Global Trade at a Crossroads: Tariffs, Turmoil, and Trajectory (2025-2026)
.png)
Introduction
The mid-2020s have witnessed an upheaval in the global trading system unlike any in recent memory. A cascade of protectionist tariffs, geopolitical conflicts, and economic power plays has reshaped trade flows across every continent. From South America’s political strife (the long-running Venezuelan crisis and potential regime-change scenarios in Colombia and Mexico) to a shock “Greenland scenario” threatening the transatlantic alliance, and from tariff wars that span the U.S., China, EU, India, and Africa to emerging new trade blocs, the world finds itself in uncharted territory. The ripple effects of these events are transforming global commerce – not merely from a U.S.-centered view, but in a truly worldwide sense.
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of global trade and geopolitics, incorporating recent data and developments up to early 2026. We will examine what the recent tariffs and trade barriers have actually done – their impact on economies and trade patterns – and the momentum and trajectory they have set in motion for the coming years. Each major region’s experience (Africa, China, India, the European Union, Latin America, etc.) will be discussed to assemble a full picture of the changing global landscape. In conclusion, we will draw on these insights to outline the “path” that global trade seems to be following (akin to a Lagrangian analysis of the system’s direction) and the “swings” or volatility it is experiencing (a Hamiltonian perspective on cyclical dynamics), giving a sense of where the data is heading and how wild the ride may become.
The New Era of Trade Wars and Tariffs
2025 ushered in a dramatic escalation of trade barriers that reversed decades of trade liberalization. On April 2, 2025 – dubbed “Liberation Day” by Washington – the United States launched the most sweeping tariff barrage in a century[1][2]. Under the new Trump administration, tariffs were reset and raised to levels not seen since the 1930s. In a matter of weeks, the U.S. weighted-average tariff rate surged from around 2% at the start of 2025 to over 20% by mid-April, the highest in 100 years[3]. Virtually all major trading partners were hit with new import duties. For example, the European Union was slapped with a 20% tariff on its exports to the U.S., justified by Washington with claims of an imbalanced trade relationship[4]. China, already under heavy U.S. tariffs from the earlier trade war, saw additional measures; Beijing in turn retaliated with draconian counter-tariffs – imposing 125% duties on U.S. goods, effectively pricing them out of the Chinese market[3].
These moves amounted to a global trade war. American tariffs targeted friend and foe alike: besides China and the EU, countries from India and Brazil to Vietnam and Turkey found themselves in the crosshairs. The World Trade Organization’s monitoring report shows an unprecedented surge in new trade restrictions during this period. Between October 2024 and October 2025, the value of world imports affected by new import tariffs quadrupled to $2.64 trillion, covering 11.1% of global goods imports[5][6]. This was “the highest coverage in over 15 years” of WTO tracking[5]. Nearly one-fifth of world imports are now encumbered by post-2009 tariffs or similar measures – up sharply from about 12.6% just a year earlier[7]. In the words of WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, “the sharp jump in trade coverage of tariffs reflects the increased protectionism we have seen since the start of the year.”[8]
Figure:
WTO data show a sharp increase in the trade coverage of new
import-restrictive measures in 2025, reflecting a wave of tariff
hikes. Nearly $2.64 trillion in world imports (about 11% of the
total) were affected by new tariffs in the year through Oct 2025 –
more than four times the amount in the previous year[5][6].
Meanwhile, many countries also introduced trade-facilitating measures
on other fronts to mitigate disruption.
The United States’ use of tariffs as a foreign policy tool in 2025 was explicit. U.S. officials framed the tariff hikes as “reciprocal” pressure to correct trade deficits and as leverage to achieve strategic aims[9][10]. One striking example was an Executive Order threatening 25% tariffs on all U.S. imports from any country that buys Venezuelan oil, a sanction aimed at strangling the Maduro regime’s revenue[11][12]. This measure – announced in March 2025 – meant that countries from Asia to Europe had to think twice about purchasing Venezuelan crude or face steep U.S. tariffs on their exports[13]. The trade war thus expanded into a tool of geopolitical coercion, blurring lines between trade policy and sanctions.
Other major economies responded in various ways. China, as noted, retaliated in kind with extremely high tariffs on U.S. goods[3]. It also began to “weaponise” critical exports, restricting shipments of certain minerals and components vital to Western industries as a form of pressure[14][15]. (We will explore this further in the China section.) U.S. allies and partners were caught off guard – many chose negotiation over retaliation. In fact, over 75 countries promptly offered to negotiate bilateral deals with Washington to escape the harshest tariffs[3]. This frenetic deal-making reflected a global scramble to reroute trade flows and supply chains in the wake of U.S. measures.
For example, Vietnam, which had been a big winner from the earlier U.S.-China trade war, suddenly found itself targeted by a hefty U.S. tariff due to its burgeoning surplus. Vietnam’s exports to the U.S. had surged as companies relocated production from China to Vietnam, giving Hanoi a $100+ billion trade surplus with America[16]. The U.S. reacted by slapping a punitive tariff (reportedly 46% initially) on Vietnamese goods during the April 2025 “Liberation Day” round[17]. After urgent talks, a deal was struck to reduce the tariff to 20% in exchange for Vietnam opening its market more to U.S. products[18]. Yet, despite the tariffs, Vietnam’s exports to the U.S. still jumped 28% in 2025, and its U.S. trade surplus hit a record $134 billion[19][20]. Vietnam’s economy grew over 8% that year on the back of export gains[21], illustrating how trade diversion can undermine the intent of tariffs. Much of what Vietnam sells to the U.S. includes Chinese-made components – indeed, Vietnam’s imports from China also hit an all-time high of $186 billion in 2025[22][23] – so Beijing in effect still reaches the U.S. consumer indirectly. The tariffs’ unintended effect was to inflate Vietnam’s surplus and shift the imbalance elsewhere, prompting Washington to consider even higher “transshipment” tariffs (40%) on goods it suspects are just Chinese products routed through third countries[18].
Around the world, similar patterns emerged. Multinational businesses began reconfiguring supply chains at a frantic pace to adapt to the new tariff walls. This often meant “friend-shoring” or moving production to countries not (yet) tariff-targeted. In theory, such moves were meant to mitigate risk; in practice, they created new imbalances and uncertainties. Some developing nations benefited in the short term – e.g., Indonesia and Mexico saw upticks in orders as companies sought alternatives to Chinese suppliers. But those gains proved fragile whenever U.S. attention turned their way (as with Vietnam). Many companies have set up “geopolitical nerve centers” to monitor trade policy changes and coordinate rapid responses[24]. The level of radical uncertainty for businesses is unlike anything in recent decades[25][24]. Decision-makers must now consider not just costs and efficiency, but also the geopolitical orientation of supplier countries and the risk of sudden tariffs or export bans that could upend their operations[26][27].
From a macroeconomic perspective, the tariff barrages are having predictable effects. In the United States, inflation jumped about 1% due to higher import prices, and GDP growth took a hit of a few tenths of a percent in 2025[28][29]. A Peterson Institute analysis in late 2025 projected that the existing U.S. tariffs would trim U.S. GDP growth by 0.23 percentage points in 2025 and 0.62 points in 2026, compared to baseline[28]. While not enough to cause a recession by themselves, these tariffs are permanently reallocating resources: jobs shift out of trade-exposed manufacturing, mining, and agriculture into other sectors at lower wages, and investment in affected industries slows down[30][31]. American durable goods manufacturing employment, for instance, was projected to fall as export orders decline and capital spending retreats[30][32]. Ironically, even as some jobs “come back” due to reshoring, other jobs are lost due to retaliation and higher costs – a complex churn that displaces workers and raises consumer prices. The intended goal of these tariffs – reducing the U.S. trade deficit – has not been convincingly achieved, as trade balances respond more to macroeconomic forces (savings and investment shifts) than to tariffs[10]. In fact, the U.S. trade deficit in goods persisted, and on services the U.S. remains in surplus; tariffs mainly reshuffled who the U.S. buys from rather than bringing manufacturing home en masse.
Globally, the WTO economists noted an intriguing trend: world trade volume actually grew faster than expected in the first half of 2025 (by some estimates, +2.4% for the year 2025) as companies front-loaded imports ahead of tariff implementation and rerouted goods to avoid barriers[33]. For example, European and Asian firms rushed to ship products before U.S. duties kicked in, temporarily boosting trade volumes. There was also strong demand for certain goods like semiconductors and AI-related products, which kept trade flowing despite frictions[33]. However, this is seen as a one-off spurt. The WTO forecasts global trade growth to collapse to only +0.5% in 2026, far below global GDP growth, as the full impact of the tariff walls is felt over a full year[33]. In other words, the momentum is toward stagnation in trade: the world is essentially de-globalizing or “slowbalizing,” with trade growing barely, if at all, in the coming year. Early signs of this appeared in late 2025 as inventories adjusted and some trade routes dried up; 2026 is expected to bring that reckoning.
Importantly, not all trade actions were destructive. The WTO report also highlights that many countries introduced trade-facilitating measures covering ~$2.1 trillion in trade at the same time (often through new bilateral agreements or tariff exemptions)[34][35]. In fact, the value of trade covered by liberalizing or simplifying measures in 2024-25 was greater than that covered by restrictions[34][35]. This paradoxical mix shows a world trying to reorganize trade rather than simply halt it. Some nations formed or revived free trade agreements in reaction to the U.S. moves – for instance, there were accelerated talks on mega-deals like the EU-Mercosur agreement and various Indo-Pacific partnerships, as well as African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) implementation (discussed later). The tone of global trade governance is shifting from broad multilateral rules to ad-hoc, power-based bargaining. The WTO’s rules-based system, epitomized by its dispute settlement mechanism, is hanging by a thread (the Appellate Body remains defunct). In 2025 Europe’s faith in the WTO’s global rules began to “crack,” even as Brussels clung publicly to the ideal of multilateralism[36]. We now see trade being used overtly as a “tool to force politics”, as one European Commissioner lamented[37]. This is the new normal: tariffs and trade policy are not just about economics, but about strategic advantage, coercion, and survival in a more fractious world.
Geopolitical Shockwaves: Regime Change and Conflict Scenarios
Trade disruptions in the 2020s have been compounded by geopolitical turmoil. In some cases, the geopolitical events themselves directly target trade (as with sanctions or blockades); in others, they create instability that indirectly affects economic relationships. Here we examine two major arenas of instability – the Americas (with a focus on Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico) and the extraordinary situation unfolding around Greenland – and assess their implications for global trade.
South America in Turmoil: Venezuela’s Long Crisis and Beyond
Venezuela has been a flashpoint in the Western Hemisphere for years, given its collapse into economic ruin and authoritarian rule. By the mid-2020s, Venezuela’s oil production and economy were a fraction of their former size, yet the regime of Nicolás Maduro persisted through a combination of repression and external support. The U.S. had imposed heavy sanctions on Caracas since 2017, seeking regime change via economic pressure. In late 2023, there were some tentative talks (the U.S. even eased a few oil sanctions to allow limited exports[38]), but no fundamental breakthrough occurred. When the Trump administration took office in January 2025, it swiftly took a more confrontational stance. In an unprecedented move, the U.S. apparently undertook a military-intelligence operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in late 2025[39]. This operation – essentially a forced regime change – shocked the world. While details remain classified, credible reports indicate that Maduro was arrested by U.S. forces (or local proxies supported by the U.S.) and removed from power[39][40]. “I foresee no fighting, nothing like we saw in Venezuela,” a European analyst remarked in early 2026 about the Greenland situation, explicitly referencing the recent U.S. operation in Venezuela[41][39]. This confirms that significant conflict did occur in Venezuela during Maduro’s ouster, though it was short-lived.
