The (Not So) Reluctant Hegemon

This former colony, reluctant to conquer overseas and establish its own possessions on other continents, and geographically distant from the cradle of Judeo-Christian civilisation, was always mindful of the fate of its former sovereign, the United Kingdom, which lost its role as the dominant power rather quickly and abruptly (for such a long reign). The United States has experienced significant upheaval due to its involvement in numerous wars and international interventions, often with limited success. These actions have often resulted in substantial loss of life, as evidenced by the significant bloodshed during both world wars.

When discussing the growing isolationist sentiment in the US today, especially among the most radical Trump supporters, it is important to note that this is neither a new phenomenon nor one found exclusively on the American right. In the United States, political elites on both sides of the ideological spectrum have historically demonstrated a greater degree of internal cohesion than internationalist tendencies. Furthermore, these elites have often aligned their actions with prevailing social trends. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939, the Gallup Institute asked respondents whether the US should send its army and navy to Europe. 71 percent of the Americans surveyed answered “no”. The following spring, as German tanks rolled through France, a similar poll found that opposition to entering the war had risen to 93 percent. This trend was not reversed until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. “Should President Roosevelt declare war on Germany and Japan?” Gallup asked again. This time, 91 percent of respondents said “yes”.

Trade, not guns

Let us briefly consider the situation in the 1990s. While the world was wondering how to end the conflict in Kosovo and curb the criminal atrocities of Slobodan Milošević, the US administration defended its position against direct military intervention until the last moment, believing that it was up to the Europeans to solve their own European problem. Who was the President of the US at the time? Democrat Bill Clinton. In 2011, when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown, the US also preferred to adopt a more passive approach. Who was residing at the White House at that time? Democrat Barack Obama. The Americans became more actively involved in the operation when it became apparent that the air forces of the major European powers had rather quickly burned through all their ammunition stocks. Democrat and internationalist Joe Biden was also responsible for withdrawing the US contingent from Afghanistan in 2021 (for the record, the decision was made by his predecessor, Donald Trump). The dramatic scenes from Kabul airport will forever be associated with the American trauma of “unwanted” wars, alongside the famous photo of a helicopter taking off from the roof of the US embas-sy in Saigon and American airmen being tortured on the streets of Mogadishu. What, then, are the implications of the incoming Republican presidency?

At the beginning of December, shortly after the overthrow of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Donald Trump issued a statement on his social media platform, Truth Social. In it, he made it clear that the US should stay as far away from the conflict as possible. Disregarding the President-elect’s conventionally flamboyant manner, such expressions are unsurprising. During his first term and recent election campaign, Trump emphasised the need for America to withdraw from so-called “forever wars”. He believes that they do not benefit the United States, but rather impose a significant financial burden and exert a negative impact on the nation’s reputation.

In the absence of political and military engagement in other regions, will the US be able to maintain its dominant global position? It can be surmised that, in Trump’s view, America will maintain its position if it establishes the rules of the game in global trade, not necessarily by military means. To the extent the world fears Washington’s reaction – Washington won’t have to react. And if Trump himself occasionally humiliates one leader or another (as he did recently with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, calling him “Gov-ernor of the Great State of Canada”) to flex his geopolitical muscles while positioning himself as the hegemon. And so is, by natural extension, Trump’s America.

Sanctions and blackmail

We can therefore expect a particular kind of American hegemony for the next four years, based less on military power and more on economic dominance. The Trump administration is set to take action by imposing higher tariffs on a range of products imported from China and the European Union, among others. It will persistently defend the position of the dollar in the global economic bloodstream. It will increase pressure and expand its influence in institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Impose sanctions on states, companies, politicians and oligarchs. Reduce contributions or withdraw altogether from making contributions to various international organisations, for its own political whims. And support – with even greater determination – the overseas expansion of US companies. At times, it may not even shy away from outright blackmail. For instance, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance recently threatened the European Union with “consequences” if it restricted the activities of X (owned by Donald Trump’s closest adviser, Elon Musk) within its borders.

In summary, the new administration of the 47th President of the United States will seek to make life difficult for its real and perceived adversaries not with its aircraft carriers, Abrams or F-35s, but by leveraging the influence of the Treasury Department and the Department of Commerce. Protecting their own interests and expanding their “sphere of freedom” in the world. As Robert B. Zoellick, former Deputy Secretary of State and former head of the World Bank, writes in his excellent book “America in the World: A History of U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy”, “from the earliest days of their independence, Americans have seen trade as a symbol of freedom. The founding fathers believed that the new rules of global trade would create a new international system, that it would not merely be an effective tool for conducting economic policy.”

