In geopolitics, the first rule is to understand all the actors involved in a situation to grasp their worldview, grand strategies, and operational and tactical decisions. Today, we will try to understand why the United States, Russia, and China — the world’s most influential geopolitical players — behave the way they do. We will focus on the U.S., Russia, and China, not Trump, Putin, and Xi, because personalities and ideologies matter less than national interests and anthropic factors in geopolitics.

America’s Fault Lines

Let’s begin with the United States, where Trump represents the confusion, dissatisfaction, and even depression impacting society. He reflects a divided nation, weakened by the erosion of institutions, the failure of elected officials to genuinely serve their constituents, growing economic and cultural differences, internal migrations that lead to self-segregation, and a breakdown in communication with anyone outside one’s own “tribe.”

These identity fault lines are rooted in opposing beliefs about faith, the federal government’s role, social justice, gender rights, and environmentalism. But they also stem from more tangible and divisive issues like abortion, taxes, healthcare, education, and fracking. On these topics, Americans have come to despise each other.

Trump’s America is seeing a decline in the middle class, mainly driven by deindustrialization. This trend worsened with globalization following the fall of the Soviet Union, resulting in lower purchasing power, reduced social status, and fewer opportunities to achieve the American Dream.

Although a New York billionaire largely disconnected from rural America, Trump today appeals to a voter base mainly made up of the white working class, attracted to his anti-immigration stance, along with entrepreneurs, especially from the tech industry, and major corporations that benefit from his deregulation policies, as well as evangelical Christians and social conservatives supporting his anti-woke agenda.

Trump also taps into widespread dissatisfaction with America’s foreign interventions, which haven’t resulted in clear victories since World War II but have instead led to ongoing failures in wars without end and defined goals, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Basically, America created Trump, not the other way around. If it hadn’t been him, someone else would have seen that the U.S. needs a different strategic approach and would have taken that same route, possibly with more competence, moral stature, and style.

That said, Trump shouldn’t be underestimated. He is aware of how widespread dissatisfaction has eroded trust in institutions and is even weakening Americans’ faith in democracy itself. He has therefore facilitated — and continues to facilitate — this delegitimization in pursuit of what he sees as an authoritarian evolution in the country’s best interest, as well as his own.

Many people believe that Western democracies — including those in North America and Europe — are inefficient and in decline compared to the authoritarian regimes of Russia and China, where strong leaders seem capable of long-term planning and quick decision-making, free from the checks and balances that define liberal democracies.

So, domestically, Trump’s goal is clear: to move the U.S. toward an illiberal democratic system. According to his perspective, only a system that grants strong presidential powers with no term limits can effectively address issues such as identity loss, deindustrialization, administrative inefficiency, economic distortions, and a massive national debt.

This explains his efforts to consolidate power and suppress opposition while expanding presidential authority and weakening the judicial and legislative branches—his vision of how to “Make America Great Again.”

Let’s assess this based on the executive orders issued by his administration, his statements about planned initiatives, and the threats he’s made regarding potential future actions.

Key executive orders have targeted the dismantling of institutions that protect press freedom, eliminated DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) policies, asserted control over independent federal agencies, fired and restructured large parts of the federal workforce, and invoked the Alien Enemies Act to support a large-scale and theatrical deportation program.

His initiatives and threats have included attacks on the judiciary (whose rulings he often ignores), efforts to suppress opposition in public administration and civil society, assaults on free speech (especially in universities and academia), and the dismantling of federal departments across various sectors.

The National Interest of the United States

Let’s now examine the Trump administration’s foreign policy to better understand his bombastic announcements and seemingly erratic threats. It’s crucial to start identifying the country’s geopolitical constraints.

The first thing to understand is that the United States is currently unprepared for war. Its defense industry is in a critical state after 20 years of underinvestment. Key issues include shortages of equipment, weapons, and ammunition; a lack of factories capable of quickly producing them; a shortage of skilled labor for today’s advanced military technology; a deficiency of troops.

