The second coming of Donald Trump to the White House has reignited discussions about his distinct approach to foreign policy—one that is marked by a blend of transactional realism and impulsive decision-making. While his brand of diplomacy prioritises power dynamics over ideological alliances, recent developments suggest that Trump’s reliance on a crude form of realism may face limits. With growing economic anxiety, global diplomatic tensions, and a faltering approval rating, he may be forced to recalibrate his strategy.
Trump’s approach to global affairs often disregards the nuanced balance between power and diplomacy, opting instead for an aggressive stance that alienates allies and emboldens adversaries. This pattern is evident in his economic brinkmanship, his handling of key alliances, and his dealings with global rivals. While some argue that his realism is pragmatic, its lack of strategic depth raises serious questions about its long-term viability.
READ | Inclusive growth: Tamil Nadu’s growth playbook pays rich dividends
Neanderthal realism: Strength over strategy
Trump’s foreign policy has often been characterised as a form of Neanderthal realism—an unsophisticated yet bluntly pragmatic approach that prioritises strength over cooperation. This framework operates under the assumption that global politics is an anarchic battleground where the strong dominate, and the weak suffer. This doctrine was evident in Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, where he pressured Ukraine into a ceasefire while offering Putin major concessions, including restrictions on Ukraine’s NATO membership and indications of sanction relief, all without securing reciprocal commitments from Russia.
The problem with this approach is that it fails to recognise that global leadership is not just about asserting dominance, but about crafting a sustainable balance of power. Trump’s unilateral moves often come across as short-term tactical victories but lack the strategic foresight required for long-term success. History offers a cautionary tale—Athens’ brute-force strategy in the Peloponnesian War ultimately led to its downfall. Similarly, Trump’s strongman tactics risk alienating allies and undermining America’s own strategic position.
Smart power versus crude realism
The concept of smart power, which gained traction in the post-Bush era, advocates for a nuanced blend of military strength and diplomatic finesse. The failure of Bush’s Iraq War demonstrated the limits of hard power, while Barack Obama’s soft power initiatives, such as the nuclear deal with Iran, showcased an alternative path. Trump, however, has largely dismissed these lessons, choosing instead to double down on transactional power plays.
For instance, his tariff-driven economic policy has rattled global markets and invited retaliatory measures from key trading partners, including Canada and the European Union. His decision to impose steep tariffs on Canadian metals, only to partially walk them back after economic backlash, demonstrates the erratic nature of his approach. While he claims to be negotiating from a position of strength, his economic brinkmanship has created more uncertainty than stability, with the US stock market suffering its worst day in years and recession fears mounting.
Similarly, Trump’s handling of alliances has been transactional at best, dismissive at worst. His suggestion that Canada could be annexed as the 51st state and his threats to dismantle USAID programmes reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role soft power plays in maintaining global influence. By undermining long-standing allies and turning diplomacy into a zero-sum game, Trump risks eroding America’s credibility on the world stage.
The limits of hard power
Trump’s foreign policy is increasingly running into contradictions. While he projects strength, his erratic decision-making has left allies uncertain and adversaries emboldened. This has been particularly evident in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. By sidelining Ukraine and appearing to acquiesce to Putin, Trump has reinforced perceptions that his administration is more concerned with appeasing strongmen than upholding international norms.
Meanwhile, his economic agenda—marked by escalating tariffs and threats of trade wars—has rattled financial markets and eroded investor confidence. A Quinnipiac poll indicates that 56% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy, signalling that his aggressive tactics are not resonating with the public. Experts warn that if Trump continues to escalate his economic battles, a recession could be imminent.
A necessary course correction
The challenge for Trump is that his brand of realism is proving to be self-defeating. While realism as a foreign policy doctrine emphasises power and national interest, successful realists understand the importance of strategic restraint. Figures like Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft practiced realism with a keen understanding of diplomatic leverage. Trump, by contrast, often appears more interested in immediate victories than in crafting sustainable foreign policy.
For Trump to navigate his second term successfully, he may have to recalibrate his approach. This would mean recognising that strong nations do not operate in isolation. By alienating traditional allies, Trump risks weakening America’s global standing. He also needs to realise that escalating trade conflicts without a clear endgame could backfire, pushing the US into an economic downturn. A realist approach should prioritise long-term national interest over short-term political wins.
Trump’s second term offers him an opportunity to refine his approach to foreign policy. While his brand of realism has won him supporters among those who favour a more isolationist and transactional US role, its limitations are becoming increasingly clear. Without a strategic recalibration, his policies risk deepening economic instability and further straining diplomatic relationships.
If history is any guide, brute force alone is not a sustainable foreign policy. Athens learned that lesson the hard way. The question now is whether Trump will, too.