Hey everybody, welcome back to the Diplomacy
and Discourse channel, and thank you for joining
us for episode 10, part 2 of our series on power
politics. In our last episode, we explored the
rise of imperial power, the weaponization of
religion by medieval monarchs, and the ideological
and industrial forces that drove the 20th century's
major conflicts, from the World Wars to the nuclear
brinkmanship of the Cold War. Now in part two,
we turn to the post -Cold War era, a time marked
by shifting paradigms and redefined power. We'll
unpack the so -called unipolar moment of American
dominance, the rise of soft power and international
institutions, and the emergence of new political
actors. From the liberal optimism of the 1990s
to the resurgence of hard power and nationalist
agendas in the 2010s and beyond, we'll examine
how power politics didn't disappear. it adapted.
This episode highlights key figures like Joe
Biden, Donald Trump, Ursula von der Leyen, and
Annalena Baerbach, whose decisions today echo
centuries of strategic behavior, yet operate
in a world shaped by global interdependence,
digital warfare, and climate diplomacy. Power
politics is still a key feature in global affairs,
especially when looking at the behavior of countries
like Russia and the United States. Both nations
use it, but their styles have evolved in different
directions. Russia has leaned heavily into hard
power in the past decade. In 2014, the 2014 annexation
of Crimea from Ukraine, which followed a contested
referendum, is widely seen as a major violation
of international law. In 2015, it intervened
militarily in Syria to prop up Bashar al -Assad's
regime. giving Moscow a stronger foothold in
the Middle East. Since 2022, Russia's full -scale
invasion of Ukraine has further highlighted its
use of direct military aggression. Beyond warfare,
Russia uses other forms of coercion, sanctions,
energy leverage, and cyber operations. Its alleged
role in attempting to influence elections in
the US, France, and other countries through disinformation
campaigns and cyber intrusions shows how power
politics has expanded into the digital sphere.
The United States also engages in power politics,
though in recent years it has emphasized diplomacy
and economic leverage more than outright military
action. That hasn't always been the case though.
Its 2003 invasion of Iraq and Cold War -era interventions
in Latin America like Nicaragua, Chile, and El
Salvador were classic examples of using force
or covert operations to protect American interests.
More recently, the US has relied on sanctions
as a primary tool, especially against Iran, North
Korea, and Russia. The 2015 nuclear deal with
Iran under President Obama showed a shift toward
multilateral diplomacy, offering sanctions relief
in exchange for limits on Iran's nuclear program.
His administration also moved toward normalizing
relations with Cuba and cautiously engaged North
Korea through backchannel diplomacy. So what
is backchannel diplomacy? Backchannel diplomacy
is basically when governments or political leaders
talk to each other in private, off the record,
away from the cameras, and outside the usual
official channels. It's not about sneaking around
in a shady way, though. It's more about creating
a quiet space where sensitive conversations can
happen without all the noise and pressure that
come with public negotiations. These kind of
talks usually involve trusted intermediaries,
advisors, or sometimes even direct contact between
leaders who want to test the waters before making
anything official. This kind of diplomacy really
comes in handy when formal talks have stalled,
or when going public with negotiations could
make things worse. It gives both sides a chance
to be more honest, float new ideas, and fill
out compromises without being judged or boxed
in by political expectations. That said, it's
not without its downsides. Backchannel efforts
can confuse the public, clash with official policy,
or trigger backlash if people feel like decisions
are being made behind closed doors. One of the
most famous examples of this happened during
the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. While the world
was holding its breath, President Kennedy and
Soviet leader Khrushchev were quietly sending
messages through a backchannel, including one
involving US diplomat Averell Harriman. Those
low -key conversations helped the two sides step
back from the brink of nuclear war. Even today,
backchannel diplomacy is very much alive. In
2023, after the whole Chinese spy balloon incident,
US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan quietly
met with China's top diplomat, Wang Li, in Vienna.