Despite three years of war in Ukraine, the U.S. can only produce enough munitions each year to last one month of combat. It has just one key ammunition plant in Iowa and a single large-scale gunpowder factory in Louisiana.

The U.S. cannot produce ships in large enough numbers. Even if civilian shipyards were converted for wartime production, they would still be too limited to meet the demand.

Additionally, the country lacks access to the essential minerals required for advanced weapons systems. China currently controls 70% of the global rare earth supply.

Only a small percentage of young Americans (ages 17–24) qualify for military service. Many are disqualified due to mental health issues, physical conditions (such as obesity, diseases, etc.), or substance abuse problems. Among those who are eligible, few are willing to die for their country, let alone for Taiwan.

The Pentagon estimates that in a potential war with China over Taiwan, the U.S. would use up its long-range missile stockpile — crucial for such a conflict — within just two weeks. Furthermore, between 25,000 and 30,000 American soldiers could be killed in the early days of fighting, unacceptable to U.S. society. During the Vietnam War, much lower casualty numbers triggered widespread protests.

The American public is hesitant to support foreign wars, not only because of financial concerns but also due to strong emotional and cultural reasons. For all these factors, the Pentagon informed the Trump administration (even during his first term) that the U.S. cannot afford to fight on more than one front at a time.

Given these constraints, what grand strategy should be pursued?

The U.S. needs to buy time to prepare for future conflicts. This involves ending the war in Ukraine, starting negotiations with Moscow, and finding a peaceful way to coexist with China. Currently, the focus should be on the Western Hemisphere, including redefining borders to encompass Canada and Greenland, addressing the growing threats from the Arctic, and controlling, first, the Panama Canal and, second, Central and South America.

This also implies reducing military presence and spending in Europe, softening rhetoric with China, and allowing Israel to take control of the Middle East by giving it a free hand. Additionally, the U.S. needs to secure access to critical minerals in Canada, Greenland, the Americas, Africa, Ukraine, and even in Russia.

Thus, Trump, through his initiatives, is working to serve America’s national interests. Through actions and threats, with a bully’s swagger and a disregard for ethics, his methods destabilize long-term alliances, violate international law, ignore borders, and push entire populations toward genocide or forced relocation.

This does not mean that the U.S. has become isolationist. In just two months, Trump has already ordered missile strikes in Somalia, Iraq, and Yemen. Nor does it mean he plans to abandon Israel or Europe. The Western extension of Eurasia is the most strategically important continent in the world. If Russia or China were to gain dominance over Europe, they could control the world and confront the U.S. across the Atlantic.

Still, America is exhausted from being the global hegemon and funding the world order. Trump is dismantling the current system to establish a new balance of power. The empire of virtue is a thing of the past. The U.S. might be justified in taking action against Canada, Greenland, and Panama to protect its national interests.

As Trump himself said, “Maybe someday Ukraine will be part of Russia, if Russia can conquer it.” He probably feels the same about Taiwan and China.

However, readiness remains a concern. Even Trump’s trusted defense adviser, Elbridge Colby, testified in the Senate that the “Lippmann gap” between American ambitions and military capacity is so large that if an enemy called the U.S.’s bluff, it could be disastrous.

The priority is to prevent the formation of an anti-U.S. alliance (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran), avoid war now, and rearm for a potential conflict with China. Deterrence, after all, is the only way to stop war, and especially, breaking the alliance between Russia and China is crucial. And the timing is right.

Russia’s National Interests

Moscow needs to rebuild its economy, which is weak structurally and devastated by a failed war and crippling sanctions. It must also address major long-term issues, such as demographic decline and labor shortages.

For years, Russia has been concerned about NATO’s expansion toward its western borders. However, if a broad agreement with the U.S. removes that threat, Russia might shift its focus to Asia, where it has lost substantial influence since the fall of the Soviet Union. Despite joint statements about a “limitless” strategic partnership, Russia and China still compete across Eurasia. They do not trust or even respect each other.

