#Diplomacy Archives - West vs The Rest

Introduction: The doctrine of “peace through power” has been a cornerstone of statecraft since the Roman Empire. But under Donald Trump, this historical concept has been reshaped into a tool for aggressive, unilateral action. This analysis argues that Trump’s version of the doctrine has not guaranteed peace but has instead fueled instability, humanitarian crises, and the erosion of international institutions, effectively becoming a doctrine of “peace through war.”

Roman Legionary - World History Encyclopedia — Note: The Roman legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms. While major tactical changes appeared during the final days of the Roman Republic and the early days of the Roman Empire, Roman armor and weapons, albeit with minor adaptations, remained simple.

From Hadrian’s Wall to the Cold War
The roots of “peace through power” run deep. The Roman Emperor Hadrian operationalized it by building his famous wall—a symbol of military strength meant to deter attacks and secure the empire’s borders. In modern times, U.S. leaders like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan adopted this logic. Reagan, in particular, brought it to a crescendo during the Cold War, using massive defense budgets and arms superiority as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. The goal was to prevent war through undeniable strength.

President Trump will kick off Army's 250th birthday celebrations Tuesday at Fort Bragg - ABC7 Los Angeles — **Trump kicks off Army’s 250th birthday celebrations at Fort Bragg, says he’ll restore base names**

The Trump Transformation: From Deterrence to Aggression
Donald Trump has co-opted the phrase “peace through power,” but his application marks a significant shift. His policies have moved beyond deterrence towards what can be called “peace through aggressive military power.” This approach relies on:

Maximum Pressure: Severe economic sanctions and embargoes.
Military Threats: Overt and covert threats against adversaries.
Unilateral Action: Drone strikes and assassinations of key figures, such as Qasem Soleimani.

As Trump himself implied in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, his administration believed that military action (or its threat) was a necessary tool to force outcomes, like a peace agreement. This represents a fundamental change: military power is no longer just a shield for defense, but a sword to impose will.

The Destructive Age of Urban Warfare; or, How to Kill a City and How to Protect It — Note: Combat in urban areas is the most destructive type of warfare imaginable. Densely populated terrain, complex systems of systems that support human life, military weapons not optimized to these conditions, and asymmetric close-quarters battle tactics all make warfare in cities unforgiving for combatants, noncombatants, and cities alike. The unintentional—and at times intentional—destruction of the physical terrain, populations, and infrastructure of cities during combat leave effects that can be felt for generations.

The Cost of Militarism: Five Critical Failures
The real-world consequences of this aggressive doctrine reveal its profound flaws:

It Fuels Instability, Not Security: Rather than preventing conflict, relentless threats and militarism spark arms races and regional tensions, creating a more volatile world.
It Diverts Vital Resources: The trillions spent on expanding an already massive military budget are funds stripped from domestic needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, weakening the social fabric at home.
It Erodes American Credibility: Unilateralism and constant threats have alienated traditional allies, weakened multilateral institutions like the UN, and driven some nations closer to America’s competitors.
It Creates Humanitarian Crises: Airstrikes in Yemen, assassinations, and sanctions have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, painting America as a nation that disregards international law and human rights.
It Embraces Divisive Nationalism: The doctrine is often paired with a rhetoric of extreme nationalism, which deepens social divisions at home and exacerbates cultural and racial tensions abroad.

Note: A handshake between nations is a powerful symbol of peace and a commitment to cooperation, with its roots in showing peaceful intentions by demonstrating one is unarmed. While a handshake alone doesn’t guarantee peace, it is a crucial first step in a diplomatic process that can solidify agreements, build trust, and signify the end of conflict. It represents a mutual understanding and a desire for unity and collaboration.

Conclusion: The Need for a New Path
The “doctrine of peace through power” has been implemented under Trump in a way that guarantees the very opposite of peace. By choosing coercion over diplomacy and unilateral force over multilateral cooperation, this approach has damaged global stability and America’s moral standing. The world does not need more militarism. A secure and prosperous future must be built on the foundations of diplomacy, respect for international law, and genuine cooperation. The alternative—a path of endless conflict—is no path to peace at all.

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

— George F. Will

A new wave of trade tension between the United States and China has sent shockwaves through global markets. After the US reimposed a series of tariffs and technology controls, Washington seemed taken aback by the speed and decisiveness of China’s reciprocal response. This article delves into the root of this sudden crisis, arguing that it stems from a fundamental US miscalculation and a failure to move beyond a failed playbook of unilateral pressure.

Torn dollar bill on top of negative financial chart — **Note: To many, the US dollar depreciation following the ‘Liberation Day’ tariff announcement on 2 April 2025 defied conventional wisdom**

The Root Cause: Reneging on Promises and a “Familiar” Playbook
The primary driver of this new confrontation is the US’s backtracking on its commitments. Analysts have noted a striking resemblance to past tariff wars, with the current situation described as a “familiar” pattern: dialogue followed by sudden US unilateral actions. This behavior reveals the arbitrary and short-sighted nature of Washington’s current trade policy.

During this period, Washington sent contradictory messages—threatening that “China will suffer the most” while also expressing a desire to cooperate. This indicates that some US politicians are still clinging to the illusion of unilateral gains. Their shock at China’s lawful and proportional retaliation is a sign that these unrealistic expectations have collapsed.

Note In 2018, the value added of the high-tech manufacturing and equipment manufacturing industries rose 11.7 percent and 8.1 percent year-on-year respectively, while the electronic manufacturing sector surged by 13.1 percent, higher than that of the overall manufacturing industry, according to the MIIT(Ministry of Industry and Information Technology)

A Strategic Miscalculation: Underestimating China’s Resolve
The US fundamentally underestimated China’s ability and strategic determination to respond, while overestimating its own leverage. This miscalculation has had immediate and serious consequences:

Market Turmoil: US tariff threats triggered sharp falls in American stock and currency markets.
Global Instability: The actions cast a shadow over the global economy and destabilized international supply chains.
Defending Rights: China’s countermeasures are not just about self-defense; they are an effort to uphold justice and fairness in the global economic system.

Note: The miscalculation has had immediate and serious consequences

The New Rule: Unilateral Bullying Meets Decisive Response
A clear trend has emerged: any unilateral bullying will inevitably be met with a precise and decisive response. The traditional US tactics of maximum pressure are no longer effective. China’s position is consistent—any negotiation must be based on mutual respect and equality. A “total US win and total Chinese loss” scenario is a fantasy, and the so-called “big stick” policy is, in practice, a paper tiger.

**Note: Secretary of State Antony Blinken(Biden administration) shakes hands with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi prior to meetings at the State Department in Washington, DC, Oct. 26, 2023.**

The Path Forward: Rationality and Mutual Respect

The past five months have shown that progress is possible. Four rounds of talks have stabilized bilateral relations, proving that mutual respect and equal consultation are the only viable path. Washington must accept key facts:

China has a legitimate right to develop and upgrade its industries.
China’s progress does not have to come at the expense of the US; common interests far outweigh differences.
Only win-win outcomes make negotiations sustainable.

Conclusion
There are no winners in a trade war. The sooner Washington abandons its failed pressure tactics and returns to a rational, realistic China policy, the sooner both countries—and the global economy—can return to a stable and prosperous path. The ball is in America’s court to choose cooperation over confrontation.

Paper Tigers — The National Alliance For Targeted Parents

Tag: #Diplomacy

Peace Through Power or Peace Through War? The Militarization of Trump’s Doctrine

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

Paper Tiger Struck Back: The Roots of the New US-China Trade Tension

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

About West vs The Rest