Could Oval Office madness be part of a bigger plan?
The U.S. is a flawed country, but many believe, as the New York Times’s David Brooks noted, is fundamentally a force for good. Citing the Marshall Plan, the defeat of fascism, and the defeat of the Soviet Union, as examples, and acknowledging Iraq and Vietnam, as mistakes of stupidity, naïveté and arrogance, Brooks believes the U.S. has always been well-intentioned.
However, he is on the record now as saying, that in the last six weeks, the U.S. is now behaving vilely – towards its friends in Europe, Canada and Mexico, and reaching the bottom of the barrel, towards Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a man widely described as one defending western values, at significant personal risk to himself and his country.
On the other hand, Brooks describes Trump as a man who, alongside Putin, is a believer in “might makes right”, remoulding a world safe for gangsters and the U.S. towards which Brooks feels shame.
Witness Trump’s bluster about buying Greenland, turning Gaza into a seaside resort, and changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Each is designed to flex the commander-in-chief’s lead on foreign policy, which Trump appears to have weaponised.
Before proceeding, it is helpful to remember that the U.S.’s ‘might’ since the end of WWII has meant that most Americans today don’t care about foreign policy as much as Australians do, not unless it impacts their personal lives, for example, through the price of oil.
After watching the reported train wreck and blatant set-up that was JD Vance and Trump’s entrapment, gaslighting and grifting of Zelenskyy at the White House Oval Office last week, it’s easy to quickly agree with Brooks and believe that Trump is a transactional businessman whose attempts to ‘commercialise’ the U.S. government fundamentally ignores the primary role of that government – to do things that are uncommercial.
Anyone who watched the ambush of Zelenskyy in the “cherished” Oval Office, would conclude the meeting represented the first giant fissure in the long-held assumption that U.S. foreign policy always supported its allies in the defence of liberal, democratic values, and stood with them against autocrats and the aggressive imperialism exemplified by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.
As Foreign Policy noted recently, “Most of what he [Trump] says and does is subordinated and tethered to his vanities, designed to buck up his image, boost his political and financial interests, or cultivate his pet projects, peeves, and festering grievances.”
Closer to home, Paul Kelly at The Australian, noted Trump’s comment that Ukraine “may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday,” adding that Trump aims “to weaken Ukraine, discredit Zelensky, blame Zelensky for anything that goes wrong and impose a peace without any U.S. security guarantee, a peace that manifestly cannot endure.”
But what if there is a method to the apparent madness displayed at the Oval Office?
In a March 4 article in The Australian, long-time financial commentary peer and co-presenter at several conferences and client events over the decades, Bob Gottliebsen, suggested there may indeed be a master plan.
Gottliebsen’s article argues the confrontation, orchestrated by Vice President JD Vance, reflects a significant decline in U.S. military dominance relative to China, which has invested heavily in technology while the U.S. has been bogged down in prolonged conflicts over many decades, including Vietnam and Afghanistan. Gottliebsen suggests that China’s naval and air power now rivals or surpasses that of the U.S., a message underscored by China’s unopposed military drills near, and circumnavigation of, Australia.
Gottliebsen suggests the U.S., under Trump and Vance, has prioritised the Middle East and the Pacific over Ukraine, viewing the latter as a European issue. Significantly, this strategic pivot is driven by the realisation that the U.S. is, first, unable to sustain multiple simultaneous conflicts, and second, needs Russian cooperation in the Middle East, particularly to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and influence.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s foreign policy also emphasises actions that directly benefit U.S. interests, a principle evident in the proposed Ukraine peace settlement tied to rare earth production – an area where the U.S. seeks to reduce reliance on China.
For Australia, Gottliebsen warns of the risk of focusing too narrowly on the Oval Office chess move without grasping the longer and larger game plan.
Indeed, now that Europe has indicated a willingness to materially increase its aid in support of defending Ukraine, Trump might see repairing ties with Zelensky as a path to securing the minerals agreement, claiming a personal vindication that his ‘America first’ approach pushed Europeans to take more defence responsibility.
For those who still hope for a different and more empathetic approach, one must concede the subdued and cowed Republicans and weakened Democrats will be unable to shift Trump’s course. And whatever you think of the tactical differences, there’s broad bipartisan agreement in the U.S. on issues like China, Iran, and Israel, and little pushback, for example, to resume foreign aid.
The bewildering events in the Oval Office may indeed be more than mere chaos or a reflection of Trump’s personal whims they could signal a calculated, if controversial, recalibration of the U.S.’s global role. As Gottliebsen posits, the ambush of Zelenskyy and the apparent sidelining of Ukraine might reflect a pragmatic, albeit ruthless, strategy to conserve U.S. resources for looming confrontations with China and challenges in the Middle East, and leveraging Russia as a counterweight to Iran.
This shift, cloaked in Trump’s bombast and transactional flair, challenges the post-WWII narrative of the U.S. as a steadfast champion of liberal democracy, leaving allies like Australia to ponder our place in a world where U.S. might is redeployed with narrower, self-interested precision.
For investors, the question to ask is whether this gambit succeeds or unravels into further instability. Either way, it underscores a sobering reality: the Oval Office’s current occupant is playing a high-stakes game, one where traditional alliances and values may be bargaining chips rather than bedrock principles.
For better or worse, the madness may indeed have a method – one that history will ultimately judge.
Roger Montgomery is the Founder and Chairman of Montgomery Investment Management. Roger has over three decades of experience in funds management and related activities, including equities analysis, equity and derivatives strategy, trading and stockbroking. Prior to establishing Montgomery, Roger held positions at Ord Minnett Jardine Fleming, BT (Australia) Limited and Merrill Lynch.
This post was contributed by a representative of Montgomery Investment Management Pty Limited (AFSL No. 354564). The principal purpose of this post is to provide factual information and not provide financial product advice. Additionally, the information provided is not intended to provide any recommendation or opinion about any financial product. Any commentary and statements of opinion however may contain general advice only that is prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial circumstances or needs. Because of this, before acting on any of the information provided, you should always consider its appropriateness in light of your personal objectives, financial circumstances and needs and should consider seeking independent advice from a financial advisor if necessary before making any decisions. This post specifically excludes personal advice.
