In the following analysis for the Morning Star, British economist John Ross argues that the second presidency of Donald Trump represents not a retreat from US global ambitions – as has been posited in parts of the left – but a tactical recalibration aimed at preserving US hegemony and furthering the longstanding campaign to contain China and suppress its rise.
Citing the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy, the article observes that both documents explicitly prioritise countering China militarily, especially in the Indo-Pacific and around Taiwan. Washington’s current tactical approach, however, is to target what it perceives as lesser enemies – including Cuba, Venezuela and Iran – in order to weaken the broader international alignment against imperialism and hegemony.
John concludes that the notion of US retreat is “dangerous wishful thinking.” Far from accepting multipolarity, the US is intensifying military spending, expanding missile defence systems and sustaining global interventions.
“Global South countries at present under direct attack by the US, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, are today in the front line of fighting the US attack on all independent, progressive and socialist forces in the world. These countries therefore must receive the maximum support both for reasons of moral solidarity, and the interests of these countries, but because if they were to be defeated the US will be strengthened in its attack on every other country and progressive movement.
“The evidence, both in words and actions, is that if the US were allowed to succeed in its attacks in the western hemisphere, against Cuba and Venezuela, it would not stop at that and accept a division of the rest of the world. It would simply follow up its attacks on Cuba and Venezuela, in a somewhat strengthened position, by attacks on other countries.
“In short, the idea that the US is retreating simply into the western hemisphere is entirely wrong and extremely dangerous.”
The second Trump presidency differs from previous US administrations in rhetoric and tactics.
It is carrying out military attacks and intensified blockades against Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran. But it simultaneously imposes tariffs, insults allies, and makes threats such as seizing Greenland from Denmark.
Against China, early in this presidency, the US threatened 145 per cent tariffs before retreating and Trump has attempted to negotiate an end of the Ukraine war with Russia.
All this has led some to argue Trump is fundamentally changing US goals. It is suggested he is proposing the US retreat into the western hemisphere or is prepared to divide the rest of the world into “spheres of influence” with countries such as China and Russia.
No change in US goals
These ideas are wrong and dangerous, as will be demonstrated as events unfold, because they leave countries unprepared for what is happening. They are also used to suggest that it is not so vital to defend countries such as Cuba, because the US is only interested in the western hemisphere, and will not attacks other countries if they do not interfere with US goals there.
Such views are in contradiction with even the Trump presidency’s words in its two new major policy statements — the National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy.
Certainly, these stress US desire to control the western hemisphere.
The Security Strategy states: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert … American pre-eminence in the western hemisphere.”
But it makes clear that its target is not only Latin American countries seeking independent development but also China — which is the chief trading and construction partner of many Latin American countries.
The Security Strategy says of Latin America: “We want other nations to see us as their partner of first choice, and we will (through various means) discourage their collaboration with others … we should make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region.”
US targets China
Far from retreating from other parts of the world, both the Security and Defence Strategies specifically target China. The Defence Strategy states: “the NSS [National Security Strategy] directs DoW [Department of War] to maintain a favourable balance of military power in the Indo-Pacific.”
It states: “We will erect a strong denial defence along the First Island Chain.”
The Security Strategy emphasises US military support for Taiwan: “A favourable conventional military balance remains an essential component of strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan … because Taiwan provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits north-east and south-east Asia into two distinct theatres… preserving military overmatch, is a priority.”
US policy in Europe
The Defence Strategy specifies that reducing US military forces in Europe is to concentrate them against China: “Although we … will remain engaged in Europe, we must — and will — prioritise defending the US Homeland and deterring China.”
The US is indeed at present seeking some agreements with Russia, with the aim of attempting to break up good relations between China and Russia. But the facts show this is purely a short-term tactical manoeuvre. If Trump really sought good strategic relations with Russia he would promote mutually lowering military expenditure and detente as the basis of security relations between western Europe and Russia, while establishing mutually beneficial energy links between the two. Instead, he is urging western Europe to increase military spending, which can only be strategically aimed against Russia, and entirely opposes re-establishing energy relations between Russia and western Europe.
Trump’s foreign policy in action
Even more significant than words are actions. During the second Trump presidency, Venezuela was attacked and an oil blockade imposed against Cuba, but six of the seven countries the US bombed are outside the western hemisphere — Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria and Iraq.
Trump proposes increasing this year’s annual US military budget from $1 trillion to $1.5trn — far more than required to deal with the western hemisphere.
US attempts to acquire a first strike nuclear capacity
The Defence Strategy emphasises building the Golden Dome anti-ballistic missile system not against countries with small numbers of intercontinental missiles, such as North Korea, but those with large numbers such as China and Russia: “The Department [of War] will prioritise efforts to develop President Trump’s Golden Dome… with a specific focus on options to cost-effectively defeat large missile barrages and other advanced aerial attacks.”
Golden Dome’s reality is an attempt to acquire an offensive US first-strike capacity against countries such as China. At present the US is deterred from launching nuclear war because it faces a devastating nuclear response.
Golden Dome’s strategy is that if the US launches a first nuclear strike, against China or Russia, Golden Dome will knock out the small number of missiles that would survive to be launched at the US after such a first strike.
Trump’s purely tactical manoeuvres to attempt to achieve US strategic goals
The US is not retreating into the western hemisphere. Some people put this idea forward because the US withdrew its attempt to impose 145 per cent tariffs on China and accompanied this by less aggressive anti-China rhetoric.
This wishful thinking misunderstands the situation. The US retreated from attacking China solely because it faced strength. China was the biggest force opposing the US, with its economic countermeasures, But China had other countries aligned with it — Russia and many in the global South.
Trump 2.0, therefore, decided it was mistaken tactics to start by attacking the strongest force it opposes — China. Instead, it was necessary to first attempt to change the relation of forces against China by defeating other, weaker, countries friendly to China. Then, having overturned them, it could turn round and attack what it hopes would be a more isolated China, hoping to weaken it by those means. Hence US attacks on numerous countries coupled with temporary less harsh rhetoric against China.
The US is not retreating into the western hemisphere, it is just adopting more subtle tactics to attempt to maintain and strengthen its global hegemony and dominance.
Trump’s military assault on the global South
The conclusions that follow from this reality is clear. Global South countries at present under direct attack by the US, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, are today in the front line of fighting the US attack on all independent, progressive and socialist forces in the world. These countries therefore must receive the maximum support both for reasons of moral solidarity, and the interests of these countries, but because if they were to be defeated the US will be strengthened in its attack on every other country and progressive movement.
The evidence, both in words and actions, is that if the US were allowed to succeed in its attacks in the western hemisphere, against Cuba and Venezuela, it would not stop at that and accept a division of the rest of the world. It would simply follow up its attacks on Cuba and Venezuela, in a somewhat strengthened position, by attacks on other countries.
In short, the idea that the US is retreating simply into the western hemisphere is entirely wrong and extremely dangerous.