Those private talks helped dial down tensions
over Taiwan and other hot button issues, eventually
leading to a more public summit between President
Biden and President Xi Jinping. It didn't solve
everything, but it helped avoid escalation. And
that's a win in today's world. In the end, backchannel
diplomacy isn't just about cutting corners. It's
about having a private lane for real conversations.
Especially when official ones are stuck or just
too risky. It's not flashy, and you probably
won't hear about it until much later. But in
global politics, those quiet talks can sometimes
be the ones that matter most. President Trump
brought a more aggressive style of power politics
back into the spotlight. He pulled the US out
of the Iran deal in 2018, reinstated heavy sanctions
on Tehran, launched a trade war with China by
slapping tariffs, and supported Israel's claim
over Jerusalem. He took a hard -line stance with
North Korea, combining threats with high -profile
summits. His administration used sanctions wildly,
targeting Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia. and pushed
hardline immigration policies that had diplomatic
fallout. Trump's foreign policy was grounded
in unilateralism and economic nationalism, often
bypassing multilateral institutions in favor
of direct transactional gains. His approach embraced
power politics openly, viewing diplomacy through
the lens of competition and leverage. Back when
President Biden took office, He pledged to undo
many of Trump's shifts and restore traditional
diplomacy. His administration rejoined the Paris
Agreement, restarted talks with Iran, rolled
back some Cuba sanctions, and sought to ease
tensions with China. He emphasized multilateralism,
coalition building, and a return to alliances,
particularly with NATO. But despite the diplomatic
tone, the U .S. under Biden had continued to
practice power politics. just in a more calibrated
way. Support for Ukraine has included billions
in military and economic aid, while relations
with China remains tense over Taiwan and the
South China Sea. Even though Biden's strategy
places more emphasis on diplomacy, economic statecraft
is still a form of power politics, just less
confrontational. Sanctions, foreign aid leverage,
and military posturing remains tools in Washington's
playbook. What we see now is a blended model,
diplomacy reinforced by coercive options, including
sanctions and military partnerships, especially
in strategic regions like Eastern Europe and
the Indo -Pacific. Biden's approach may be more
cooperative than Trump's, but it is still rooted
in the logic of power politics, only expressed
through the language of alliances and shared
values. The foreign policy divide between Biden
and Trump illustrates two fundamentally different
worldviews. Biden's liberal realism sought to
position the U .S. as a stabilizing force through
alliances and values -based leadership. Trump's
America First doctrine rejected many of those
principles in favor of deal -making, sovereignty,
and a hard -edged approach to adversaries. Biden
aimed to restore America's reputation as a partner.
Trump redefined it as a power broker. These philosophies
continue to shape U .S. actions in regions like
the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, where both
strategy and style determine how American influence
is projected and how global power dynamics unfold.
As of May 2025, President Donald Trump's second
-term foreign policy agenda shows a continued
reliance on power politics, heavily shaped by
economic leverage, selective diplomacy, and strategic
disengagement from multilateral commitments.
In the Middle East, he's made some headlining
grabbing moves. Lifting U .S. sanctions on Syria
after the rise of President Ahmed al -Sharah
signals a dramatic shift in policy. It's less
about endorsing Assad's departure and more about
Trump's willingness to pivot quickly if it opens
the door to American economic opportunity and
regional influence. His administration argues
this will support Syrian reconstruction and curb
Iranian sway, though critics say it legitimizes
a regime with a long record of human rights abuses.
The Qatar visit fits right into Trump's transactional
model. $200 billion for Boeing jets and another
$38 billion in potential military investments.
These deals aren't just about boosting US defense
industries. They reinforce security ties with
Gulf states while drawing Qatar closer into Washington
sphere, balancing both Iranian and Turkish influence
in the region. Trump's overture to Iran about
negotiating a new nuclear deal on the condition
that Tehran ditches its proxies and halts nuclear
ambitions reflects a strategic shift. Rather
than maximum pressure through isolation, he's
signaling interests in cutting a deal if the
terms favor US interests and regional allies.
