U.S.A.'s Global Game: Spheres of Influence (Part 1)

Donald Trump, a figure who continues to bewilder and fascinate in equal measure, isn't retreating from the world stage. That much is becoming increasingly clear. Forget the whispers of American isolationism; what we're witnessing is something far more ambitious, and potentially far more dangerous: a determined effort to recast the very architecture of global order.

Many dismiss Trump's foreign policy as impulsive chaos, a series of emotional outbursts lacking any coherent strategy. Others see a darker, more deliberate hand at play, aligning the United States with the neo-imperial ambitions of Russia and China. Whatever the true motive – perhaps a volatile cocktail of both – one thing seems undeniable: Trump intends to lead, and he intends to reshape the world in his own image. He's not playing defense; he's on the offensive, driven by an unwavering conviction in his own judgment.

To understand this new geopolitical landscape under a second Trump administration, we must look at it through the lens of strategic "zones" or spheres of influence. The era of globalization, with its supposed transcendence of borders and regions, is fading. Today's game is about exerting control over strategic territories, wherever they may lie. So, what does the political map of the White House look like under this president?

First, there's "the neighborhood". Trump's pronouncements regarding Canada, Mexico, and even Greenland have fueled speculation that the U.S., mirroring the actions of Russia and China, ... continue reading the article

This is Heliox: Where Evidence Meets Empathy

Independent, moderated, timely, deep, gentle, clinical, global, and community conversations about things that matter.  Breathe Easy, we go deep and lightly surface the big ideas.

Thanks for listening today!

Four recurring narratives underlie every episode: boundary dissolution, adaptive complexity, embodied knowledge, and quantum-like uncertainty. These aren’t just philosophical musings but frameworks for understanding our modern world. 

We hope you continue exploring our other podcasts, responding to the content, and checking out our related articles on the Heliox Podcast on Substack. 

