Multipolarity is good. Only the West, led by the US, wanted unipolarity. Now that the US, at least under Trump and his team, want multipolarity, the Euros are beside themselves with grief. I think my biggest takeaway here, Tanvi, is how everyone admits that the US is their cash cow and most important market. Not only is it important for Hyundai and Shein and Nintendo; it is just as important for European institutional investors like life insurance firms who are going to invest where exactly? In German bonds? Are there enough of them to meet demand? What do they yield? 1%? Russia is off limits. For similar US investment grade yield you have to go to China and buy RMB debt, and that is limited. So now youre in Turkey and Brazil. Have fun there. They are all dependent on the US: for markets, for investing, for a chunk of the demand for their biggest companies. If Siemens thinks China is a market for them; wait til China builds the Siemens competitor. We already saw the market sell off the second DeepSeek came out. China will sell AI services to the world for half the price of the Americans, let alone the Europeans who are too busy preparing for a weekend in Ibiza.
I will say this, tariffs are not done. Look for sectoral tariffs to come.
This is like a chunk of clay thrown onto an artists wheel or whatever sculptors call that tool. It is now looking like a vase, but nothing you're going to buy at Kohls. The admin is still working on it. But there will be more tariffs to come -- on microchips, on copper, on generic drugs, which we don't make here anymore and are in constant short supply.
Notice the market and world no longer cares about the 10% revenue tariff anymore. Hardly gets a mention. The WTO is dead. So is "free trade" which, judging by all the nations complaining, was never free. It was just them making things for the US. Free for us to shop cheaply at Walmart and the Dollar Store. Woohoo!!!
Thank you for this rich and provocative reflection. You’re absolutely right that many nations—whether allies or competitors—remain deeply tied to U.S. capital, consumption, and credibility. That interdependence is precisely what makes this moment so consequential: we’re not witnessing the clean rise of an alternate system, but rather the messy recalibration of an old one under stress.
Multipolarity, as you note, is often framed ideologically—"good" or "bad" depending on perspective. But in practice, it introduces new constraints: distributed power also means distributed risk. A system where no single market or investor bloc can provide the anchor once offered by the U.S. requires new frameworks for coordination, stability, and investment allocation.
And yes, the toolkit is still open—sectoral tariffs, industrial policy, and even export controls are very much on the table. But what’s different now is that every move reverberates globally and prompts countermoves almost instantly—a shift from 4D chess to what I’ve called 195D chess. That vase on the wheel, as you put it, may yet take shape—but sculpting under centrifugal pressure is a far more complex game.
Yeah. I like your takes. There is another good geopolitical analyst, a Bulgarian woman, I forget her name. She's on X. She coined the phrase "Dragonbear". Thats how you will find her. It's a play off the multipolarity theme, with the killers of unipolarity being Russia and China -- the Dragonbear. And what we are seeing, at least for business and trade, is that SE Asia is in the Dragonbear camp. All the top FDI into SE Asia is from SK Japan and China. Japan is still in the US camp. SK too, I think. Europe will have to decide whether it wants to be in the US camp, on Team Dragonbear, or forge its own path and make Africa and the Middle East its new sphere of influence politically, and for its corporate investments and trade. Lots going on. Hard to get right. Many moving parts.
You engage in a lot of high level theoretical thinking in an effort to bolster a crazy man. You have a difficult task to add a patina of respectability to the actions of this guy.
Trump is throwing away eight decades of American goodwill in exchange for the only thing that matters to him: newspaper appearances above the fold on page 1.
Please tell me any other example in history where another man almost single-handedly crashed the world economy.
As for the “strategic” reversal, Tom Friedman said it best. We just witnessed the Art of the Squeal.
I appreciate the engagement, but I want to be clear: nowhere in my posts did I defend Trump—nor have I, in any of my blogs. I’m not engaged in reputation-building for any politician. My work, both professionally and here, focuses on analyzing country strategies, systemic behaviors, and policy ripple effects across disciplines.
In my last post, I laid out what I assumed the administration was trying to achieve, based on observable moves and market responses. Their subsequent actions and statements seemed to corroborate that interpretation. This post picks up from there—not to validate anyone—but to analyze how other countries are responding and what second- and third-order effects we’re seeing globally.
This is not about defending individuals. It’s about understanding how power moves, how systems react, and how policy actions—however chaotic or deliberate they may appear—shape the world we live in. As for America, I've written clearly here that I believe there are many points of concern and need for rapid action.
This is all excellent...in that the globalist agenda to force a one world government and divide the globe into regions is now unlikely to succeed. This is great for the Peoples of the World.