It's vintage Trump all over again. Apply pressure,
then offer a seat at the table. In Ukraine, he's
moved towards diplomacy, dispatching Secretary
of State Marco Rubio to Turkey for talks. Trump
has long questioned US spending and European
commitment in Ukraine. And now he's framing diplomacy
as a way to reduce American entanglement while
nudging the EU and Turkey to take more ownership
of the conflict resolution process. His executive
order pausing all foreign development aid for
90 days, EO 14169, is classic America first.
It's designed to audit where US dollars are going
and ensure they align with Trump's domestic and
strategic priorities. Humanitarian exceptions
are built in, but the message is clear. Aid must
serve American interests or be restructured.
He's also resumed his earlier approach to international
institutions, pulling out of the WHO, World Health
Organization, and the Paris Agreement again.
The argument is about sovereignty and what his
administration sees as unfair burdens placed
on the US, especially compared to China and developing
nations. Trade -wise, Trump has reignited tariff
battles with China, and even reimposed levies
on Mexico and Canada. The logic is the same as
before. Punish what he calls unfair trade practices,
boost US manufacturing, and negotiate better
bilateral terms. Critics warn it risks global
economic instability, but supporters say it's
about finally standing up to economic freeloading.
Finally, Trump is once again leaning hard on
Arab -Israeli normalization. He's urging Saudi
Arabia to join the Abraham Accords, even as the
Gaza conflict makes that harder. His team argues
that bringing the Saudis in could realign the
region and marginalize Iran, though Riyadh remains
cautious without progress on the Palestinian
issue. So far, 2025 has shown that Trump's foreign
policy continues to be bold, disruptive, and
unapologetically nationalist. Whether it brings
long -term stability or greater volatility depends
on how other powers respond, and whether Trump's
high -stakes diplomacy yields real results or
just headlines. Now let's show a side -by -side
comparison of President Joe Biden's completed
term and President Donald Trump's early second
-term agenda, which highlights two sharply contrasting
worldviews shaping U .S. foreign, and domestic
policy. Biden's legacy from 2021 to 2025 is widely
seen as a return to multilateralism and institutional
stability. On the global stage, his administration
prioritized rebuilding trust with allies after
the turbulence of the Trump years. His response
to Russia's invasion of Ukraine became a centerpiece
of his foreign policy legacy. He coordinated
a broad alliance to impose sweeping sanctions
on Moscow. reinforcing NATO's eastern borders,
and delivered consistent military and humanitarian
aid to Kiev. Analysts across the political spectrum
praised this approach for demonstrating US leadership
without unilateral overreach. Domestically, Biden
secured major infrastructure investments, passed
landmark climate and conservation policies, and
made historic judicial appointments, including
the confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
His administration also focused on pandemic recovery,
supply chain resilience, and workforce reinvestment.
Still, challenges persisted. Criticism mounted
over perceptions of slow or cautious responses
to emerging conflicts, concerns about border
enforcement, and lingering doubts about Biden's
age and long -term capacity. These issues contributed
to his decision not to seek reelection in 2024,
making him a one -term president by choice. rather
than electoral defeat. Donald Trump's second
term has quickly revived the hallmarks of his
first. Transactional diplomacy, deregulation,
and an unapologetically nationalist foreign policy.
One of his most controversial early moves was
lifting sanctions on Syria, framed by the administration
as a pragmatic effort to reset relations under
a new Syrian leadership. At the time, Trump locked
in massive economic deals, including a $142 billion
arms agreement with Saudi Arabia and a $200 billion
investment package with Qatar. Trump has also
re -initiated talks with China, achieving a temporary
easing of tariffs and new promises from Beijing
on restricting fentanyl exports. However, these
moves come amid rising scrutiny over ethical
questions. including his acceptance of a luxury
jet from a Gulf state and his administration's
rollback of aid programs via Executive Order
14169. On immigration, Trump has escalated enforcement
efforts, leading to a spike in deportations and
renewed legal battles over border policies. His
withdrawal from the WHO, World Health Organization,
and the Paris Agreement reflects his continued
skepticism of international institutions. consistent
with his belief that national sovereignty should
outweigh global cooperation. Biden's approach
was grounded in coalition building, cautious
but deliberate diplomacy, and long -term institutional
resilience. Trump's strategy continues to focus
on immediate leverage, economic deals, and repositioning
American leadership through bilateral force rather
than multilateral consensus. Both presidents
have left their mark. Biden with a legacy of
stability and restoration, Trump with an aggressive
reshaping of US posture, both at home and abroad.
