The Trump Doctrine and the Fracturing of Global Order plus Kremlin Readout of Putin-Trump Phone Call
US President Donald Trump declared that America would become “the most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth.” Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Donald Trump.
The Trump Doctrine and the Fracturing of Global Order
By Featured Contributor Warwick Powell
The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.
In a recent address to the joint houses of Congress, US President Donald Trump declared that America would become “the most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth.” This assertion, grandiose even by Trumpian standards, underscores the administration's broader strategic vision—one steeped in American exceptionalism, zero-sum thinking, and an increasingly theological interpretation of geopolitical rivalry. At the heart of this vision lies a singular, overriding adversary: China.
The Trump administration's foreign policy frame and rhetoric is shaped by a cohort of key figures who conceive of international politics not merely as a contest for power, but as an existential and even spiritual battle.
Pete Hegseth, Trump's Secretary of Defense, in his 2020 book American Crusade, has articulated a view in which China is not just a geopolitical competitor but a "spiritual adversary." Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently acknowledged that unipolarity—America's absolute dominance in the post-Cold War era—was an anomaly. The world, he conceded, had re-entered a period of multipolarity, one defined by great power competition. In this context, China is positioned as the principal adversary. Similarly, Vice President JD Vance has consistently cast China as the primary opponent in a struggle for global dominance.
This perspective aligns with evangelical Christian narratives that view large swathes of the world—particularly within the so-called "10/40 window"—as unreached by Christianity. Evangelical initiatives such as the Joshua Projectsee this as a call to arms for missionary and proselytizing efforts. In Hegseth’s worldview, China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony is not just material but metaphysical, a battle between the forces of Christian civilization and an unconverted rival. This battle is interwoven with a politics steeped in evangelical prophecies. Trump has drawn from a number of prominent evangelicals for support in both his 2016 and more recent campaigns.
Franklin Graham, the son of famous preacher Billy Graham, and ardent Trump supporter, has warned of the “threat" of China, often linking it to religious persecution and the erosion of Christian values. Others, like John Hagee (Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, 2006), Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, Robert Jeffries and Paula White-Cain have each advanced interpretations of biblical prophecies that variously suggest that Russia and several islamic nations will invade Israel, and that this will set the stage for a global confrontation involving China and the West at Armageddon, culminating in Christ’s return. Hagee frames Trump’s presidency as fulfilling biblical prophecy, calling him a leader chosen by God to protect Israel. Hal Lindsey, the author of The Late Great Planet Earth, advances a dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible suggesting that nations like Russia and China will play pivotal roles in end-times events. He associates the "kings from the east" mentioned in Revelation with China, indicating a significant eastern military presence in the prophesied final battles. Cain-White is Trump’s White House spiritual advisor and portrays his presidency as a battle against demonic forces, reinforcing an apocalyptic worldview among some evangelicals.
The framings not only find voice in the administration but succour from the political support of evangelicals and associated activists in the MAGA movement.
Steve Bannon, a prominent figure in Donald Trump's MAGA movement, has articulated views that resonate with certain Evangelical perspectives, particularly regarding global power dynamics and confrontations with nations like China. Bannon envisions a prolonged dominance of the MAGA movement, asserting that it could govern for the next 50 years if it effectively implements its agenda. Central to this vision is a restructuring of American institutions and a decisive stance against China, reflecting a broader narrative of confronting perceived global threats. Bannon has called upon his supporters to prepare for ideological battles and hot wars, emphasizing a need to challenge existing global financial systems and confront adversarial nations. This rhetoric aligns with a confrontational approach toward China, positioning it as a central figure in the struggle against globalist structures. Bannon has worked to align evangelical support with Trump’s nationalist agenda, often warning about a "holy war" against secular and communist influences, including China. He too has framed Trump’s presidency as a fight to preserve Christian civilization, appealing to evangelicals who see global politics through a prophetic lens.
This vision has direct policy implications, particularly in how the administration prioritizes strategic threats and allocates resources. The Trump administration's recent efforts to extract the U.S. from the war in Ukraine reflect a belief that America's primary focus must be on China.
For years, Washington has poured resources into Ukraine as part of a broader strategy of weakening Russia. However, the administration now appears to recognize that its decades-long strategy of destabilization in Ukraine has failed. The war has not produced the intended results, and the political and resourcing costs of an indefinite quagmire are becoming untenable. The echoes of Vietnam and Afghanistan are unmistakable.
