India’s Strategic Rise: Navigating Global Power Shifts  

Trump and Putin’s Role in Deciding Ukraine’s Fate

By Swadesh Roy

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have primarily determined Ukraine’s future through phone discussions. While Trump later spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, an upcoming meeting in Munich between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Zelensky will be based on these prior Trump-Putin negotiations. Meanwhile, it has become evident that the forthcoming meeting between Putin and Trump in Saudi Arabia will align with what was discussed in their phone conversation regarding Ukraine’s future.

From what is understood so far, Ukraine’s future may involve allowing the Russian-speaking regions that Putin has occupied to remain under Russian control. On the other hand, NATO forces may be deployed in Ukraine as a peacekeeping force to ensure European security, Ukraine’s stability, and the protection of natural resources and agricultural output.

The Biden Administration’s Miscalculations

The Biden administration’s misguided decisions have largely brought Ukraine to this reality. Biden spent a vast amount of U.S. taxpayers’ money on Ukraine, primarily to destabilize Russia. However, he failed to prioritize Ukraine’s security or pursue a diplomatic approach that could have deterred Russia from attacking Ukraine.

The primary reason for this miscalculation lies in Biden’s adherence to outdated post-World War II geopolitical ideology. The belief that destabilizing a country can serve strategic interests—whether to gain personal advantage or to weaken a rival superpower—remains embedded in the mindset of U.S. policymakers.

Cold War Strategies in a Post-Cold War World

This strategy originated during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, where the main objective was to weaken each other militarily and inflict economic damage through prolonged instability. However, in the post-Cold War era, as the world has gradually transitioned into a single economic order, this strategy has become obsolete. The global economy has changed significantly, and economic power structures have shifted.

The Biden administration failed—or refused—to recognize this shift. This is because Democrats suffer from a certain ideological syndrome; they lack competent leaders well-versed in bourgeois or capitalist market economics.

The Shift in Global Economic Power

The U.S.’s primary economic competitors are now in Asia. Over the past decade, the economic landscape of Asia has evolved significantly. While Asia was previously regarded as the West’s manufacturing hub, it is now emerging as a self-sufficient consumer market. For instance, Bangladesh’s apparel exports to China and India are growing, and India has become the second-largest market for Bangladeshi synthetic shoes.

Furthermore, 60% of the world’s population resides in Asia, and a significant portion of this population now has increasing purchasing power, with some reaching levels comparable to consumers in Europe and the United States.

The Changing Nature of Global Politics

This economic transformation has also altered the nature of global politics. The primary stakeholders in international politics have changed. The post-World War II model of spreading instability under the guise of democracy or socialism is no longer favored by today’s key political players. They now seek stability to facilitate economic growth.

Although economic interests and resource control have always been at the root of global conflicts, military power was traditionally the primary tool. Now, economic diplomacy and securing major economic stakeholders have taken center stage.

As a result, the methods of governance or global leadership are now secondary to economic interests and the need to explore essential resources. Developed nations seek stability not only within their borders but also in the poorer economies they rely on for markets, resources, and production.

Trump’s Approach to Stability

Donald Trump, as the president of the world’s largest economic and military power, took a more direct approach to ensuring global stability. For instance, when the U.S. made a decision regarding the Panama Canal, Panama complied. Even China did not oppose the U.S. decision by backing Panama.

China is unlikely to involve itself in such geopolitical entanglements. Following Trump’s “Make America Great Again” policy, a phone conversation between China’s foreign minister and the U.S. Secretary of State made this clear. While some media outlets misinterpreted the report—suggesting that China’s foreign minister advised the U.S. to prioritize economic assistance over military conflict—the reality was different.

Diplomatic language is often misunderstood or manipulated by the media. As in this case the message was lost in trasnalation as language barriers contribute to misinterpretation. However, subsequent statements from both foreign ministers clarified that no such advice was given. Instead, they agreed to resolve issues diplomatically whenever possible and to avoid harming each other’s interests.

China’s Diplomatic Shift

China has been advocating for this approach for a long time. Last year, a columnist in the South China Morning Post jokingly wrote, “Have China’s wolf warrior diplomats moved to the U.S. State Department?” In reality, China has been gradually shifting away from its aggressive “wolf warrior diplomacy” and is now striving for greater transparency and reliability.