As 2025 continues to unfold, the world watches
to see how Trump's reassertion of America First
reshapes not just American politics, but the
balance of global power. In the tense weeks leading
up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February
2022, Annalena Baerbach just weeks into her role
as Germany's foreign minister quickly became
a key figure in shaping Germany's response to
rising geopolitical instability. She took a vocal
and unapologetically values -based stance in
foreign policy, one that emphasized international
law, human rights, and the rules -based global
order, even when that meant pushing back against
powerful states like Russia. At the 2022 Munich
Security Conference, Baerbach made it clear that
Europe was facing a historic fork in the road.
She invoked two major 20th century diplomatic
moments to underscore the stakes. The 1975 Helsinki
Accords and the 1945 Yalta Conference. The Helsinki
Accords were a Cold War era agreement focused
on cooperation, non -intervention, and human
rights. An ideal Baerbach saw as vital for preserving
peace in Europe. In contrast, she pointed to
the Yalta Conference as a symbol of backroom
deals that carved up Eastern Europe into Soviet
-dominated spheres, leading to decades of authoritarian
repression. By contrasting these two legacies,
Baerbach framed the crisis not just as a regional
security issue, but as a test of whether Europe
would uphold principles of sovereignty and cooperation
or slide back into real politic and power divisions.
Her support for Ukraine's independence and territorial
integrity wasn't just reactive. It was rooted
in her broader worldview that smaller nations
must be protected from coercion by larger ones,
and that security in Europe is inseparable from
human rights and international law. She also
rejected calls for Germany to remain neutral
in the face of Russian aggression. arguing that
neutrality in the face of clear violations of
sovereignty was a moral failure. Baerbach's leadership
signaled a shift in Germany's foreign policy
tradition, away from a more cautious, trade -first
diplomacy and toward a more assertive posture
rooted in democratic values and strategic clarity.
Her early speeches and diplomatic engagements
in 2022 laid the groundwork for Germany's stronger
stance once the invasion began. Baerbach's early
months in office then were not just about reacting
to crisis, they were about redefining Germany's
voice in the world, especially in a Europe suddenly
forced to reckon with old fears in a new war.
Since 2023, Annalena Baerbach has solidified
her role as a central figure in shaping Germany's
foreign policy, using her platform to emphasize
progressive values, strategic diplomacy, and
a firm defense of international norms. Baerbach's
rollout of Germany's first official feminist
foreign policy in March 2023 marked a significant
milestone. It wasn't just about gender parity
in diplomatic ranks. It also called for addressing
global power imbalances, prioritizing human rights,
and ensuring marginalized voices are represented
in peace -building and development programs.
This framework places equity at the heart of
foreign policy and positions Germany as a leader
in a growing international movement alongside
countries like Sweden, Canada, and Mexico. She
also framed climate change as not just an environmental
issue, but a geopolitical one. At the 2024 Berlin
Climate and Security Conference, Baerbach made
clear that Germany sees climate adaptation and
decarbonization as essential to global peace
and security. Her speeches drew direct connections
between climate stress and conflict zones, especially
in regions like the Sahel and the Indo -Pacific,
arguing for integrated policy responses that
combine foreign aid, defense strategy, and environmental
sustainability. In her 2024 trip to Beijing,
Baerbach directly confronted China's tactical
support of Russia's war effort in Ukraine. She
didn't shy away from calling out the contradictions
between China's stated neutrality and its growing
economic and political ties to Moscow. Her message
was clear. Continued Chinese alignment with Russia
would hurt relations with Germany and the EU.