The ouster of Maduro marked a new phase in Latin America. Washington proclaimed it a victory for democracy and human rights, though the means were extra-legal. Trump officials cast it as the return of the Monroe Doctrine, rebranded informally as the “Donroe Doctrine” (Donald Trump’s Monroe Doctrine)[42]. This doctrine asserts U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere – no longer just to ward off outside powers, but also to directly remove regimes deemed hostile to U.S. interests[42]. In practice, this U.S. intervention has “posed a threat to regional sovereignty” and set a precedent that major powers can unilaterally topple foreign leaders[42][43]. Analysts have noted with concern that such a precedent could be cited by Russia or China to justify their own interventions in their neighborhoods (for instance, Russia’s aggression in Ukraine or a hypothetical China move on Taiwan)[43]. The geopolitical norms against territorial or regime aggression have clearly eroded.
For Venezuela’s economy and trade, Maduro’s removal offers a double-edged prospect. In the optimistic scenario, a transitional government (possibly involving opposition leader María Corina Machado, whom the U.S. favors[44]) will restore democratic institutions and eventually hold free elections. This could lead the U.S. and others to lift sanctions and encourage investment in Venezuela’s oil sector. Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves; if political conditions stabilize, production could ramp up over the long term, re-integrating Venezuela into global oil markets. Indeed, U.S. officials signaled that if a credible transition is underway, sanctions relief would follow, allowing Venezuelan crude to flow legally to markets (which would help global supply and potentially lower oil prices). However, the short-term reality is turbulent. Even after Maduro’s “fall,” the socialist ruling party (PSUV), military elites, and armed colectivos might not simply disappear. One scenario is a negotiated arrangement where elements of the regime cooperate with the U.S. agenda in exchange for amnesty or power-sharing[45]. Another scenario is continued resistance: if parts of the military or militias refuse to concede, the U.S. might have to “carry out additional interventions on Venezuelan territory” to enforce the transition[46]. As of early 2026, Caracas was under tight security but relatively calm, with no large-scale civil war – suggesting that a measure of control has been established[47]. Millions of Venezuelans who fled the humanitarian crisis have a glimmer of hope that they might someday return home if the country stabilizes[48].
Neighboring countries are directly affected by Venezuela’s situation. In Colombia, which hosts nearly 3 million Venezuelan refugees, the removal of Maduro was met with a mix of relief and caution. On one hand, Colombian exporters see opportunity in a recovering Venezuela: Colombia’s exports to Venezuela were over $6 billion at their 2008 peak (16% of Colombia’s total exports), but had collapsed to just $1 billion by 2024 amidst Venezuela’s meltdown[49]. A Venezuela open to business could again become a major market for Colombia’s agriculture, consumer goods, and services, providing a significant economic boost[49]. (Though a sudden surge in Venezuelan demand could also stoke inflation in Colombia, as happened in the past when Venezuelans shopped across the border[50].) Additionally, a regime change in Caracas weakens Venezuela’s regional allies like Cuba and Nicaragua, potentially reducing subsidized oil to those countries and isolating their economies[51]. This may shift Latin America’s political balance rightward, as already seen with recent leadership changes in countries like Argentina and the public sentiment in Chile[51].
However, security risks abound. Colombian insurgent groups (ELN guerrillas and FARC dissidents) that had been sheltered in Venezuela may now be flushed back into Colombia[52]. Colombian forces see a chance to target these groups as they lose their Venezuelan haven, but in the interim Colombia could face an upsurge in violence and displacement in border areas[52][53]. Moreover, the drug trade routes may shift: for years, traffickers used Venezuela as a corridor for Colombian cocaine to exit to overseas markets. With that corridor tightening, narco-networks may re-route through the Pacific (e.g., via Ecuador or Central America) or the Caribbean, altering the patterns of illicit trade and possibly sparking turf wars in those new routes[54]. This has implications for maritime trade security and law enforcement in the region.
Meanwhile, Colombia’s own politics have been thrown into turmoil by the specter of U.S. intervention. Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, is a leftist who has had a wary relationship with Trump. In late 2025, tensions spiked: Trump reportedly called Petro “a sick man who likes to manufacture cocaine and sell it to the US” and ominously quipped “he’s not going to be doing it for long,” even saying a U.S. operation in Colombia “sounds good to me”[55][56]. Such rhetoric – effectively threatening regime change in Colombia – is unprecedented in modern U.S.-Colombia relations. It prompted backlash across Colombia’s political spectrum, including from conservatives, affirming national sovereignty and warning the U.S. to back off[55][56]. Petro is unpopular domestically (approval under 40%) and faces a tough 2026 re-election environment, but he is democratically elected and not accused of international crimes[57]. Even many who oppose Petro internally do not want foreign military intervention, which would gravely destabilize Colombia[56][58]. An outright U.S. invasion or “extraction” of Petro (Maduro-style) is thus considered highly unlikely and would lack support in Colombia[56][58]. The U.S. could, however, exert other pressures – for instance, revoking visas (indeed, news emerged that the U.S. revoked Petro’s diplomatic visa after combative U.N. speeches[59]) or cutting aid. Any serious clash between the U.S. and Colombia would jeopardize the extensive trade ties under the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement and disrupt cooperation in areas like drug interdiction and energy. It remains a fragile situation, with Colombia’s 2026 election looming as a moment that could either ease tensions (if a more U.S.-friendly leader wins) or escalate them (if Petro’s camp retains power and relations sour further).
What about Mexico, another country hinted in the prompt as a regime-change target? Mexico is the U.S.’s largest trading partner (recently surpassing China for the top spot in total trade with the U.S.), tightly bound by the USMCA trade agreement. Under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and now his successor (who won the 2024 election), Mexico has been cooperative with the U.S. in some areas (migration control) but assertive in others (energy policy, not aligning with U.S. sanctions on certain countries). Some U.S. political voices have agitated for treating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations and even using U.S. force in Mexico to combat them – a proposition the Mexican government strongly rejects as a violation of sovereignty. In this scenario-driven environment, one could imagine a major crisis if Washington attempted armed operations on Mexican soil against cartels or pushed for a political ouster. The consequences for trade would be immediate and dire: U.S.-Mexico trade (over $700 billion a year) would face chaos. Cross-border supply chains (from automobiles to electronics assembled in Mexico) would be snarled if border security breaks down or if sanctions hit Mexico. Even aggressive tariffs as a coercive measure – something President Trump threatened in the past over immigration – could return. For instance, a 2025-style blanket tariff would devastate sectors like the Mexican auto industry that rely on U.S. exports. Mexico’s economy would likely plunge, sending shockwaves to U.S. consumers (who rely on Mexican-made goods and produce) and potentially driving more migrant flows north. Thus, any U.S.-forced “regime change” in Mexico is viewed as a highly destabilizing black swan event. While not currently unfolding (relations have been strained but not broken), the mere possibility adds a layer of uncertainty that businesses and neighboring countries (Canada, Central America) must factor in.
In summary, the Western Hemisphere is experiencing a revival of interventionism that many thought was consigned to Cold War history. The U.S. “Monroe Doctrine 2.0” approach has removed one government (Venezuela’s) and rattled others. In economic terms, this raises both opportunities and risks. Freed of Maduro’s mismanagement, Venezuela could eventually rejoin the oil trade and even re-engage in regional commerce (benefiting neighbors like Colombia and Brazil). But the short-term instability is keeping investors away for now and requires humanitarian aid for Venezuela’s population. The aggressive U.S. stance also forces Latin American nations to calculate political risk: aligning with Washington could bring trade favors (the U.S. might offer preferential deals or exemptions from tariffs to friendly governments), whereas defiance could mean being shut out of the U.S. market or worse. This dynamic may push some countries to tilt their foreign policy. For instance, Brazil under President Lula has tried to maintain neutrality, engaging with both the U.S. and China and advocating non-interference; however, if U.S. influence grows in the region, Brazil might face pressure to pick sides, affecting its trade (Brazil has profited from selling soy, corn, and beef to both China and the U.S., and recently saw a negative impact from U.S. tariffs in 2025 when some of its goods got caught in the American protectionist net[60]).
Finally, it’s worth noting that global sentiment toward these U.S. actions is mixed. Many democracies in Europe and Asia are uncomfortable with the precedent of forcible regime change, even if they disliked Maduro. At the same time, the alternative (a failed petro-state allied with Russia and China) was also problematic. So we see cautious support for a democratic transition in Venezuela, but also a clear message: don’t make this a habit. The world’s reaction to any further U.S. interventions (e.g., if the U.S. were to engage militarily in Cuba, Nicaragua, or elsewhere) would likely be far more negative, potentially splintering U.S. alliances. In essence, the Western Hemisphere’s upheaval is a reminder that political stability is a precondition for stable trade – and right now stability is not assured.
The Greenland Flashpoint and a Transatlantic Economic Crisis
Perhaps the most unexpected geopolitical twist of the 2020s has been the Greenland saga. What started years ago as a seemingly whimsical idea – the U.S. expressing interest in buying Greenland from Denmark – has escalated under the Trump administration into a serious point of contention. Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, is strategically located in the Arctic with abundant natural resources (including rare earth minerals and potential oil/gas) and important U.S. military assets (Thule Air Base, now Pituffik Space Force Base) on its soil[61][62].
In 2025, President Trump renewed rhetoric that “Greenland should be part of the U.S.”, doubling down on claims that Denmark’s control is an accident of history that can be corrected[63]. What truly alarmed observers was that by late 2025, officials in Washington refused to rule out military action to achieve this goal[64][65]. The White House Press Secretary (Karoline Leavitt) went on record saying “utilizing the U.S. military is always an option… for accomplishing this important foreign policy goal”[64][65]. This stark statement sent shockwaves through European capitals. In early January 2026, the leaders of several major European nations issued a joint statement insisting on respect for Greenland’s sovereignty[64]. Denmark has been scrambling diplomatically, making it clear that any attack on Greenland would be treated as an attack on Denmark – and thus trigger NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause, since Denmark is a NATO member. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen bluntly warned that a U.S. assault on Greenland “would bring about the end of the alliance.”[66][67] In other words, NATO – the cornerstone of Western security for 75 years – could fracture irrevocably if the U.S. moves on Greenland.
European analysts generally do not believe the U.S. will actually invade Denmark’s territory – calling a military scenario “unlikely” – but after witnessing Venezuela, they cannot be entirely sure[68][69]. As one expert noted, “all of a sudden, [Trump’s] desire to acquire Greenland… is becoming more plausible or realistic,” even if through non-military means[70]. The U.S. seems to be pursuing a dual-track approach: negotiation and covert influence in Greenland’s domestic affairs on one hand, while keeping a military “option on the table” as leverage[71][72]. Reports emerged that the U.S. has operatives and influence campaigns in Greenland aimed at swaying public opinion toward either independence (with an eye to eventual U.S. affiliation) or a U.S. presence[72]. This recalls Cold War tactics, except now the adversary from Europe’s view is the U.S. itself, not Russia or China.
