Andrew Korybko
The “Trump Doctrine” is all about the US’ continued
military overmatch vis-à-vis China together with placing the US in a position
where it can complementarily deny China access to the energy and markets that
it requires to maintain its growth and thus its superpower trajectory
Trump 2.0’s grand strategy has
become much clearer over the past month since the US bombed
ISIS in Nigeria on
Christmas, executed its astoundingly successful “special military operation”
in Venezuela,
and is now threatening new strikes against
Iran on
the pretext of supporting anti-government protesters. What these three
states have in common is their important roles in the global energy industry,
whether present or potential (due to sanctions-related limitations), and in
China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
Accordingly, coercing those
countries into subordinating themselves to the US (whether by tariffs, force,
subversion, etc.) would result in Trump 2.0 obtaining influence over their energy exports and
trade ties, which could be weaponized to pressure China. What the US wants from
China is for it to agree to a lopsided
trade deal that would then be replicated with the EU and the US’ other
partners for, as the new National
Security Strategy states, “rebalanc[ing] China’s economy towards
household consumption”.
The implied goal is to coerce China into correcting its overproduction, which is responsible for its unprecedented global exports that displaced the West’s leading role in world trade and led to enormous influence over the Global South, thus restoring the West’s global market share and influence. Such a radical policy change would have major economic and therefore political repercussions that could destabilize the country, not to mention ending its superpower rise, so it wouldn’t be done voluntarily.
US influence over Venezuela’s
and possibly soon Iran’s and Nigeria’s energy exports and trade ties with China
could be weaponized via threats of curtailment or cut-offs in parallel with
pressure upon its Gulf allies to do the same in pursuit of this goal, but this
might not suffice for ensuring China’s surrender. That’s why Trump 2.0 is also
seeking a resource-centric strategic
partnership with Russia that could deprive China of access to those of
its deposits in which the US would massively invest in that scenario.
The quid pro quo for injecting
billions of dollars into the Russian economy, including through the potential
return of some of its estimated $300 billion in frozen assets for this
purpose, is for Russia to concede on some of its security-related goals in
Ukraine. That’s unacceptable for Putin and is why he’s thus far rejected
Trump’s proposal. Nevertheless, even without Russia’s de facto (even if
unaware) role in its grand strategy, the US can still apply more pressure upon
China through traditional military means.
As Michael McNair notes in his
article about “The
Bridge at the Center of the Pentagon”, the US’ reassertion of influence
over the Western Hemisphere “is a prerequisite for sustaining power projection
into the Indo-Pacific” for the abovementioned purpose, which aligns with
Elbridge Colby’s framework. He’s the Under Secretary of War for Policy and is
actively implementing the ideas that he shared in his 2021 book titled “The
Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict”.
McNair compellingly argues
that the new National Security Strategy has Colby’s fingerprints all over it,
which makes sense given his position, and explains how Trump 2.0’s grand
strategy is shaped by his work. As he wrote, “Colby’s core claim is that U.S.
strategy in the 21st century should aim to prevent China from achieving
hegemony over Asia. The rest of his framework follows from that point.” This is
precisely what the ‘Trump Doctrine’, which has recently become much clearer,
aims to achieve.
The US’ reassertion of
influence over the Western Hemisphere, the policy of which can be described as
‘Fortress America’,
would provide it with the resources and markets required for raising the
defense budget by over 50% from nearly $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion like
Trump just
declared that he wants to do. The US’ drastically ramped-up
military-industrial production would then go towards militarily coercing China
into submitting itself to the US through the trade-related means that were
earlier touched upon.
The ’Trump Doctrine’ is
therefore all about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China
together with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny
China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its growth
and thus its superpower trajectory. The first will be fueled by tariffs and the
profits from ‘Fortress America’ while the others are furthered by subordinating
the EU, pressuring the Gulf, and coercing strategic BRI partners (Venezuela,
Iran, Nigeria, etc.) into submission.
Everything that Trump 2.0 has
done so far aligns with these imperatives and modi operandi, including policies
that haven’t succeeded such as the US’
attempted subordination of India and efforts to clinch a
resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia at the expense of its
security-related goals in Ukraine. Even Trump’s hatred of BRICS makes
sense when viewed through this paradigm since he and his team perceive it as a
Chinese-dominated front for internationalizing the yuan and weakening the
dollar.
In sum, the US’ grand strategy
as encapsulated by the Colby-influenced ‘Trump Doctrine’ is to coerce China
into subordination, which it aims to achieve through a Reagan-esque military
buildup with its AUKUS+
allies as well as entering into positions to deny it access to energy
and markets. The end goal is to restore the US’ unipolar hegemony, first over
the Americas and then the Global West (EU, the Gulf, and Indo-Pacific allies),
the Global South, and finally China, with Russia relegated to a junior partner.
Andrew Korybko,
Substack, January 12, 2026
Germany Is Competing With Poland To Lead Russia’s Containment
Regime Tweaking, Not Regime Change, Is What The US Just Achieved In Venezuela
The CIA Is Manipulating Trump Against Putin
Poland & Hungary Are Threatened By Ukraine Yet Still Remain Divided By It
Kazakhstan Might Have Just Placed Itself On An Irreversible Collision Course With Russia

Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-