The
2025 China Victory Day Parade, held on September 3 in Beijing to commemorate
the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, served as a potent display of
China's military advancements and geopolitical ambitions. Attended by global
leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim
Jong Un, the event featured over 10,000 troops and unveiled cutting-edge
weaponry, such as nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
U.S. President Donald Trump's public response, which praised the parade's
spectacle while accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of "conspiring"
against the U.S. with Putin and Kim, highlighted escalating tensions in global
power dynamics. This topic explores the parade's symbolism and Trump's reaction
amid shifting international alliances, such as deepening China-Russia-North
Korea ties and U.S. strategic pivots.
1.
Historical Context and Symbolic Evolution of
China's Victory Day Parades
China’s Victory
Day parades, particularly those commemorating the end of the Second
Sino-Japanese War and World War II, have emerged as significant platforms for
projecting national strength, historical narratives, and geopolitical
ambitions. Initiated in 2015 to mark the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender,
these parades have evolved from China’s earlier National Day parades,
reflecting a shift in focus from domestic legitimacy to global influence. This
essay expatiates on the historical context and symbolic evolution of China’s
Victory Day parades, emphasizing their role in shaping national identity, rewriting
history, and signaling military and diplomatic power.
i.
Historical
Context
Origins
in National Day Parades
Since the
founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, military parades have
been a cornerstone of state propaganda, primarily held on October 1 to
celebrate National Day. These events, notably in 1959, 1984, 1999, and 2009,
showcased the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and marked milestones in China’s
development under leaders Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu
Jintao. The 1949 parade, held in Tiananmen Square, featured captured Japanese
and American equipment, symbolizing the Communist Party’s (CCP) triumph over
the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War and the birth of a new China. By
1959, domestically produced equipment, albeit Soviet-inspired, signaled growing
self-reliance. These parades were annual until 1960, when the CCP shifted to
decennial events to conserve resources, reflecting a pragmatic approach to
spectacle.
Establishment
of Victory Day
The designation
of September 3 as Victory Day in 2014 marked a pivotal shift, formalizing the
commemoration of Japan’s surrender in 1945. This decision, under President Xi
Jinping, responded to domestic calls for recognition of China’s WWII sacrifices
and aimed to counter Japan’s perceived historical revisionism. The first
Victory Day parade in 2015, officially titled “The Commemoration of the 70th
Anniversary of the Victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against
Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War,” broke from the National
Day tradition, focusing explicitly on WWII and aligning China with global
anti-fascist narratives. The second parade in 2025, marking the 80th
anniversary, built on this foundation, reinforcing China’s historical narrative
and geopolitical stance.
Historical
Revisionism and the CCP’s Role
The Victory Day
parades serve to elevate the CCP’s role in defeating Japan, often at the
expense of historical accuracy. While the KMT led most major battles against
Japan, sustaining over 3.5 million casualties compared to the CCP’s minimal
losses, the parades emphasize the CCP’s contributions, such as guerrilla
actions by the Northeast United Anti-Japanese Force. Taiwan has criticized this
as historical revisionism, arguing that the CCP marginalizes the Republic of
China’s (ROC) dominant role. The 2015 parade’s inclusion of KMT veterans was a
rare acknowledgment, reflecting temporary cross-strait détente under Taiwan’s
KMT-led government (2008–2016). By 2025, with Taiwan under the Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP), China’s narrative sharpened, dismissing Taiwan’s
critiques as “blaspheming” the Chinese nation’s sacrifices.
ii.
Symbolic
Evolution
From
Domestic Legitimation to Global Projection
The Victory Day
parades have evolved from inward-focused displays of CCP legitimacy to
platforms for global signaling. The 2015 parade, the first under Xi’s
leadership, introduced a “peace and victory” theme, with 12,000 PLA troops,
1,000 foreign troops from 17 countries, and 850,000 “Citizen Guards” mobilized
in Beijing. Symbolic elements, such as helicopters forming the number “70” and
the absence of the J-20 stealth fighter to avoid overt provocation, balanced
military prowess with diplomatic restraint. Xi’s announcement of a
300,000-troop reduction underscored a commitment to peace, though analysts
noted this targeted non-combat personnel to streamline the PLA.