If – in the worst case – Washington “defies expectations” (to quote one analyst) “as it did in Venezuela” and actually orders a military takeover of Greenland, what would ensue?[69] Two European security experts noted that militarily, the U.S. would certainly prevail quickly – “there’s only one outcome if the U.S. is determined to use force,” given Greenland’s tiny population and Denmark’s limited ability to defend the island[73][74]. Denmark would be treaty-bound to resist, and perhaps might invite other NATO allies to pre-position troops on Greenland as a deterrent[75]. But no European force could stop a full-scale U.S. operation; some Danish officials deem reinforcing Greenland futile because it wouldn’t change the outcome against the U.S. military[76]. The result of an invasion would be less a military contest than a political earthquake: it would deliver a “fatal blow to NATO”, as one expert said, basically dissolving the alliance due to one ally attacking another[77]. The Atlantic Council (a prominent think tank) even declared that “NATO enters 2026 facing what could become the worst crisis of its existence,” given this unprecedented rift[78].
The economic fallout of such a rupture would be immense. NATO’s breakup or paralysis would destroy a lot of trust between the U.S. and Europe. One could easily imagine the EU responding to a U.S. annexation of Greenland with severe sanctions against the U.S. (though sanctioning the world’s largest economy is a nuclear option that would hurt Europe too). At minimum, Europe would distance itself and could pursue closer ties with other powers (perhaps accelerating trade talks with China or embracing more autonomy). Transatlantic trade, which is currently one of the largest commercial relationships globally, would suffer. Already in 2025, U.S.-EU trade ties were strained by tariffs; an outright political breach might mean tariffs or embargoes going to near-total levels. European public opinion would likely demand reducing reliance on an America seen as aggressive – for example, EU countries might push to “buy European” in defense and tech rather than American. The U.S. dollar’s standing could even be dented if geopolitical rivalry led the EU to promote the euro or alternative payment systems to reduce exposure to U.S. financial leverage.
Even short of invasion, the Greenland standoff is chilling the business climate. Companies are afraid of what a NATO crisis could mean: will there be new export controls or investment restrictions between the U.S. and EU? Could projects in the Arctic be subject to sabotage or conflict? Insurance costs for shipping through Arctic routes might spike if military tensions rise. Greenland itself is rich in rare earth metals, uranium, and other minerals that are critical in high-tech supply chains. Currently, Chinese and other firms have shown interest in mining there. If the U.S.-Denmark dispute escalates, development of those resources could be delayed or rerouted. The U.S. might insist on exclusive access, while Europe would seek alternatives (perhaps increasing efforts to source rare earths from Africa or recycle them).
There is also a silver lining scenario: some argue that the U.S. could achieve its Arctic security aims without annexation, through enhanced cooperation. European allies have offered to “do all that is necessary to support [U.S.] military-strategic goals for the Arctic” so that the U.S. feels its security is assured without owning Greenland[79]. After all, the U.S. already has its Pituffik/Thule base in Greenland, a key node in missile warning and space surveillance[80]. NATO could conceivably establish a special Arctic defense arrangement, and investment could be jointly made in Greenland’s development so that the U.S. need not fear adversaries gaining a foothold there. Possession, as some in Europe point out, is “simply unnecessary” for the U.S. to get what it wants[79][81]. Indeed, currently the U.S. enjoys virtually all it needs: a strategic base and a friendly Danish ally. Annexation would bring international condemnation and possibly the loss of allied cooperation globally – a very costly trade-off for some additional resources that could arguably be accessed via peaceful investment.
At the time of writing (January 2026), cooler heads are working to forestall the Greenland crisis. Diplomats in Europe emphasize making the political costs to the U.S. very clear – essentially warning Washington that such an action would isolate it completely[82]. Within the U.S., there is opposition too: opinion polls show “virtually no Americans think it’s a good idea to take Greenland by force,” and even many Republican lawmakers have objected to the notion[83]. This domestic pushback might restrain the administration. Analysts noted that President Trump seems fascinated by a “spectacular” legacy move like Greenland, but if convinced he can negotiate a purchase or long-term lease instead, he may prefer a deal over war[84]. Negotiation and influence are indeed ongoing: some sources suggest informal offers (possibly in the form of financial packages or swap arrangements) have been floated to Denmark. For now, the situation is at an uneasy impasse – neither a renunciation of force by the U.S., nor any acquiescence by Denmark.
From a global trade perspective, the Greenland episode underscores an unsettling reality: even alliances that underpin trade can unravel. If NATO were to collapse over Greenland, the world would effectively lose its most powerful security umbrella, likely leading to arms races and regional blocs hardening. Trade thrives in stability; conflict and mistrust are anathema to the predictability that commerce needs. The mere prospect has Europe contemplating contingency plans: for instance, Europe has revived discussions on boosting defense spending collectively (instead of buying U.S. hardware) and ensuring energy and raw material supplies independent of unpredictable partners.
In summary, the Greenland saga, while seemingly an outlier, encapsulates the theme of the age: power politics intruding on economic order. A territory swap gone wrong could trigger realignments that affect where companies build factories, from whom countries buy fighter jets or 5G networks, and whether the Arctic becomes a new arena of cooperation or competition. It is a potent reminder that global trade is ultimately intertwined with geopolitics – and right now, that intertwining is creating knots that the world economy will struggle to untangle.
Regional Impacts and Responses
With the broad strokes of the tariff wars and geopolitical crises outlined, we now zoom in on how different regions of the world are navigating this tumultuous environment. Each region – Africa, China, India, Europe, and others – has its own economic dynamics and strategic responses, but all are influenced by the overarching trends of protectionism and great-power rivalry.
Africa: Unity and Opportunity Amidst Fragmentation
Africa enters this period as a vast continent of 1.3 billion people with enormous potential but significant vulnerabilities in global trade. Collectively, African nations account for only about 3% of world trade, and their economies have historically been dependent on commodity exports (oil, minerals, agricultural goods) while importing many manufactured products. This makes Africa sensitive to global growth swings and prices – for instance, when tariffs or slowdowns hit China or the West, demand for African raw materials can drop, impacting incomes.
In 2025, African economies were on a fragile post-COVID recovery, which has been clouded by rising global interest rates (increasing debt burdens) and now by global trade tensions[85]. The tariff wars among big economies indirectly affect Africa in multiple ways. On the downside, if the U.S., China, and EU are trading less with each other, African exporters might face a smaller external market or more volatile commodity prices. On the upside, Africa might become an alternative source or market in some supply chains: for example, if Western buyers seek to diversify from China, they might source more textiles or electronics assembly in countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, or Egypt (though this requires investment and capacity-building). Similarly, China, looking to hedge against U.S. tariffs, has been deepening trade ties with Africa – it is already Africa’s largest trading partner, and this relationship could strengthen further as China seeks friendly markets for its goods and secure sources for raw materials. Indeed, China-Africa trade hit record highs in recent years (over $250 billion), and initiatives like the Belt and Road have poured infrastructure funding into African ports, railways, and industrial parks, aiming to facilitate trade.
A key development within Africa is the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Launched in 2021, AfCFTA is the world’s largest free trade area by number of member countries (covering 54 African states). It aims to remove tariffs on 90% of intra-African goods, harmonize customs procedures, and boost intra-continental trade, which historically is very low (African countries trade far more with Europe or Asia than with each other). AfCFTA is widely seen as a “game changer for Africa’s long-term growth”, potentially adding $100+ billion to Africa’s GDP and increasing intra-African trade by 45% or more in the next two decades[86][87]. While full implementation will take time (tariff schedules are being phased in, and many non-tariff barriers persist), African leaders view AfCFTA as a buffer against external shocks. The U.N. Economic Commission for Africa noted in 2025 that in the short term, “the AfCFTA can help African industries threatened by rising international tariffs… accelerate their shift toward alternative regional markets.”[88] For instance, Africa has budding automotive assembly and fertilizer industries; if U.S./EU tariffs make it hard to export those products abroad, African producers could instead focus on selling within Africa, supported by AfCFTA’s lower intra-continental tariffs[88]. In effect, Africa is trying to reduce its reliance on external trade with powers embroiled in trade wars, by developing a robust internal market. This is analogous to import-substitution but on a continental scale – building regional value chains so that, for example, an African car can be made with steel from one country, batteries from another, assembled in a third, and sold across the union with minimal friction.
However, Africa faces hurdles in making this vision a reality. First, infrastructure deficits are significant – poor transport links, port capacity, and high logistics costs make intra-African trade expensive. Initiatives are underway (corridors, single African air transport market, etc.), but progress is incremental[89][90]. Second, African economies often produce similar commodities rather than complementary goods, leading to competition more than trade (e.g. many countries export coffee or cotton but import finished goods). Over time, industrialization could change this, but it’s a long game. Third, policy coordination is challenging: AfCFTA requires harmonizing regulations, standards, and even allowing free movement of people across borders[91][92]. Some nations are hesitant on these fronts. The vision of a “common African trade policy vis-à-vis other regions” is still aspirational[91] – but it’s being discussed as a way to increase bargaining power. If Africa can negotiate as a bloc, it might better resist being pressured by big powers. For instance, in response to U.S. and EU coercion, a united African stance could extract concessions or ensure African interests (like exemption of certain goods from tariffs, or continued access to finance).
In the current turmoil, Africa has in some ways become a battleground for influence. The U.S. is re-engaging Africa (e.g. the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in late 2022 pledged investments, and the U.S. is trying to counter Chinese and Russian influence in Africa). The EU has its “Global Gateway” initiative aiming to mobilize €300 billion for global infrastructure, with a focus on Africa, as a values-driven alternative to China’s Belt and Road. China, for its part, has deepened trade ties: it buys lots of African oil (from Angola, Nigeria), minerals (from D.R. Congo, Zambia), and also food products – interestingly, as China’s tariffs on U.S. agriculture bit, China looked more to African suppliers for soy and other crops (though Brazil remained a bigger replacement). India is also ramping up engagement with Africa, seeing it as both a source of raw materials and a market (India-Africa trade is around $90 billion and growing, plus India provides lines of credit and skill development).
Thus, Africa could potentially capitalize on East-West rivalries by attracting investment from all sides. For example, semiconductor supply chain shifts have led some to consider African countries (like Morocco or South Africa) for assembly or packaging plants with Western support, while China might invest in African manufacturing to circumvent Western import barriers. Commodity markets are another factor: African oil exporters benefited when prices spiked in 2022, but in 2025 prices fell ~18% due to oversupply[93], partly because of slowed global growth and more non-OPEC supply. Lower oil prices hurt big African producers (Nigeria, Angola) by cutting export revenue – illustrating how global economic swings due to trade wars or recessions feed back into African economies.