Appreciate your perspective on this situation. You are filling gaps for me.
Something to float: most all are saying the sudden imposition of 90 day delay is for the same reason that you assert. I would like to suggest the outside possibility that those nations that quickly came calling before that moment were the ones desired by the Administration for the future trade environment desired. They might have called the delay even if the treasuries were doing very fine.
We don't know what is planned for bilateral trade deals but my guess is that this will work out well for everyone....some things needed to be realigned.
Thank you—and I’m glad the post helped fill in some of the missing pieces. You're absolutely right that we can’t assume a single causal trigger for the 90-day delay. The Treasury signal was a key observable factor, but as you suggest, geopolitical sequencing and pre-negotiated alignments may also have shaped the timing.
We often over-index on crisis signals, when sometimes a pivot reflects who’s already engaged behind the scenes—who has shown willingness to move early, or who aligns with a long-term vision for trade diversification.
I don’t take a view on globalism vs. sovereignty, but I do believe we’re entering a phase where regional blocks, bilateral deals, and multi-alignment strategies will define trade—less hierarchy, more friction, and also, perhaps, more opportunity for resilience. Will be exploring all that in upcoming posts.
"The President’s skill at “the art of the deal” will doubtless secure more equitable terms for the United States."
Doubtless is the wrong word to use here. This is still very much in doubt. Having a hard time finding any evidence of a single scenario that has more equitable terms as a result of Trump's dealmaking.
Corrected the framing. I do think they'll secure it for some key sectors such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals etc. But yes, let's see. Data from the last round of tariffs is telling. I'll be sharing it in my post on the US soon.
Some Republicans are up in arms about the tariffs. These are also the one's who might be the most recalcitrant to support the big budget package. Do you wonder if Trump might be setting up to back off tariffs in exchange for support of the budget bill? He manufactured something they don't like and will then trade it to get something he wants.
That’s a sharp read—and it’s certainly plausible- but I don't know for sure. We’ve seen in past cycles that leverage often comes from manufacturing friction, only to resolve it through negotiation. Whether tariffs were designed for that purpose or became useful as such, they’ve clearly created pressure points.
The link between yield sensitivity, Congressional timing, and budget reconciliation suggests there’s more than just trade policy at play here—it’s a layered domestic play as much as an international one.
It’s in almost everyone’s interest if trade is diversified away from China. That’s bad for China, but inevitable. It’s also good that Europe is finally taking responsibility for its own defense.
Europe is not an ally. We should leave NATO and let it fend for itself. They mostly hate the US anyway. Japan, India, South Korea...those are better allies. They like us. The Europeans can't stop complaining about us "ugly Americans."
A kind review of a bloody faceplant by the White House economic team.
Full-on trade war against China. Complete with the time honored deal-making tactic of insulting the commercial partners without whom your economy collapses. VP calling the Chinese peasants. Prez accusing EVERY trade partner of the US of lying and cheating. Prez saying mid sized countries have no choice but to "kiss my ass" - in his exact words.
It did not have to be overtly hostile with China. It could've been a slow and quite comfortable transition to multipolarity. Instead, US faces a supply shock, and China faces a complementary demand shock. One of those you can fix by massaging financial markets, the other you can't.
And so, inflation and mass austerity is the mildest potential outcome for the US here, and again that's if the current policymakers play it with finesse, and greed doesn't get the better of their political coalition - smth we haven't seen even once from this cohort.
You’ve captured the disturbing déjà vu of today’s trade rhetoric. It’s disturbing how rapidly we’ve deteriorated from optimism to old world style protectionism - and how casually economic pain is brushed aside in favor of political oneupmanship . Thanks for the sharp analysis, Tanvi.
Thank you—I appreciate your thoughtful reading. What I’m aiming to track is not so much the tone of the rhetoric, but the material shifts happening underneath: how markets, alliances, and state strategies are recalibrating in response.
Whether the return to tariffs is seen as protectionism or realignment, the structural consequences are measurable—and in some cases, quite different from previous cycles. That’s where I’ll continue to focus. Thanks again for engaging with the work.
Is it possible to simplify the narrative for a lay investor? Will the US treasury continue to be a good stable investment for seniors or is it going to be as volatile as the stock markets? My mom can’t afford a great loss of her retirement at 89 years old - thx
Excellent assessment. The US is still the driver in so many ways, yet to openness now should rebalance trade in general to be fairer for everyone. Coming out of WW2, it was important for the US to have low tariffs to help other countries recover quicker. The rebalance is long over due.
