By Xhelal Neziri
Donald Trump, the American president who has begun his second term, has caused political and economic upheaval in the U.S. and worldwide from his very first month in office. His doctrine unsettles NATO and the EU, which constitute the majority of the Western world, while also raising uncertainties for the East and the Global South. In short, the world is on edge, anxiously awaiting Trump’s next moves.
To better understand his objectives—whether rooted in conservative or right-wing ideology—one must also consider the political theories he represents in international relations. While ideology is crucial for predicting domestic policies and reforms in the U.S., political theory can help us comprehend his approach to international relations.
Unlike former Democratic President Joe Biden, Trump adheres to the realist school of thought in foreign policy. This approach is reflected not only in Secretary of State Marco Rubio but also among other high-ranking officials in his administration.
What Is Realism in International Relations?
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides, considered the founder of this school, viewed the world as an anarchic stage where “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” According to realists, the world is a vast jungle with no laws, where states are in constant competition (or conflict) for greater influence. In their view, international organizations, unions, or alliances should not replace the role of sovereign states. It is the power of states that determines their place in the global order, not the values or principles promoted by such organizations.
In reality, realism as a political theory has shaped international relations for the past 150 years. Neither World War I nor World War II, nor even the Cold War, managed to create an environment where international institutions played a significant role in maintaining peace or where states were governed by so-called international morality.
Realism and liberalism remain the two dominant theories in international relations. Realists argue that in an anarchic world, only the state can protect its citizens. They believe states are in constant conflict to safeguard their national interests and should be the sole actors in international affairs. According to them, values, principles, or reason should not hinder a state’s objectives. State security is the ultimate goal, and achieving it requires maintaining a balance of power among nations. Realists assert that states should not depend on each other, as they exist in a perpetual state of potential conflict and hostility. International institutions or supranational organizations should not dictate or replace the national interests of individual states.
This perspective also applies to the Balkans, a region often synonymous with nationalism, hatred, and wars among its nations. After the Cold War and the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, realism became the dominant approach in relations between both nations and the newly formed states.
Liberals, on the other hand, argue that while states are crucial actors in international relations, they are not the only ones. Political, civil, and economic organizations—such as NGOs, chambers of commerce, and citizen associations—also play a significant role. Unlike realists, liberals take a more optimistic view of international relations, emphasizing order and potential harmony based on shared moral values. Therefore, they prioritize values, principles, and reason over narrow state interests.
Unlike realists, liberals see a strong possibility of achieving and maintaining peace through international institutions such as the IMF, WHO, UN, EU, or NATO. In this context, the European Union (EU) stands as the most significant liberalist project, ensuring peace and cooperation among European nations for over 60 years. This stability and mutual trust have facilitated the creation of a single market with immense economic opportunities, making the EU one of the world’s strongest economies.
Realists favor competition, while liberals advocate for cooperation. Realists believe influence is attained through “hard power”—such as military intervention—whereas liberals promote “soft power,” utilizing diplomacy, financial aid, market access, investments, and other incentives. Liberals condition international cooperation on democratic values, human rights, dignity, and freedoms. They argue that democracies are less likely to engage in direct conflict with one another, whereas they are more prone to conflict with authoritarian or dictatorial regimes. Conversely, realists prioritize strategic interests over values, maintaining that a state should collaborate with any partner that serves its national and security interests. They dismiss the exportation of democracy or moral values to third-world nations as a waste of time and resources—evidenced by the U.S.’s failed attempts to establish democratic governance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Trump’s resurgence marks a dramatic shift in global affairs. Instead of a rules-based international order, he is installing a power-based order. Smaller nations, particularly those in the Balkans, must understand this shift. Many of these states operate under the illusion of absolute sovereignty—something not even nuclear-armed states fully possess.
This signals a more aggressive American diplomacy in the region, aimed at swift problem-solving rather than prolonged diplomatic protocols or adherence to democratic values. Issues such as the Pristina-Belgrade dispute, the Skopje-Sofia tensions, and the dysfunctionality of Bosnia and Herzegovina will no longer remain in “status quo.” Instead, they will be addressed through Trump’s doctrine, which embraces the use of “power for peace.” In this framework, what matters most is not who is right, but who is stronger.
