The fierce week of peace Trump hints at what he really wants

“There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades have been going on.” It was allegedly saying that Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Diplomatic whirlwind, surrounded by US President Donald Trump this week, believes that the old Bolshevik could have something.

For the president of the Protectors, who promises to always put America at first, in recent days he has been busy the best stage of the world stage.

He and his team made business transactions in the Persian Gulf; sanctions on Syria were raised; agreed to release a US citizen who conducted Hamas; He graduated from military strikes on Huti’s militants in Yemen; Cut off US tariffs to China; ordered Ukraine to negotiate with Russia in Turkey; Continuation of quiet negotiations with Iran on the nuclear transaction; And even claimed responsibility for the brokerage ceasefire between India and Pakistan …

The pace was breathless, leaving allies and opponents fighting to catch up when the diplomatic bandage in the United States broke away from release to release.

“Just, oh!” He noticed one ambassador to London. “It is almost impossible to stay on the top of everything that happens.”

So what or continuing? What did we learn about this fierce week about the new US president’s foreign policy? Is there something approaching Trump’s doctrine – or is it just a random merger of global events?

Perhaps a good place, perhaps, is the visit of the President in the Persian Gulf, where he spoke – the word and case – his vision of the world of interstate relations based on trade, not war. In a speech at Eriyad, Trump stated that he wants a “not chaos” in the Middle East, a region that “exports technology, not terrorism.”

He was the prospect of wind, pragmatic mercantilism, when the peoples were engaged in business deals for their mutual benefit, a world where a profit can bring peace.

When he enjoyed the flattery of his owners of Saudi Arabia and preservation of visiting the dignitaries, the president signed – with the help of his greasy forest handle – the transactions, which, according to the White House, represented $ 600 billion in investment in the US.

It was Trump in all his pomposity; Applauded and awarded with urgent victories, he could sell the house as good for American jobs.

Some diplomats privately question the value of different understanding memorandums. But the show, according to them, was more important than the substance.

The lack of Trump’s speech was mentioned by the possible collective actions of the United States and other countries; There are no talks about multilateral cooperation with the threat of climate change, no problems about the problems of democratic and human rights in the region. It was a discourse almost completely without reference to ideology and values, except to reject their value.

Most likely, he used his speech with the Saudi leaders to make his most clear argument against the Western intervention of the past, attacking what he called “the so-called national builders and non-comites” for “holding lectures on how to live and how to manage your own affairs.”

For applause of his Arab audience, he said that these “Western interventors” “destroyed more countries than they built,” adding: “Too many US presidents suffer from the imagination that our task is to look into foreign leaders and use policies in the US to avoid justice for their sins.

“I believe that this is God’s task to sit in his opinion. My task is to protect America.”

Such a reluctance to intervene in recent days when it came to fighting between India and Pakistan. In the past, the US has often played a key role, trying to stop military confrontations on the subcontinent. But Trump’s White House was initially cautious about participating.

The JD Vance Vice President told Fox News that the fight was “fundamentally none of our business … We cannot control these countries.”

In the end, both he and Secretary of State Mark Rubio made calls, exerting pressure on both nuclear states to de -skat. Other countries did the same.

When the ceasefire was agreed, Trump claimed that US diplomacy had made a deal. But it was the opposite to be rejected by Indian diplomats who insisted that it was a bilateral truce.

This week, Trump’s central place for the US foreign policy has also become apparent. This is more than the simple truth. The exhibition had the lack of participation of other parts of the US government, which traditionally help us form us decision -making abroad.

Make an unusual decision of the President to meet with the new President of Syria and former Jihadist Ahmed al-Sharaa and lift sanctions on Syria. This showed a potential advantage to have foreign policy in the hands of one person: it was a decisive and bold step. And this was clearly a personal decision of the President after the heavy lobbying of Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Some diplomats were considered as a Quid Pro Quo for the diplomatic conclusion and investment transactions received by Trump in er -riad. Not only was it surprised in the region, but also surprised many in the US government.

The diplomats said the State Department is reluctant to lift the sanctions, wanting to maintain some impact on the new Syrian government, fearing that it was not enough to protect minorities and combat foreign militants.