Multipolarity is good. Only the West, led by the US, wanted unipolarity. Now that the US, at least under Trump and his team, want multipolarity, the Euros are beside themselves with grief. I think my biggest takeaway here, Tanvi, is how everyone admits that the US is their cash cow and most important market. Not only is it important for Hyundai and Shein and Nintendo; it is just as important for European institutional investors like life insurance firms who are going to invest where exactly? In German bonds? Are there enough of them to meet demand? What do they yield? 1%? Russia is off limits. For similar US investment grade yield you have to go to China and buy RMB debt, and that is limited. So now youre in Turkey and Brazil. Have fun there. They are all dependent on the US: for markets, for investing, for a chunk of the demand for their biggest companies. If Siemens thinks China is a market for them; wait til China builds the Siemens competitor. We already saw the market sell off the second DeepSeek came out. China will sell AI services to the world for half the price of the Americans, let alone the Europeans who are too busy preparing for a weekend in Ibiza.
I will say this, tariffs are not done. Look for sectoral tariffs to come.
This is like a chunk of clay thrown onto an artists wheel or whatever sculptors call that tool. It is now looking like a vase, but nothing you're going to buy at Kohls. The admin is still working on it. But there will be more tariffs to come -- on microchips, on copper, on generic drugs, which we don't make here anymore and are in constant short supply.
Notice the market and world no longer cares about the 10% revenue tariff anymore. Hardly gets a mention. The WTO is dead. So is "free trade" which, judging by all the nations complaining, was never free. It was just them making things for the US. Free for us to shop cheaply at Walmart and the Dollar Store. Woohoo!!!
Thank you for this rich and provocative reflection. You’re absolutely right that many nations—whether allies or competitors—remain deeply tied to U.S. capital, consumption, and credibility. That interdependence is precisely what makes this moment so consequential: we’re not witnessing the clean rise of an alternate system, but rather the messy recalibration of an old one under stress.
Multipolarity, as you note, is often framed ideologically—"good" or "bad" depending on perspective. But in practice, it introduces new constraints: distributed power also means distributed risk. A system where no single market or investor bloc can provide the anchor once offered by the U.S. requires new frameworks for coordination, stability, and investment allocation.
And yes, the toolkit is still open—sectoral tariffs, industrial policy, and even export controls are very much on the table. But what’s different now is that every move reverberates globally and prompts countermoves almost instantly—a shift from 4D chess to what I’ve called 195D chess. That vase on the wheel, as you put it, may yet take shape—but sculpting under centrifugal pressure is a far more complex game.
Yeah. I like your takes. There is another good geopolitical analyst, a Bulgarian woman, I forget her name. She's on X. She coined the phrase "Dragonbear". Thats how you will find her. It's a play off the multipolarity theme, with the killers of unipolarity being Russia and China -- the Dragonbear. And what we are seeing, at least for business and trade, is that SE Asia is in the Dragonbear camp. All the top FDI into SE Asia is from SK Japan and China. Japan is still in the US camp. SK too, I think. Europe will have to decide whether it wants to be in the US camp, on Team Dragonbear, or forge its own path and make Africa and the Middle East its new sphere of influence politically, and for its corporate investments and trade. Lots going on. Hard to get right. Many moving parts.
That's a great term! It looks though like the US is prying apart the dragon and bear.
You engage in a lot of high level theoretical thinking in an effort to bolster a crazy man. You have a difficult task to add a patina of respectability to the actions of this guy.
Trump is throwing away eight decades of American goodwill in exchange for the only thing that matters to him: newspaper appearances above the fold on page 1.
Please tell me any other example in history where another man almost single-handedly crashed the world economy.
As for the “strategic” reversal, Tom Friedman said it best. We just witnessed the Art of the Squeal.
I appreciate the engagement, but I want to be clear: nowhere in my posts did I defend Trump—nor have I, in any of my blogs. I’m not engaged in reputation-building for any politician. My work, both professionally and here, focuses on analyzing country strategies, systemic behaviors, and policy ripple effects across disciplines.
In my last post, I laid out what I assumed the administration was trying to achieve, based on observable moves and market responses. Their subsequent actions and statements seemed to corroborate that interpretation. This post picks up from there—not to validate anyone—but to analyze how other countries are responding and what second- and third-order effects we’re seeing globally.
This is not about defending individuals. It’s about understanding how power moves, how systems react, and how policy actions—however chaotic or deliberate they may appear—shape the world we live in. As for America, I've written clearly here that I believe there are many points of concern and need for rapid action.
This is all excellent...in that the globalist agenda to force a one world government and divide the globe into regions is now unlikely to succeed. This is great for the Peoples of the World.
Appreciate your perspective on this situation. You are filling gaps for me.
