Method in Trump's Madness

Without doubt Donald Trump has been the most talked about person since he commenced his second term as the President of the USA. Being the most powerful country in the world the US always gets extra attention and some of it is also reflected on the individual heading the country. But in the case of Trump it has been more about the person.

His campaign was constructed around MAGA (Make America Great Again) theme and for the first few months it appeared that this greatness would be achieved through imposing punishing tariffs. The earliest heavy tariff was announced against China which was first deferred and then kept in abeyance. The apparent reason was USA's heavy dependence on the rare earth minerals supplied by China. However, Trump did impose heavy tariff on various other countries including India, Brazil and South Africa. India was chosen for a special treatment with 25% penal tariff for purchasing oil from Russia.

These tariffs showed an obvious inconsistency and double speak because the USA and Europe make a lot of purchase from Russia. The U.S. continues to import key goods from Russia, primarily fertilizers, precious metals (like palladium, platinum), and inorganic chemicals, despite sanctions, with these commodities dominating trade, alongside uranium (under waiver). The EU buys huge amount of energy from Russia and is heavily dependent on that.

While the tariff tool was being applied, the USA continued with other methods to harass India. Support to Pakistan has been a favourite and time tested tool of the West. There appeared to be a pause over the last twenty five years. However, they are now leaning back on Pakistan. With its economy in shambles, Pakistan is ever willing to comply.  Besides, the USA openly or covertly engineered unrest and regime changes in the neighbouring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh. All this to surround India with a hostile neighbourhood.

And there was, also, a China specific strategy. Its move into Pakistan will certainly weaken the Chinese influence in the country where China is heavily invested. Occupation of Venezuela is the first direct military intervention aimed at hurting China. 

Do we see a method in this madness?

China's bargaining chip was its rare earth minerals. USA is trying to choke China's oil supply. China is the biggest importer of oil.

Venezuela has been seized.

Iran, it appears, is close to regime change. And the next regime would be compliant to the Americans. Columbia could be the next. The other oil producers of the Middle East are already under the American net.

It may be bad news for China but not good for the rest of the world either.

What will happen to BRICS? USA is determined to protect its petro dollar hegemony.

We may or may not like it but we are living in a unipolar world. I have never believed in the military might of China and, now, it's unlikely that China would confront the USA militarily.

Many of us choose to write off Trump as 'insane'. But if we carefully examine what he has been doing, we can notice a much larger objective. 

How did the US achieve the hegemonic position?

- Post WW-ll it moved quickly to seize the opportunities. Europe, realising that the Soviet Union had raised an "iron curtain", was feeling a security threat, particularly in view of the partition of Germany. The US moved in to help the Western European countries rebuild their war torn economies. It extended a $1.3 billion aid under the Marshall Plan. 

- On the defence front, NATO was formed as a collective defence system. In the process of operationalizing NATO, the US has its military bases across Europe, focusing heavily on Germany, Italy, the UK, and Spain. With the eastward expansion of NATO after the collapse of the USSR it has built bases in Poland and Romania. So, it knows that the EU and UK are captive for its designs. If one ever had any doubt, the open threat to 'snatch' Greenland from Denmark demonstrates how helpless Europe is in front of the USA.

- Besides, realising that the future of the world was going to be tied with oil, the USA created a pivotal role for itself and its currency by introducing the petro dollar system. 

How does this strengthen the USA and its economy?

Oil-exporting nations agreed to price their oil in U.S. dollars. 

Dollar Demand: Countries needing oil must first acquire U.S. dollars, creating a steady global demand for the currency.

Petrodollar Recycling: Oil-rich nations earn vast amounts of U.S. dollars (petrodollars) and often reinvest these funds into U.S. financial assets, like Treasury bonds, a process called petrodollar recycling.

So, there are multiple benefits that the USA has been reaping. Can it afford to let it go through a formation like BRICS?

But, the petro dollar system was not created without political and military back-up. The oil rich countries of the Middle East also outsourced their defence to the USA and, like Europe, the USA has its bases across the Arab World. These include Qatar (Al Udeid AB), Kuwait (Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem AB), UAE (Al Dhafra AB), Bahrain (NSA Bahrain - 5th Fleet HQ), Saudi Arabia (Prince Sultan AB), Jordan (Muwaffaq Salti AB), and smaller presences in Iraq (Al Asad, Erbil) and Syria (Tanf Garrison).

Let us visualise the situation. America has its hold over the oil reserves of Venezuela and Iran could be the next, through a regime change. The middle east is already a captive territory.

Middle East holds the largest share of proven oil reserves (around 50%), followed by regions with substantial reserves in Venezuela (around 25%), Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, and Iraq. The combined oil reserves of Venezuela and Iran are 512 billion barrels.

Theoretically BRICS sounds good, but what is left of the oil reserves? Russia has around 80 billion barrels. Canada, with large reserves, cannot align itself with those against the USA.

Tough days ahead for the world, and, particularly, India. Can the world unite to thwart this new version of imperialism?

Trump's Tantrums - Theatre of Absurd

Theatre of Absurd

Pioneered by European playwrights like Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter, this art form has got a new exponent in (Mc)Donald Trump. And the absurdity is illogical and extreme.

Disrespect is his new diplomatic tool, and he spares no one. He rebuked Zelensky, he mocked Macron and humiliated Kier Starmer. They are all his 'subjects'. 

But now he has tried to land a blow on the Indian PM.

