Trump's Negotiation Gambit: Redefining Global Power in 100 Days

Abstract

The return of Donald Trump to the White House sets the stage for one of the most aggressive geopolitical negotiation plays in modern history. Facing a narrow 100-day window before Congress can counter his moves, Trump is expected to act swiftly, leveraging Ukraine, Russia, NATO, China, and the Middle East as bargaining chips to reconfigure global power dynamics.

Rather than assuming definitive outcomes, this article applies critical thinking and double-think analysis to explore why events are unfolding the way they are. Instead of predicting success or failure, it seeks to outline the rational motivations behind these actions, recognizing the inherent high-risk factors and the uncertainty of results. Additionally, it examines how Trump may use the DODGE Initiative (Department of Defense Government Efficiency)and Elon Musk’s influence to slow down bureaucratic resistance, remove internal opposition, and position the U.S. for stronger leverage in future negotiations, rather than seeking outright victory.

While the risks of this approach are substantial, it is also possible that Trump’s unconventional strategy succeeds where traditional diplomacy has failed. Could his bold, transactional approach lead to an unexpected breakthrough in global stability, a negotiated end to the Ukraine war, and a recalibrated world order that benefits the U.S. economy?

I. The Negotiator’s Dilemma: The 100-Day Power Window

Trump, as a deal-maker first and politician second, understands that his power to shape policy is at its peak before Congress, the Pentagon, and global allies can mobilize against him. The first 100 days provide:

Unilateral Executive Authority – He can issue executive orders on sanctions, trade deals, military posture, and diplomatic relations without Congressional approval.
Political Momentum – With a fresh mandate, his political capital is at its highest, allowing him to pressure allies and adversaries into early agreements.
Bureaucratic Paralysis – The State Department, intelligence community, and Pentagon need time to reorganize, allowing Trump to act before institutional resistance can stall negotiations.
DODGE Initiative to Distract Resistance & Restructure Government – Trump is expected to use government reform measures, possibly led by figures like Elon Musk, to bog down Congressional oversight, delay bureaucratic responses, and maintain negotiating flexibility. Additionally, DODGE serves as a tool to reshape government institutions to align with Trump’s policy objectives by removing internal opposition. While DODGE could be a tactical maneuver to stall resistance, it could also be a genuine effort by Trump to create a more efficient and loyal government apparatus.

📌 Double-Think Consideration: Is Trump deliberately slowing down bureaucratic resistance to buy time for negotiations, or is this restructuring necessary to make government more efficient? Could both be true at the same time?

📌 Potential Success: If DODGE leads to a more streamlined decision-making process, could it provide Trump with the flexibility to move faster than previous administrations in executing his foreign policy vision?

II. Trump’s Economic Development Talks with Russia & The Role of Minerals

A recent statement from Trump suggests that he is considering expanding economic ties with Russia alongside efforts to end the Ukraine war. This raises several strategic questions:

Is this an incentive for Russia to agree to a ceasefire? If economic cooperation is on the table, does it make de-escalation more attractive for Putin?
Could this be perceived as a shift in U.S. priorities? If Trump is willing to trade with Russia while pressuring NATO to increase defense spending, will European leaders see this as a signal that the U.S. is disengaging from NATO security commitments?
Will this strategy face pushback from Congress? Many U.S. lawmakers strongly oppose any easing of trade restrictions on Russia, and bipartisan resistance could limit Trump’s ability to follow through.
How does Russia play its hand? Rather than choosing between the U.S. and China, Russia may try to leverage both economic partnerships, playing the two powers against each other to extract maximum benefits.
The Minerals Deal: A U.S. Return on Investment? The billions spent on Ukraine could now translate into U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth, ensuring an economic return on U.S. financial and military aid. Additionally, recent statements from Putin indicate Russia may be open to granting access to rare earth minerals, potentially as a bargaining tool in negotiations with Trump.

📌 Double-Think Consideration: Is Trump prioritizing business with Russia as a long-term strategy for stability, or is it merely a negotiation tool to incentivize de-escalation in Ukraine?

📌 Potential Success: If Trump can broker an economic agreement that incentivizes a ceasefire in Ukraine while securing rare earth minerals and energy trade agreements, could this be a major diplomatic and economic breakthrough?

Final Thought: A Gamble That Could Reshape Diplomacy

📌 Final Thought: If Trump’s strategy works, does this reshape U.S. diplomacy for future leaders, or is it a one-time geopolitical gamble that only works under his unique leadership style?

This article does not claim to predict the future but instead offers a framework for critical thinking and negotiation analysis in an unpredictable geopolitical landscape.

About the Author & Disclaimer

The author is a consultant in negotiation skills training at Scotwork Sweden AB, specializing in high-stakes negotiations, conflict resolution, and strategic deal-making on a global scale. With expertise in understanding leverage, power dynamics, and decision-making under pressure, the author applies negotiation theory to geopolitical strategy—not to take sides, but to understand how actors position themselves and how their interests can be countered, blocked, or reinforced.

I am not a policymaker, military strategist, or insider in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict. My role is purely analytical—observing events, identifying patterns, and applying strategic thinking to assess possible outcomes.

This article is not based on classified intelligence or privileged diplomatic insights—it is an independent analysis drawn from publicly available information, historical parallels, and negotiation strategy principles.

🔹 I do not claim to predict the future—only to ask the right questions.
🔹 The conclusions I present are interpretations, not definitive statements of fact.
🔹 This is an exercise in strategic thinking, aimed at fostering discussion rather than asserting a predetermined outcome.