Why Americas new foreign policy struggles to turn pressure into outcomes

January 2026 marks a year since Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. Few national leaders can compete with Trump when it comes to public engagement and the range of global issues tackled. He is undoubtedly the most quoted head of state. However, the high level of media attention to America's domestic and foreign policies is a double-edged sword for the current US administration. It forces the leadership to handle an endless stream of diverse challenges in real time and under constant pressure. This dynamic has shaped the Trump administration's recognizable diplomatic style, which is characterized by inconsistency, haste, and half-hearted measures.

Consequently, many issues that have been taken up by President Trump and his loyal aides - US Vice President J.D. Vance, US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner - remain largely unresolved. This undermines Trump's image as that of a formidable leader who can force anyone to comply with his wishes. The US president's tendency to reverse his policies accounts for the popularity of the TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) meme.

Meanwhile, the political calendar for 2026 promises new challenges. If they are addressed in an ineffective manner, the Democrats could gain control of the US Congress in the November midterm elections, potentially derailing Trump's agenda until the next presidential election in 2028. The looming threat of another government shutdown, the need to resolve the Ukraine crisis, preventing escalation in the eight wars stopped by Trump in 2025, preparations for the 250th-anniversary celebrations of US independence, hosting the G20 summit and the World Cup - these will be the key factors shaping the power dynamics in the US for the coming years.

True to form, Donald Trump has kicked off 2026 by significantly amplifying points of tension in global politics. We must note that despite the apparent illogic of Trump's statements, all his actions align with the logic laid out by his team in the revised National Security Strategy released in December. If we were to reduce this document to a few key points, the current US administration aims to reshape global governance institutions through aggressive rhetoric bordering on brute force, secure the Western Hemisphere as a zone of exclusive American interests, contain China, and shift the burden of responsibility for the strategic landscape in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa onto junior allies.

Remarkably, everything that has unfolded in 2026 aligns perfectly with what can already be called the Trump Doctrine. On January 3, right after New Year, the US captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in the course of a dramatic operation worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster.

The plan involved taking out part of Maduro's personal guard made up of Cuban troops, while neutralizing Russian air defense systems installed in the country. The US hoped that betrayal within Maduro's inner circle would make the nation an easy target, as Venezuela is crucial for American interests in its "soft underbelly," serving as a vast oil reservoir that China actively exploits for its own economic needs.

Furthermore, Maduro's public humiliation allows the US to revert to its traditional "big stick" approach, instilling fear in Cuba, Mexico, Panama, and other nations in the region. However, it would be premature to credit Trump for this; the abducted Venezuelan president is set to stand trial in a New York court, where Democrats hold significant sway, while Venezuela remains under the control of the old elites led by former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez.

In the early weeks of January, unexpected events unfolded on the other side of the globe as mass protests erupted in Iran. With large-scale civil disobedience erupting in over 200 cities, it seemed that the Islamic Republic established in 1979, under the leadership of the Rahbar, was on the brink of collapse, potentially paving the way for the exiled son of the ousted Shah from the Pahlavi dynasty to return to power. Such a shift would allow the US to regain control over one of the world's leading gas producers and disrupt nearly all transport and logistics corridors across Greater Eurasia.

Yet, just when military action appeared imminent, Trump unexpectedly decided to retreat, apparently heeding the advice of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who learned from the bitter experience of the Twelve-Day War in June 2025.

Eager to visibly distance himself from the situation in the Middle East, Trump shifted back to discussing the potential acquisition of Greenland. He claimed that Greenland was unjustly colonized by Denmark, which is unable to secure the island and the entire Western Hemisphere from threats posed by China and Russia. By ritualistically using Moscow and Beijing as verbal scapegoats, Trump's real aim in asserting control over Greenland is to bolster US positions in the Arctic region and, in the long run, block the Northern Sea Route, which is gradually emerging as a more viable alternative to existing trade routes between China and the EU that pass through the geopolitically turbulent regions of the southern seas.

Panic gripped Europe as it prepared for the worst: a potential US military operation against its junior NATO ally and the possible disintegration of the entire bloc. However, speaking at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Trump was quick to assure everyone that he seeks a mutually beneficial deal that could merely imply US sovereignty over areas where its military bases are located, similar to the status of British bases in Cyprus.

As Greenland temporarily overshadowed Ukraine in the news, one couldn't help but consider the interconnectedness of these two issues, situated at opposite ends of the European security spectrum. Meanwhile, Donald Trump unexpectedly summoned Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to Switzerland, while simultaneously sending Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow. The next day, discussions resumed in a trilateral format (Russia-US-Ukraine), featuring two working groups focused on security and economics. Alongside familiar faces from the American delegation, there was also Josh Gruenbaum, the Commissioner of the US Federal Acquisition Service. This clearly meant that this round of negotiations wasn't solely about territorial disputes in Ukraine, but would also touch on the fate of $5 billion in Russian sovereign assets frozen by the Biden administration.

Ahead of the talks, President Putin proposed using $1 billion as a contribution to the Board of Peace initiated by Trump, with the funds directed at humanitarian efforts related to the reconstruction of Gaza.

Regarding Russia's potential role in this newly formed structure, Putin instructed the Foreign Ministry and other relevant agencies to explore all details concerning how this multilateral diplomatic institution would operate. Thus, Russia has taken the initiative to study the nature of Trump's proposal (which global media have hastily dubbed a "UN substitute").

Trump's project raises numerous questions:

1) Which countries will join the Board of Peace?

2) What principles will guide decision-making?

3) Is the $1 billion contribution mandatory for formal participation?

4) Will discussions be limited to the situation in Gaza or will they encompass other regional conflicts?

Ultimately, observing the US president's behavior teaches us that anything is possible with Donald Trump. What Trump considers a key issue today may be overshadowed by some new problem tomorrow, one that will become paramount for the president and his team. However, any actions undertaken by Trump doesn't guarantee an unequivocal victory for the US or a predetermined outcome. The hallmark of mature diplomacy lies not just in launching bold initiatives or addressing immediate problems but in seeing every endeavor through to its logical conclusion.

(RT.com)