So far, the Kremlin has had no choice but to accept China’s increasing geoeconomic influence in Central Asia, a region once firmly under Moscow’s control and the site of historical clashes between the two powers, even during their shared communist era. Russians have not forgotten how quickly China abandoned the USSR to form an alliance with the United States, a move that contributed significantly to Beijing’s rise to global prominence. Moscow resents being the junior partner in this “limitless friendship.”

Even so, it remains the world’s second-largest military power, a position Russia is eager to keep from China. To do this, Moscow needs to rebuild its economy and turn its focus eastward. This view is supported by proponents of Russia’s “Siberianization” policy, including think tanks such as the Izborsky Club, civilizational-state thinkers, Eurasianist elites, and policy advisors close to the Kremlin. This “new civilizational platform” rejects failed Western liberalism, embraces a multi-ethnic Russian spiritual identity, and promotes a vision of a Siberian future centered on revitalizing a service-oriented mission that transcends the Western consumerist model. The opportunity to project eastward becomes even clearer as China, whose economy is relatively declining, shifts its focus toward openly competing with Washington.

Russia could become a major player again if it reached better relations with the U.S. For years, the Kremlin viewed China’s challenge to the United States as a positive development. However, Moscow is likely to soon reassess the threat posed by China’s increasing technological strength to Russia.

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated to Russians that they cannot defeat the West militarily. It’s probably time for them to focus on the East.

China’s National Interest

Like the United States, China is not ready for a large-scale war. The People’s Liberation Army is still “under construction.” Xi Jinping’s primary objective is to secure a deal with Trump before Putin does, which helps avoid strategic isolation and maintains access to global supply chains, particularly in technology, where the U.S. and its allies still hold a dominant position.

Externally, Xi’s China appears to be a rising and unified global power. However, internally, it faces deep-rooted divisions: ethnic and territorial tensions, regional economic disparities, youth unrest, and a strict political system. So far, the Communist Party has managed these issues through strong repression and nationalist rhetoric. Still, failing to address them in the long run could threaten the stability of the system.

The “Chinese Dream” and the “Rejuvenation of the Nation” — launched by Xi in 2012 to be achieved by 2049, the centennial of the People’s Republic — aim to create a “prosperous society in a great modern socialist country.” However, the goals — besides industrial growth — are still distant: technological autonomy, reduction of inequality, national security (meaning a strong military), Chinese-led globalization through the Belt and Road Initiative, influence within global institutions, and internal unity under Party leadership remain, for now, a “dream.”

For these reasons, China might adopt a more diplomatic approach — more aligned with Chinese strategic thinking — to achieve unification with Taiwan, which is a crucial part of its social contract. It could increase efforts to persuade foreign governments not to support Taiwan’s independence. Gaining influence over the island gradually through political, cultural, and economic means, while avoiding conflict with the U.S. and Japan, would be more advantageous and consistent with China’s long-term strategic goals. The People’s Republic already faces complex social and economic challenges, and it remains uncertain how it would handle a conflict on its own doorstep.

The Empire of the Middle shares many of America’s flaws: identity conflicts, domestic polarization, geoeconomic divides, and military-industrial vulnerabilities. China’s ethnic tensions, youth unrest, and industrial weaknesses reflect Western democratic fractures, but in an authoritarian form.

The U.S.–China rivalry isn’t just geopolitical; it’s systemic: a conflict between an authoritarian regime losing legitimacy and a democracy losing public trust.

The New World Order

The unavoidable strategic path for the United States — unready and unwilling to fight — is détente, just as it was after the Vietnam War. But it is the same for Russia and China.

Trump understands this. In his view, transactional deals with Moscow and Beijing in each sphere of influence will define the new global order. The three major powers have already outlined their geopolitical goals.

This creates opportunities for middle powers like India and Turkey. They attempt to secure their position by alternately aligning with Russia, China, or the U.S., depending on their national interests.

The European Union is not a country but a collection of states without a common interest. Therefore, it lacks real geopolitical power, and its future remains uncertain.

For the small client states of the three major powers, asserting their national interests will be very challenging in an increasingly chaotic and unstable world.