The speech displayed deepening global uncertainty.
The speech displayed deepening global uncertainty.
By Yıldıran Acar, Political Scientist
During the General Assembly sessions held to mark the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, US President Donald Trump’s speech and subsequent statements sparked debate not only in diplomatic circles but also among the global public. Trump’s words reflected both domestic political calculations in the US and increasingly sharp divisions in the international order.
Messages Directed at US Domestic Politics
Trump’s statements on Ukraine should essentially be read as a move aimed at the American public. His admission that his personal relationship with Putin has “not produced solutions” is a message to his own voters: Trump is now acknowledging the limitations of personal diplomacy. This rhetoric is also part of an effort to explain why the promises he made during his election campaign have not been fulfilled.
In this context, Trump’s position is linked not only to his foreign policy preferences, but also to his attempt to rebuild his image as a “strong leader” in domestic politics. In American political culture, the impact of foreign policy failures on domestic election dynamics has historically been strong. Therefore, this statement should be seen not as a retreat but as a strategic repositioning.
The “Paper Tiger” and the Realities: Economy, Front, Image
Furthermore, Trump’s comparison of Russia to a “paper tiger” was met with the response “there is no paper bear” in the Kremlin’s vocabulary. Peskov’s picture is clear: the economy has adapted to the needs of the war; emphasis on “cautious but confident” progress on the front; priority on reducing losses. While acknowledging that sanctions have exacerbated problems, he also says that budget discipline has been maintained.
It should not be forgotten that perception determines policy as much as the bare data debate. While macro indicators such as growth and external debt are not perfect in the US and Europe either, it is clear that the narrative of “Russia collapsing” cannot produce policy on its own.
Messages from the UN Podium: Rejection of the Liberal Order
The broader context of Trump’s UN speech involves a rejection of the foundations of the liberal international order. Three key elements stand out in his speech:
The dysfunctionality of multilateral institutions: His claim that the UN is ineffective and has become a corrupt structure is indicative of the US’s increasingly skeptical attitude towards international organizations.
Anti-immigration stance: Trump presented immigration as “the source of all evil,” promoting an approach centered on national security.
Denial of climate change: His characterization of the climate crisis, one of the most widely agreed-upon issues on a global scale, as a “con job” has called into question US global leadership.
This rhetoric demonstrates that the US is moving away from multilateralism and adopting a more selective engagement policy on international issues.
The United States’ Contradictory Position
Trump’s rhetoric reveals that, on the one hand, the US continues to desire to steer the global order, while on the other hand, it is undermining the institutional foundations of that order. This contradiction may provide Washington with flexibility in the short term, but it increases the risk of unpredictability in the long term. In particular, ignoring proposals for the control of strategic weapons could pave the way for a new arms race. This situation could lay the groundwork for a broader security crisis involving not only Russia-US relations but also actors such as China.
Conclusion: Deepening Global Uncertainty
Donald Trump’s message from the UN podium is not merely the sudden outburst of a single leader. Rather, it reflects the changing international order. The US is adopting an increasingly selective, interest-driven strategy that prioritizes national security. This situation leads to a loss of trust among allies, while creating new opportunities and risks for rivals.
The critical question is this: Will the US’s “withdrawal strategy” serve as a balancing factor that preserves international stability, or will it trigger new uncertainties and lead to deeper crises in the global order?