for their protection.

———-

1- See more on this subject : « The Trump Doctrine and the Emerging International System (The Evolving American Presidency) » 1st ed. 2021 Edition by Stanley A. Renshon (Editor), Peter Suedfeld (Editor).

2- US-backed right-wing Military coup in Latin America. Cuba, 1952. Guatemala, 1954. El Salvador, 1980. Honduras, 2009. Nicaragua, 1980s. Panama, 1989. Haiti, 1959, 2004. Peru, 1962,1975. Dominican Republic, 1965. Venezuela, 2002, 2026. Bolivia,1980s. Paraguay, 1954. Brazil, 1964. Chile, 1973. Argentina, 1976. Uruguay, 1973