This stance reflects her broader strategy of
strategic realism, pursuing engagement with China
on trade and climate while drawing red lines
on security and human rights. Baerbach took a
bold step in 2024. by ordering the closure of
all Iranian consulates in Germany following the
execution of German -Iranian dissident Jamshid
Sharmad. The move underscored her government's
zero -tolerance approach to human rights violations,
even when it comes at the cost of diplomatic
channels. It was a calculated risk, signaling
to Tehran and the international community that
Berlin won't compromise its values, especially
when its own citizens are involved. Throughout
this period, Baerbach has remained one of Europe's
most consistent voices in defense of Ukraine.
From providing aid packages to visiting Kiev
and advocating for tougher EU sanctions against
Russia, she played a key role in rallying European
unity. Her rhetoric consistently links the war
to the broader stakes for international law and
democratic security, framing the conflict as
a litmus test for the post -Cold War order. Together,
these actions show Baerbach's foreign policy
isn't just reactive. It's agenda setting. She
has turned Germany's role from one of cautious
balancing to one that is values forward, strategic
and increasingly vocal on the global stage. Whether
it's gender equity, climate security, or geopolitical
integrity, Baerbach's approach blends principled
diplomacy with strategic assertiveness. As of
May 2025, Ursula von der Leyen, a German politician
serving as president of the European Commission
since 2019, served in the German federal government
between 2005 and 2019, holding positions in Angela
Merkel's cabinet, most recently as federal minister
for defense, is a member of the centre -right
Christian Democratic Union, CDU, and its affiliated
European political party, the European People's
Party, EPP. which remains one of the strongest
voices in Europe advocating for Ukraine's full
integration into Western institutions, both politically
and strategically. Contrary to claims that she
discouraged NATO discussions, there is no verified
public statement from her suggesting that Ukraine's
NATO aspirations should be shelved or deterred
to avoid provoking Russia. Instead, Von der Leyen
has emphasized alignment, reform, and readiness,
encouraging Ukraine to continue along the path
of European integration. In March 2025, she made
headlines by suggesting that Ukraine could realistically
join the European Union before 2030 if it sustains
its progress on reforms. That's a bold commitment
considering how long ascension processes typically
take, and it signals deep political will at the
top of the EU. On the defense side, while von
der Leyen has been cautious about specifics around
NATO expansion, her broader messaging has focused
on fortifying Europe's ability to act. Her Rearm
Europe initiative, which calls up for 800 billion
in euros in coordinated defense spending, reflects
her view that Europe should not only support
Ukraine materially, but also prepare itself structurally
for long -term geopolitical competition and security
challenges. This initiative is as much about
deterring Russian aggression as it is about reducing
dependency on the US. She has also been sharply
critical of Vladimir Putin. Her rhetoric frames
Russia's war in Ukraine not just as a breach
of international law, but as part of a broader
campaign to reverse the liberal democratic order
that took root after the Cold War. She warned
against, quote, being pushed around by history,
end quote. reinforcing the idea that European
values and security cannot be compromised or
dictated by authoritarian pressure. dangerous
world. In part three of this series, we'll zoom
in on the flashpoints where power politics is
playing out most visible today. We'll explore
the war in Ukraine, not just as a regional conflict,
but as a case study in 21st century hard power,
alliance dynamics, and the revival of spheres
of influence. We'll turn to the South China Sea,
where naval presence, economic coercion, and
legal ambiguity collide in a high -stake struggle
for maritime dominance. And we'll examine the
evolving power plays in the Middle East, from
Israel's regional strategy to Iran and Saudi
Arabia's rivalry, and how great powers like the
US, Russia, and China compete for influence in
a region that refuses to remain on the geopolitical
sidelines. As we continue this series, It becomes
even more clear. The logic of power politics
isn't fading. It's being rewritten in real time.