Something to float: most all are saying the sudden imposition of 90 day delay is for the same reason that you assert. I would like to suggest the outside possibility that those nations that quickly came calling before that moment were the ones desired by the Administration for the future trade environment desired. They might have called the delay even if the treasuries were doing very fine.
We don't know what is planned for bilateral trade deals but my guess is that this will work out well for everyone....some things needed to be realigned.
Thank you—and I’m glad the post helped fill in some of the missing pieces. You're absolutely right that we can’t assume a single causal trigger for the 90-day delay. The Treasury signal was a key observable factor, but as you suggest, geopolitical sequencing and pre-negotiated alignments may also have shaped the timing.
We often over-index on crisis signals, when sometimes a pivot reflects who’s already engaged behind the scenes—who has shown willingness to move early, or who aligns with a long-term vision for trade diversification.
I don’t take a view on globalism vs. sovereignty, but I do believe we’re entering a phase where regional blocks, bilateral deals, and multi-alignment strategies will define trade—less hierarchy, more friction, and also, perhaps, more opportunity for resilience. Will be exploring all that in upcoming posts.
"The President’s skill at “the art of the deal” will doubtless secure more equitable terms for the United States."
Doubtless is the wrong word to use here. This is still very much in doubt. Having a hard time finding any evidence of a single scenario that has more equitable terms as a result of Trump's dealmaking.
Corrected the framing. I do think they'll secure it for some key sectors such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals etc. But yes, let's see. Data from the last round of tariffs is telling. I'll be sharing it in my post on the US soon.
Some Republicans are up in arms about the tariffs. These are also the one's who might be the most recalcitrant to support the big budget package. Do you wonder if Trump might be setting up to back off tariffs in exchange for support of the budget bill? He manufactured something they don't like and will then trade it to get something he wants.
That’s a sharp read—and it’s certainly plausible- but I don't know for sure. We’ve seen in past cycles that leverage often comes from manufacturing friction, only to resolve it through negotiation. Whether tariffs were designed for that purpose or became useful as such, they’ve clearly created pressure points.
The link between yield sensitivity, Congressional timing, and budget reconciliation suggests there’s more than just trade policy at play here—it’s a layered domestic play as much as an international one.
It’s in almost everyone’s interest if trade is diversified away from China. That’s bad for China, but inevitable. It’s also good that Europe is finally taking responsibility for its own defense.
Yes but Europe and China are drawing closer.
Europe is not an ally. We should leave NATO and let it fend for itself. They mostly hate the US anyway. Japan, India, South Korea...those are better allies. They like us. The Europeans can't stop complaining about us "ugly Americans."
Maybe. But the Chinese are like the Borg - assimilation is the only option they offer. I think (hope!) Europe realizes that.
A kind review of a bloody faceplant by the White House economic team.
Full-on trade war against China. Complete with the time honored deal-making tactic of insulting the commercial partners without whom your economy collapses. VP calling the Chinese peasants. Prez accusing EVERY trade partner of the US of lying and cheating. Prez saying mid sized countries have no choice but to "kiss my ass" - in his exact words.
It did not have to be overtly hostile with China. It could've been a slow and quite comfortable transition to multipolarity. Instead, US faces a supply shock, and China faces a complementary demand shock. One of those you can fix by massaging financial markets, the other you can't.
And so, inflation and mass austerity is the mildest potential outcome for the US here, and again that's if the current policymakers play it with finesse, and greed doesn't get the better of their political coalition - smth we haven't seen even once from this cohort.
You’ve captured the disturbing déjà vu of today’s trade rhetoric. It’s disturbing how rapidly we’ve deteriorated from optimism to old world style protectionism - and how casually economic pain is brushed aside in favor of political oneupmanship . Thanks for the sharp analysis, Tanvi.
Thank you—I appreciate your thoughtful reading. What I’m aiming to track is not so much the tone of the rhetoric, but the material shifts happening underneath: how markets, alliances, and state strategies are recalibrating in response.
Whether the return to tariffs is seen as protectionism or realignment, the structural consequences are measurable—and in some cases, quite different from previous cycles. That’s where I’ll continue to focus. Thanks again for engaging with the work.
Excellent, insightful work!
Is it possible to simplify the narrative for a lay investor? Will the US treasury continue to be a good stable investment for seniors or is it going to be as volatile as the stock markets? My mom can’t afford a great loss of her retirement at 89 years old - thx
Excellent assessment. The US is still the driver in so many ways, yet to openness now should rebalance trade in general to be fairer for everyone. Coming out of WW2, it was important for the US to have low tariffs to help other countries recover quicker. The rebalance is long over due.