Diplomats say that this impulsive decisions scheme are widespread in the White House without a wider discussion of the internal government. The result, they say, is not always positive.

This is partly due to the lack of Trump’s sequence (or simply putting it off).

Make a decision this week to conclude with China an agreement to reduce tariffs for trade with the United States. A few weeks ago, Trump imposed 145% of Beijing tariffs, thirsty with revenge. The Chinese avenged, the markets plunged, the American business warned of grave consequences.

Thus, in Geneva, US officials rose down, and most tariffs for China were reduced to 30%, allegedly in return for some increased US access to Chinese markets. This happened currently familiar sample: the production of maximalist requirements, threatens even worse, agree, go down and proclaims victory.

The problem is that this “transaction art” strategy can work on easily reversible solutions such as tariffs. It is harder to apply to longer diplomatic headlines such as war.

Take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Trump’s policy was flowing on this, to put it mildly. And this week was the case.

Last Saturday, the leaders of the UK, France, Poland and Germany visited Kyiv to demonstrate support for the President of Ukraine Volodimir Zelensky. And in a group call with Trump by telephone by French President Emmanuel Macron, they prescribed their strategy for Russia’s demands that agree with the immediate 30-day ceasefire or faced more sanctions.

It was Trump’s policy. The day before he wrote on social media: “If the ceasefire is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” But then on Sunday, President Vladimir Putin suggested that there should be direct negotiations in Turkey between Ukraine and Russia. Trump immediately went with this, retreating on the strategy he agreed with European leaders a day before.

“Ukraine must agree (these negotiations) immediately,” he wrote on social media. “I start to doubt that Ukraine will conclude an agreement with Putin.”

Then on Thursday, Trump changed his position again, saying that the transaction can only be made if he and Putin should meet in person.

This hardens some diplomats. “Does he really don’t know what he wants to do with the war in Ukraine?” One noticed me. “Does he just understand what he can offer as fast as possible?”

In this unclear mix fell into two other solutions this week. First, Trump agreed with the ceasefire after almost two months bombed Houthi fighters in Yemen. There were questions about the effectiveness of extremely expensive air strikes and the appetite of the president to a long military operation. He repeatedly told his Arab masters as far as he did not like the war.

Secondly, Trump’s messenger, Steve Witcoof, held his fourth round of talks with Iran to end his nuclear ambitions. Both sides hint that the transaction is possible, although the skeptics are afraid that it can be quite modest. Talk about joint hostilities by the United States-Israel against Iran seems to dissipate.

What is united by both questions is that the US acted directly against Israel’s wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may have been the first world leader invited to the Oval service after Trump’s inauguration, but in recent days he seems to have been abandoned. Trump visited the Middle East without visiting Israel; He raised sanctions on Syria without Israel’s support. Its ceasefire Houthi happened only a few days after the group attacked Tel -Viviva airport.

Diplomats are afraid of Netanyahu’s reaction. Can Prime Minister respond to a more aggressive military operation in Gaza?

So, after this week, the diplomatic hurley Borley has changed? Perhaps less than may appear.

With all the brilliant Trump tours in the Middle East, the fighting and humanitarian crisis continues to be unresolved. The fresh Israeli offensive seems inevitable. One of Trump’s main goals is to normalize the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

There is no greater likelihood for all the conversations about the termination of the war in Ukraine when the weapons are launched. Putin’s ambitions seem unchanged. And for all transactions to reduce tariffs in the US either with the UK or with China, there is still a huge instability of the world market.

We have a clearer idea of ​​Trump’s global ideology, which is not an isolationist but mercantilist, hoping optimistic that capitalism can overcome the conflict. We also have a more accurate idea of ​​his haste, his desire to clear his diplomatic decks – in the Middle East, Ukraine and the subcontinent – so that he can focus on his main care, namely China.

But it can be an elusive ambition. When weeks occur when decades occur, there are also weeks when nothing happens.

Best picture: Getty Images

BBC Indepth is home to the site and application for better analysis, with fresh prospects that dispute assumptions and a deep report on the biggest issues of the day. And we demonstrate the contents that cause reasoning, from different BBC sounds, and iPlayer too. You can send us your reviews in the Indepth section by clicking the button below.