The shift away from Ukraine is framed as a necessary recalibration of American priorities. Given limited resources, the argument goes, the U.S. cannot afford to be distracted by secondary conflicts when the primary contest is with China. However, the pivot is not simply about grand strategy—it is also about optics and blame-shifting. The administration is keen to exit Ukraine while minimizing accountability for the debacle. The European allies, who were encouraged to escalate their involvement, are now being told by Hegseth to increase their defense spending. This, of course, serves a dual purpose: it relieves the U.S. of some financial burden while also bolstering the American defense industry. A significant portion—60%—of NATO’s defense spending goes toward purchasing American-made weaponry, according to the Financial Times. When Hegseth calls for more spending, he is effectively calling for increased purchases of U.S. military hardware. Thus, while the U.S. may be disengaging from Ukraine, it is doing so in a way that ensures continued American influence over European security policy and sustains the financial interests of the U.S. defense sector.
Contrast this with China's approach to itself and its role in the globe, as showcased in its recently concluded "Two Sessions." Rather than emphasizing military dominance or ideological conflict, China's focus remains on domestic economic development, technological innovation, and global economic partnerships. At a time when the U.S. is entangled in strategic debacles, faltering withdrawals, trade wars, and ideological crusades, China presents itself as a steady pillar in an increasingly turbulent world.
While Trump’s America speaks of dominance, China offers stability. While the Trump administration imposes tariffs that disrupt global supply chains, China presents itself as an economic anchor for developing nations.
The contrast could not be starker. The American offer to the world is one of confrontation and coercion, underpinned by a theological and militaristic worldview. China’s offer, by contrast, is one of pragmatism and continuity. This divergence in approach is already reshaping global alliances. Many nations, particularly those in the Global South, are wary of being drawn into another Cold War-like struggle. For them, the choice is not between an "exceptional" America and a "spiritual adversary" in China, but between two models of engagement—one defined by disruption anchored by zero-sum thinking, the other by stability and the prospects of mutual benefit.
https://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/the-trump-doctrine-and-the-fracturing-of-global-order
Telephone conversation with President of the United States Donald Trump
Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States Donald Trump.
Official Kremlin Readout in English (March 18, 2025)
The leaders continued their detailed and frank exchange of views on the situation surrounding Ukraine. Vladimir Putin extended gratitude to Donald Trump for his striving to achieve the noble goal of ending the hostilities and loss of life.
Confirming his fundamental commitment to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, the President of Russia expressed willingness to thoroughly work out possible solutions in cooperation with the American partners, aimed at reaching a settlement that would be comprehensive, reliable, and lasting, and, naturally, take into account the essential need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis, as well as Russia's legitimate security interests.
Concerning US President's proposal to declare a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side outlined a number of significant points regarding ensuring effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire frontline, as well as the need to stop the forced mobilisation in Ukraine and rearming the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It was noted that some serious risks exist pertaining to the intractability of the Kiev regime which had repeatedly sabotaged and violated negotiated agreements. An emphasis was made on barbaric acts of terrorism committed by Ukrainian militants against civilians residing in the Kursk Region.
It was pointed out that a complete cessation of providing Kiev with foreign military aid and intelligence must become the key condition for preventing an escalation of the conflict and making progress towards its resolution through political and diplomatic means.
Referring to Donald Trump's recent appeal to spare the lives of the Ukrainian servicemen surrounded in the Kursk Region, Vladimir Putin confirmed that the Russian side was willing to embrace humanitarian motives and guaranteed that the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine would live and be treated fairly in accordance with Russian legislation and international law in the event of surrender.
During the conversation, Donald Trump put forward a proposal for the parties to mutually refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days. Vladimir Putin responded favourably to the proposal and immediately gave the relevant order to the Russian troops.
Just as favourable was the Russian President's response to Donald Trump's suggestion to implement a well-known proposal regarding the safety of navigation in the Black Sea. The leaders agreed to begin talks to further work out specific details of such an agreement.
Vladimir Putin made it known that on March 19, the Russian and Ukrainian sides would carry out an exchange of prisoners, each swapping 175 people. Additionally, as a gesture of goodwill, 23 heavily wounded Ukrainian soldiers currently receiving aid at Russian medical facilities will also be repatriated.
The leaders confirmed their intention to continue efforts aimed at reaching a settlement in Ukraine bilaterally, with due regard in particular to the aforementioned proposals by the US President. For this purpose, a Russian and an American expert task forces are now being formed.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump also addressed some other international issues, including the situation in the Middle East and in the Red Sea region. Joint efforts will be made to stabilise the situation in the crisis spots and establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security. This will, in turn, contribute to improving the overall ambiance of relations between Russia and the United States. One positive example is the recent vote in the UN on a resolution on the Ukraine conflict, in which the two countries aligned their stances.
The leaders expressed mutual interest in normalising the bilateral ties in light of the special responsibility for ensuring global security and stability borne by both Russia and the United States. Within that context, they addressed a wide range of areas where the two countries could establish cooperation, discussing several ideas aimed at fostering potential ties of mutual interest in economy and energy.
Donald Trump expressed support for Vladimir Putin's idea to hold ice hockey matches in both the United States and Russia between Russian and American players from the NHL and the KHL.
The presidents agreed to stay in touch on all the issues raised.
