There’s a thought experiment I can’t stop coming back to, and it's one that's kept me up late into the night. It’s the kind of scenario that feels absurd at first—like the stuff of political thrillers and Twitter doom-posting. But when you sit with it, when you layer it over the history of Trump’s foreign policy instincts, when you consider his tendency to view global politics not as a chessboard of alliances but as a ledger of transactions—it starts to feel, if not likely, at least plausible.
The idea is this: What if, in a second term, Trump sought a grand bargain with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping? What if, in exchange for U.S. acquiescence to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine and China’s takeover of Taiwan, Trump expected their support—or at least their silence—on his own territorial ambitions? What if the real Trump Doctrine isn’t “America First,” but rather “Every Great Power Gets Its Cut”?
The problem is that this doesn’t just mean abandoning Ukraine and Taiwan. It means abandoning the entire U.S.-led global order that has defined the last 80 years of economic growth. The rules-based system that has protected free trade, secured supply chains, and made the U.S. the world’s economic superpower doesn’t survive in a world where great powers carve up territory by force. It collapses.
And if that happens, America doesn’t get richer. It gets poorer.
Trump and the Art of the Deal—But on a Global Scale
Let’s start with what we know about Trump’s foreign policy instincts. He doesn’t think in ideological terms. He doesn’t buy into the postwar American project of global stability. What he believes in, what he’s always believed in, is leverage. He looks at the world as a collection of assets to be bought, sold, traded.
Take Greenland. In 2019, Trump didn’t just float the idea of buying it from Denmark—he was reportedly serious about it, which is obvious from his latest comments since coming back into the White House. When Denmark rebuffed him, he was visibly offended, canceling a planned visit to the country. It was a moment that clarified how Trump sees global politics: He doesn’t see sovereignty as sacred. He sees it as negotiable.
That same logic extends to Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly questioned why the U.S. should be involved at all. He’s suggested he could end the war in 24 hours, which—translated from Trumpian bluster—means he’ll pressure Ukraine to surrender land to Russia. He’s spoken admiringly of Putin’s strength, criticized NATO at every turn, and dismissed the idea that Russian expansionism is an American problem.
And then there’s Taiwan. Trump’s approach to China was always erratic—he simultaneously engaged in a trade war while praising Xi Jinping as a “brilliant” leader. But when you step back, you see the throughline: Trump isn’t interested in Taiwan as a beacon of democracy or an ally to be defended. He’s interested in what Taiwan can get him in a deal.
A Global Power Swap? The Pieces Start to Fit
So now let’s put the pieces together. Trump looks at the global landscape and sees opportunity. He doesn’t want another Cold War with Russia and China. He wants a deal.
Here’s how that deal could go:
Trump signals to Putin that the U.S. will not intervene as Russia finalizes its annexation of Ukraine. In return, Putin backs off any efforts to undermine Trump’s moves elsewhere.
Trump tells Xi that the U.S. will not defend Taiwan. Maybe he even pressures Taiwan into a “peace deal” that amounts to de facto surrender. In return, China stays out of any territorial ambitions Trump has in the Western Hemisphere.
And what does Trump get? Maybe Greenland, his Arctic obsession. Maybe influence over Canada’s energy resources. Maybe even a move toward reclaiming control over the Panama Canal, a long-standing grievance of his.
Would it work? It’s hard to say. But would Trump try it? That’s the more interesting question.
The Economic Order Trump Would Break
The biggest shift here isn’t just territorial. It’s economic.
For the past 80 years, the U.S. has been the architect of a global order built on free trade, secure supply chains, and stable markets. The reason America became the world’s dominant economic power wasn’t just its military strength. It was because the U.S. built and enforced a system where businesses could operate with predictability, where goods could flow across borders without fear of sudden war, where alliances kept conflicts from escalating into economic chaos.
That system made the U.S. rich. It allowed American companies to dominate global markets. It ensured that when economic crises happened, investors still saw the U.S. dollar as the safest currency in the world.
Now imagine a world where Trump scraps that system in favor of great-power land grabs. Where Taiwan, the world’s semiconductor hub, falls to China, throwing global tech supply chains into disarray. Where Europe fractures because NATO collapses, triggering an economic crisis that hits U.S. exports. Where businesses no longer trust the U.S. to uphold trade agreements, so they look elsewhere.
That’s not a world where America wins. That’s a world where the American economy, built on the stability of the postwar order, starts to break down.
The Normalization of Annexation
The next biggest shift is conceptual but just as important. For decades, the world has operated under a post-World War II norm that territorial conquest is illegitimate. That norm has frayed in places—Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, China’s expansion in the South China Sea—but it has largely held.
But Trump doesn’t believe in that norm. He doesn’t even seem to recognize it as real. He sees countries expanding, and instead of recoiling, he asks: Why not us? Why shouldn’t America be in the business of annexation, too?
If Trump makes this trade explicit—if he offers up Ukraine and Taiwan in exchange for American territorial expansion—it wouldn’t just change the global order. It would end it. It would usher in a new age of great-power land grabs, where the question isn’t what’s right or legal, but what’s possible.
The Rising Risk of War
The normalization of annexation isn’t just an economic disaster. It’s a direct path to war.
History has shown that when great powers abandon diplomatic norms and start redrawing borders by force, conflict becomes inevitable. If Trump encourages a world where might makes right—where Russia can take Ukraine, China can take Taiwan, and the U.S. starts carving up its own territorial expansions—it creates a global arms race. It pressures allies to militarize. It gives countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany incentives to develop their own nuclear weapons rather than rely on a fraying U.S. security guarantee. It makes global war not just possible but probable.
The world Trump envisions—a world of deals between strongmen—isn’t one of stability. It’s one of escalating competition, of betrayals, of military buildups spiraling out of control. And if history tells us anything, it’s that these dynamics don’t end peacefully.
The Real Danger: A Transactional World Order
I don’t think Trump is sitting in the White House sketching out a grand geopolitical trade on a napkin. But I do think that, if given the opportunity, he could drift into this kind of arrangement. Because in his mind, it makes sense.
The traditional U.S. foreign policy establishment sees alliances as stabilizers, as sources of strength. Trump sees them as burdens, as constraints. What excites him is the idea of flipping the table, of making the kind of deals no other president would dare attempt.
And that’s why this scenario matters. Even if it doesn’t happen exactly this way, Trump’s instincts push the world toward something like it: a world where territorial integrity is negotiable, where great powers divvy up spheres of influence, where the strongest countries don’t just dominate the global order but actively rewrite it.
And the scariest part? In a second Trump term, there doesn't appear to be anyone in his orbit with the authority, influence, or willingness to stop him.
Comments