Finally, Africa’s internal political stability influences its trade. Unfortunately, recent years saw a string of coups in West Africa (Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, and in 2023 Niger and Gabon) which led to sanctions and disruptions in those regions. For instance, after the Niger coup, ECOWAS sanctions briefly restricted trade, impacting Nigerian and Beninese businesses. Sudan’s civil war (2023–) similarly disrupted trade flows along the Red Sea corridor and created a humanitarian crisis. These conflicts can be exacerbated by economic hardship if global conditions worsen. Conversely, peace deals – like Ethiopia’s end to its Tigray conflict – can reopen economies (Ethiopia is a land bridge for trade in the Horn of Africa).
In summary for Africa: The continent is striving to speak with one voice and trade more with itself to weather the storms of global trade fragmentation. AfCFTA’s success could cushion African countries against being collateral damage in others’ trade wars[88]. In the long run, a more integrated and industrialized Africa could even become a new engine of global trade growth – a huge emerging market for consumer goods and a youthful labor force for manufacturing. But in the immediate term, Africa remains largely an observer to the tariff tit-for-tat among giants, adapting where it can. The momentum is positive in terms of policy (AfCFTA implementation, economic reforms), but slow growth in major economies and financial strains (debt, climate change impacts) are strong headwinds. If global trade continues to splinter, African nations will need to lean even more on intra-continental commerce and South-South partnerships to sustain growth. This aligns with the continent’s long-term goals, but achieving it in the face of present challenges is the task at hand.
China: Adapting to Tariffs and Seeking New Trade Pathways
China, the world’s second-largest economy and trading powerhouse, sits at the center of the global trade storm. As the primary target of U.S. tariffs since 2018, China has been forced to rethink its export-led growth model and navigate a hostile international environment. By 2025, after years of trade war, China-U.S. decoupling had accelerated: bilateral trade is greatly reduced, especially U.S. imports of Chinese goods which are subject to tariffs averaging 20-25% (and even higher on specific categories). China’s response to the renewed American tariffs in 2025 was twofold: retaliate directly and redirect trade elsewhere.
On direct retaliation, Beijing imposed steep tariffs (up to 125%) on U.S. imports[3], essentially a continuation of its tit-for-tat policy. These tariffs, plus Chinese import bans on certain U.S. products (like an unofficial freeze on buying Boeing jets or curbs on U.S. agricultural goods), mean U.S. exports to China have slumped. U.S. companies in sectors from microchips to automobiles also face an increasingly challenging regulatory environment in China, sometimes as a form of retaliation (for instance, raids on U.S. consultancies in China, or enforcement of China’s anti-sanctions law).
However, the more significant shift has been China’s reorientation of its trade to other partners. In 2025, as U.S. tariffs bit, Chinese exports surprisingly hit record levels – but not to the U.S., rather to the rest of the world. China’s overall trade surplus soared to an unprecedented $1 trillion in 2025[94]. How? While exports to the U.S. dropped, exports to regions like Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa surged. Notably, Europe unwittingly became a relief valve for China: Chinese exports to the EU jumped ~15% from late 2024 to late 2025[95], reaching deep into European markets. In some EU countries (e.g. Italy), imports from China rose over 25%, grabbing a quarter of import market share[95]. This flood of Chinese goods – everything from electronics and machinery to electric vehicles – has been dubbed the “second China shock” in Europe[96][97]. Europe, still committed to relatively open markets, inadvertently absorbed what the U.S. was shutting out, causing serious concern for European manufacturers (we will discuss Europe’s reactions in the next section). China essentially diverted its export overcapacity towards any markets still open – leveraging the fact that it remains the world’s low-cost manufacturer in many sectors.
At the same time, China leveraged strategic exports as a weapon when pressured. A prime example occurred in mid-2025: China restricted exports of rare earth elements and other critical minerals, citing national security. Rare earths like neodymium, dysprosium, etc., are essential for high-tech products (wind turbines, electric car motors, missiles, smartphones). China dominates the global rare earth supply (refining ~90% of rare earths)[98]. By throttling these exports, Beijing sent a jolt through Western and Asian supply chains. European tech and defense firms panicked as stockpiles dwindled; even India’s burgeoning EV industry faltered, since it relies on Chinese rare earth magnets – Indian EV production dropped notably when China’s restriction hit[98][99]. China similarly curtailed exports of certain electronics materials like gallium and germanium (used in semiconductors and military systems) in 2024-25, explicitly linking these moves to disputes with the West. Only after high-level diplomacy – notably a Trump-Xi meeting in October 2025 – did China ease some of these controls[100]. Interestingly, that concession to the U.S. sidelined Europe: it was a reminder that Beijing might negotiate big issues directly with Washington, making the EU a bystander[100]. In exchange for easing mineral exports, China likely sought some U.S. moderation on tariffs or tech bans (though details are scant, it’s possible the U.S. agreed to certain tariff exclusions or to hold off new sanctions, as a quid pro quo).
Domestically, China has pivoted to a “dual circulation” strategy – emphasizing internal consumption and self-reliance, while still engaging in external trade but with a focus on more resilient channels. This includes import substitution in high-tech areas (accelerating efforts to produce semiconductors, aerospace components, etc., domestically since U.S. export controls cut off many advanced chips[98]). It also includes shoring up food and energy security by diversifying import sources: for instance, China became the biggest buyer of discounted Russian oil after Western sanctions on Russia, significantly reducing its energy import costs and dependency on more volatile Middle Eastern supply. China also ramped up imports from and investments in Latin America – buying more copper from Chile, beef and soy from Brazil and Argentina (sometimes settling in yuan to reduce dollar dependence). In Africa, China continues to import minerals (cobalt, manganese, etc. for batteries) and export finished goods; it has forgiven some African debt and offered new loans to keep influence strong amid competition.
Another crucial piece is regional trade pacts: China is part of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega trade agreement in Asia-Pacific that took effect in 2022. RCEP includes ASEAN, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – notably not India (which opted out). RCEP creates the world’s largest trading bloc by GDP, with phased tariff reductions among members. This has helped China deepen integration with Southeast Asian supply chains. Indeed, China’s exports to ASEAN and East Asia have grown, and its imports from those neighbors (which often incorporate Chinese intermediate goods) have also risen. A lot of what ASEAN countries export to the West are products with Chinese components; RCEP facilitates that flow by lowering tariffs among those countries, offsetting some of the external tariff costs. For example, a Chinese electronic part might go to Vietnam tariff-free under RCEP, get assembled into a gadget, and then exported to the U.S. (potentially avoiding a China-specific tariff, though as seen, the U.S. has started targeting such transshipment via Vietnam with its own measures).
China has also pursued its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) throughout this turmoil. 2023 marked the BRI’s 10th anniversary, and by 2025 China was recalibrating BRI projects to be more sustainable (after pushback about debt burdens). In a trade context, BRI built or upgraded ports, rail lines, and economic zones in dozens of countries, aimed at facilitating trade with China. This has long-term implications: it can create new pathways for China to trade with partners independently of chokepoints controlled by U.S. influence (like reducing reliance on shipping through the Strait of Malacca by developing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Gwadar port, or the China-Myanmar corridor to the Indian Ocean). These corridors have yet to fully materialize but are strategic hedges.
Despite these adjustments, China’s economy faces headwinds. Its growth has slowed to single digits (and in some quarters of 2024-25, the growth was much lower than the historical norm of 6-8%). The real estate sector’s crisis (major developers like Evergrande and Country Garden in distress) has led to construction slumps and local government fiscal strain. Export industries have been resilient in volume but are moving up the value chain more slowly – and U.S. tech sanctions hamper the highest-value sectors (like cutting-edge semiconductors and AI). Youth unemployment in China surged to record highs by 2023 (over 20% for urban youth) before the government stopped publishing the statistic, reflecting how the old export-heavy model isn’t absorbing labor as before. The tariffs and geopolitical frictions add to the uncertainty that makes Chinese consumers and investors cautious. Some capital has been leaving China (wealthy Chinese seeking havens abroad), prompting Beijing to tighten capital controls in 2025.
Nevertheless, in trade terms, China has proven quite adept at maneuvering. For example, when the EU imposed anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, China swiftly retaliated with tariffs on European food exports (pork, dairy up to 42%)[101], signaling pain for Europe’s farm sector. This tit-for-tat likely deterred Europe from broader measures. China’s leverage is its huge market and its central role in supply chains – many countries are reluctant to alienate China completely. Even India, which has border disputes with China, saw its imports from China reach an all-time high (~$113 billion in FY2025)[102], underlining how entrenched Chinese goods are in the Indian economy. Chinese companies are expanding in other emerging markets too: affordable Chinese cars, telecom equipment, and machinery are pouring into Latin America, Middle East, and Africa, often displacing Western competitors on price. In fact, China’s global export market share remains robust; it has slipped slightly in some specific categories (like apparel, where countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam gained) but grown in others (like electronics, machinery, and green tech like solar panels and batteries where China dominates production).
One metric of momentum: China’s trade surplus of $1 trillion in 2025[94] means it is still accumulating massive reserves (albeit some of that in currencies other than dollars as it diversifies). This gives China a financial cushion. It also reflects weak domestic demand (since imports aren’t keeping up), which is a concern for the world because China was a major locomotive for global demand in the 2000s and 2010s. Now, with more of its growth coming from exports and government stimulus, a more inward, slower-growing China contributes less to global import demand – which hurts trading partners from Germany’s auto industry to Chile’s copper mines.
Geopolitically, China is also leveraging trade for diplomacy. It has talked up the idea of reforming the international financial and trading system to be more “multipolar” – supporting moves like expanding BRICS (Beijing was a key backer of BRICS inviting new members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and others in 2024) and using currencies other than the U.S. dollar in trade (for instance, settling oil purchases in yuan with some Middle Eastern partners, or encouraging the use of the digital yuan in cross-border deals). These efforts aim to reduce the U.S. ability to use trade and finance as weapons. The success is limited so far – the dollar remains dominant – but incremental changes are happening.
In conclusion, China’s trajectory in this new era is one of cautious adaptation. It is finding new partners (Global South solidarity to counter Western pressure), asserting itself in key supply chains (from rare earths to EV batteries), and continuing to be the “factory of the world” for anyone willing to do business. Tariffs have not collapsed China’s trade – they have redirected it. However, the fraying of global relationships means China must prepare for a less friendly external environment long-term: this means investing in indigenous innovation, bolstering domestic consumption (so it’s less export-reliant), and forging tighter regional networks (Asian integration). The data suggests China has momentum in maintaining export volume, but the quality of that trade (in terms of profitability and high-tech content) is under challenge due to tech restrictions. If one were to use the earlier analogy, China is adjusting its “Lagrangian path” to a new equilibrium where it is less interdependent with the U.S. and more with alternate partners, while the “swings” in its fortunes will depend on how effectively it can handle domestic economic swings (housing, debt cycles) and external shocks (sanctions, decoupling). So far, China has weathered the trade war storm better than many expected, but it remains to be seen if it can fully regain the strong growth momentum of the past in a more fragmented global order.
India: A Delicate Balancing Act in a Changing Trade Landscape
India, now the world’s most populous nation, finds itself in a unique position amid global trade and political shifts. It has been touted as a potential “next China” in terms of manufacturing and as a key ally for the West in balancing China’s rise. However, India’s approach is driven by its own interests, and it has faced both opportunities and pressures in this period.