By 2025, the
parade’s scale and ambition grew, with over 12,000 troops, 500+ vehicles, and
advanced weaponry like hypersonic missiles and nuclear-capable ICBMs. The
presence of leaders like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Iran’s Masoud
Pezeshkian highlighted an “axis of upheaval” against Western hegemony,
signaling China’s role in a multipolar world. Symbolic gestures, such as Z-20
helicopters carrying CCP, PRC, and PLA flags and banners proclaiming “Justice
shall prevail,” reinforced China’s narrative of moral and historical
legitimacy. The release of 80,000 doves and balloons underscored peace
rhetoric, though the display of advanced weaponry conveyed deterrence.
Visual
and Cultural Symbolism
The parades
employ rich symbolism to evoke national pride and historical memory. In 2015,
seating arrangements in green, red, and gold symbolized fertile land,
sacrifice, and peace, respectively, as per CCTV reports. The 2025 parade
featured structures resembling the Great Wall with “1945” and “2025” numerals,
linking historical resilience to modern strength. Xi’s Mao-style suit in both
parades invoked continuity with the CCP’s revolutionary legacy. The inclusion
of female troops, such as the 2025 all-female medical team named after Norman
Bethune, highlighted gender inclusivity and historical ties to anti-fascist
efforts. For the first time since 1959, battalions in 2025 carried colors,
emphasizing military tradition and unit pride.
Geopolitical
Messaging
The parades
have increasingly served as platforms for geopolitical messaging. In 2015, the
presence of foreign contingents and leaders like Putin signaled China’s
integration into a global anti-fascist narrative, countering U.S.-led post-WWII
order. Xi’s speech, mentioning “peace” 18 times, positioned China as a global
peacebuilder, contrasting with Western militarism. By 2025, the parade’s guest
list—excluding Western leaders except Slovakia’s Robert Fico and Serbia’s
Aleksandar Vucic—underscored a shift toward a non-Western coalition. Xi’s
rhetoric of choosing “peace or war, dialogue or confrontation, win-win or
zero-sum” framed China as a moral leader in a multipolar world, implicitly
challenging U.S. dominance. The parade’s timing, amid U.S. tariffs and tensions
over Taiwan, reinforced its role as a deterrent signal.
Domestic
and Regional Implications
Domestically,
the parades bolster Xi’s “China Dream” of national rejuvenation, addressing
economic anxieties and reinforcing CCP control. The 2025 parade’s exclusion of
the public, with strict security measures like closed windows and cleared
offices, reflected the CCP’s obsession with control, projecting a
“stage-managed performance” to domestic audiences via state media. Regionally,
the parades stoke tensions, particularly with Japan and Taiwan. Japan’s 2025
objections to the parade’s “anti-Japanese sentiment” and Taiwan’s critique of
its cost (estimated at NT$150 billion) highlight ongoing historical disputes.
The parade’s Taiwan narrative, invoking the Cairo and Potsdam agreements to
assert sovereignty, underscores its role in regional power projection.
2.
Military
Capabilities and Technological Displays in the 2025 Parade
China’s 2025 Victory Day Parade (Beijing, September 3, 2025)
China’s
military parade in Beijing, marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World
War II, was a meticulously orchestrated display of the People’s Liberation
Army’s (PLA) advancements in military technology and strategic capabilities.
Held in Tiananmen Square under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, the
parade showcased a range of cutting-edge weaponry, emphasizing China’s shift
toward “intelligentised warfare” and its ambition to rival global powers,
particularly the United States. The event featured over 100 aircraft, hundreds
of ground armaments, and a significant presence of world leaders, including
Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, signaling a geopolitical
message of unity against Western influence. Below are the key military
capabilities and technological highlights:
1.
Nuclear Triad and Strategic Missiles
China displayed its full nuclear
triad for the first time, comprising land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear-capable
systems, underscoring its strategic deterrence capabilities:
- Dongfeng-61
(DF-61) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM):
A new road-mobile ICBM, debuted publicly, capable of carrying multiple
warheads. Its mobility enhances survivability by allowing it to be hidden
and relocated, unlike silo-based systems. The DF-61 represents a
significant addition to the PLA Rocket Force’s arsenal, with a range
potentially exceeding 12,000 km, capable of targeting global locations.
- Dongfeng-5C
(DF-5C): An upgraded liquid-fueled ICBM with
a range of 20,000 km (12,400 miles), capable of releasing multiple
independent warheads on a single target. This missile enhances China’s
ability to strike distant adversaries, including the United States.
- Julang-3
(JL-3): A submarine-launched ballistic
missile (SLBM), marking progress in China’s sea-based nuclear deterrence.
