The diplomatic landscape has long been shaped by strategic maneuvering, and one notable example is the restoration of relations between the United States and China in the 1970s. The tumultuous relationship between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev presented an opportunity for the U.S. to forge a new alliance. In 1972, Richard Nixon became the first American president to visit China, marking the culmination of the “Marco Polo Operation,” a secret endeavor that involved Henry Kissinger’s clandestine meeting with Zhou Enlai in Beijing, facilitated by Pakistani Premier Yahya Khan.
The recent events at the Oval Office bear some resemblance to this historical episode, albeit with a different cast of characters. The spectacle staged with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy appears to be a deliberate attempt to counterbalance the improving relations between Moscow and Beijing. A journalist’s question about Zelenskyy’s attire, despite not being a press conference, sparked a sequence of events that seemed orchestrated. JD Vance’s intervention, without being given the floor, added to the sense of premeditation, as Zelenskyy responded in a way that questioned his leadership, flirted with Russian theories, and distanced himself from Atlantic partners.
The meetings with French President Macron and British Prime Minister Starmer served as a precursor to the encounter with Zelenskyy, setting the stage for one of the most embarrassing episodes in international diplomacy. JD Vance’s previous statements, including his assertion that Vladimir Putin is not an existential threat to Europe, suggest that Trump shares similar views. This perspective is concerning, not only regarding the conflict in Ukraine but also about NATO’s relevance. Trump’s comments imply that he objects to the alliance’s existence or, at the very least, questions the need for U.S. membership.
The creation of NATO in 1949 aimed to guarantee Western security against the Soviet Union and its allies. However, Trump believes that this threat has dissipated, and his statements often undermine the organization’s importance. He has suggested that he would not defend member states that fail to meet their monetary contributions or that Greenland could invade a member state. This perspective overlooks the fact that, despite the 1994 Budapest memo, the 2004 orange revolution, and the 2014 Minsk protocol, tensions between nations have persisted.
Trump’s worldview is centered on the idea that the world is still divided into two blocks, with China, rather than Russia, leading one of them. This perspective is not solely focused on geopolitics or war but rather on a U.S.-China trade war, which seems to be the ultimate goal of Trump’s strategies. Other issues, such as immigrant expulsions, tariff increases, and real estate proposals for Gaza, appear to be distractions from this core objective.
Although Russia has ceded its role as a dominant world power to China, it cannot be considered a mere bystander. Its influence in the Arab world and its position as a nuclear power grant Russia significant importance. Furthermore, the unique relationship between Putin and Xi Jinping, forged during the Ukraine War, adds a layer of complexity to the geopolitical landscape.
The unequivocally Atlanticist stance of Joe Biden has not only hindered diplomatic efforts but also led to the rapprochement between Russia and China. Trump’s team seems intent on reversing this trend, and understanding this context is key to grasping the events that transpired at the White House. The operetta staged with Zelenskyy appears to be a calculated move to counterbalance the growing ties between Moscow and Beijing, with the ultimate goal of reconfiguring the global landscape to suit U.S. interests.