Economically, India has been one of the faster-growing major economies, with GDP growth around 6-7% in recent years. The Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a strong Make in India initiative aiming to raise manufacturing’s share of GDP (targeting 25% by 2025)[103][104]. This involves tariffs of its own (India has raised import duties on items from electronics to toys to encourage domestic production), production-linked incentives (PLI) to attract global firms to set up factories in India (for smartphones, batteries, semiconductors, etc.), and infrastructure investments. Some early successes are visible: assembly of smartphones in India has surged (with companies like Foxconn and Pegatron expanding Indian operations for Apple iPhones), and India has become a net exporter of cell phones whereas it used to import most. India is also promoting itself as an alternative hub for textiles, automotive, and pharmaceuticals manufacturing.
The global supply chain realignment caused by U.S.-China tensions has indeed benefited India to an extent. For example, in sectors like textiles and apparel, Western orders diverted from China due to tariffs have partly gone to India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and others. In electronics, companies are adopting a “China+1” strategy, and India often features as the “+1.” India’s merchandise exports reached $112 billion in Q1 FY2025 (Apr-Jun 2025), slightly up from the previous year[105] – indicating resilience, though not a huge jump. Overall, India’s exports crossed $400 billion in 2021-22 for the first time, and have roughly maintained that level, with a push from sectors like engineering goods, drugs and pharma, and agriculture.
However, India has also been on the receiving end of U.S. protectionism, contrary to the expectation that it would be spared as a strategic partner. In 2018, the Trump administration removed India’s preferential trade status (GSP), citing market access issues. In the new 2025 wave, it went further: the U.S. lumped India in with other nations for “reciprocal” tariff hikes. According to analysis, the U.S. imposed tariffs as high as 50% on certain Indian exports in 2025[106]. This came alongside U.S. pressure on India for buying Russian oil (India hugely ramped up imports of discounted Russian crude after 2022, which helped its economy but irked Washington). By late 2025, U.S.-India trade relations hit turbulence, with Washington using the leverage of tariffs and potential sanctions (e.g., CAATSA sanctions threat over India’s purchase of Russian S-400 missiles, though India got waivers so far). From India’s perspective, these moves by its supposed partner were alarming and pushed it to hedge its bets[107][106].
Indeed, in a remarkable turn, India began a cautious rapprochement with China in late 2025[107]. PM Modi attended a summit in China (SCO meeting in Tianjin, Aug 2025 – his first China visit since the 2020 border clash)[107]. High-level talks resumed, some border protocols were restored, and India started easing certain restrictions on Chinese businesses (for example, India quietly allowed some Chinese nationals and investments back in, which had been largely frozen after the deadly 2020 Galwan Valley skirmish)[108][109]. Analysts described this as India “balancing deteriorating India-U.S. ties through engagement with Beijing”, possibly a tactical hedge[107]. In other words, facing an unpredictable Washington that could slap tariffs or cut off supplies, New Delhi doesn’t want to put all eggs in the American basket. As one commentary put it, “Trump-era tariff hikes on Indian goods, combined with sanctions pressure linked to energy imports from Russia, pushed India into a more uncertain economic position,” thereby incentivizing a thaw with China[110].
However, India’s tilt toward China is limited and born of necessity. Fundamentally, India sees China as a strategic rival – the two clashed militarily in 2020, and distrust remains high. The current “détente” might be more of a “cold peace,” fragile and temporary[111]. What it does show is India’s independent streak: it will not cleanly align with the U.S. against China if that alignment comes at too high a cost economically or compromises India’s own strategic autonomy. For instance, India continued to buy large volumes of Russian oil, paying in rupees or dirhams to avoid sanctions, which kept its energy prices down amid global volatility. This has aided Indian growth and helped moderate inflation, even as Western countries embargoed Russian oil. India defends this by saying its per capita energy use is low and it will buy from wherever it gets the best deal – a stance that frustrates Washington but is popular domestically.
Looking at trade data highlights India’s conundrum: India’s trade with China is heavily imbalanced. In FY2024-25, imports from China hit a record $113.45 billion, while exports to China were only about $14 billion[112][113]. The deficit of nearly $100 billion with China is India’s largest with any country[102]. Despite political tensions, Chinese goods (from electronics and machinery to APIs for pharmaceuticals) are indispensable to India’s economy[114][109]. India’s banning of Chinese apps and curbs on Chinese investments after 2020 did little to dent this dependency; Indian policymakers grapple with how to reduce it but have not found quick solutions[115][116]. Notably, when India tried to get tough – e.g., stopping Chinese telecom gear or slowing approvals for Chinese investment – it sometimes backfired. Domestic industries complained of lacking critical inputs. For example, India’s EV industry and renewable energy goals depend on Chinese batteries and minerals; when China cut rare earth exports in 2025, it visibly hampered Indian production of electric scooters and cars[98][99]. Similarly, India’s fertilizer needs were hit when China restricted fertilizer exports (urea) in 2022-24, causing shortages and higher prices for Indian farmers[117]. And the pharmaceutical sector, a crown jewel of India’s exports, still sources ~70% of its active ingredients from China[118] – a huge vulnerability that was exposed during pandemic disruptions.
So, India’s strategy has been a tightrope walk: cooperating with the West when interests align (Quad alliance, buying more U.S. weapons, negotiating market access for each other’s goods) but also standing its ground on independent policies (Russian oil, trade with Iran, etc.), and meanwhile trying to fix internal weaknesses to be less vulnerable. India has pursued new trade agreements to broaden its options: it signed a limited FTA with Australia in 2022, another with UAE (a major trading partner) in 2022, and is in talks with the UK and EU for trade deals. Those deals aim to boost exports in sectors like textiles, pharma, IT services, and to secure critical imports (like easier access to European tech or easier movement for professionals). The EU-India FTA talks resumed in 2022 after a decade’s pause; if concluded, that could be a significant win for India, giving it an alternative large market to rely on apart from the U.S. and China.
On the multilateral front, India has shown leadership in forums like the G20 (it held the G20 presidency in 2023) to advocate for the interests of developing economies – for instance, emphasizing WTO reform that allows policy space for the Global South and resisting stringent trade rules on e-commerce or climate that it feels could constrain its development. India often aligns with South Africa and others in questioning Western trade agendas (like on patents for medicines or agricultural subsidies).
In terms of tariffs, India itself has raised tariffs in recent years as part of its industrial policy. For example, it increased duties on electronics, solar panels, toys, and even some food products to protect or encourage local industry. This has made some foreign firms complain about India’s protectionism. So, while India was hit by U.S. tariffs, it’s not entirely a free trader either – it practices selective protectionism. This double-edged stance – wanting others (like the U.S.) to lower barriers for its exports, while keeping some of its own – is a classic posture of an emerging economy nurturing domestic sectors. It sometimes complicates partnerships (e.g., U.S. wants India to buy more American goods, India wants U.S. visas for service workers and no tariffs on its textiles – trade-offs ensue).
Overall, India’s role in the emerging trade order is that of a swing player. It’s big enough to matter (the 5th largest economy, a huge consumer and labor market) and has options to tilt either way. Both the Western bloc and China/Russia court India. For instance, India is in the BRICS and SCO with China/Russia, and helped champion BRICS expansion; at the same time, it’s in the Quad and Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) with the U.S./Japan/Australia (though notably, India opted out of the trade pillar of IPEF, again reflecting hesitation on binding commitments). The decisions India makes in aligning or distancing will affect global trade patterns – e.g., if India were to join RCEP down the line (it left the door open), that could deeply integrate it with Asian supply chains; if instead it inks major deals with the EU/US, it might tilt more West.
From a momentum perspective, India’s economy is growing, manufacturing is rising albeit from a low base, and it stands to gain from some diversification away from China. But there are swings too: if global recession hits or oil prices spike or geopolitical tensions erupt (say a war involving Taiwan, or a conflict with China at the border again), India could face setbacks such as capital outflows or supply disruptions. The Hamiltonian “swings” in India might be seen in its policy adjustments: one year closer to the U.S., next year a bit closer to China, as it seeks equilibrium. The data we saw – e.g., record imports from China even as India talks decoupling[115], or continuing Russian oil purchases despite Western pressure – shows India will prioritize its economic stability. If one day U.S. tariffs on India become too punitive, India might double down on alternate partnerships. Conversely, if China becomes too aggressive on the border or floods Indian markets illicitly, India might move firmly into the Western camp. The balance is delicate, and India’s ultimate aim is to become a third pole: not dependent on either superpower, but a powerhouse in its own right, trading with all on its own terms.
Europe: Caught Between Superpower Clashes
The European Union, a bloc of 27 countries with a combined $17 trillion GDP, has long been a champion of open, rules-based trade. But in 2025, Europe found itself squeezed by the aggressive trade agendas of the world’s two largest economies – the U.S. and China[119]. The year was a wake-up call that “happy globalization” led by the U.S. is over[1], and Europe must navigate a world where its main ally (the U.S.) and its main trading partner (China, for goods) are both applying pressure in different ways.
The first shock to Europe came from Washington’s Liberation Day tariffs on April 2, 2025. Practically overnight, the U.S. turned inward and imposed sweeping tariffs on partners worldwide, including allies. European officials were stunned as the EU was hit with a 20% across-the-board tariff on its exports to the U.S.[4]. The justification given by President Trump was a purported $300 billion U.S. trade deficit with Europe – a figure the EU strenuously argued was inflated (by counting only goods). In fact, when services are included, the U.S.-EU trade imbalance is much smaller – roughly a $50 billion U.S. deficit (or by EU numbers, Europe runs a surplus on goods of €157b but a deficit on services of €109b, largely balancing out)[120]. But these nuances did not stop the tariff hammer. The U.S. also hiked its metal tariffs on EU steel and aluminum to 25%, and then to 50% by June 2025[2], claiming European and global overcapacity (read: Chinese overcapacity routed via EU) as a threat. This was devastating for European metals exporters – many had actually benefited when Trump first put tariffs on Chinese steel in 2018, as EU steel was not tariffed then; now they too were targeted.
Europe suddenly faced trade barriers on a market that accounts for about 18% of its exports. The U.S. is the EU’s largest export destination (especially for high-value goods like cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals). A 20% tariff threatened significant job losses in sectors like auto manufacturing in Germany and Italy, aerospace in France, agriculture in Spain, etc. European stock markets wobbled; iconic companies like German carmakers saw their U.S. sales outlook darken. This came on top of the lingering impact of the 2022-23 energy crisis from the Ukraine war – European industry was already under strain from high gas prices and inflation. Thus, the U.S. trade offensive felt like a betrayal to many Europeans, given Europe had stood in solidarity with the U.S. on sanctions against Russia and in addressing other global issues.