The JL-3 complements land-based systems, providing a second-strike
capability.
- Jinglei-1:
An air-launched long-range missile, completing the air component of
China’s nuclear triad. This system enhances the PLA Air Force’s strategic
reach.
- Dongfeng-26D
(DF-26D): Known as the “Guam Killer,” this
intermediate-range ballistic missile can target U.S. military bases in
Guam and features controllable warheads for precision strikes against
ships and bases.
These systems reflect China’s
commitment to modernizing its strategic deterrent, with an emphasis on
flexibility, survivability, and global reach. The parade’s display of
nuclear-capable missiles was described as a “transparent deterrence” policy,
aimed at reducing miscalculations by openly showcasing capabilities.
2.
Hypersonic and Anti-Ship Missiles
The parade featured a robust
array of hypersonic and anti-ship missiles, designed to counter naval threats,
particularly U.S. aircraft carriers in the South and East China Seas:
- Yingji-17
(YJ-17), Yingji-19 (YJ-19), Yingji-20 (YJ-20), and Yingji-21 (YJ-21):
These hypersonic anti-ship missiles are capable of high-speed,
unpredictable maneuvers to evade missile defense systems. The YJ-17 and
YJ-19 were tested against mockups of U.S. aircraft carriers, highlighting
their role in potential Taiwan-related conflicts.
- Changjian-20A
(CJ-20A) and Changjian-1000: Cruise missiles
with hypersonic glide warheads, deployable from land, ships, and aircraft,
offering all-weather combat capabilities. These missiles enhance China’s
precision strike capabilities across multiple domains.
- Yingji-18C
(YJ-18C): A long-range land-attack cruise
missile with signature-reduction features, optimized for stealth and
precision. Its design suggests a focus on strategic strikes rather than
solely anti-ship roles.
These missiles underscore
China’s focus on asymmetric warfare, aiming to neutralize U.S. naval dominance
in regional waters. Analysts note that controlling these seas is critical for
China in any potential conflict over Taiwan.
3.
Unmanned Systems and Autonomous Technologies
A major theme of the parade was
the emphasis on unmanned systems, reflecting China’s push toward
“intelligentized warfare”:
- Aerial
Drones: The parade showcased “loyal
wingman” drones, stealthy unpiloted aircraft designed to operate alongside
manned stealth fighters like the J-20 and J-35. Four new types were
unveiled, enhancing the PLA Air Force’s combat flexibility.
- Naval Drones:
The AJX002 large unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) and mine warfare Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USVs) were displayed. The USVs, equipped with
autocannons and mine-clearing gear, are designed for littoral operations
and potentially antisubmarine warfare.
- Ground-Based
Autonomous Vehicles: These included
logistics and mine-clearing vehicles, engineered for complex battlefield
tasks, demonstrating China’s focus on networked and autonomous military
operations.
- Robotic
Wolves: A novel inclusion, these dog-like
robots were highlighted as a quirky but symbolic addition, potentially
used for reconnaissance or light combat roles.
The extensive use of drones
across air, sea, and land domains illustrates China’s investment in autonomous
systems, which are seen as more advanced in some respects than Western
equivalents.
4.
Directed-Energy Weapons
China introduced laser-based air
defense systems, marking a significant shift toward directed-energy weapons:
- Naval
and Truck-Mounted Lasers: Two versions were
displayed—a large naval air defense laser and a smaller truck-mounted
system for ground troops. These systems use electromagnetic energy to
disable targets through heat or disruption of electrical systems, offering
cost-effective and logistically simpler alternatives to traditional
munitions.
- High-Power
Microwave Weapons: Part of China’s anti-drone
triad, these weapons can disrupt drone electronics, complementing missile
guns and lasers.
These systems highlight China’s
advancements in countering drone threats, a critical capability given the
proliferation of unmanned systems in modern warfare.
5.
Naval and Air Capabilities
The parade emphasized China’s
naval and air modernization:
- Naval
Aviation: The display included the J-15
carrier-based fighter, the J-35 stealth fighter, and the KJ-600 airborne
early warning and control (AEWC) aircraft, all making their official
flying debut. These systems enhance China’s carrier-based operations, with
the PLA Navy projected to surpass the U.S. Navy in fleet size by 2030.
- Aircraft
Carriers: While not physically present, the
parade referenced China’s growing fleet, currently at three carriers, with
plans for a nuclear-powered supercarrier to rival U.S. designs.