Transcript

0:25

This is Heliox, where evidence meets empathy. Independent, moderated, timely, deep, gentle, clinical, global, and community conversations about things that matter. Breathe easy. We go deep and lightly surface the big ideas. OK, so, you know, we always love getting your input. You guys have been sending in some really interesting stuff lately. One article in particular that caught our eye is this piece from April 1st, 2025. And well, it takes a deep dive into President Trump's foreign policy. And I got to say, it's given us a lot to think about. Yeah, I mean, it's one thing to sort of, you know, read the headlines and see the tweets. But this article really tries to dig into, you know, the underlying principles driving his actions on the world stage. So that's what we really want to unpack today. You know, what's the method to the madness, so to speak? Right. Because, I mean, let's be honest, on the outside looking in, it can seem pretty erratic and contradictory at times. You know, one minute he's praising a leader, the next he's slapping tariffs on them. It's hard to see a clear pattern sometimes. Exactly. And that's one of the things the article tries to address head on. It even uses those words erratic and contradictory to describe how his foreign policy is often perceived. And, you know, their goal is to find a framework that helps make sense of it all. And they actually propose a pretty intriguing lens through which to view it all. This idea of strategic zones, or you could call them spheres of influence. Essentially, the idea is that Trump sees the world divided up into these different categories and how he interacts with a country really depends on which zone he thinks they belong to. Yeah, it's a fascinating concept. And I think it does help connect some of those seemingly random dots. You know, it's like he's playing a grand game of risk or something. And each zone has its own set of rules and objectives. All right. So let's start with the man himself. I mean, before we even get into these zones, we have to understand how President Trump sees himself as a leader because that seems to be the foundation for everything else. Right. Well, according to this article, there's a very strong belief that he is an extraordinary president, you know, someone with a unique mandate and abilities. And I think that's been pretty clear from his rhetoric all along. Oh, absolutely. I mean, the whole I alone can fix it kind of attitude. It's been a consistent thread. Exactly. And the article argues that this belief extends to the global stage as well. You know, there's this sense that America should be dominant in every way, militarily, technologically, politically, the whole package. Which, you know, when you think about, makes the whole America first mantra make a lot more sense. It's not just a slogan. It's like the core operating principle of his foreign policy. Absolutely. And that's really the jumping off point for this whole zones theory, because from there, the article starts to break down. how he approaches different parts of the world based on, you know, where he sees them fitting into this America-centric view. All right. So let's talk zones. Where do we even begin? Well, they start with what they call the neighborhood. And this is where things get really interesting because it kind of flips the traditional way we think about America's role in the world. Okay. I'm intrigued. Tell me more. So the article suggests that Trump might actually be pursuing something similar to what we've seen from, you know, Russia and China, this idea of aggressively subjugating their neighbors, bringing them into their sphere of influence and controlling their actions. Wow. OK, that's a pretty bold statement, especially when you consider who they're including in this neighborhood. Right. That article specifically mentions Panama, Mexico, Canada, even Greenland, which is pretty expansive when you think about it. Yeah. I mean, those are countries we typically think of as, you know, partners, allies, not countries we're trying to subjugate. And yet the article points to specific actions that seem to support this theory, like those tariffs he imposed on Mexico and Canada. You know, the argument is that he was trying to soften them up to make them more compliant with his demands. And then there were those less conventional moves like his interest in incorporating Canada as the 51st state or buying Greenland. Those definitely raised some eyebrows. For sure. But here's the thing. While the goal might sound similar to what Putin or Xi are doing in their regions, the article emphasizes that Trump's approach is very different. He's not using military force, at least not yet. Right. It's more about economic coercion, using trade deals, tariffs, investments as leverage to get what he wants. Exactly. And the article makes this really interesting point that, unlike those other leaders, Trump doesn't seem to see the military as his primary tool for power projection in this zone. He's much more comfortable using economic weapons, so to speak. Which, you know, is kind of ironic when you consider all the talk about making America's military great again and all that. We haven't really seen a massive military buildup under his leadership. No, not even close, especially compared to what China's been doing. The article actually calls them a near peer competitor militarily. And yet Trump's focus seems to be elsewhere, at least when it comes to his neighborhood. OK, so that's the neighborhood zone, economic dominance through. Well, let's just call it what it is, a bit of bullying. What's next? All right. So next up, we have the allies zone. And this is where his long held views on America's traditional partners really come into play. Yeah, this is the part where, you know, decades of calling NATO obsolete and allies free riders, all that goes back to haunt us. Basically, the article argues that Trump sees allies as a necessary evil. You know, they have some strategic value, but they're not pulling their weight financially. It's all about that business like logic. Right. He wants them to pay more for the privilege of being protected by the U.S. military. Yeah. It's like a protection racket almost. In a way. And the article points out how this clashes with the whole idea of, you know, the U.S. guaranteed security order that's been in place for decades, especially in places like Europe and the Indo-Pacific, where you have these aggressive autocratic powers on the rise. Right. Because if American protection is essentially for sale, then it becomes a lot less reliable, a lot less of a deterrent. Exactly. And that's a huge concern, especially when you consider the extended nuclear deterrent. You know, the idea that America's nuclear umbrella also protects its allies if that guarantee is seen as conditional. Well, it could really destabilize things. But the article does offer a counterpoint here. They suggest that Trump isn't going to completely abandon these alliances. It's