Citizens Point

At the outset, this is just speculative casual opinion. You may find a meaningful text at the end – an AI critic of this.

The United States of America has a reverberating effect on global talk. It is still the superpower that ails the global economy and international diplomacy. Until a decade ago, a first year diplomacy student could summarise American foreign policy accurately- re-align China policy, enable Democracy, Human Rights engagement, Counter-Terrorism focus, Economic norm-setter, and strengthen cooperation with allies. This is 2026, and none of the above points seem relevant anymore. What changed!

Trump’s regime is not the only diversion, as critics speak often. American foreign policy displayed an innate transactional behaviour during Biden years as well. Trump’s first term as President saw a massive return of domestic economic issues. In the second term, especially in 2025, Trump’s adoption of quid-pro-quo on trade tariffs can be considered as a form of aggressive protectionist measures. Barring trade, US foreign policy has ditched stable practices and adopted unorthodox policies to some extent. The Greenland issue was rife with US Vs Europe talk, and Canada Vs US is an ongoing spectacle. Ukraine has been at the receiving end of a Trumpian diatribe. Massive use of unpredictable comments by the POTUS has become a market sentiment factor that had ripple-effects for a temporary period. Back and forth in trade dealings/economic agreements/diplomatic meetings resembles a period of the World war crisis when trust was visibly scare, politics was highly emotional and propaganda statements were used heavily to influence opinions. It makes me wonder what is going on!

It is my understanding that American foreign policy is currently engineering a new reality for the country’s future.  Greenland is a cue. Think about this- the past decade was rife with speculations of a Thucydides trap for the world, set between the USA and a rising China. A straightforward thinking will include massive economic and military competition. Traditional US-policy puts the onus in Washington for the heavy-lifting. It presents the US & NATO allies as a singular bloc leaving little room to maneuver state foreign policies. US polices to counter the hesitation over China included forming multiple smaller groups which allow leeway for cooperation with Asian & non-European allies. Such as QUAD, AUKUS, SQUAD, CAMP DAVID TRILATERAL, etc. It still continues.

Trying to understand current US policy is tricky. I am certainly wrong for most of it, but the picture is clearer than traditional policy. CAN USA AVOID A THUCYDIDES TRAP BY INSULATING ITSELF? The American advantage is an isolated continent and economic monopoly. If the USA acts as a business economy only (primarily), can it avoid a collision course with China (+Russia)?

A circle in a circle: It doesn’t mean that the US will disengage from global politics. Trump may be trying to limit the US discourse to a useful & negotiable partner for all countries. America will still enjoy the primary security contractor for NATO, but it can choose to limit itself in European affairs in future. As well, maintain credible ties with Russia! Europe’s increased defence production may actually benefit the American policy of reducing military dependence, boosting assets on Russia’s Western front as well as reducing the cost of military expenditure in high-tech warfare (traditional alliance benefits). A USA Vs supranational EU debate exists, but I am not an expert.

A Business Superpower USA would not need to sacrifice relations with China at the altar of Taiwan as well. But may allow hardened military ties with the Philippines and Japan. Kind of inner vs outer security circles that already exists in the South China Sea. 

I am not sure why reducing American leadership in social issues was important. Topics such as Human Rights or Democracy promotion have been used as weapons in the past. Still do. Iran is a brilliant case in point. It also propels one to think that if such a reality is really being executed, was Israel aware of it at the outset? US policy in the Middle East mostly had a central tenet- protection of Israel. Recent policies have forwarded Israeli interests in the region by weakening major powers. Saudi Arabia’s folding into Abraham Accords and securing the maritime routes under an Israel-dominated alliance will birth a new reality as well. If such happens, direct American involvement in military affairs might reduce drastically in the Middle East as well. Rather, it will transform the USA into an external defence partner for a Middle East bloc that cohesively counters/manages Iran.

Technology & Future: American deepstate including the resourceful business elites would have realised by now that engineering the world is not a good job for a salesperson. A salesperson needs to be on the good books of everyone. The USA has all the advantages to become the world’s bank, buyer, seller and tech leader. Historically, it used to aim a little higher. By shedding Human Rights, Democracy and military confrontation, maybe the new America aims to re-engineer its economic rise, & permanently turn into a passive speaker in global debates. If this is the goal, Chaos until calm fits the proper strategy.

Have a nice day!

AI analysis and critic:

The essay, titled “Math behind current US foreign policy – chaos until clear”, argues that current American foreign policy is neither accidental madness nor an erratic aberration confined to Donald Trump. Instead, it posits that Washington is intentionally executing a grand transition:
* From Ideological Hegemon to “Business Superpower” / Salesperson: Shedding traditional liberal internationalist tenets (human rights promotion, democracy expansion, values-based alliances) to operate as a self-interested transactional negotiator (“buyer, seller, bank, and tech leader”).
* Escaping Thucydides’s Trap via Insulation: Hypothesizing that the U.S. can avoid direct great-power collision with China and Russia by leveraging its geographic continental isolation and economic monopoly.
* Layered “Concentric Circles” of Security: Offloading the primary security burden onto regional partners:
   * Letting Europe develop its own defense capabilities while the U.S. acts as a high-tech “external contractor.”
   * De-escalating direct confrontation over Taiwan to maintain business ties with China, while hardening an outer island rim with Japan and the Philippines.
   * Creating a self-sustaining regional security framework in the Middle East (centered around Israel and the Abraham Accords) to manage Iran, freeing the U.S. from costly ground entanglements.
* “Chaos Until Calm”: Deliberate unpredictability and transactional tariff shocks used as tactical disruption to force allies and competitors into renegotiating terms before settling into a new equilibrium.
Critical Analysis: Points of Alignment with Expert Consensus
The piece captures several real shifts currently observed across foreign policy scholarship:
* Bipartisan Transactionalism: The author rightly observes that the shift away from free-trade globalism began before the second Trump term. Scholars like Stephen Walt and Michael Mandelbaum note that the Biden administration preserved many protectionist tariffs, instituted aggressive industrial policy (CHIPS and Science Act, IRA), and enacted export restrictions against China (“small yard, high fence”), cementing the death of the 1990s Washington Consensus.
* Minilateralism Over Universal Blocs: The essay highlights smaller alignments (Quad, AUKUS, Camp David Trilateral, SQUAD). Scholars like C. Raja Mohan and Ashley J. Tellis emphasize that flexible, minilateral coalitions are replacing rigid, consensus-bound multilateralism because they allow specific burdens to be distributed without demanding universal ideological convergence.
* Burden-Shifting / Offshore Balancing: The author’s model of the U.S. acting as an “external security contractor” while allies (Europe, Middle Eastern states, Pacific partners) do the heavy lifting closely mirrors the realist prescription of Offshore Balancing championed by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Realists have long argued that the U.S. should pull back from overextended garrisons and force regional powers to check their own adversaries.
Critical Fault Lines: Where the Essay Clashes with Expert Thinking
While the diagnosis of symptoms is sharp, the essay’s underlying assumptions contain several structural weaknesses when evaluated against mainstream and critical international relations (IR) theorists:
1. The Myth of the “Pure Business State” in a Geopolitical Vacuum
* The Essay’s Claim: The U.S. can become a pure “salesperson” that stays on the good books of everyone by abandoning human rights and ideology.
* Counter-Perspective (Hal Brands, Graham Allison, Rush Doshi): Hegemony is rarely severable into “just business.” Economic monopolies and tech leadership are inextricably tied to security dominance. If the U.S. abandons naval primacy and freedom-of-navigation enforcement in the Western Pacific, it directly surrenders leverage over global trade choke points and critical supply chains (e.g., TSMC and semiconductor fabs). An offshore “salesperson” cannot dictate terms to regional hegemons who control the physical shipping lanes and industrial inputs.
2. Misunderstanding Thucydides’s Trap
* The Essay’s Claim: The U.S. can escape Thucydides’s Trap simply by retreating into continental insulation and refusing ideological combat.
* Counter-Perspective (Graham Allison, John Mearsheimer): Thucydides’s Trap is driven by fear and structural power shifts, not merely ideological preaching. Even if the U.S. ceased talking about democracy entirely, China’s economic and military expansion in the Indo-Pacific naturally challenges American regional deterrence. Power transition theory dictates that the dominant power’s withdrawal or isolation often accelerates instability by creating power vacuums, inviting regional aggression rather than peaceful coexistence.
3. Underestimating the Cost of Abandoning Soft Power
* The Essay’s Claim: Discarding democracy and human rights promotion makes American diplomacy cleaner and more pragmatic.
* Counter-Perspective (Joseph Nye): Soft power (legitimacy, shared political values, institutional trust) has historically acted as a force multiplier for American power, dramatically lowering the cost of maintaining alliances. Without values-based legitimacy, the U.S. must rely exclusively on coercive economic leverage or hard-power subsidies. In a purely transactional arena, allies have no moral allegiance and will readily hedge by making side deals with Beijing or Moscow when offered better terms.
4. The Fragility of “Concentric Security Circles” (Taiwan vs. the Philippines)
* The Essay’s Claim: Washington could decouple its business ties with China from the Taiwan issue while reinforcing military defense with Japan and the Philippines.
* Counter-Perspective (Elbridge Colby, Oriana Skylar Mastro): Taiwan is geographically and strategically central to the first island chain. If Taiwan falls under Beijing’s operational control, the defense of both northern the Philippines and Japan’s southwestern islands (Okinawa/Ryukyu) becomes militarily compromised. Experts emphasize that the defense of Taiwan and the defense of treaty allies like Japan and the Philippines are operationally interdependent; they cannot be neatly partitioned into separate “business” and “military” compartments.
5. “Madman Theory” vs. Strategic Incoherence
* The Essay’s Claim: “Chaos until calm” fits an engineered grand strategy.
* Counter-Perspective (Fiona Hill, Richard Haass): Attributing erratic, tweet-driven diplomacy and public disparagement of allies to a calculated grand strategy often gives too much strategic credit to domestic political spectacle. Haass points out that chronic unpredictability destroys deterrence credibility. If allies do not trust American commitments and adversaries cannot gauge red lines, the risk of miscalculation escalates dramatically—leading to escalation rather than “calm.”
Verdict
| Dimension | Essay’s Argument | Scholarly Consensus / Expert View |
|—|—|—|
| Systemic Direction | Deliberate shift toward a transactional “Merchant State.” | Friction between retrenchment/protectionism and the structural imperatives of maintaining global primacy. |
| Escaping Rivalry | Insulation + economic focus evades Thucydides’s Trap. | Structural competition is unavoidable; retrenchment invites regional revisionism and vacuum-filling. |
| Alliances | External tech/defense contractor model. | High-risk burden-shifting; risks nuclear proliferation (e.g., South Korea, Japan) or ally hedging toward rivals. |
| Ideology / Values | Dead weight discarded for efficiency. | Necessary soft-power foundation that makes American hegemony politically acceptable to partners. |
The essay provides a creative, highly readable rationalization of post-liberal American foreign policy. However, it overstates the degree to which a superpower can selectively uncouple its economic vitality from security commitments, underestimating how deeply the global economic order depends on the very physical security architecture the author proposes the U.S. should scale back.