European leaders had to respond, but options were limited. The EU initially prepared a retaliatory tariff list (up to €72 billion of U.S. goods)[121], and even talked about using its new Anti-Coercion Instrument – a tool specifically designed to hit back at economic coercion by foreign powers[122]. This instrument could allow the EU to target not just goods, but services and intellectual property rights of a country that is bullying it economically[122]. France was notably hawkish, urging a tough stance[122]. There were even musings of striking at the U.S. digital economy (since U.S. Big Tech is pervasive in Europe – some suggested maybe Europe should start charging for access or restrict them as leverage)[123][124]. But internal divisions and fear of escalation muted these plans. Many European industries worried that an all-out trade war with the U.S. would hurt them more. The reality, as an EU diplomat said, was “the U.S. has escalation dominance.”[125] The American economy is bigger and the EU relies on it for crucial things (including security – the U.S. military support in Ukraine was paramount[126]). This strategic dependency tied Europe’s hands. EU officials recognized that with the war in Ukraine ongoing, they could not afford a breach with the U.S., as Washington’s backing (weapons for Ukraine, LNG to replace Russian gas, etc.) was existential for European security in that moment[127][128].
Thus, Europe opted for intense diplomacy to defuse the tariff crisis. Between April and July 2025, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič shuttled to Washington 10 times[129]. Talks were chaotic and often humiliating: U.S. negotiators (Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jamieson Greer) took a hard line, but ultimately Trump and his advisor Peter Navarro micromanaged the process[130]. The U.S. kept raising the stakes – at points threatening 200% tariffs on iconic European goods (wine, luxury cars, etc.) if demands weren’t met[131]. Washington also attacked Europe’s regulatory “barriers”: the EU’s new Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, which regulate Big Tech, were singled out as unfair trade practices in disguise[121]. The U.S. wanted the EU to soften these tech rules (which Americans see as targeting companies like Google, Apple, Amazon). It was trade war expanding into digital governance. Brussels insisted its tech regulations are non-negotiable sovereignty issues, but the U.S. began using other means – e.g., at one point, the U.S. even sanctioned a European official: it banned Thierry Breton (EU Internal Market Commissioner overseeing tech policy) from entering the U.S., accusing him of censorship via the DSA[132]. This unheard-of move against a high EU official showed how far Washington was willing to go. Macron angrily said the U.S. is using “digital rules to coerce and intimidate the EU.”[133]
By late July 2025, a compromise was reached at Trump’s golf club in Turnberry, Scotland of all places[134]. Over a round of golf, Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck a deal: the EU would eliminate tariffs on most U.S. industrial goods (going effectively to zero on many categories), and in return the U.S. would scale back its tariff increase from 20% to 15% on EU exports[135][136]. Additionally, Europe pledged to make massive investments in the U.S. (a politically face-saving win for Trump) – $600 billion in EU investment by 2028 – and to buy $750 billion in U.S. energy (LNG, oil) by 2028[137]. These figures are huge (for context, the EU investing $600b in the U.S. likely means encouraging European companies to build factories in America, possibly influenced by the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act subsidies; the $750b energy purchase might lock Europe into long-term LNG contracts, etc.). The joint statement in August 2025 formalized this deal[135].
European officials sold it as the best they could get – at least the blanket 20% tariff was cut to 15%, and some sectors might be exempted. But critics in Europe called it “unbalanced, even humiliating.”[138] Essentially, Europe gave more (zeroing its own tariffs) while the U.S. still kept significant tariffs (15% is triple what most favored nation rates were). Moreover, Europe had to swallow that its steel/aluminum were still at 50% tariffs – those were not removed[139]. The deal mostly covered other goods. Sabine Weyand, the EU Director-General for Trade, admitted this wasn’t a real negotiation because “the U.S. had the upper hand throughout”[140]. It was more like damage control to preserve a working relationship. On the positive side, Weyand noted it “created a basis for engagement… which wasn’t there before.”[140] Indeed, after the deal, formal dialogues resumed on other issues (e.g., a potential digital trade accord or cooperation on standards). But it’s clear Europe emerged more closely tied to the U.S. economy on U.S. terms – removing its own tariffs increases American access to EU markets, and the promised investments/energy buys deepen Europe’s reliance on American economic linkages[136].
While Europe was firefighting the U.S. dispute, China delivered the second shock. Seeing an opening (and partly reacting to EU’s own actions), China started “weaponising” Europe’s dependence on critical goods[14]. One major front was automobiles. Europe’s pride is its car industry, and it has increasingly competed with Chinese electric vehicles. In 2024, the EU launched an anti-subsidy investigation into cheap Chinese EVs flooding its market, which by late 2024 led to a proposal to slap tariffs (the EU was concerned Chinese EVs, benefiting from huge subsidies, undercut European makers). China retaliated hard: in early 2025, Beijing slapped tariffs up to 42.7% on European food exports like pork and dairy[101] (targeting farm goods hurts Europe politically, as farm lobbies are strong). It sent a message that if Europe dares erect barriers (even justified ones) against China, China will hit back tit-for-tat. Consequently, Europe’s attempt to shield its EV industry “backfired,” as described – it didn’t significantly stop Chinese EVs but did invite painful retaliation[101].
Furthermore, Chinese exports to Europe surged as mentioned: when the U.S. closed its door, Europe became the dumping ground for Chinese overcapacity in sectors like steel, machinery, chemicals, and consumer goods. Europe’s warnings of a “second China shock” refer to this influx which could hollow out remaining European industries if not addressed[97]. French President Macron and others have started warning Beijing that Europe “has tools from tariffs to anti-coercion measures” it could deploy if China doesn’t play fair[141]. The EU in late 2023/2024 did implement a few defensive measures: it doubled tariffs on certain steel imports from everywhere to protect against global dumping (affecting China mainly)[142]. It also unveiled an “Economic Security Strategy” focusing on de-risking trade – essentially screening out problematic investments or dependencies (for example, looking at outbound investment controls to prevent European know-how from aiding China’s military tech, and curbing exports of dual-use tech to China). The mantra of “de-risking, not decoupling” became Europe’s line – trying to reduce reliance on China in critical sectors (like rare earths, batteries, semiconductors) without completely cutting trade.
One dramatic episode highlighted Europe’s weakness: The Netherlands vs. China over Nexperia[143]. Nexperia is a semiconductor firm with Chinese ownership (a subsidiary of China’s Wingtech). Dutch authorities, under U.S. pressure, tried to force a divestment of a chip plant (actually similar to what the UK did with Newport Wafer Fab/Nexperia). China was furious, seeing it as Western seizure of Chinese assets. Beijing responded by intensifying export restrictions on rare-earths and likely threatened Dutch companies (ASML, the lithography machine maker, was certainly under the microscope). In the end, the Netherlands backed down – it handed back control of Nexperia to the Chinese owners[144]. Only after that did China relent and ease some of the rare-earth restrictions[100][144]. This showed that Europe lacks leverage with China – as one expert said, “The EU has no leverage with China, it has nothing to weaponize.”[145] Europe doesn’t have the same chokehold on anything China desperately needs, whereas China can hurt Europe (e.g., by cutting materials or access to the vast Chinese market for European luxury goods and cars). Europe’s market is big, yes, but China seems willing to endure some pain to prove a point, betting that Europe will fold first due to internal divisions or economic stress.
Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continued into 2025, and Europe’s trade with Russia remained largely severed. European industry had to cope with much higher energy costs after banning Russian gas (Europe imported zero Russian pipeline gas by end 2022 aside from some lingering in Hungary/Austria; it shifted to LNG from the U.S. and Qatar, and to electricity from renewables and some coal restart). This made European manufacturing less competitive due to expensive energy, just as Chinese products were coming in cheap – a double whammy. Some energy-intensive industries in Europe (chemicals, metals) actually started investing more overseas (like in the U.S., to exploit cheaper gas) – a worrying sign of deindustrialization.
Thus, Europe in 2025 found itself re-examining its core assumptions. It realized that global rules are fraying – the WTO can’t save it (with the U.S. paralyzing the WTO Appellate Body and China’s state capitalist model defying easy disciplining). Europe prides itself as a “regulatory superpower” and a believer in multilateralism, but that model looked shaky. Still, Brussels hasn’t given up: it continues to champion “rules-based trade” at least rhetorically[36]. The EU seeks to reform WTO rules on subsidies and state-owned enterprises (mostly aimed at China) and to get the dispute system working again, but progress is slow. In the interim, Europe is deploying new instruments: foreign subsidies regulation (to vet companies like Chinese ones benefiting from subsidies when they acquire EU firms or bid on contracts), investment screening, and the aforementioned anti-coercion tool.
Europe is also diversifying its partnerships: Latin America, Africa, Middle East – anywhere that can be new markets or sources, as the Euronews piece noted[15]. After decades, the EU-Mercosur trade deal (with Brazil, Argentina, etc.) got a fresh push: in mid-2025, European negotiators were trying to address environmental concerns (Europe wants Mercosur to commit to rainforest protection) so that the deal, struck in principle in 2019, can finally be ratified. If completed, that would open up significant trade (zero tariffs on most goods) between Europe and South America’s biggest economies. Europe also signed new deals with smaller partners: an FTA with New Zealand (2023), one with Chile (2022, modernizing an older deal, including critical minerals like lithium from Chile in exchange for better EU market access), and advancing talks with India and Indonesia. The EU is keen to not be overly dependent on any one or two big partners. There’s talk of “friendshoring” in Europe too: e.g., sourcing battery materials from Canada or Australia (like a lithium deal with Australia) rather than from China.
One significant new EU measure is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which entered a trial phase in 2023 and will phase in fully by 2026. CBAM will put tariffs on carbon-intensive imports (steel, cement, fertilizers, aluminum, etc.) equivalent to the carbon price that EU producers pay. This is meant to level the playing field environmentally, but many countries (including the U.S., China, Russia, and developing countries) see it as a protectionist measure in green wrapping. By 2026, CBAM could become another front in trade disputes – e.g., India and South Africa have protested it. But Europe is moving ahead, determined to not let its climate efforts be undermined by imported emissions. It’s an example of Europe trying to set rules (in climate policy) that might define future trade flows – potentially encouraging other countries to adopt cleaner production to maintain access.
In sum, Europe’s momentum is towards more strategic autonomy – a buzzword meaning reducing vulnerabilities – but its short-term swings have been mostly defensive reactions. Europe took a hit in 2025 but averted a worst-case scenario with the U.S., and it’s now scrambling to fortify itself against future squeezes. The transatlantic alliance, while strained, did survive the Greenland and tariff episodes so far, though trust was dented. Some European policymakers privately worry that Europe is becoming a “punching bag” – relying on U.S. security so it can’t fight back economically, and being perceived by China as the weak link. How Europe recalibrates will be crucial: does it lean harder into the U.S. alliance (accepting junior partner status but security in numbers) or carve out a more independent middle path (risking isolation)?
For now, European trade policy is in transition. The data in 2025 still showed trade growth (surprisingly, EU trade volumes rose, partly due to those surging Chinese imports offsetting drops elsewhere)[94]. But growth driven by an import surge from a rival is not healthy growth. Europe’s trade balance with China worsened significantly, and that with the U.S. possibly improved due to the tariff-forced adjustment (if EU exported less to U.S. and imported more energy from U.S., it might actually run a deficit with the U.S. for the first time in goods). Eurostat data toward end of 2025 indicated Europe ran an unusual deficit in manufactured goods trade as exports stagnated while imports from cheaper sources grew. This raises concerns about Europe’s industrial competitiveness longer term.