- Z-20T
Air Assault Helicopters: These helicopters,
capable of operating from amphibious assault vessels, bolster China’s
naval projection capabilities.
6.
Ground Forces and Main Battle Tanks
- Type
100 Main Battle Tank: Unveiled as a
fourth-generation tank, the Type 100 features advanced systems, including
air defenses and reconnaissance drones, challenging conventional tank
design. Its capabilities suggest a focus on integrated, multi-domain
warfare.
- Amphibious
Assault Vehicles: New vehicles for the Army
Amphibious Forces were displayed, with advanced features reserved for
future revelations, indicating ongoing innovation.
7.
Organizational and Strategic Shifts
The parade was
organized into combat groups, reflecting principles of information dominance,
system-of-systems support, elite force operations, and joint-force victory.
This structure highlights China’s focus on integrated warfare, combining manned
and unmanned systems across domains. The selective display of equipment, with
some advanced systems withheld, suggests China is reserving even more
cutting-edge capabilities for strategic surprise.
Geopolitical
Messaging
The presence of
leaders like Putin and Kim Jong-un underscored a united front against the U.S.
and its allies, with the parade serving as a deterrent signal. Xi’s speech
emphasized peace but warned that China would not be intimidated, a veiled
reference to tensions over Taiwan and regional disputes. Analysts noted that
the parade was designed to intimidate rivals while showcasing China’s
technological leadership and potential to export military technology.
Caveats
and Limitations
Despite the
impressive display, analysts cautioned that parade showcases do not fully
reflect combat readiness. The PLA has not been tested in high-intensity
conflict for decades, and operational challenges, such as a top-down command
structure, may limit battlefield agility compared to the U.S. military’s
bottom-up approach. Some weapons may still be in limited deployment or field
testing, not yet fully standardized.
United States 250th Army Anniversary Parade (Washington,
D.C., June 14, 2025)
The U.S. Army’s
250th anniversary parade in Washington, D.C., celebrated the Army’s legacy
while showcasing modern capabilities and technological advancements. Held as
part of the United States Semiquincentennial, the parade stretched nearly four
miles from the Pentagon to the White House, involving 6,600 soldiers, 150
vehicles, 50 helicopters, warplanes, and historical reenactors. Despite its
scale, the event faced criticism for its cost and perceived politicization,
coinciding with President Trump’s birthday and drawing comparisons to
authoritarian displays.
1.
Military Capabilities Displayed
- Historical
and Modern Integration: The parade blended
historical reenactors in Revolutionary War uniforms with modern combat
units, showcasing the Army’s evolution. Advanced armored vehicles,
including tanks shipped from Fort Hood, Texas, were displayed alongside
period-accurate equipment.
- Aerial
Displays: Flyovers featured warplanes and
helicopters, emphasizing the Army’s air mobility and combat support
capabilities. Parachutists from elite units added a dynamic element.
- Logistical
Scale: The parade involved significant
logistical efforts, with equipment transported by train and flatbed
trucks, and soldiers housed in government buildings. This demonstrated the
Army’s organizational capacity but also highlighted the event’s high cost,
estimated at $25–45 million, including $16 million in street damage.
2.
Technological Highlights
- Cutting-Edge
Technology: The parade showcased modernized
equipment, reflecting investments in defense capabilities under President
Trump’s America First agenda. Specific systems were not detailed in
sources, but the focus was on advanced armored vehicles and cutting-edge
technologies supporting recruitment and readiness goals (85% of 2025 recruitment
targets achieved).
- Reenlistment
Ceremony: A live reenlistment ceremony on the
National Mall highlighted the Army’s human capital and technological
readiness, reinforcing recruitment efforts.
3.
Strategic and Political Context
The parade was
framed as a celebration of the Army’s 250-year legacy, but critics, including
Senator Rand Paul, argued it resembled authoritarian spectacles, raising
concerns about politicization. Logistical challenges and sparse crowds,
attributed to poor weather and nationwide protests, underscored mixed public
reception. The event was overshadowed by concurrent global events, such as
Israeli strikes on Iran and domestic protests, diluting its impact.
Comparative Analysis
- Technological
Focus: China’s parade emphasized cutting-edge
systems like hypersonic missiles, drones, and directed-energy weapons,
signaling a leap toward technological parity or superiority in specific
domains. The U.S. parade focused on historical legacy alongside modern
capabilities, but specific technological reveals were less prominent,
possibly due to a more cautious approach to public displays.
