London — US President Donald Trump’s address to the United Nations earlier this week was striking for its bluntness. From accusing the UN of failing to “solve any problems” to declaring that parts of Europe are “going to hell” because of green-energy and immigration policies, Trump offered a combative, headline-grabbing performance rather than a conventional diplomatic speech.
Historically, the UN General Assembly has not been a venue for a head of state to publicly scold peers or disparage predecessors’ domestic choices. Yet given the tone of Trump’s first eight months back in office, the bluntness came as little surprise. Commentators noted the address sounded less like foreign policy and more like a speech aimed at the president’s domestic base — boasting about immigration crackdowns, touting his economic record, and framing the U.S. as uniquely embattled and exceptional. The mood echoed other recent interventions by hardline U.S. voices, such as J. D. Vance’s criticism of Europe at the Munich Security Conference.
Trump’s presidency has already reshaped global politics — most visibly through tariffs and abrupt policy shifts that have strained long-standing alliances. Relations between Washington and New Delhi have cooled in part because of such unpredictability: punitive tariffs imposed on India for continuing to purchase Russian oil have undermined years of carefully built goodwill. In his UN speech Trump also singled out India and China as major financiers of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, while blaming NATO members for what he called self-defeating funding of the war.
At heart, Trump’s foreign policy often reads like a businessman’s playbook — transactional, skeptical of multilateral institutions, and focused on perceived short-term gains. His criticism of entities like the UN and NATO (praising NATO only when members increase defense spending) underscores his preference for an international order that he judges by how “fair” it is to American interests.
With the era of uncontested U.S. hegemony waning, the global system is becoming multipolar. For India, this is a moment to recommit to strategic hedging. Recent engagements — notably Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in late August — signalled New Delhi’s intent to assert autonomy rather than align reflexively with any single power bloc.
Mechanisms such as the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral remain motivated by mutual interest rather than by a shared ideological project, and should not be mistaken for a full-scale alternative to the U.S.-led Western order. Still, the present juncture offers India a chance to recalibrate: to preserve strategic space, deepen diverse partnerships, and protect its interests amid shifting power equations.
India’s long-term affinities with the United States endure even if ties with the current U.S. administration are tense. Navigating this period will be delicate: short-term frictions are manageable, but they require skillful diplomacy. The foreign policy being fashioned on the world stage today is increasingly transactional, shaped by rhetoric and posture as much as by policy. For countries like India, cautious, interest-based engagement — maintaining relationships without burning bridges — will be essential to survive and thrive in an era of overlapping crises and competing powers.
If there is one constant about Donald Trump, it is his unpredictability. In a world where diplomacy is changing fast, India’s best course is pragmatic hedging: protect national interests, engage broadly, and avoid being drawn into zero-sum choices that could limit New Delhi’s options in the years ahead.
With inputs from IANS
