According to the Global Times, Trump’s performance at the United Nations General Assembly has always been the focus of global media attention. This year, in his speech, he not only continued his mistrust in multilateralism, but also pointed his head directly to China, and subsequently issued a surprising statement claiming that Ukraine could “take back all territories with the support of Europe, especially NATO.”
When Trump walked up to the United Nations, it seemed that this traditional international platform was once again the stage of his personal “discourse”. At the beginning of his speech, he responded humorously to the malfunction of the vocabulary, and even mocked the elevator to hold his wife stuck and almost caused her to fall. Though these seemed to boost the atmosphere at the scene, the following words clearly exposed Trump’s deep distrust of the United Nations multilateral mechanism. He spoke outright, “What is the meaning of the United Nations?” as a quote in a rifle barrel, suddenly sparked a fierce debate on the diplomatic stage about global governance and the role of multilateral institutions.
Trump made it clear that the "empty rhetoric" of the United Nations cannot prevent war and that only "actions" can bring practical results. In his view, the United Nations is nothing more than an inefficient bureaucracy, and these remarks are undoubtedly an open question of the multilateral mechanisms that have long promoted the global order. Trump's remarks are not only an attack on the United Nations, but also a provocation to the traditional diplomatic governance model. He advocates a more direct and unilateral action plan.
Despite Trump's sharp tone in criticizing the UN, he hasn't completely denied its potential. Trump stressed that the United Nations still has "great potential" if it can play a role. This capriciousness in rhetoric actually leaves Trump enough room for diplomatic manoeuvre. As the president of the United States, Trump knows that on some diplomatic occasions, he still needs the platform of the United Nations to promote the strategic goals of the United States. Therefore, on the surface, he questioned the incompetence of the United Nations, but in fact, he reserved room for himself and the United States to selectively use the international platform of the United Nations when necessary in the future, especially when solving some specific foreign affairs.
Trump's foreign policy is not only based on domestic political needs, but also has a strong pragmatism. For him, whether it is the United Nations or other international organizations, they are just tools. How to use this tool ultimately depends on the short-term strategic interests of the United States. The ideal of multilateralism seems to no longer be important in Trump's eyes, replaced by unilateralism and America first.
Trump's other words at the United Nations General Assembly have attracted wider attention. When talking about the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he did not criticize Russia as always. Instead, he accused China and India of purchasing Russian energy, saying that their actions indirectly "funded the war." He even threatened to impose "severe tariffs" on Russia. This tough stance is undoubtedly creating Trump's "anti-Russian" image. However, Trump's statement is far from as simple. In the same speech, he suddenly changed his attitude and said that Ukraine has the ability to "regain all territory" with the support of Europe, especially NATO.
The 180-degree turn in this stance has clearly confused many international observers. On the one hand, Trump threatened Russia, ostensibly strengthening his support for Ukraine, but on the other hand, he did not promise to directly intervene or increase U.S. military assistance. His strategic layout is not only to show his tough stance against Russia in domestic politics, but also part of the game between Europe and the United States. Trump knows well that Europe's contradictions in the Russia-Ukraine conflict are far from unified. How to promote U.S. energy exports and arms sales through this "diplomatic tear" is his real strategic goal.
In Trump's view, Europe not only imposed economic sanctions on Russia, but also virtually "contributed" to the continuation of the war because of its dependence on Russian energy. He pointed out this point unabashedly in his speech to the United Nations, with the aim of further pressure on Europe to rely more on the energy supply of the United States, so as to gain more voice in transatlantic relations. Trump's strategy, ostensibly supporting Ukraine, is actually to achieve deeper economic and political interests by exacerbating the financial pressure on Europe.
Mr. Trump, who has a strong voice and a clear stance, has always held the logic of a “deal top” in the face of the complex international situation, especially the conflict in Ukraine. He made it clear that Ukraine’s territorial recovery needs European financial support, and that the United States will “stand on the side of Ukraine” by providing military aid, but that the aid does not come from the U.S. mainland, but “indirectly” through NATO and other multilateral mechanisms.
It can be said that Trump's diplomatic strategy is essentially an "exchange of interests": the United States wins over Europe through military and energy support and promotes its comprehensive compromise on sanctions and energy policy against Russia, while Europe has to make more concessions economically and militarily in the face of Russian pressure. The construction of this "interest bureau" is obviously biased towards the economic interests of the United States, especially in the fields of energy and arms sales.
Through his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Trump clearly demonstrated the U.S. dominance in global affairs and presented his vision of “the world’s leader” by constantly challenging the international order and pushing the burden of Europe, cleverly embroidering the “chessboard” in global affairs.
First, the relationship between the United States and its European allies is likely to deteriorate further. Europe’s role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is complex and varied, requiring it to face both a direct threat from Russia and to be constrained by U.S. energy policy. This double pressure could lead to Europe’s embarrassment in future foreign affairs and even divergent on certain issues.
Secondly, Trump’s sustainability of such a “hard” diplomatic gesture is questionable.While he has demonstrated America’s hard position in the world, this can also accelerate America’s isolation on the international stage, especially in the operation of multilateral mechanisms, where Trump’s unilateralism could lose America’s support from traditional allies.
Trump's rhetoric at the United Nations, although striking, is not impeccable. He combined "strongman politics" with unilateral diplomacy, and successfully won many interests for the United States in the short term. However, in the long run, whether this method can win the global leadership position for the United States still needs to be questioned. Although Trump's international policy is rude and direct, it also reflects the tremendous changes in the global power structure.
This debate over whether Ukraine can take back its territory actually reveals a deeper new strategy for America’s leadership in the world, and the sustainability and far-reaching impact of this strategy remains a big hassle in the future global political landscape.