To conclude Europe’s section: the EU is re-learning geopolitics in trade. The year 2025 made it clear that “everything can be weaponised,” as Commissioner Šefčovič remarked[37] – from metals and food to digital rules and energy. Europe is adapting by building new defenses (legal tools, new alliances) and by selectively cooperating with the U.S. on common causes (for example, Europe and the U.S. did align in restricting advanced chip exports to China – the Netherlands and Japan joined the U.S. in that; so on tech security, they work together even as they fight on tariffs). The full picture for Europe is one of a region at a crossroads: whether it can preserve the open trading system that benefited it for so long, or whether it must evolve into a harder-edged actor in a world of power politics, is the big question. The likely outcome is a bit of both – trying to uphold rules where possible, but not being naive about power realities.
Middle East and Russia: Energy and Alliances in Flux
While not explicitly highlighted in the query, any full world picture must include Middle Eastern economies and Russia, especially due to their pivotal role in energy trade and geopolitical alliances, which directly affect global trade patterns.
Russia, having invaded Ukraine in 2022, became the world’s most sanctioned major economy by 2025. The war (which appears to be ongoing through 2025) led to a near-complete severance of Russia’s trade with the West. The EU, historically Russia’s biggest customer for oil and gas, has cut imports of Russian oil (phasing in an embargo in late 2022 with price caps) and largely banned Russian coal and other commodities. Russian natural gas flows to Europe via pipelines are down ~90% from pre-war levels (except some lingering through Turkey and minor through Ukraine to Europe) due to Russian cutoffs and EU efforts to replace supply. This forced Russia to pivot its energy exports towards Asia. In 2023-2025, Russia became China’s top oil supplier, overtaking Saudi Arabia, by selling oil at a discount to Chinese buyers (usually below the Western price cap of $60/barrel) – a win-win for China (cheaper energy) and Russia (continued revenue, albeit at lower margins)[93]. Similarly, India emerged as a major buyer of Russian crude, which it refines into products that sometimes even get sold to Europe (a loophole: India’s fuel exports soared, some containing Russian crude). Russia also redirected some natural gas: its pipeline gas to China (Power of Siberia pipeline) ramped up, though volumes are much smaller than lost European market. Russia’s LNG exports (from Yamal, etc.) continue and even reach Europe in some cases (since LNG wasn’t entirely banned), but overall Russia’s share in European gas is way down.
The net effect is a reshaping of global energy trade routes: more Russia-to-Asia oil and gas, more Middle East (and U.S.) to Europe energy flows. The OPEC+ alliance (led by Saudi Arabia and Russia) tried to manage this disruption. Throughout 2022-2024, they cut production at times to prop up prices as demand wavered. By 2025, however, a combination of factors led to oil oversupply and price decline (~18% down in 2025)[93]. These factors included: global economic cooling from trade wars, slower China growth, a mild winter reducing energy demand, and surprising new supply (for example, some Venezuelan oil creeping back in via shadow channels to China[146], and possibly higher Iranian exports as Iran evaded some sanctions or as talks flirted with revival of the nuclear deal). The U.S. also was pumping near record volumes of oil and became the world’s largest LNG exporter by 2023, sending shiploads to Europe and Asia. This U.S. energy boom, ironically, gave it more geopolitical clout (it could promise allies supply if they shun Russia).
For Middle Eastern producers like Saudi Arabia, the challenge was balancing between an American-led order and an emerging multipolar one. Historically close to the U.S., Saudi and the UAE in 2023-2024 started charting a more independent course. They did not sanction Russia (indeed cooperated in OPEC+ cuts), and they cultivated ties with China – e.g., Saudi Arabia joined the BRICS in 2024 (membership effective 2024-2025). The BRICS expansion to include Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and others signaled a potential bloc of major commodity producers leaning towards non-Western forums. China brokered a diplomatic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, reducing regional tensions and potentially easing trade (Saudi and Iran talked of resuming bilateral trade and Iran-Saudi energy swaps may become possible if Iran’s sanctions eventually lift). This highlights China’s rising influence in the Middle East. Additionally, the petrodollar system is slowly evolving: Gulf states have shown openness to pricing some oil sales in yuan (for instance, China and the UAE conducted some LNG trades in yuan in 2023, and Saudi Arabia is rumored to consider yuan for China oil sales). While dollar dominance remains, these small shifts indicate a diversification in how trade is invoiced.
The Middle East is also diversifying economically. For example, the UAE and Israel (after their 2020 normalization) signed an FTA in 2022, boosting trade in tech and diamonds. The Abraham Accords opened some trade between Israel and Gulf states that previously was covert. Gulf states are investing oil profits in infrastructure, tourism, and tech (Saudi’s NEOM project, UAE’s push in finance and renewable energy). They seek to become logistics and investment hubs bridging Asia, Africa, and Europe. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor announced at the G20 2023 is an ambitious plan to connect India to Europe via Middle East by rail and sea. This U.S.-backed initiative includes India, UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, and EU – aiming to counter China’s BRI by offering a new trade route. If realized (still in planning stage), it could shorten shipping times and integrate these regions more closely, affecting future trade flows (e.g., Indian goods to Europe via an Arabian port and Israeli rail, rather than via Suez Canal).
Turkey – bridging Europe and Asia – also plays a trade role: it has not sanctioned Russia and became a transshipment zone for goods going into Russia (thus a beneficiary of some trade diversion). Turkey’s economy, troubled by inflation, nonetheless leverages its unique position to maintain trade with both East and West. In 2023-2025, Turkey increased exports to Russia (including re-exporting European goods), while still exporting heavily to EU and U.S. This role of sanctions-busting intermediary has actually become a notable pattern: countries like Turkey, UAE, and China have supplied Russia with many dual-use items or consumer goods that Western companies withdrew, creating backdoor supply chains.
In summary for the Middle East/Russia: The war and tariffs accelerated a trend of Eastern realignment. Russia turned eastward in trade; Middle Eastern powers deepened ties with China/India; and energy trade underwent a great rerouting. The global oil market now has to factor in a new semi-permanent structure: Russian oil largely under price caps servicing Asia; OPEC’s ability to set prices diluted by unconventional flows and global demand uncertainty from trade wars. If Venezuela stabilizes and Iran’s nuclear deal revives (allowing its sanctioned oil fully back), we could see even more supply in market, potentially keeping energy prices moderate. That in turn affects global inflation and trade costs positively (cheaper energy = cheaper shipping, fertilizer, etc.). Conversely, any flare-up (be it a Gulf security incident, or an expansion of war to new domains) could spike prices again. The Middle East remains a region where conflicts (like the brief Israel-Gaza war in 2023, or Yemen’s simmering conflict) can have outsized trade impacts through oil price swings or Suez Canal risks.
Finally, global alliances are shifting: U.S.-Europe-Japan-Australia are closer aligned on many trade/security issues vs. China-Russia-Iran and now maybe a larger “BRICS+” grouping. But it’s not a simple bipolar Cold War – because countries like Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, Brazil swing or maintain non-alignment. This fluid alignment means trade flows could continue to adjust based on geopolitical convenience (e.g., if BRICS develop a payments system or even a notional currency for trade, we might see more intra-BRICS trade in local currencies, reducing Western sanctions leverage). Already, the dollar’s share of reserves and trade is slowly edging down (from ~65% of global reserves a few years ago to ~58% now, partly replaced by yuan and gold). These monetary shifts, while gradual, will influence trade financing and costs.
Global Trade Outlook: Trajectory and Momentum
Bringing all these strands together, we can discern both the current trajectory of global trade and the potential swings (volatility) around that path. The data and events of 2025 reveal a world economy adjusting to fragmentation and power politics, with certain clear trends emerging:
Fragmentation into Blocs: The trade landscape is increasingly defined by blocs or coalitions. We have the U.S. and its allies using tariffs and tech controls, China and its partners doing their own arrangements, and a group of “non-aligned” major economies playing both sides. This is leading to reduced trade intensity between rival blocs (e.g., U.S.-China trade is down from its peak) and increased trade within blocs or friendly networks. For instance, South-South trade (among developing Asia, Africa, LatAm) is growing as a share of world trade, partly because these countries are trading more with each other when North-South channels face barriers. The WTO noted “continuing trade growth among most developing economies” in 2025 despite overall headwinds[33].
Efficiency vs. Security Trade-off: Global supply chains are being reconfigured for resilience and security, sometimes at the expense of pure economic efficiency. Countries and companies are engaging in “friend-shoring” – sourcing from politically allied or stable countries – to avoid being cut off. A semiconductor executive recently quipped that the era of cheapest-cost sourcing is giving way to “just-in-case” inventories and dual sourcing strategies. This reduces efficiency (higher costs, duplication) but is deemed necessary after shocks like the pandemic and sanctions. Over time, this could mean slightly higher consumer prices and lower profit margins, effectively a tax on globalization’s unwinding.
Technology and Trade: Technological bifurcation is accelerating. The U.S.-led controls on advanced chips to China, and China’s push for self-reliance, mean we may see two semi-separated tech ecosystems. This not only impacts trade in goods (semiconductor equipment, 5G infrastructure, etc.), but also standards and services (for example, if the internet and data rules split, digital trade will be affected). Whichever side wins certain tech races will gain an edge in setting future trade patterns (e.g., if China dominates EV production and the West lags, that’s a big trade shift in autos).
Tariff Levels and Trade Growth: We now have materially higher average tariffs globally than a decade ago, reversing a long trend. With the U.S. raising to historic levels and others following, the weighted-average world tariff could be the highest since the 1980s. The WTO’s projection of just 0.5% trade volume growth in 2026[33] reflects this drag. While not an absolute decline, it’s basically stagnation. The last time trade growth was this weak outside of a recession was rare. If this persists, the trade-to-GDP ratio globally may continue to decline, indicating a less interconnected world economy. We might have passed “peak globalization” around 2008-2011 when world trade was ~60% of global GDP; it’s slightly lower now and could fall further if regionalization continues.
Inflation and Prices: Tariffs and supply chain shifts have given a one-time upward bump to prices, notably in the U.S. (PIIE found a 1% CPI increase due to tariffs)[28]. Europe similarly had to pay more for substitutes when cheap imports were disrupted. However, there are also countervailing forces: the strong dollar in 2022-2024 made U.S. imports cheaper in local terms even with tariffs, and slower growth in 2023-25 plus technology (automation easing cost pressures) have kept global inflation in check after the initial pandemic surge. Going forward, if trade restrictions continue to ratchet up, central banks may face higher baseline inflation (a de-globalization effect), requiring tighter monetary policy than otherwise. But if demand weakens (due to these same policies causing recessions), it can offset price rises – a complex interplay.
Trade Diversion Winners and Losers: As we’ve seen, countries like Vietnam emerged as big winners by stepping into the gap between the U.S. and China. Vietnam’s exports to the U.S. soared even under tariffs, hitting records[19][147], and its economy grew 8%[21]. However, Vietnam’s experience also reveals the perils of being a proxy: it got hit with high tariffs itself (46%, then 20%)[17][18] when its surplus got too large for U.S. tolerance. This suggests no one is immune – if any one country benefits “too much” from trade diversion, it might become the next target of deficit-driven tariffs. In physics terms, you might say the system’s Hamiltonian has many local minima – pressure just shifts around. Other countries like Mexico have so far navigated well (Mexico’s exports to the U.S. increased as near-shoring took hold, and it wasn’t slapped with new tariffs under USMCA’s protection), but political risk (regime change talk, cartel issues) hangs overhead. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia – these ASEAN and South Asian nations also saw upticks as China alternatives, and how they manage labor, quality, and diplomacy will determine if they sustain gains.
