PNN – A Spanish analytical website emphasized that the US president, rather than being the creator and architect of a new foreign policy, is the most obvious sign of a system that was already collapsing, stating: Trump is a broken mirror that reflects multiple crises: the crisis of the neoliberal model, the crisis of multilateralism, and the crisis of trust in elites.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, the website “latinoamerica21” stated in a note written by Juliana Montani, a political science expert from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Juan Agulló, a PhD in sociology from the École Normale Supérieure des Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris: It would be a mistake to interpret Donald Trump’s re-emergence on the international stage as simply a disruptive figure. With his provocative style, he not only creates confusion but also (perhaps intuitively) employs strategies known from economic psychology.
The concept of “anchoring” described by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky—setting an extreme starting point and then negotiating—can be seen in his initially rigid positions, which he later moderates during negotiations to create treaties or diplomatic engagements.
Trump is in many ways a sign, a catalyst; a disturbing but useful lens through which to view processes of global reconfiguration. Focusing solely on the individual helps explain his leadership style and perhaps his political strategy, but it leaves us with unanswered and deeper questions.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, during the pandemic, and now in the midst of ongoing armed conflicts (Ukraine war, Gaza war, Yemen, Sudan) we are living in days of deep instability and facing several evolving and changing situations: Trump’s tariff hikes, which prompted Canada to halt new taxes on tech giants; US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, which risks escalating regional tensions; active wars with increasing tensions in global trade, competition over strategic raw materials (such as rare earth elements), energy crises and environmental challenges.
Read more:
Trump’s dream for BRICS; the struggle to contain an emerging power
Trump, the geopolitical bulldozer
The note continues: Geopolitics, at its three discursive levels, has returned to the center of debate. On the one hand, it is a topic among academic experts. There is also a wide production by governments and institutions such as NGOs and think tanks, especially since the second half of the twentieth century.
Then we see the widespread use of a discourse that Gerard Toal (an expert in government and international affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute) calls “popular geopolitics”: A discourse that is connected to media, films, and everyday street conversations. A look at the search curve for the word “geopolitics” on Google Trends shows that people’s interest in geopolitics is growing exponentially. Searching for patterns and trends in how territory and power are managed today has enormous analytical potential.
Geography and Power: The Legacy of Thucydides in a Contemporary Context
The authors of this analysis continue: In a context where the American peace can no longer sustain itself on its own, we seek explanations for this new reality. The revival of the concept of “Thucydide’s trap” by political science theorist Graham Allison is instructive in this regard: the Thucydide’s trap as a structural tension that occurs when an emerging power threatens to replace a hegemonic power.
American analyst Fareed Zakaria believes that we are entering a “post-American world,” where the United States no longer dictates the rules alone, and the relative rise of other powers is dispersing global influence and power.
In this emerging order, the relative and somewhat symbolic withdrawal of the United States from the world stage has opened up space for the expansion of strategic actors. Europe is trying to redefine its role in defense, migration, and energy. Meanwhile, Asia, for its part, is resolutely establishing its position and expanding its technological and logistical reach around the world, reaching out to Latin America (traditionally the US’s “backyard”), as demonstrated by projects such as the port of Chancay in Peru, electric cars and batteries in Brazil, the construction of solar parks and Huawei data centers, and other programs.
In this context, China is not just competing for economic power; it is also challenging prevailing narratives. As the prominent Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani points out, while the United States has been in Asia for a century, China has been there for a thousand years. And it will probably continue to be present. This historical perspective not only relativizes Western influence, but also questions our ways of interpreting global change: not everything can be understood from Washington’s perspective.
Globally, a kind of “political dumping” is occurring between systems capable of sustaining a long-term economic and political strategy and democracies where periodic constraints often prevent the achievement of medium- or long-term goals.
Trump, a product of structural erosion
The analysis continues: By returning to Trump’s character, we propose a perspective that goes beyond his personality or morality. Trump is not simply an anomaly. He is, in many ways, the result of the internal imbalance of a worn-out political and economic system. The United States is experiencing an internal divide characterized by a weakening middle class, concentration of power in the financial sector, and chronic poverty for a large portion of the population.
Perhaps Trump’s most important contribution (intentional or unintentional) is to show that the global system is collapsing. America’s declining competitiveness and influence are pushing Trump toward unilateral actions that strain the global order: preemptive strikes against strategic adversaries and trade pressure on historic allies like Canada. But these actions also force intermediary actors (Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia) to reconsider their margin of maneuver.
According to the authors of this analysis, therefore, the main issue is not whether countries or regions should support or reject the United States or China; but also which short-term strategy to adopt in situations such as tariff wars. The challenge is how to position ourselves in this changed world. Countries like Brazil and Argentina have vast territories, strategic natural resources, and opportunities that should not be lost through momentary, emotional reactions. Geopolitics can and should help us think strategically.
Responding to Trump’s unilateralism with purely emotional or mechanical retaliations such as increasing tariffs may be ineffective. What we need is a complex, multidisciplinary understanding, one that blends economics, sociology, history, and foreign policy. A perspective that does not view the world as a homogenous whole and recognizes that charismatic leaders, left or right, cannot replace structural analysis.
Today’s geopolitical uncertainty is not going away anytime soon. The global order is changing, narratives are proliferating, and actors are reshaping. Trump is neither the beginning nor the end of this process. He is a broken mirror reflecting multiple crises: the crisis of the neoliberal model, the crisis of multilateralism, and the crisis of trust in elites.
If geopolitics is once again at the center of analysis, it is because we need sophisticated tools to understand a world that is both interconnected and competitive. As history reminds us, there is no greater mistake than facing crises by relying on outdated frameworks. Trump is not an earthquake, he is a fault line. And if we don’t change our lens, we will only see the rubble, not the structures we can still feel beneath our feet.