A deeper political calculation behind Trump’s tariffs

Written for Kosovo Online by: Zeljko Sajn

With his return to the political stage, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken major steps to redirect the course of the United States toward a new international order, pointing out the weaknesses of previous administrations, especially with regard to Moscow and the conflict in Ukraine. Trump advocates a policy of direct dialogue with the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, believing that this will strengthen the United States’ position in the world and restore Americans’ confidence in their own future.

However, standing in the way of achieving the “American dream” is the fact that the gap between revenues and expenditures in the U.S. budget amounts to as much as 36 trillion dollars, and each year the deficit increases by around one trillion. In addition, Trump is confronted with the legacy of the Biden administration, which wholeheartedly supported Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian Federation. Consequently, Trump cannot engage in dialogue with Putin on equal footing, given that the Russian president has already taken decisive steps on the ground – including the occupation of Ukrainian territory – with the aim of protecting the Russian people, fighting Nazism, and laying the foundations for a new multipolar world order. Any negotiations will have to proceed based on the realities on the ground.

Thus, Trump has decided that the first step toward a better future for America would be to begin normalizing relations with Russia, endeavoring to lay the foundation for a partnership dialogue with President Vladimir Putin and to jointly outline the contours of a new international order. While Trump has only just begun his second term, Putin has spent more than two decades building a policy of polycentric peace in alignment with BRICS (which held its 16th summit last year in Kazan). On the other hand, Trump, in his characteristic style, is trying to put even matters of peace on a trade footing; accordingly, he is introducing variable tariffs that leave room for bilateral agreements with the world’s economies. Globally, this move is interpreted as a “trade war,” whereas Trump regards it as a legitimate means of conducting trade and pursuing profit. A temporary 90-day freeze on tariffs gives him the opportunity to achieve balanced trade relations with partners during that period. Such agreements could provide the United States a better political position within the emerging multipolar world.

It is clear that behind Trump’s tariff policy and broader trade strategy lies a much deeper political calculation – establishing a balance with Russia across all geopolitical fronts. His intention is to gracefully pull the United States out of the Ukrainian crisis without military conflict, while not undermining the trust of either Russia or the countries assembled around the BRICS summit. In that geopolitical equation, the U.S. cannot match Russia militarily, nor China economically, and the introduction of a new currency by BRICS could trigger serious internal destabilization, even civil unrest in America. Paradoxically, it is precisely Russia and BRICS that are helping Trump avoid such a scenario. However, the price for this will be high: reforming NATO and the EU, easing tensions toward Moscow, and redirecting American policy toward building a new Eurasian security architecture. At the foundation of this vision lies the principle of balance and respect for the UN Charter, with natural resources as the basis of the new multipolar world order.

Two and a half years ago, the Russian Federation presented a foreign policy platform advocating a new world order based on balanced principles, without hegemony, in which natural resources would play a key role. BRICS adopted this strategy at the summit in Kazan, and Brazil pledged to carry it forward. At the same time, Putin was given a mandate to represent the interests of peace in dialogue with the United States, in line with BRICS’s rules but with respect for the dollar as the global currency — up until sanctions are intensified, at which point BRICS could introduce its own currency and exclude the dollar from the international payment system.

Trump will have the opportunity to establish economic equilibrium and strike agreements both with BRICS and with the Commonwealth countries, thus securing a leading role over those nations’ mineral wealth. The European Union will have to reform its customs policies, economy, security system, and political framework in accordance with new global realities. In this context, the U.S. and Russia assume the role of guardians of peace within a Eurasian security architecture that will stretch from Lisbon to Beijing.

China, currently the world’s strongest economic power, can withstand high tariff pressures because it does not finance any military alliance other than its own army. By contrast, the United States covers about 70% of NATO’s budget and plans to fund its military to the tune of one trillion dollars per year, a course that could lead to financial collapse and potential domestic unrest.

Therefore, in order to remain viable in the new security architecture — in which the Balkans will also have an important role along the Lisbon–Beijing route — it is necessary for the U.S. to focus on reforming NATO and the EU. In that context, the issue of Kosovo and Metohija, as well as Crimea, could be resolved through a broader diplomatic package. The greatest opponents of such solutions remain the United Kingdom and France, although Macron is showing signs of openness, recognizing the importance of Russia’s role.

In this process, Serbia could play an important diplomatic role, perhaps even through trade diplomacy, mediating between Trump, Putin, and Xi. In this way, a special status could be secured for Kosovo and Metohija, while France is afforded a more significant role in Europe. In that scenario, the European Union would reform into a smaller, more functional entity, while countries like Slovenia and Croatia would become part of a broader Southeastern corridor toward Beijing. Belgrade would, in that scheme, position itself as a key crossroads between Washington and Moscow.