Trump’s Diplomatic Masterstroke: A Grand Realignment in American Geopolitics

Dr. Shoaib Baloch’s Trump’s Diplomatic Coup is an articulate critique of President Trump’s approach to foreign policy, yet it ultimately falls into the familiar trap of defending an obsolete world order—one where outdated alliances take precedence over strategic necessity and where the true threat to U.S. hegemony, China, is dangerously underplayed.

His argument is well-structured but ultimately misguided, relying on a static view of international relations, a misplaced faith in NATO’s continued relevance, and a failure to grasp the necessity of engaging Russia to counterbalance China. More intriguingly, given the historical alignment of Pakistan with the United States and India with Russia, one must at least consider whether Dr. Baloch’s critique is partially shaped by concerns over how a U.S.-Russia rapprochement might shift the balance of power in South Asia—potentially elevating India while leaving Pakistan more dependent on Beijing. This is not an outright assertion, but a plausible geopolitical implication worth considering.

Instead of recognizing Trump’s geopolitical recalibration as a necessary response to a shifting global order, Dr. Baloch paints it as a reckless deviation from the status quo. However, when examined through the lens of strategic realism, Trump’s diplomacy emerges as not only logical but essential.

To fully expose the weaknesses in Dr. Baloch’s argument, we must analyze three fundamental points:

1. Trump’s Russia Pivot is a Masterclass in Grand Strategy
2. The Myth of NATO and the Illusion of Transatlantic Strength
3. The Real Threat to U.S. Power: China, Not Russia

I.Trump’s Russia Pivot is a Masterclass in Grand Strategy

Dr. Baloch warns that Trump’s outreach to Russia is doomed to fail because of the historically adversarial nature of U.S.-Russia relations. This, however, is a misreading of how power operates on the world stage.

• Diplomacy is about leverage, not sentimentality. The assumption that historical tensions prevent future cooperation is a fundamental misunderstanding of realpolitik. Nixon’s 1972 visit to China, which Dr. Baloch himself references, was not based on ideological compatibility but on a shared strategic interest: countering the Soviet Union. Likewise, Trump’s attempt to engage Russia is not about trust—it is about positioning.
• Russia is not China’s natural ally. Dr. Baloch dismisses the idea that Russia might prefer strategic autonomy over permanent alignment with Beijing, yet the evidence suggests otherwise. China’s growing influence in Central Asia, economic encroachment in Siberia, and its dominance over global commodity markets have made Moscow uneasy. A U.S.-Russia thaw would allow Washington to exploit these tensions, preventing the emergence of a cohesive anti-Western power bloc.
• A weakened Russia is an indebted Russia—indebted to China. The more isolated Moscow becomes, the more reliant it will be on Beijing for trade, technology, and military cooperation. This creates a far greater problem for the United States than a Russia that maintains limited but transactional engagement with Washington.

By rejecting Trump’s diplomacy, Dr. Baloch endorses a policy of blind hostility that plays directly into China’s hands. The U.S. does not need to make Russia an ally—it simply needs to prevent it from becoming China’s permanent subordinate.

Interestingly, this realignment would also strengthen India’s position in South Asia, allowing it to maintain its longstanding defense ties with Moscow while deepening its economic and security relationship with Washington. Pakistan, meanwhile, would be left in an awkward position—forced to rely almost entirely on Beijing for its strategic needs. Is it possible that Dr. Baloch’s unease with Trump’s Russia policy stems, in part, from how it might alter the Indo-Pakistani strategic equation? This remains an open question, but it is certainly worth considering.

II. The Myth of NATO and the Illusion of Transatlantic Strength

Dr. Baloch insists that Trump’s Russia pivot undermines NATO and weakens U.S.-European alliances, but this presumes that these alliances remain vital and reciprocal, when in reality, they have become lopsided and strategically stagnant.

• NATO’s core mission ended with the Cold War. The alliance, built to contain the Soviet Union, has struggled to justify its existence in the decades since. European nations enjoy the protection of the U.S. security umbrella while routinely failing to meet their own defense obligations. Trump’s demand that NATO members contribute their fair share was not reckless—it was long overdue.
• European dependence on Russian energy exposes NATO’s contradictions. If Germany, France, and other NATO states truly feared Russian aggression, why did they deepen their reliance on Russian natural gas through Nord Stream 2? Their actions reveal an uncomfortable truth: NATO’s members demand U.S. protection while simultaneously funding Moscow’s economy.
• Europe is far more entangled with China than Trump’s critics acknowledge. While Dr. Baloch warns that Trump’s diplomacy might “allow China to increase its influence in Europe,” he ignores the fact that Europe itself has facilitated Beijing’s expansion. The Belt and Road Initiative has made Italy, Greece, and parts of Eastern Europe economic dependencies of China—not because of Trump, but because European leaders have welcomed Chinese investments with open arms.

The idea that Trump’s diplomacy somehow weakens NATO while allowing China to grow in Europe is therefore deeply flawed. Europe’s economic entanglements with Beijing predate Trump and have accelerated despite his warnings. NATO, meanwhile, has increasingly become a financial burden and a distraction from America’s true geopolitical challenge: the Indo-Pacific.

Trump’s skepticism toward NATO was not a reckless abandonment of alliances—it was a recognition that the U.S. must shift its strategic focus toward the real threat: China.

III. The Real Threat to U.S. Power: China, Not Russia

Dr. Baloch’s most critical miscalculation is his failure to properly prioritize threats. His article warns that Trump’s diplomacy will accelerate U.S. decline, yet it ignores the real source of that decline—decades of unchecked Chinese expansion.

• Russia is not a global hegemonic threat—China is. Unlike Russia, which suffers from economic stagnation, demographic decline, and military overextension, China is rapidly building the infrastructure for global supremacy. Its dominance in trade, technology, and manufacturing places it in direct competition with U.S. global leadership.
• Trump understood this before his critics did. He challenged China’s economic predation head-on, confronting unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and corporate infiltration. His administration restricted Chinese access to American technological assets, implemented tariffs, and forced supply chain realignment—actions that Washington elites failed to take for decades.
• The liberal world order Dr. Baloch defends is already gone. The claim that Trump’s diplomacy is pushing the world toward multipolarity and great-power rivalry is a misunderstanding of history—that process was set in motion long before Trump entered office, largely due to globalist policies that empowered China at the expense of Western economies.

Dr. Baloch warns that Trump’s diplomacy might embolden illiberal forces—but the greatest enabler of authoritarianism in the 21st century is not Trump—it is Beijing. To ignore this fact is to fundamentally misunderstand the true stakes of modern geopolitics.

Conclusion: A Realignment, Not a Retreat

Dr. Baloch’s critique of Trump’s diplomacy is thoughtful but ultimately constrained by outdated assumptions. While his concerns about stability are well-intentioned, they misdiagnose the current global landscape.

• The world has changed, and American strategy must evolve accordingly.
• Russia is not America’s existential enemy—China is.
• NATO is a relic of the past, and Europe cannot be America’s primary concern.

Trump’s diplomacy was not an abandonment of U.S. leadership—it was a recognition that leadership requires adaptation.

History does not reward those who cling to the past—it favors those who shape the future.

Trump understood this. His critics, including Dr. Dr. Baloch, should reconsider their position in light of it.

[Photo by The White House, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.