The U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro demonstrates Washington’s military power and intent to counter rival influence, particularly China, in the Western Hemisphere, but it violates international law and risks destabilizing the region. Such interventions often produce unintended consequences, embolden other powers to challenge norms, and expose smaller states to coercion, highlighting the dangers of unilateral actions under the guise of national or hemispheric security.

The Trump administration has merged state authority with private interests, treating political power as a monetizable platform rather than a system of public governance. From Beijing’s perspective, this validates China’s pragmatic approach to legitimacy and positions the U.S. as a conglomerate of private interests rather than a traditional state.

Even among America’s allies in the West there is a growing willingness to resist unrestrained U.S. unilateralism. The U.S. must establish a new equilibrium between its traditional isolationist orientation and its commitment to global engagement.

Donald Trump’s foreign policy is either following a disruptive logic to reshape the global power landscape, or it is merely a series of impulsive actions that undermine the foundation of American diplomacy carefully constructed through the postwar decades.

The new White House National Security Strategy provides a critical window for understanding America’s view of the roles of major powers and the international order. But Donald Trump’s brash and unpredictable personal characteristics are a wild card that will keep the world in suspense.

The new US National Security Strategy is not, in any meaningful sense, a strategy. A strategy connects means to achievable ends. What President Donald Trump’s White House published last week is something else: a 33-page confession that this administration does not believe in the future – and therefore sees no point in investing in it.

Last week, the Trump administration released its new national security strategy. It was quickly condemned by the neoconservatives — perhaps because it is more realistic about multipolarity.

The Trump administration’s transactional diplomacy in Central Asia comes with both reconfiguration and constraints. It has broadened the scope of U.S. engagement, yet its depth and structural impact on regional geopolitics are limited.

Europe’s dissatisfaction, anxiety and dependence will continue to shape the next stage of transatlantic relations. The rift may not lead to a break. But it will likely lead to a relationship that becomes ever more transactional, more realist and ultimately more fragile.

U.S. leaders consistently lack strategic empathy, failing to consider how their actions are perceived by other nations. This longstanding blindness has fueled past conflicts and now risks sparking new crises with Russia and China.