- Geopolitical
Messaging: China’s event was a deliberate show
of force, targeting the U.S., its allies, and regional powers like India
and Russia, with a focus on deterrence and technological leadership. The
U.S. parade aimed to boost national pride and recruitment but faced
criticism for domestic politicization, limiting its international impact.
- Operational
Readiness: China’s systems, while advanced,
are untested in high-intensity conflict, and its top-down command
structure may hinder operational flexibility. The U.S. maintains an
operational edge due to its combat experience and decentralized
decision-making, though China’s technological gap is narrowing.
3.
Donald
Trump's Rhetorical Response and U.S. Foreign Policy Framing
Donald Trump’s rhetorical style and
its impact on U.S. foreign policy framing have been widely analyzed for their
distinctiveness, blending populist, nationalist, and confrontational elements.
His approach diverges from traditional presidential rhetoric, emphasizing
emotional appeals, binary framing, and a rejection of multilateralism in favor
of an "America First" agenda.
i. Characteristics of Trump’s
Rhetorical Style
Trump’s rhetoric is characterized by
its directness, emotional resonance, and polarizing nature, which he leverages
to frame foreign policy issues in ways that resonate with his base while
challenging established norms. Key features include:
·
Populist
and Nationalist Tone: Trump’s rhetoric centers on an
"America First" philosophy, prioritizing U.S. sovereignty and
interests over global cooperation. He presents himself as an outsider battling
a corrupt global elite, appealing to voters disillusioned with traditional
foreign policy establishments. For instance, his 2016 foreign policy speech
emphasized that “no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come
second to the citizens of foreign countries”. This rhetoric frames
international relations as a zero-sum game, where U.S. gains come at the
expense of others.
·
Binary
Framing and Absolutist Language: Trump often reduces
complex foreign policy issues to simple, black-and-white terms, using absolutes
like “always,” “never,” “totally,” or “forever.” This creates a polarized
worldview, casting adversaries as existential threats. For example, he
described John Kerry as a “total disaster” and Obamacare as something that
would “destroy American health care forever”. This "burlesque" style,
as noted by Kenneth Burke, amplifies crises to mobilize support.
·
Emotional
Appeals and Fearmongering: Trump’s rhetoric taps into voter
insecurities, using fear to frame issues like immigration, trade, and global
competition. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild notes that his speeches evoke
“dominance, bravado, clarity, national pride, and personal uplift,” resonating
with supporters’ emotional self-interest. His 2016 statement to Bob Woodward,
“Real power is... fear,” underscores this strategy. For instance, his rhetoric
on immigration often dehumanizes migrants, calling them “animals” or “enemies,”
which scholars link to increased political hostility and even violence.
·
Use
of Falsehoods and “Firehose of Falsehood”: Trump’s rhetoric
frequently includes falsehoods or exaggerations, employing what analysts call
the “firehose of falsehood” propaganda technique. This approach overwhelms
fact-checking mechanisms, entrenching narratives among supporters. For example,
his claims about North Korea no longer being a nuclear threat after the 2018
Hanoi summit were misleading, as the country’s nuclear capabilities grew during
his presidency.
·
Authoritarian
and Monarchical Imagery: During his second term, Trump’s
rhetoric has leaned into portraying himself as a figure above the presidency,
using monarchical terms and claiming divine legitimacy. Examples include White
House social media depicting him with a crown and statements like “He who saves
his Country does not violate any Law”. This framing elevates his personal
authority while undermining democratic norms.
ii. Framing U.S. Foreign Policy
Trump’s rhetoric has significantly
shaped the framing of U.S. foreign policy, moving away from the post-World War
II liberal international order toward a nationalist, transactional approach.
His framing emphasizes unilateralism, economic protectionism, and skepticism of
multilateral institutions, with specific policy impacts:
·
“America
First” Doctrine: Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric revolves
around prioritizing U.S. interests, often at the expense of alliances and
global cooperation. In his 2017 UN General Assembly speech, he outlined a
policy of “direct, robust, and meaningful engagement” based on U.S. security
interests, rejecting the promotion of democracy abroad. His withdrawal from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Climate Accord framed these
agreements as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and economic interests. This rhetoric
positioned the U.S. as a solitary actor, distrustful of multilateral frameworks.