more like he wants to renegotiate the terms, get a better deal for America. Right. They use this interesting analogy comparing key allies like Japan and South Korea to prime real estate. You know, he might want to reduce the costs associated with them, but he's not going to just walk away from their strategic value. So it's more like he's trying to flip them, you know, buy low, sell high, get the most bang for his buck. Kind of. And it's worth noting that this is a very different approach compared to previous presidents from, you know, Clinton through Biden. They were all about expanding the American-led order, bringing more countries into the fold. Yeah, Trump's not interested in growing the club. He's just trying to squeeze more out of the existing members. And we see that in how he's dealt with certain situations like Ukraine. He's never been a big supporter of their efforts to resist Russia. And the article points out that he's only reluctantly agreed to a peace deal that's, you know, somewhat acceptable to the Ukrainians. It's like he sees them as expendable, almost a bargaining chip in his dealings with Putin. And then there's Taiwan, which is a whole other ballgame. The article highlights Trump's concern about America's reliance on Taiwanese semiconductors. You know, it's a major economic vulnerability. Right. So even though Taiwan's not a formal ally, he's still pretty invested in preventing China from taking over. Absolutely. Because it's not just about ideology. It's about protecting American economic interests. So the big takeaway here is that in the ally zone, it's all about maximizing American leverage and minimizing costs, even if it means shaking things up a bit. Right. And this is all setting the stage for the final category, the competitor zone. This is where things get really interesting. OK, so who are we talking about here? Who are these worthy adversaries in Trump's eyes? Well, according to the article, it's the big three, Russia, China and North Korea, primarily because they have nuclear weapons. Yeah, those are the guys who can really mess things up on a global scale. And the article emphasizes Trump's repeated warnings about these countries being the ones who could trigger a third world war. So he's not taking them lightly. But at the same time, he doesn't seem to see them as pure enemies in the traditional sense. Right. The article points out that he actually prefers to frame them as competitors, almost like rivals on a level playing field. It's like they're all in this big game together and he respects their ability to play it. Which is so different from how the Biden administration talked about this axis of autocracies and the threat to democracy and all that. Yeah. Trump doesn't seem interested in that kind of ideological framing for him. It's more about, you know, deal making power dynamics, figuring out how to coexist with these other major players. The article uses this really striking analogy. They say it's like Trump controls Manhattan. She controls Brooklyn and Putin controls the Bronx. It's a great way to visualize it. You know, these distinct spheres of influence, even within the global power structure. So it's not about defeating these competitors. It's about managing the competition, you know, setting some ground rules and then letting them do their thing. within their designated zones. Exactly. And the assumption is that they all understand the game and they're all playing by the same basic rules. It's a very transactional, very pragmatic view of international relations. Okay, so we've got the neighborhood, the allies, the competitors, three distinct zones with their own set of rules. But the article also spends a good chunk of time talking about, you know, the limits of this whole worldview. Oh, yeah, because reality has a way of messing with even the grandest of strategies. And let's be honest, Trump has faced his fair share of obstacles along the way. The article talks about the negative impact of those tariffs on the U.S. economy, the lack of progress on diplomatic fronts like the Middle East. It's not all been smooth sailing. And it seems like one of the biggest challenges he faces is that other countries, you know, they have their own ideas about how things should work. They're not just going to fall in line with his vision. Right. The article points out that he's constantly running up against the will and ideas of others who, you know, also have power and influence. And that limits what he can actually achieve. And then there's that whole tendency to, you know, shift focus when things get tough. If one approach isn't working, he just moves on to something else. Yeah. Which makes it hard to see a consistent long term strategy at play. It's more like a series of tactical maneuvers. And the article ends with this really interesting thought. They suggest that if Trump really wants to achieve lasting change, you know, something more than just headlines, he might have to refine his tactics and maybe even, you know, work more closely with those pesky allies. Yeah, it's almost like they're hinting that he might end up adopting some of the same approaches that the Biden administration was criticized for. So in a way, the reality of global politics might force him to become more like his predecessors, even if he doesn't want to admit it. It's certainly possible. And that's, I think, the big takeaway from all of this. You know, this article gives us a framework for understanding Trump's foreign policy through this lens of strategic zones. But it also highlights the inherent limitations of trying to impose a very America-centric worldview on a world that's increasingly multipolar. And it leaves us with a lot of questions. You know, where do these zones actually begin and end? How do they overlap? What happens when countries don't fit neatly into one category or another? And ultimately, is this whole approach sustainable in the long run, or is it just a temporary disruption in the global order? So that's what we want to leave you with today. You know, think about these zones. Think about the assumptions behind them and ask yourself, what do you think is the most likely flashpoint for conflict or maybe even for unexpected cooperation under this framework? Because the world is complex and there are no easy answers. But understanding how different leaders view the global chessboard, that's the first step to making sense of the moves they make. As always, thanks for joining us for this deep dive into the fascinating and sometimes baffling world of international relations. We'll see you next time. See you then. Thanks for listening today. Four recurring narratives underlie every episode. Boundary dissolution, adaptive complexity, embodied knowledge, and quantum-like uncertainty. These aren't just philosophical musings, but frameworks for understanding our modern world. We hope you continue exploring our other podcasts, responding to the content, and checking out our related articles at heliocspodcast.substack.com.