The Apache helicopters reference shows how this theatre works. Trump recalls Modi supposedly saying, ‘Sir, may I see you, please?’ Anyone who has watched Modi in bilateral settings knows this is not his register. He has always been Formal, 'Mr PM', 'Mr President', 'Your Excellency', as the protocol demands. But Modi being 'deferential'? No, that is unimaginable. Here is someone who has risen through the rigours of public life of half a century. He knows the ground he stands on. The phrasing sounds less like Modi and more like Trump’s familiar storytelling habit, where other leaders appear as supplicants and he plays the towering boss.

This ‘Sir’ routine is a well-worn Trump device. He has used it with allies and adversaries alike. It elevates him in the story and shrinks everyone else. The anecdote does not have to be accurate. It only has to reinforce the hierarchy Trump wants his audience to see.

But the factual inaccuracies make his statements fall flat. Trump speaks of 68 Apaches and five-year delays. India ordered 28. Twenty-two were delivered to the Air Force years ago. Only the later Army batch ran into delays. It is selective exaggeration.

Was it an innocent mix up or a deliberate exaggeration? It might be a deliberate exaggeration. Because scale creates grievance. Sixty-eight helicopters waiting five years sounds like injury. Twenty-eight across two deals, mostly delivered on time, does not. 

Which brings up the question: Why does Modi not respond? I would ask: Why should he? 

Trump is not arguing. He is creating an imaginary aura. Why should we give a body and a form to something that is imaginary? Narcissists, like Trump, thrive on reaction, which they interpret as acknowledgement. Silence denies it. It denies them the oxygen to survive.

There is also a deeper asymmetry at play here. 

Trump responds warmly to those who flatter him, like Asim Munir. When Trump praises Pakistan’s self-styled Field Marshal, it fits the pattern.  But the logic is simple. Munir needs American goodwill, so he offers admiration. And Trump reciprocates.

India sits in a different category. It trades with the US on a transactional basis. It cooperates where interests align and resists where they do not. India thwarts, successfully, the USA's attempts to enter its agriculture and dairy sectors. Modi does not need American approval to legitimise his leadership at home. That independence irritates Trump. Modi is not waiting for validation because he has not usurped the power, like Shahbaz Sharif, through manipulation which needs sustenance from a super power. Modi's position is validated by a mandate, a support from allies and the inherent strength of the Indian constitution.

This is why Trump keeps poking. He invariably either prefixes or suffixes his provocative statements with "Modi is a good man", almost like a refrain. The aim is not policy correction alone, it is psychological repositioning, seeking to get Modi, and India, on knees.

For India, responding emotionally would be a mistake. A sharp rebuttal might satisfy domestic audiences for a day, but it would feed Trump’s narcissistic ego. A mature  silence denies him the confrontation he seeks and allows India to absorb noise while negotiating substances elsewhere.

Venezuela and Threats to Sovereignty

My grandfather used to say, "A weak person's wealth is the most endangered thing." (कमज़ोर का धन खतरा ए जान) Venezuela has oil but it didn't have the strength to protect it. The international referee, the UNO, is a toothless tiger that has neither the strength nor the desire to act. So, each one on their own. Defend yourself lest a bully humiliates you.

I have seen some people - however small in number - feeling happy that a dictator has been vanquished. There was a similar jubilation in some quarters after the fall of Saddam Hussein. If we go by the Western narrative there are many dictatorships in the world, with Russia topping the list. But they had no qualms in dealing with Zia ul Haq or Parvez Musharraf. There is an Urdu couplet:

उस के क़त्ल पे मैं भी चुप था मेरा नम्बर अब आया

मेरे क़त्ल पे आप भी चुप है अगला नम्बर आपका है

Loosely translated, it means, " When he was getting killed, I kept silent; now, you, watching silently as I am being killed, could be the next."

So, who knows who will be the next target?

Here, in India, a former Chief Minister, Prithviraj Chavan, hit a new low when he discussed the possibility of the USA kidnapping our PM as it did in Venezuela. 

However, the way the USA has treated Venezuela, or, in the past, Iraq, it's worth considering how to protect the sovereignty of a nation when the UNO has become a caricature.

To start with, let me share a famous quote of Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State of the US:

 "To be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."

So, let us examine the cases of the friends first. When Tony Blair was the British PM, a section of the British media used to sarcastically call him "a poodle of George Bush" for blindly obeying Bush on every issue, particularly parroting his rhetoric that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Europe is completely dependent on NATO, led by the US. And let’s be honest: NATO IS the U.S. Europe has outsourced its sovereignty — and is now powerless and helpless. Just see how helpless they are about Ukraine, as Trump is charting a separate path, not consistent with its initial stand, after pushing Ukraine into a disastrous war with Russia.

Japan is another example of a friend country which is only theoretically sovereign, or has encumbered sovereignty. It was demilitarised after WW II,  with a protection assurance though a treaty and reconstruction assurance under the Marshall Plan. The country with the most U.S. military bases on earth is not “protected” — it is occupied by a treaty.

Russia survived relentless U.S. attacks because it invested in defence — not narratives, not alliances, not “values". Its economy was too small when compared with the US, but it's defence capabilities were a complete maych. Similarly, China has fortified itself by strengthening both it's economy and its defence.

So. I would rephrase Kissinger's quotation:

If you are not a friend (not necessarily an enemy) of the USA, strengthen yourself. If you are a friend, you are in a hopeless situation.

Now, the critical question: what should India do? In my view, there are two points 

1. Build our own defence system and our own military power which is not heavily dependent on the supplies or technology from the neo-imperialists. Do not outsource security to white supremacist power blocs. I think India has realised the importance of indigenous defence capability.

2. Do not confuse partnership with submission. All the defence offers from the US have hidden traps. Besides, we have observed that what it supplied to India at a cost, was given to Pakistan as aid.

Sovereignty is defended — not gifted. You have to defend your sovereignty yourself.