Maq Masi Blog

It begins with whispers and threats—tariffs here, troop withdrawals there. But the pattern is unmistakable. From Washington to Warsaw, Seoul to Panama, the message behind US foreign policy under Trump 2.0 is growing clearer: those who stood with Biden may now be made to pay.

The European Union, long a committed ally and vocal supporter of Biden during the 2020 and 2024 elections, now finds itself labelled “globalist thieves”. Retaliation punctuates rhetoric. A White House policy brief from March 2025 confirms a 25% tariff on imported automobiles, with internal sources floating figures as high as 40% as part of a broader “reciprocal escalation” targeting German and French manufacturers.

Meanwhile, Poland faces strategic coercion of its own. Reports suggest continued US troop presence may depend on Warsaw securing “critical mineral cooperation”, a policy direction foreshadowed in a March 2025 executive order aimed at increasing domestic and allied access to lithium and rare earth resources.

Ukraine finds itself in a tightening bind. With ammunition dwindling and US aid paused, the prospect of a conditional peace offer looms. A Guardian report, citing anonymous sources within the State Department, confirms that the Trump administration has suspended military support pending negotiations, while a Radio Free Europe article, containing analysis from military experts, notes speculation that Kyiv may be pressed to cede the Donbas in exchange for resumed assistance or a ceasefire deal. These shifts come amid reports of US firms pushing for access to Ukraine’s valuable lithium and titanium reserves.

Elsewhere, the squeeze continues. South Korea reportedly faces calls to share semiconductor technology in return for continued US security guarantees against North Korea—described in The Times as part of a growing “extractive tone” in American diplomacy across Asia. Canada is under pressure to redirect oil exports from Europe to US refineries (WSJ, 2025), while Mexico endures tariff threats and concerns over US-backed fracking near protected aquifers (FT, 2025). Even Panama, traditionally a neutral player, is reportedly being asked to share a portion of its canal toll revenue—or face “security reassessment” (The Guardian, March 2025).

Perhaps the most telling shift is at the United Nations, where the United States has begun abstaining—or aligning with Russia—on votes concerning Syria, Iran, and North Korea (NPR, March 2025). Diplomats speaking off the record confirm that US envoys have been advised to “stop embarrassing Putin”, signalling a major reversal from decades of American policy.

This evolving foreign posture has been described by political scientists as transactional unilateralism—a system where alliances are forged or broken based on immediate gain rather than enduring principles. Unlike multilateral diplomacy, it operates like a zero-sum game: support is transactional, not ideological. Others describe the framework as neo-clientelism, where global relationships mirror feudal arrangements—strong states provide protection or aid in exchange for submission, access to resources, or strategic compliance. When executive loyalty overrides democratic principles or institutional norms, the term authoritarian patronage becomes apt: a model where power is personalised and leverage replaces law.

A telling symbol of this new order is the shift in diplomatic stagecraft. While peace efforts between the US and Russia continue, they are no longer held in Geneva, Brussels, or Berlin. Instead, talks have moved to Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia has positioned itself as a neutral host—and a rising power broker. Having played a role in prisoner exchanges and ceasefire mediations, Riyadh now offers the kind of symbolic neutrality and transactional diplomacy the Trump administration appears to favour. As Chatham House notes, this choice also reflects Washington’s pivot away from traditional European allies toward non-Western partnerships aligned with deal-making over ideals.

April 2nd—what Trump allies, who view it as a day of liberation from perceived globalist constraints, now call ‘Liberation Day’—may not just mark a tariff announcement, but the beginning of a reordering. One not built on shared values, but on leverage, demands, and submission.

The old world stood on treaties; the new, on tribute. Who bends the knee next?