The “Trump Doctrine” is all about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China together with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its growth and thus its superpower trajectory.
Andrew Korybko
Trump 2.0’s grand strategy has become much clearer over the past month since the US bombed ISIS in Nigeria on Christmas, executed its astoundingly successful “special military operation” in Venezuela, and is now threatening new strikes against Iran on the pretext
of supporting anti-government protesters. What these three states have
in common is their important roles in the global energy industry,
whether present or potential (due to sanctions-related limitations), and
in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
Accordingly,
coercing those countries into subordinating themselves to the US
(whether by tariffs, force, subversion, etc.) would result in Trump 2.0
obtaining influence over their energy exports and trade ties, which could be weaponized to pressure China. What the US wants from China is for it to agree to a lopsided trade deal that would then be replicated with the EU and the US’ other partners for, as the new National Security Strategy states, “rebalanc[ing] China’s economy towards household consumption”.
The
implied goal is to coerce China into correcting its overproduction,
which is responsible for its unprecedented global exports that displaced
the West’s leading role in world trade and led to enormous influence
over the Global South, thus restoring the West’s global market share and
influence. Such a radical policy change would have major economic and
therefore political repercussions that could destabilize the country,
not to mention ending its superpower rise, so it wouldn’t be done
voluntarily.
US influence over Venezuela’s and possibly soon
Iran’s and Nigeria’s energy exports and trade ties with China could be
weaponized via threats of curtailment or cut-offs in parallel with
pressure upon its Gulf allies to do the same in pursuit of this goal,
but this might not suffice for ensuring China’s surrender. That’s why
Trump 2.0 is also seeking a resource-centric strategic partnership
with Russia that could deprive China of access to those of its deposits
in which the US would massively invest in that scenario.
The quid pro quo for injecting billions of dollars into the Russian economy, including through the potential return
of some of its estimated $300 billion in frozen assets for this
purpose, is for Russia to concede on some of its security-related goals
in Ukraine. That’s unacceptable for Putin and is why he’s thus far
rejected Trump’s proposal. Nevertheless, even without Russia’s de facto
(even if unaware) role in its grand strategy, the US can still apply
more pressure upon China through traditional military means.
As Michael McNair notes in his article about “The Bridge at the Center of the Pentagon”,
the US’ reassertion of influence over the Western Hemisphere “is a
prerequisite for sustaining power projection into the Indo-Pacific” for
the abovementioned purpose, which aligns with Elbridge Colby’s
framework. He’s the Under Secretary of War for Policy and is actively
implementing the ideas that he shared in his 2021 book titled “The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict”.
McNair
compellingly argues that the new National Security Strategy has Colby’s
fingerprints all over it, which makes sense given his position, and
explains how Trump 2.0’s grand strategy is shaped by his work. As he
wrote, “Colby’s core claim is that U.S. strategy in the 21st century
should aim to prevent China from achieving hegemony over Asia. The rest
of his framework follows from that point.” This is precisely what the
‘Trump Doctrine’, which has recently become much clearer, aims to
achieve.
The US’ reassertion of influence over the Western Hemisphere, the policy of which can be described as ‘Fortress America’,
would provide it with the resources and markets required for raising
the defense budget by over 50% from nearly $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion
like Trump just declared
that he wants to do. The US’ drastically ramped-up military-industrial
production would then go towards militarily coercing China into
submitting itself to the US through the trade-related means that were
earlier touched upon.
The ’Trump Doctrine’ is therefore all
about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China together
with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny
China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its
growth and thus its superpower trajectory. The first will be fueled by
tariffs and the profits from ‘Fortress America’ while the others are
furthered by subordinating the EU, pressuring the Gulf, and coercing
strategic BRI partners (Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, etc.) into submission.
Everything
that Trump 2.0 has done so far aligns with these imperatives and modi
operandi, including policies that haven’t succeeded such as the US’ attempted subordination of India
and efforts to clinch a resource-centric strategic partnership with
Russia at the expense of its security-related goals in Ukraine. Even
Trump’s hatred of BRICS
makes sense when viewed through this paradigm since he and his team
perceive it as a Chinese-dominated front for internationalizing the yuan
and weakening the dollar.
In sum, the US’ grand
strategy as encapsulated by the Colby-influenced ‘Trump Doctrine’ is to
coerce China into subordination, which it aims to achieve through a
Reagan-esque military buildup with its AUKUS+ allies
as well as entering into positions to deny it access to energy and
markets. The end goal is to restore the US’ unipolar hegemony, first
over the Americas and then the Global West (EU, the Gulf, and
Indo-Pacific allies), the Global South, and finally China, with Russia
relegated to a junior partner.