This transparency is rooted in a strategic vision: if China wants to become the world’s leading economy, it cannot afford to engage in direct wars or conflicts for the next fifty years. Similarly, the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that both countries should prioritize diplomacy over military confrontation.

This highlights a mutual understanding between the two global superpowers that economic stability must take precedence over military conflicts.

The Power Struggles of Smaller Nations

When great powers make decisions in their own interest, they do not consider the opinions of smaller states. For instance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky only learned about decisions regarding his country after they had already been made—Trump and Putin determined Ukraine’s fate through phone discussions without feeling the need to inform him.

This is reminiscent of 1962 when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. President John F. Kennedy agreed to remove nuclear missiles from Cuba without informing Fidel Castro—who, at the time, was a much stronger leader than Zelensky is today.

Similarly, in Ukraine’s case, neither NATO bloc countries nor Russia felt the need to inform Zelensky before making decisions regarding his country. The United States prioritized the stability of its NATO allies and its own economic interests, while Russia focused on securing its internal stability and security.

If future decisions regarding Crimea become necessary—whether related to its ports or other strategic interests—those decisions will also be made collectively by the great powers, with no role for Ukraine. The perspective on Crimea may shift under current realities, and so will the approach to safeguarding Ukraine’s resources and stability.

Instead of investing trillions of dollars, as in the past, NATO or the U.S. might deploy peacekeeping forces to secure and ensure the proper use of resources.

The Global Shift in Power: The U.S., China, and India in the 21st Century

On the other hand, the global center of power opposing the United States has now shifted to Asia. China aims to become the world’s leading economic power within the next fifty years. In response, the Trump administration has adopted a policy to curb China’s rise and maintain U.S. supremacy for the next hundred years.

Taiwan’s Future in U.S.-China Geopolitics

In this economic struggle, to preserve stability and reduce the costs of military escalation, the U.S. and China may decide on Taiwan’s future without informing Taiwan itself. The U.S. might step back from military spending and exercises around Taiwan, while China may define its territorial claims more explicitly in the South China Sea. As a result, Taiwan—still recognized as a Chinese satellite state—will come under even greater Chinese control, further reinforcing the “One China” policy. Meanwhile, the U.S. could expand its business influence in Southeast Asia, where several economic satellite states of China exist.

The Strategic Rise of the U.S.-India Alliance

Beyond the U.S.-China power balance, many political and economic analysts believe that the real game-changer of the 21st century will be the U.S.-India alliance. The Indo-Pacific region is home to 5.9 billion people, with 2.9 billion residing in the Indian Ocean region alone. Since global power has shifted towards Asia, the U.S. must strengthen its position in this region, and a U.S.-India partnership is the most strategic path forward for both countries. This trajectory is already evident, and this alliance is expected to play a transformative role in the 21st century.

To solidify its presence in Asia and secure its economic interests, the U.S. will prioritize stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Ensuring the internal security and stability of the 5.9 billion people in this region, including those in the Indian Ocean, will be its foremost concern. In the coming years, India will be America’s primary partner in achieving these objectives. However, some decisions will be jointly made by the U.S. and China, while others will be decided by the U.S. and India together. The trajectory of the Middle East is also being shaped by U.S.-India cooperation.

U.S.-India Cooperation on Security and Terrorism

During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to the U.S., the Trump-Modi joint declaration addressed terrorism in the Indo-Pacific. The response to terrorism in this region will depend on joint decisions by China and the U.S., as well as the U.S. and India. The stability of the Indian Ocean region will be determined in a manner similar to how Trump and Putin decided Ukraine’s fate—through agreements between Trump and Modi.

The declaration also mentioned Pakistan’s role in terrorism, which has been rising in several countries in the region, sometimes with direct support from Pakistan. No matter how these terrorist groups attempt to disguise themselves, their true nature remains visible. Therefore, measures to counter them will be taken based on economic stability and internal security concerns. However, satellite states lack the power to make such decisions independently.

The Challenge for Weaker Economies

Given this reality, political leaders and citizens of weak economies—those classified as satellite states—must be more cautious and pragmatic in governing their countries. They must learn how to exist symbiotically with global powers while protecting their own national sovereignty and interests. They must also ensure that their country does not become a threat to major powers, as opposing them would lead to economic hardship for their people.

No country can afford reckless actions in today’s complex and power-driven world. Even nations historically manipulated by international strategies—such as Afghanistan and others—must now make informed decisions for their future.