While America will continue to dominate the economic and military landscapes for years to come, even without engaging in overseas military operations, this will be more challenging when it comes to the global technological race.

Connections and alliances

In a number of sectors, China is treading on America’s toes and in others it has already surpassed the US. This is naturally causing concern among Washington elites. Addressing the issue of intellectual property theft, as well as restricting the activities of major players in the telecommunications sector such as Huawei or ByteDance (the owner of TikTok) in the US, is not only a response to current threats, but is also part of a bigger fight over technology. In this context, the continued presence of Elon Musk alongside the President-elect is another key signal. Musk’s role in shaping American policy is undeniable, given his status as the world’s richest man. Musk’s original remit was to oversee the process of streamlining the US bureaucracy. However, he has become a symbol of the US’s next leap forward in civilisation, as the founder of SpaceX and a visionary eager to reconquer space.

Trump would probably like to be remembered as the president who successfully got rid of the so-called deep state, solved the immigration crisis on the US–Mexico border, ended several conflicts (notably the Russian–Ukrainian war) and sent humans to Mars. And as one who has maintained America’s leading global position without significant expense.

However, this raises another question. The US has thus far led the free world thanks to its allies, primarily NATO countries, but also Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand (the latter two countries, along with the US, UK and Canada, are part of an informal “Five Eyes” alliance based on intelligence sharing). Will the US under Trump continue to be a leader and oracle, despite loosening ties with its closest partners? Does Trump realise that America’s power also comes from its long-standing relationships with other countries? Without the loyalty of these countries, the US would have much less influence around the world. His recent announcements that he would be prepared to withdraw the US from NATO suggest that this awareness is quite low.

As an example, Trump has frequently criticised Germany (particularly during Angela Merkel’s tenure as Chancellor) for not allocating sufficient funds to armaments and relying on raw material supplies from Russia. By the way, this criticism is entirely justified. But let’s imagine a scenario in which the government in Berlin – perhaps one dominated by Alternative für Deutschland – were to demand the removal of US troops from the country, the dismantling of the Ramstein base, and several other such measures. Would German authorities be shooting themselves in the foot? Yes, but this would also represent a significant challenge to the established US position in Europe and the neighbouring region. Could the Americans successfully counter Russian aggression in Ukraine by supplying arms to Kyiv without Poland’s involvement and logistical support, for example in the form of an airport in Jasionka? If Trump decided to reduce the US military presence in the Far East, would it be able to effectively contain China’s regional expansion? Dur-ing the presidential campaign, he made repeated threats to withdraw 40,000 troops from the Korean peninsula unless Seoul agreed to begin paying USD 10 billion a year to maintain them. Australia is another Trump ally that has been targeted. The President-elect stated a few months ago that he would demand the recall of the country’s ambassador to Washington, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, because he had spoken unfavourably about Trump’s intellectual capacity in the past. The current head of the Australian gov-ernment has announced that he will not bow to pressure, but as we all know, Trump can be stubborn. Will his actions result in a diplomatic crisis with Canberra, due only to a personal grievance?

Charisma is not enough

Following George H. W. Bush’s victory in the 1988 election, his head of diplomacy, James Baker III, recommended that he hold meetings with the leaders of the other 15 NATO Member States during his first months in office. In the current political climate, it is challenging to envision such a gesture from Trump, especially given the historical context – Bush senior’s presidency coincided with the final phase of the Cold War. However, when viewed in the context of Cold War 2.0, with China and Russia as the primary competitors, it is evident that the current tensions and challenges bear a striking resemblance to those of nearly 40 years ago.

To quote Robert B. Zoellick once again, “For Trump, Europe is first and foremost an economic competitor”. Canada, on the other hand, is a “state, governed by a governor”. South Korea is a country that “benefits brazenly and for free from US military protection”. And the UN is “an organisation that has been taking advantage of American generosi-ty and naivety for decades”. If Trump’s closest advisors do not persuade him that US hegemony cannot endure for long without its allies (including allies such as Poland), and that his own charisma is not enough to inspire loyal obedience to America, we will enter a whole new era of world politics. ©Ⓟ

The author is a former deputy foreign minister and ambassador to Israel and the US. Since 1 January 2025, he has been director of the “Strategy for Poland’’ programme at the Institute for Freedom. He penned a collection of essays titled Zmęczona. Rzecz o kryzysie Europy Zachodniej (Tired. The Crisis of Western Europe) and a novel, Dwanaście zdjęć prezydenta (Twelve Photographs of the President).