Putin and Xi see right through Trump

TOKYO — More than six months into his second presidency, the global repercussions of Donald Trump’s renewed leadership are becoming increasingly clear.

On the positive side, Trump has moved swiftly to involve himself in international conflicts, aiming to stem the tide of violence. He has repeatedly declared his intent to prevent a third world war, a desire that appears genuine.

The Trump administration has devoted significant energy to conflict resolution. In Ukraine, the president has pushed aggressively for a ceasefire. On Aug. 15 Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to personally urge him to agree to a ceasefire. In May, he intervened in cross-border clashes between India and Pakistan, helping to broker a truce. Then in July, he facilitated progress toward reconciliation between Thailand and Cambodia during their territorial dispute.

While his pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize may partly motivate his actions, his efforts to reduce global tensions deserve recognition.

However, whether Trump is truly making the world safer remains an open question. If anything, the past six months point in the opposite direction. He may ultimately be remembered less as a peacemaker and more as a leader who unintentionally intensified global instability.

The problem lies in his piecemeal approach to achieving peace. While touting « peace through strength, » Trump has articulated few coherent long-term strategies. Instead, he relies on ad hoc interventions, clinging to the notion of striking « beautiful deals. » He appears convinced that negotiating ceasefires one by one will somehow secure lasting global peace.

But accumulating ceasefires alone will not stop the spread of war, just as surviving individual typhoons and tornadoes will not eliminate the threat of natural disasters unless the underlying issue of climate change is addressed.

Breaking the cycle of conflict requires more than tactical diplomacy — it demands confronting the « climate change » of global security by revitalizing the rules-based international order and reinforcing the U.S.-led alliance network that underpins global stability.

Trump, however, has pursued a markedly different course, initiating tariff wars against key allies like Japan, South Korea and European nations. These actions have fractured the unity essential to global stability. At the same time, he has undermined the role of the United Nations and other international institutions, further eroding the foundations of the rules-based order.

Russia and China appear increasingly confident in their reading of Trump, trying to turn it to their advantage. What Chinese President Xi Jinping fears most is a cohesive, U.S.-led alliance capable of forming a strategic and technological perimeter around China. Yet Trump’s focus remains fixed on extracting trade concessions, seemingly detached from the broader geopolitical context.

Trump’s mindset became clear during a July 22 meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. at the White House, when he told reporters, « I don’t mind if he [President Marcos] gets along with China, because we’re getting along with China very well, we have a very good relationship [with Beijing]. »

Such a remark would be unthinkable from a leader who takes the geopolitical rivalry with China seriously. If the Philippines drifts closer to Beijing, the strategic balance in the South China Sea, one of Asia’s most contested regions, could tilt further in China’s favor, accelerating the erosion of U.S. geopolitical influence. Diplomatic goodwill, while important, is not sufficient to secure the interests of the U.S. and its allies in this vital area.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, too, seems increasingly assured that Trump is unlikely to stand in the way of his ambitions. While Putin agreed to meet with the U.S. president in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, he remains unwilling to soften his hardline stance toward the neighboring country his country invaded in 2022.

« All of Russia’s goals on the Ukrainian issue have remained unchanged, » Putin said on Aug. 1.

Putin’s calculus seems straightforward: Unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, Trump does not see Russia’s aggression as a fundamental threat to the rules-based international order. As such, Putin appears to believe that Trump would have little inclination to defend Ukraine if doing so risked badly damaging its relations with Moscow. He clearly expects NATO’s cohesion to fray under U.S. leadership by Trump, gradually weakening Western support for Ukraine.

Even if Trump eventually imposes new sanctions out of frustration, there is little indication they would meaningfully influence Putin’s behavior.

In a previous article, I warned that Trump’s return could signal a revival of great-power diplomacy reminiscent of the Yalta Conference in 1945. At Yalta, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin made secret deals — without Allied consultation — that shaped the postwar order, including the division of Germany and the creation of the U.N.

My concern was that Trump could once again sideline America’s allies, forging unilateral agreements with China and Russia that define global diplomacy and security through opaque, backchannel dealings.

Regrettably, the current situation is worse than I had imagined. If China and Russia’s strongmen have truly sized Trump up, they could exploit his vulnerabilities to pursue aggressive moves, further destabilizing Europe and Asia.

Trump’s fiercely competitive nature becomes less of an asset and more of a liability. When former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently issued nuclear threats, Trump reacted by announcing the repositioning of « two nuclear submarines » to « appropriate regions, » a move widely understood as encroaching on Russian waters. Far from being deterred, the Kremlin likely realized how easily Trump could be provoked and disoriented.

To prevent U.S. foreign policy from veering into dangerous territory, major American allies, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and key European nations, must coordinate closely and share detailed assessments of Trump’s approach to diplomacy. From there, they should divide the task of engaging Washington, working in concert to manage and mitigate those risks.

For America’s allies, managing the relationship with Washington has become as critical as shaping their strategies toward Beijing and Moscow.