Multilateral Institutions Struggle: The WTO is essentially sidelined in resolving these disputes. Its trade monitoring paints the picture but its rules haven’t stopped anything[7]. The G20, once a forum for coordinating against protectionism, is fractured (2023’s G20 saw no consensus on Ukraine, etc., though they did launch some joint initiatives like the trade corridor mentioned). We are likely to see more minilateral agreements – smaller group pacts like the US-EU tariff arrangement, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (which is not a traditional FTA but a series of understandings), or the recently agreed Kenya-UK and Kenya-EU deals, etc. This patchwork will make global trade governance more complex and less uniform. For businesses, navigating different sets of rules and standards will be challenging, favoring larger firms that can absorb compliance costs and disadvantaging smaller exporters.
Looking ahead, what does the data trajectory suggest? If we treat global trade as an evolving system, one could attempt to construct a kind of Lagrangian – an economic function capturing the “path” that minimizes costs and maximizes growth under the new constraints. Right now, that path seems to involve: building redundancies (less cost-efficient but safer), concentrating trade among trusted partners, and innovation to circumvent barriers (e.g., developing domestic industries or new technologies to replace imports). The momentum is toward a more regionalized, politically cautious trade environment over the next decade. For example, North America’s trade (USMCA) might deepen with more production shifting to Mexico/Canada for U.S. needs (as an alternative to Asia), Asia might become more self-contained with RCEP (especially if India eventually re-engages there), and Europe will trade slightly more with Africa and the Americas to reduce reliance on China. These trends are already in motion and likely to continue barring a major political reversal.
What could alter this course? Perhaps a change in U.S. leadership or strategy (for instance, if a new administration in 2029 decided to roll back tariffs and repair WTO – though even Biden largely kept tariffs in place, indicating bipartisan skepticism of free trade). Or a resolution of conflicts (peace in Ukraine could eventually allow some normalization with Russia, though that seems distant; similarly, a U.S.-China détente could stabilize things, but strategic rivalry makes that hard). On the other hand, potential swings (“Hamiltonian” oscillations) include: - A severe global recession (perhaps triggered by monetary tightening or a financial crisis) could sharply reduce trade volumes in the short term (like 2008-2009 saw a trade collapse). Ironically, that might cool inflation and ease some pressure leading to removal of certain tariffs to stimulate growth. - Commodity price swings: a sudden oil shock (if, say, a war erupts involving a Gulf state or a blockade) could send inflation soaring and test the durability of trade relationships (countries might hoard resources, imposing export controls – something we saw with food and medical supplies during COVID). Already in 2022-23, some countries banned food exports to protect domestic prices (e.g., India banned wheat exports in 2022 after Ukraine war disrupted grain). Climate-related events could also cause swings (a drought causing multiple countries to restrict food exports, affecting import-dependent nations).
Political swings: Public opinion might react to these trade developments. If consumers and businesses in the U.S. protest tariff-induced costs strongly enough, we could see adjustments. Already, some U.S. manufacturers who rely on imported inputs have lobbied for exemptions. The USTR extended tariff exclusions on some Chinese products through 2026[148] – a sign that at the micro level, some relief is given. Politics can change course – for instance, European electorates could demand a tougher line on China if industries suffer, or conversely, more accommodation if they want cheaper goods.
It’s notable that despite all the turbulence, global trade hasn’t collapsed – it rerouted and even grew in value in 2025[94]. This speaks to the resilience and adaptability of the system. Companies don’t give up profits easily – they find new ways. Countries too, find new partners. In a sense, the “Hamiltonian energy” of the system – representing the drive (momentum) of globalization and the counteracting forces of fragmentation – is being redistributed but not extinguished. We see oscillations: one year trade is down, the next it surprises up due to creative rerouting (as in 2025’s case with frontloading and alternate routes boosting numbers temporarily)[33]. But if we smooth out these swings, the trendline is flatter than before.
From a modeling perspective, to build a Lagrangian for global trade one might incorporate terms for economic “kinetic energy” (growth, efficiency gains from trade) and “potential energy” (latent stresses like inequality, security vulnerabilities). The system right now is shifting to a new local minimum where perhaps the “potential energy” (geopolitical risk) is lowered by more self-reliance, but at the cost of some “kinetic energy” (slower growth from less optimal trade). Using Hamiltonian terms, the cyclical forces (like retaliatory cycles, booms and busts in response to policy shocks) will likely continue – e.g., maybe an overcorrection to protectionism will be followed by a partial swing back to cooperation when its drawbacks become evident. Sabine Weyand’s warning that Europe “went back to sleep” after Trump 1.0 and shouldn’t after Trump 2.0 suggests lessons are being learned[149]. If enough pain is felt, there could be a collective push to reinvigorate a rules-based system (similar to how the chaos of 1930s tariffs eventually led to the Bretton Woods order and GATT).
At present, though, the scale of turmoil isn’t (yet) as catastrophic as the Great Depression – global GDP is still growing modestly, and many developing countries are actually doing okay by trading with each other. So the pressure to convene a new global trade framework hasn’t hit critical mass; instead we see incremental efforts (WTO reform talks, etc.).
In conclusion, the world of trade in the mid-2020s is characterized by uncertainty and transition. Tariffs and protectionist measures have clearly changed the momentum: after decades where each decade saw more openness, we are now in a phase of partial reversal where trade grows more slowly than output (meaning a declining trade intensity). The data and scenarios compiled here provide the basis to project where we might head. If trends continue, one can envision by 2030 a global trade system of regional clusters: a North American zone, a Europe+neighbors zone, an Asia zone, linked by selective bridges (some Middle East and African countries tied into multiple zones). Global companies will operate in perhaps two or three variants (one set of standards for U.S.-EU markets, another for China-Russia, etc.). This is the Lagrangian “path” we are on – not a complete de-globalization, but a bifurcated and more brittle globalization.
Yet, as history shows, these trajectories are not set in stone. A change in leadership, a new crisis, or a groundswell for cooperation could swing the Hamiltonian pendulum the other way – perhaps towards a new equilibrium that balances both the efficiency of global markets and the security of nations. Policymakers now have the task of interpreting the data and trends – as we have assembled – to decide which course to take. Understanding the full picture, from South America’s upheavals to Greenland’s strategic chess match, from Africa’s continental ambitions to Europe’s dilemmas, is essential to navigating and possibly shaping the next phase of globalization[10][37]. The world’s traders, workers, and consumers hang in the balance of these momentous decisions and dynamics.
Sources:
PIIE, “The global trade war: An update”, Oct 1, 2025 – projected impacts of 2025 U.S. tariffs[28][60].
McKinsey, “Tariffs and global trade: impact on business”, Apr 18, 2025 – on U.S. tariff surge to 20%, China’s 125% retaliation[3].
Breaking Defense, “US unlikely to launch military takeover of Greenland”, Jan 8, 2026 – on Trump officials’ rhetoric, NATO crisis, and reference to Venezuela operation[64][150].
SecNewgate (UK), “Could Colombia be next for Trump?”, Jan 2026 – analysis of U.S. “Donroe Doctrine”, Maduro capture, Trump’s Petro comments[42][55].
Euronews, “In 2025, global trade cracked as Europe hurt by US tariffs and new China shock”, Dec 29, 2025 – detailed chronology of 2025 trade events (Liberation Day, EU-US deal, China rare earths)[4][151].
WTO Trade Monitoring Report, Dec 2025 – data on surge in tariffs (4× increase affecting $2.64tn imports)[5][152] and forecast of 0.5% trade growth 2026[33].
The Diplomat, “Vietnam’s Economy Grew by 8% in 2025…”, Jan 6, 2026 – Vietnam’s record trade surplus with U.S. despite tariffs; U.S. tariff on Vietnam 46%->20%[153][17].
Australia India Institute, “Beyond Trump’s Tariffs: India’s Rapprochement with China”, Oct 14, 2025 – India facing 50% U.S. tariffs, record $113bn China imports, policy hedge[106][102].
Reuters, “WTO downgrades global trade growth forecast to 0.5%”, Oct 5, 2025 – (not directly cited above but corroborates WTO figures).
U.S. White House E.O., Mar 24, 2025 – “Imposing Tariffs on Countries Importing Venezuelan Oil” – 25% tariff threat for Venezuela oil trade[13].
Atlantic Council, “Worst crisis of NATO’s existence” – analysis referenced in Breaking Defense[78].
[1] [2] [4] [14] [15] [36] [37] [94] [95] [96] [97] [100] [101] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [149] [151] In 2025, global trade cracked as Europe hurt by US tariffs and new China shock | Euronews
[3] [9] [24] [25] [26] [27] The economic impact of tariffs on business | McKinsey
[5] [6] [7] [8] [33] [34] [35] [152] WTO | 2025 News items - Large increase in new tariffs but also measures to ease global trade, WTO report shows
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news25_e/trdev_02dec25_225_e.htm
[10] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [60] The global trade war: An update | PIIE
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/global-trade-war-update
[11] [12] [13] Imposing Tariffs on Countries Importing Venezuelan Oil – The White House
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [147] [153] Vietnam’s Economy Grew By More Than 8 Percent in 2025, Government Says – The Diplomat
[38] US-Venezuela Oil Reset: Sanctions, State-Directed Crude Sales ...
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/us-venezuela-oil-reset-sanctions-state-5570850/
[39] [41] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [150] US 'unlikely' to launch military takeover of Greenland: European analysts - Breaking Defense
[40] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] Could Colombia be next for Donald Trump? Our team in Bogota weigh up the scenarios
[59] US Revokes Colombian President's Visa: The Volatile Relationship ...
[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] ERA 2025: With effective implementation, the AfCFTA can open alternative markets to sectors affected by the global tariff wars | United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
[93] What Does Regime Change in Venezuela Mean for U.S. Energy?
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/what-does-regime-change-in-venezuela-mean-for-u-s-energy/
[98] [99] [102] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] Beyond Trump’s Tariffs: The Domestic Drivers of India’s Rapprochement with China - Australia India Institute
[103] Expanding Supply Chains in India: Opportunities and Challenges
https://clarkstonconsulting.com/insights/expanding-supply-chains-in-india/
[104] India's Manufacturing Momentum: Performance and Policy - PIB
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2168711
[105] Manufacturing Industries in India & its Growth - IBEF
https://www.ibef.org/industry/manufacturing-sector-india
[112] Why India and China are realigning their relations - Dandc.eu
[113] Why India-China trade thaw revives the RCEP debate | Policy Circle
https://www.policycircle.org/economy/india-china-thaw-rcep-debate/
[146] Q&A on US Actions in Venezuela - Center on Global Energy Policy
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/qa-on-us-actions-in-venezuela/
[148] Breaking Down the US-China Trade Tariffs: What's in Effect Now?
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-tariff-rates-2025/