·
Trade
and Economic Nationalism: Trump framed global trade as a
threat to American workers, accusing countries like China of “unfair
competition” and “intellectual property theft”. His renegotiation of NAFTA into
the USMCA and imposition of tariffs on allies and adversaries alike were
justified as protecting the “forgotten men and women” of America. This rhetoric
linked foreign policy to domestic economic grievances, resonating with voters
feeling left behind by globalization.
·
Confrontation
with Adversaries: Trump’s rhetoric toward adversaries like
North Korea and Iran was often escalatory, using vivid, threatening language.
His 2017 warning of “fire and fury” against North Korea and his proposal to
target terrorists’ families (in violation of international law) framed U.S.
power as uncompromising. However, his rhetoric could also pivot to diplomacy,
as seen in his 2018 meeting with Kim Jong-un, which he framed as a personal
triumph despite limited tangible outcomes.
·
Strained
Relations with Allies: Trump’s rhetoric alienated
traditional allies by demanding they “pay up” for U.S. military protection,
framing alliances as transactional. His threats to withdraw from NATO and
refusal to commit to Article 5 guarantees weakened allied trust, prompting
countries like Germany and Poland to explore independent nuclear options. This
rhetoric framed allies as freeloaders, undermining decades of cooperative security
frameworks.
·
Immigration
and Cultural Rhetoric: Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric
often intertwined with domestic issues, particularly immigration. His
inflammatory language, such as calling Haitian immigrants carriers of AIDS or
referring to certain countries as “shithole countries,” framed immigration as a
national security threat. This rhetoric strained relations with countries like
Mexico and Haiti, with polls showing only 5% of Mexicans trusted Trump’s
international decisions.
·
Undermining
Global Institutions: Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO, Paris
Accord, and other agreements was framed as rejecting “unfair” and “corrupt”
institutions. His rhetoric portrayed these bodies as infringing on U.S.
sovereignty, aligning with his broader narrative of reclaiming American
autonomy. This framing has reduced U.S. influence in global governance,
allowing rivals like China to fill the vacuum.
iii. Impact on U.S. Global Standing
and Domestic Politics
Trump’s
rhetorical approach has had profound effects on both international relations
and domestic political dynamics:
·
Erosion
of U.S. Credibility: By attacking allies, withdrawing from
agreements, and using inflammatory rhetoric, Trump damaged U.S. credibility. A
2020 Pew Research Center survey noted that 93% of Mexicans had “no confidence”
in Trump’s international leadership. His rhetoric also emboldened authoritarian
leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who adopted Trump’s “fake news” narrative
to suppress dissent.
·
Polarization
and Violence: Trump’s dehumanizing rhetoric,
particularly against immigrants and political opponents, has been linked to
increased hate crimes and political violence. A 2020 ABC News review identified
54 criminal cases where perpetrators cited Trump’s rhetoric as justification.
His refusal to condemn white supremacists, such as during the 2020 debate when he
told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” amplified far-right
extremism.
·
Electoral
Strategy and Populism: Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric was
strategically ambiguous to maximize electoral support. By using slogans like
“America First” and avoiding detailed policy proposals, he signaled competence
without committing to complex solutions. This populist style vilified elites
and framed foreign policy as a moral battle, resonating with voters distrustful
of globalization.
·
Distraction
from Policy Shifts: Scholars note that Trump’s inflammatory
rhetoric often served to distract from policy changes, such as environmental
deregulation during his first term. By igniting media controversies, he
diverted attention from substantive but less sensational decisions.
iv. Comparison to Traditional U.S.
Foreign Policy Rhetoric
Unlike predecessors who emphasized
U.S. leadership in a liberal international order, Trump’s rhetoric rejected
this framework. While past presidents like Obama promoted democracy and
multilateralism, Trump’s approach was transactional, prioritizing bilateral
deals and national sovereignty. His rhetoric echoed authoritarian leaders like
Orbán and Erdoğan, using fear and division to consolidate power. This shift
challenged norms of diplomacy, framing U.S. foreign policy as a tool for
domestic political gain rather than global stability.
4.
