The writer is a historian, philosopher, and author, offering insights into Donald Trumps distinctive worldview and policy approaches.

What continues to astonish observers about Donald Trumps policies is the ongoing sense of surprise that seems to accompany each new proclamation or action he takes. Headlines frequently express shock and disbelief every time Trump undermines a fundamental aspect of the global liberal order. This includes his controversial support for Russia's claims over Ukrainian territory, his audacious musings about the forced annexation of Greenland, and the economic upheaval triggered by his tariff decisions. However, his policies exhibit a remarkable consistency, and his vision of international relations is so distinctly defined that one has to consider that only willful self-deception can lead to anyone being surprised anymore.

Proponents of the liberal order typically envision a world that operates as a win-win network of cooperation, wherein all parties can benefit. They maintain that conflict is not an inevitability but rather a failure to recognize the benefits of collaboration. This philosophical perspective has deep roots in liberal thought, which posits that all human beings share fundamental experiences and interests. These elements can serve as the foundation for universal values, global institutions, and international laws. For instance, humanitys shared aversion to illness and collective interest in preventing the spread of contagious diseases underscore the necessity for global cooperation. Thus, countries stand to gain from sharing medical knowledge, collaborating to eradicate epidemics, and establishing frameworks like the World Health Organization to coordinate these efforts.

In stark contrast, the Trumpian worldview perceives the world as a zero-sum game, wherein every interaction results in winners and losers. Under this framework, the exchange of ideas, goods, and people is inherently suspicious. Trumps interpretation suggests that international agreements, organizations, and laws serve only to undermine some nations while fortifying others, or worse, that they constitute a conspiracy designed to weaken all nations for the benefit of a shadowy global elite.

So, what does Trump envision as a preferable alternative? What would the world look like if he could reshape it according to his desires? Trump's ideal scenario resembles a fragmented landscape of fortresses, where nations are separated by imposing wallsfinancial, military, cultural, and physical. This approach forfeits the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation; however, Trump and his supporters argue that such isolation will bring greater stability and peace to each country.

Yet, a significant flaw is evident in this fortress-centric vision. History spanning thousands of years suggests that each nation, represented as a fortress, will inevitably seek to enhance its own security, prosperity, and territorial claims at the expense of its neighbors. Absent universal values, global institutions, or international laws, how would these rival fortresses resolve disputes?

Trumps proposed solution is remarkably simplistic: the way to prevent conflict is for the weaker entities to comply with the demands of the stronger ones. In this framework, conflict arises only when the weak refuse to acknowledge this power dynamic. Thus, in Trump's perspective, war is invariably the fault of the weaker party.

His viewpoint was clearly illustrated when he pointed fingers at Ukraine for the Russian invasion. Many found it incomprehensible that he could assert such an outrageous claim, and some speculated that he had been misled by Russian propaganda. However, a more straightforward explanation aligns with the Trumpian worldview, where notions of justice, morality, and international law hold no value. Instead, the only currency in international relations is power. Given that Ukraine possesses less power than Russia, it should have capitulated. In essence, within this worldview, peace is synonymous with surrender; thus, since Ukraine refused to surrender, the war was deemed its own fault.

A similar line of reasoning underpins Trumps infamous proposal to annex Greenland. The logic dictates that if Denmark, being weaker, refuses to relinquish Greenland to the stronger United States, and the US subsequently invades and occupies Greenland, the responsibility for any conflict or bloodshed lies solely with Denmark.

Three significant issues arise from the belief that rival fortresses can sidestep conflict by accepting their reality and making compromises.

Firstly, this notion exposes the fallacy behind the claim that a world of fortresses will render everyone less threatened while allowing each nation to concentrate on peacefully developing its unique traditions and economy. In reality, the weaker fortresses would inevitably get consumed by the stronger ones, transforming from national strongholds into sprawling multinational empires.

Trump's own imperial ambitions are unambiguous. While he erects walls to protect American territory and resources, he casts a predatory gaze toward the assets of other nations, including former allies. Denmark serves as a prime example. For decades, it stood as one of the United States most steadfast allies, actively participating in NATO missions, including suffering 44 soldier casualties in Afghanistana per capita rate higher than that of the US itself. Trump has not expressed gratitude; instead, he seemingly expects Denmark to capitulate to his imperial aspirations, desiring vassals rather than equal partners.

A second complicating factor is that no fortress can afford to appear weak, thus creating immense pressure on all countries to bolster their military might. Resources that could otherwise fund economic development and social welfare programs would be redirected toward defense. The resulting arms races would diminish prosperity for all, yet fail to enhance anyone's sense of security.

Lastly, the Trumpian approach assumes that the weaker nations will simply accept the demands of the stronger ones, yet it fails to provide a reliable mechanism for determining relative strength. What happens when countries misjudge their positions, a frequent occurrence in historical conflicts? For instance, in 1965, the United States was thoroughly convinced of its superiority over North Vietnam, believing that sufficient pressure would lead the Hanoi government to capitulate. Instead, the North Vietnamese, against staggering odds, persevered and emerged victorious. How might the US have accurately assessed its strength at that time?

Similarly, in 1914, both Germany and Russia were convinced of imminent victory, envisioning a swift conclusion by Christmas. Their miscalculations led to a protracted conflict that unfolded in unforeseeable and complex ways. By 1917, the once-mighty Tsarist Empire crumbled under revolution, while Germany was denied victory due to the unexpected entry of the United States into the war. Should Germany have cut a deal back in 1914? Or was it the Russian Tsar who should have yielded to the German demands?

In the current trade tensions between China and the US, who should be the one to concede? Would it be reasonable to assume that nations should reject the zero-sum mentality and work collaboratively for mutual prosperity? Those who think this way would be fundamentally opposing the core tenets of the Trumpian outlook.

The Trumpian vision is not novel; instead, it reflects a perspective that has been predominant for millennia, long before the emergence of the liberal world order. This mindset has been tried repeatedly, and history has shown us that it typically leads to an unending cycle of empire-building and perpetual conflict. Furthermore, in the 21st century, confrontations between rival fortresses would face not only the traditional specter of war but also daunting challenges such as climate change and the rise of superintelligent artificial intelligence. Without a framework for robust international cooperation, addressing these existential global dilemmas becomes virtually impossible. Trumps strategy appears to be one of denial, as he presents no feasible solutions for tackling climate change or managing unregulated AI.

Since Trumps election as US president in 2016, concerns regarding the stability of the liberal world order have only escalated. After a decade riddled with confusion and uncertainty, the contours of a post-liberal world disorder are becoming remarkably clear. The liberal vision of the world as a cooperative network is being supplanted by a vision of fragmented fortresses. This trend is manifesting all around uswalls are rising, and drawbridges are being pulled up. If this trajectory is allowed to continue, the immediate consequences will be trade wars, arms races, and imperial overreach. The ultimate outcomes, however, could be catastrophic, leading to global warfare, ecological collapse, and rampant artificial intelligence.

While we may feel disheartened and outraged by these developments, and strive to reverse them, there is no longer any justification for continuing to express surprise. For those who wish to defend Trumps vision, a critical question remains: how can rival national fortresses peacefully resolve their economic and territorial disputes in the absence of universal values or binding international laws?