The world has seen a major shift in the geopolitical power balance over the last week.

Let’s start from where we left off last week:

Russia-Ukraine conflict –

As we examined in last week’s edition of International Insight, the United States’ actions surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict have turned old policy on its head.

First and foremost, the Trump administration has chosen to forgo the Biden administration policy of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” and instead take peace talks directly to Russia.

Additionally – and perhaps exponentially more influentially, the U.S. chose to vote alongside Russia against a U.N. resolution that condemned Russia’s actions in the Ukraine-Russia war. By voting against this resolution, the current administration broke nearly years – if not a century – of precedent and foreign policy by voting alongside Russia and against the rest of America’s western allies.

Then, on Friday, a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that was intended to culminate in the signing of a mineral rights deal devolved into an argument between the three leaders, profoundly impacting U.S.-Ukraine relations.

U.S. in the Middle East –

While U.S.-Ukraine relations may be deteriorating and on the decline, U.S.-Russia relations seem to be growing stronger under Trump’s leadership. In addition to the two examples mentioned earlier, Russia has now volunteered to mediate talks between the U.S. and Iran.

Conflict between U.S. and Iran centers around Iran’s purported efforts to build a nuclear weapon and really unfolded about a month ago, when Trump reinstated his “maximum pressure” campaign. This campaign aims to levy severely high economic sanctions on the oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, but more impactfully, also aims to reduce Iran’s exports of oil to next to nothing.

Asked about the situation in Iran, Trump in a Reuters article said that “it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon… [and is] too close” to creating said weapon.

Going back to Trump’s reversal on Biden-era Russia-Ukraine peace talk policy, the new administration has also reversed the previous administration’s policy on the situation on Yemen – the U.S. has now designated the Yemeni Houthi movement as a “foreign terrorist” organization.

The Houthis were extremely active in the Middle East, particularly regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, a couple of months ago with the Houthi missile attacks on nearly 70 different carriers and ships in the Red Sea.

In addition to the political and discourse-related ramifications of this new label, the decision to label the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization also means that any entities providing aid or support to the Houthis will now be subject to penalties and sanctions levied by the U.S. Department of State.

The Trump administration has also doubled down on their position on the Israel-Hamas conflict, specifically regarding Trump’s “Middle East Riviera” plan for Gaza, which was examined by International Insight three weeks ago.

This hard stance comes after several Arab nations convened to create a plan concerning Gaza’s governance and funds for reconstruction. Ultimately, the plan, spearheaded by Egypt, includes the creation of a committee of “Palestinian technocrats,” according to Reuters, who would be responsible for governing and handling the administrative affairs of Gaza, among plans for an election in Palestine and continued discussions regarding the money needed – likely from a wealthy, oil-rich country like the UAE or Saudi Arabia – for Gaza to rebuild from the war.

Tariffs –

Trump’s administration has also concentrated quite a bit of energy on the issue of tariffs. 

Trump’s tariffs on China, as International Insight has previously examined, elicited immediate counter-tariffs on the U.S. on valuable fossil fuels and minerals necessary for technological advancements and research.

Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico, however, were suspended within days of going into effect and placed on a 30-day hold as both of the U.S.’s neighbors promised to improve border security, especially regarding illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

As of Tuesday night, these tariffs on Canada and Mexico finally went into effect.

Now, the U.S. is looking at a potential tariff war. In addition to China’s counter tariffs, Canada had also levied tariffs on U.S. goods among other countermeasures, again as of Tuesday night, with Mexico promising to follow suit by releasing their intended countermeasures on Sunday.

Conclusion –

Before we address the ramifications of all these changes in policy on the wider geopolitical situation, it is important to note that there’s only so much one article can cover. This week’s edition of International Insight touches on some of the most pressing issues and changes in policy, but as comprehensive as I try to be, there are still several changed policies that remain unaccounted for.

In addition – and again, perhaps more importantly, one other factor left unaccounted for is the rhetoric surrounding the U.S.’s foreign policy. As always, the words people say often have a much more profound impact on others’ reactions than their (sometimes mismatched) actions. As a result, it is vital that when we assess these changes in foreign policy, we account for the rhetoric and public comments on various geopolitical situations, especially considering the contentious nature of some of these issues and the delicate nature of foreign policy as a whole.

And I suppose that is what I will end with – the impact of our words and actions. From quite literally the moment we are born, we are taught to adhere to the golden rule – to treat others the way we want to be treated. Yet, it seems that this is a sentiment lost on the leaders of the nations of our beautiful world – regardless of political position or nation of origin or perspective.

It seems that we have all collectively forgotten that the policies that are implemented, the words that are spoken, the actions that are taken all have a profound impact: not on the implementer or the speaker or the doer, but on you and me. On the common man.

So when you take to social media and advocate for a certain policy, or condemn a politician or nation for “not taking a hard enough stance,” remember that you are not advocating for taking a hard line against the leaders of those organizations or the heads of those states – you are advocating for taking a hard line against young men and women struggling to stay alive on the battlefield, mothers and fathers struggling to put food on the table, families struggling to stay alive.

Because while collateral damage may be defined as “injury inflicted on something other than an intended target,” in today’s world, that “something else” is often bigger than the “intended target”. And the pain and trauma that that injury leaves is one that trickles down generation to generation, serving as the catalyst for yet another conflict and yet another inadvertent injury.

So I implore you – when you read the news and think about policy on whatever scale it might be, think about the little person. Think about how you would want to be treated… and advocate for those policies.