Former President Trump often mentions “serious consequences” for those who don’t meet his negotiation demands, but some of his international opponents seem to see through this bravado and view it as a bluff.
A notable instance is Trump’s deadlines for Ukraine and Russia to resolve their conflict. President Zelensky seemed to quickly adapt to Trump’s expectations, despite initially resisting the idea of jointly recovering Ukraine’s mineral wealth. On the other hand, Putin appears to have repeatedly sidestepped Trump’s requests, agreeing in principle but not taking concrete action.
In response to Putin’s obstruction, Trump called for an immediate ceasefire to pave the way for a lasting peace. Despite this, Russia continues to harm civilians and devastate cities in Ukraine. Trump seems to overlook Russia’s aggression and war crimes, particularly given the significant political and military influence he has over nations aligned with China.
China has similarly benefited by ignoring Trump’s demands. Issues like COVID, Huawei, TikTok, and trade have seemingly had minimal repercussions for Beijing.
Trump adopted a markedly different strategy regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. After allowing Iran a two-week extension for negotiations—seen as a lead-up to a 60-day ultimatum—he abruptly ordered a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
This attack significantly disrupted Iran’s nuclear program, catching many off-guard. It weakened Tehran’s leadership and opened the door for a potential government change, something that hadn’t seemed plausible since the public protests of 2009.
However, the Trump administration appears to be leaving Ayatollah Khamenei in position, a contrast to former President Obama, who faced pressure to support the Iranian populace seeking political backing rather than military intervention, which he later expressed regret over.
The Chinese Communist Party has closely monitored these developments, drawing parallels between its aspirations for Taiwan and Putin’s motives regarding Ukraine. Historically, the U.S. has had similar, albeit limited, commitments to both entities’ political sovereignty.
Back in 1994, the U.S. convinced Ukraine to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia. Then, President Bush supported NATO’s inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine as members, but Russia responded by invading Georgia that same year and later Ukraine in 2014, disregarding security pledges without facing significant repercussions.
As for Taiwan, the U.S. shifted its diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, instituting the Taiwan Relations Act, which warns that any non-peaceful attempts to determine Taiwan’s future poses a threat to U.S. interests in the region.
Russia’s potential takeover of Ukraine or China’s move on Taiwan could have far-reaching consequences, reminiscent of the fallout from the U.S. exit from Afghanistan, shaped by both Trump and President Biden’s reluctance for prolonged military engagements.
The TRA’s strong language indicates U.S. policy supports defending Taiwan against Chinese aggression. However, both Bush and Biden’s comments on military responses have often been reined in by their administrations. Meanwhile, Beijing continues to strengthen its military readiness against Taiwan, displaying strategic clarity.
Interestingly, Trump recently stated that Xi Jinping assured him China wouldn’t invade Taiwan during his presidency. However, Xi had previously indicated plans to “reunify” Taiwan by 2027, while U.S. military leaders suggest this timeline may be shorter.
If we take Trump’s assurances at face value, conflicts in the Taiwan Strait could be imminent after January 20, 2029. On the flip side, if Trump’s conciliatory position towards Taiwan is viewed positively, it could enable Xi to expedite military actions, much like how he acted regarding Iran despite earlier promises.
The tactics of deception, long rooted in Chinese strategy, seem to be at play, as both Russia and China navigate their military ambitions, often misrepresenting their true intentions.
Xi has become increasingly overt about China’s military capabilities regarding Taiwan, shedding any pretense of restraint.
Bosco served as Secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and was the Director for Humanitarian Aid in the Asia-Pacific from 2009 to 2010.