Implications
for Shifting International Alliances and Global Power Structures
·
Geopolitical
Stability and Power Redistribution
The
reconfiguration of alliances and the rise of new powers are reshaping the
global balance of power, moving toward a multipolar world. This shift
challenges the post-1945 order, historically dominated by the United States and
its allies, as regional powers like China, India, and Brazil assert greater
influence. The erosion of U.S. unipolarity, accelerated by events like Russia’s
war in Ukraine, has prompted states to adopt more fluid and transactional
alliances to navigate strategic competition between major powers, particularly
the U.S. and China. This fluidity increases the risk of instability, as
countries oscillate between competing blocs or pursue multi-alignment
strategies to maximize their autonomy and influence. For instance, many Global
South countries are leveraging Sino-American competition to secure economic and
political benefits, which could destabilize traditional alliance structures
like NATO or the G7.
Moreover,
the expansion of groups like BRICS (now including Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE) reflects a push for a more inclusive global order,
challenging Western dominance. This expansion is not merely a counter to the
West but a diversification of foreign policy, emphasizing economic cooperation
over geopolitical confrontation. However, the lack of deep institutionalization
in BRICS and differing priorities among members may limit its ability to form a
cohesive counterpole to Western-led institutions.
·
Economic
Interdependence and Regionalization
Global
economic networks are becoming increasingly regionalized, driven by
geopolitical tensions and a retreat from globalization. The U.S.’s use of
economic tools, such as sanctions and control over the dollar, has prompted
countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa to explore alternatives to
reduce dependence on Western financial systems. This trend toward
de-dollarization, coupled with initiatives like China’s Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), which engages 155 countries and accounts for over 50% of
global GDP, underscores a shift in economic power toward Eurasia.
The
rise of protectionism, exemplified by policies like “America First,” could
further fragment global trade, leading to balkanized economic systems with
competing rules and alliances. For instance, Trump’s emphasis on tariffs during
his second term may disrupt bilateral trade agreements, pushing partners to
seek alternative alliances, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP) or BRICS-led trade frameworks. This regionalization
prioritizes resilience over efficiency in global value chains, complicating
cohesive trade policies.
·
Security
Dynamics and Hybrid Warfare
Shifting
alliances are revitalizing traditional security arrangements and spurring new
ones. NATO’s expansion and the formation of Indo-Pacific alliances like AUKUS
and the Quad reflect a renewed focus on collective security to counter
revisionist powers like China and Russia. Meanwhile, hybrid warfare tactics,
such as Israel’s 2024 sabotage of Hezbollah’s communication devices, highlight
how states are leveraging technology and asymmetric strategies to exploit
vulnerabilities in adversaries, escalating tensions and complicating conflict
resolution.
China’s
growing military presence, including bases in Djibouti and Equatorial Guinea,
and its alignment with Global South countries in multilateral forums, indicate
a strategic push to reshape security dynamics. This is compounded by the U.S.’s
relative decline in influence within international institutions, where China’s
strategic investments and leadership placements enhance its global reach.
·
Challenges
to Multilateral Institutions
The
fluidity of alliances challenges the efficacy of multilateral institutions like
the United Nations, World Bank, and WTO, which were designed for a
Western-centric order. Gridlock among major powers, particularly in the UN
Security Council, limits these institutions’ ability to address global
challenges like climate change, health, and migration. Emerging powers and
Global South countries, wary of “club-like” Western initiatives, are turning to
regional organizations like ASEAN or BRICS for more inclusive governance.
China’s
influence in multilateral bodies, through staffing, financial contributions,
and alignment with Global South priorities (e.g., abstentions on human rights
votes), further erodes U.S. dominance. The U.S.’s shifts toward unilateralism,
as seen in policies under the Trump administration, undermines trust in
multilateral frameworks, pushing countries toward alternative coalitions.
·
Opportunities
for the Global South
The
fluidity of the global order presents opportunities for historically
marginalized nations to assert influence. Low-income countries can challenge
traditional hierarchies by forging new alliances with emerging powers or
non-state actors. The rise of populism and nationalism, however, complicates
these opportunities, as inward-looking policies in major powers may limit
development aid and cooperation.
The
Global South’s focus on issues like climate change, health, and food security
underscores the need for multilateral diplomacy that prioritizes inclusivity.
Initiatives like BRICS+ aim to bridge the gap between developing and developed
nations, promoting equitable growth. However, the success of these efforts
depends on overcoming internal divisions and building robust frameworks for
cooperation.
·
Technological
and Soft Power Competition
Technology
is a critical driver of power shifts, with nations like China closing the gap
with the U.S. in AI, robotics, and drones. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and
its soft power strategy, emphasizing economic partnerships over military
intervention, enhance its global influence, particularly in Africa and Asia.
