Divide, Conquer, Negotiate: Trump’s Strategy of Uncertainty
Since his election victory, Donald Trump has signalled that his second term will be a turbulent one, marked by unpredictability, dramatic shifts in alliances, and a confrontational approach to diplomacy. From Greenland to the Middle East, from NATO to trade wars, his strategy is centred on domination, coercion, and a carefully staged performance of strength. Every move, every provocation, and every abrupt shift in policy is designed to shock adversaries, keep allies on edge, and force global leaders to play by his rules.
Critics call Trump a boor, a madman or claim there is no serious strategy behind an avalanche of words. Yet, behind the erratic facade, there is a method — one that rejects traditional diplomacy and replaces it with a transactional, power-driven approach, indifferent to previous commitments. This is not just about dealing with enemies; it is about making everyone — friends included — negotiate from a position of uncertainty and fear.
The central pillar of Trump’s foreign policy is deliberate unpredictability, which might be dubbed chaos as leverage. While political analysts and diplomats scramble to decode his latest move, he is already setting the stage for the next. Theatrics aside, his strategy operates on multiple levels. Shock and provocation keep adversaries in a defensive position. Escalating tensions with extreme demands leaves little room for compromise. Brute force is used as leverage, whether through economic sanctions, military threats, or diplomatic pressure. Once dominance is established, he introduces a deal on his terms.
This method plays out across multiple geopolitical arenas. With Mexico and Canada, economic coercion takes the forefront. With NATO, he threatens disengagement. With China, tariffs become his weapon of choice. With European allies, he cultivates division, undermining the European Union by playing member states against each other. The approach is consistent: create a crisis, destabilize opponents, and force negotiations from a position of strength.
Two Paths to Global Repositioning
The contrast between Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s approaches to global politics is stark. Biden, despite embracing elements of economic nationalism, still attempted to maintain alliances and multilateral frameworks, pursuing gradual policy changes rather than seismic disruptions. His Inflation Reduction Act, while protectionist, was far from the economic war that Trump sought against both adversaries and allies.
Biden aimed to restore global partnerships through indirect economic intervention, strengthening American industry while maintaining diplomatic norms. His strategy relied on persuasion rather than coercion, balancing competition with cooperation. Trump, by contrast, focuses on raw power, stripping away diplomatic niceties and forcing allies into a client-state relationship where Washington dictates terms unilaterally.
Where Biden sought to reduce European reliance gradually on the U.S., supporting Ukraine while preparing for a pivot to Asia, Trump threatens abrupt disengagement, playing the European Union against its own member states. The ideological difference is not about protectionism versus globalization, but about method: Biden operated within diplomatic frameworks, while Trump disregards them entirely.
From Trade Wars to Military Threats
Trump’s second term does not simply mean a continuation of the first — it signifies an acceleration and escalation. His policies, previously considered shock manoeuvres, are now the foundation of his doctrine. Trade wars are no longer a bargaining chip but a core policy. NATO is no longer a pillar of security but a tool for leverage. Traditional alliances are not relationships but transactional arrangements.
Biden engaged in industrial policy to strengthen America’s position, but Trump weaponizes tariffs and economic pressure to extract direct concessions. His stance on NATO is not about rebalancing defence spending but about turning security guarantees into a commodity. In the Middle East, where Biden maintained an offshore balancing approach, Trump disrupts even the long-standing U.S.-Israel relationship, challenging Netanyahu’s government by proposing direct U.S. intervention in Gaza. The pattern remains consistent: escalate, apply pressure, and force negotiations from a position of dominance.
Greenland: A Case Study
One of the clearest examples of this “shock-and-negotiate” strategy was Trump’s 2019 attempt to “purchase” Greenland. While the notion was widely ridiculed, it was never truly about buying land. The real goal was to secure an increased U.S. military presence in the Arctic.
Initially dismissed as absurd, Trump’s diplomatic offensive eventually pressured Denmark into agreeing to a stronger American presence, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen conceding to an increased U.S. troop deployment in Greenland. What began as an outlandish and provocative proposal ended with tangible strategic gains. The takeaway is clear—Trump’s theatrical provocations often mask calculated geopolitical objectives.
Ukraine: Raw Power Politics
A similar transactional approach is now unfolding in Ukraine. In exchange for continued US support in its war with Russia, Trump has demanded $500 billion worth of rare earth minerals from the Ukrainian government. These resources, crucial to both defence technologies and global supply chains, are seen by Trump as a fair price for America’s financial and military aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, under immense pressure to maintain Western support, has expressed openness to such a partnership, after having rejected the initial version of the ‘deal’, extremely unfavourable for Ukraine.
This move not only reveals Trump’s tendency to commodify alliances, but also underscores his willingness to exploit geopolitical crises for long-term economic gain.
A Return to 19th-Century Diplomacy?
At its core, Trump’s vision for global affairs is a return to an era of pure power politics, where the dominant player sets the rules without regard for alliances, international norms, or multilateral institutions. Instead of NATO, trade agreements, and collective security, Trump envisions a hierarchical system where the U.S. dictates terms to weaker states in a client-patron relationship.
In this framework, Latin America is treated as Washington’s backyard, with direct intervention and economic pressure shaping policy. Europe is targeted with a divide-and-rule approach, designed to weaken the European Union from within. Asia is managed not through diplomacy but through military assertiveness. The Middle East sees the return of transactional deals based on leverage rather than cooperation.
For Trump, alliances are not partnerships but tools of leverage. The question is not whether this strategy will work—it is whether the world is prepared for the consequences of a United States that acts unbound by any obligation other than raw power.
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