Conversely, the U.S.’s soft power has waned due to controversial foreign policy
decisions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, reducing its
appeal as a global partner.
The
diffusion of technological innovation from public to private sectors
complicates state control over power dynamics. Countries that effectively
harness commercial innovation will gain a competitive edge, but this also risks
widening inequalities between high-tech and low-tech nations.
Conclusion
China’s
2025 Victory Day Military Parade, held on September 3 in Beijing, showcased its
military advancements and strategic alliances with nations like Russia and
North Korea, signaling its push for a multipolar world order. The event,
attended by authoritarian leaders but not Western ones, highlighted China’s
intent to challenge U.S. dominance and appeal to the Global South. President
Trump’s response, blending admiration with accusations of a “conspiracy”
against the U.S., underscored his confrontational yet inconsistent foreign
policy, which has strained traditional alliances and created openings for
China’s influence. This interplay of symbolic display and diplomatic rhetoric
reflects a broader shift in global power dynamics, with China leveraging
spectacle to assert leadership and the U.S. risking isolation amid evolving
international alignments.
Citations
- Al Jazeera. (2025). China’s Victory Day
Military Parade: Who Attended and What Happened? Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/2/chinas-victory-day-military-parade-whos-attending-and-why-it-matters
- Brookings Institution. (2025). Military
Parades and Memory Wars: China and Russia Commemorate History to Reimagine
International Order. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/military-parades-and-memory-wars-china-and-russia-commemorate-history-to-reimagine-international-order/
- Wikipedia. (2015). 2015 China Victory Day
Parade. Retrieved from en.m.wikipedia.org.
- Our China Story. (2024). China’s First
Military Parade to Commemorate Victory in the War of Resistance.
Retrieved from www.ourchinastory.com https://www.ourchinastory.com/en/12693/China%27s-first-military-parade-to-commemorate-victory-in-the-War-of-Resistance
- NBC News. (2025). China Military Parade Live
Updates: Xi Unveils New Weapons as Putin, Kim Jong Un Attend ‘Victory Day’
Event. Retrieved from www.nbcnews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/live-blog/china-parade-putin-kim-jong-un-xi-military-live-updates-rcna228503
- Sky News. (2025). China Held One of World’s
Biggest Military Parades – What Are Some of the Others? Retrieved
from news.sky.com.
- BBC News. (2015). China Parade to Display
Past and Future. Retrieved from www.bbc.com. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34105252
- China Government. (2025). China Holds Massive
V-Day Parade, Pledging Peaceful Development. Retrieved from english.www.gov.cn.
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202509/03/content_WS68b7d6c9c6d0868f4e8f54d9.html
- The Guardian. (2025). China to Show Off
Military Might in Parade Attended by Anti-West Leaders. Retrieved
from www.theguardian.com. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/china-military-parade-anti-west-leaders
- South China Morning Post. (2025). The Front
Line: How China’s Military Parades Evolved Over the Years. Retrieved
from www.scmp.com. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3323814/how-chinas-military-parades-evolved-over-years-guerrilla-warfare-hi-tech
- Hudson Institute. (2025). China’s World War
II Victory Parade: A Supreme Fiction. Retrieved from www.hudson.org. https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/chinas-world-war-ii-victory-parade-supreme-fiction-miles-yu
·
https://www.defenseworld.net/2025/09/03/chinas-grand-parade-showcases-a-technological-leap-in-military-power.html
·
http://english.scio.gov.cn/pressroom/2025-06/24/content_117944648.html
·
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/chinas-parade-new-weaponry-sends-message-deterrence-2025-09-03/
·
https://apnews.com/article/china-military-parade-weapons-214448c7ac0052c7bcf1e23220162389
·
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/china-military-parade-beijing-ww2-putin-kim-jong-un-rcna227679
·
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-military-parade-live-xi-projects-power-with-putin-kim-jong-un-guests-2025-09-02/
·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_250th_Anniversary_Parade
·
https://www.facts.org.cn/n2587/c941036/content.html
·
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/index.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_of_Donald_Trump
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-116SPRT44275/html/CPRT-116SPRT44275.htm
- https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-united-nations-general-assembly-outlining-america-first-foreign-policy/
- https://millercenter.org/president/trump/foreign-affairs
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_first_Donald_Trump_administration
- https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-of-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-global-chaos-american-weakness-and-human-suffering/
- https://www.cfr.org/article/cfr-experts-answer-your-questions-trump-and-foreign-policy
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0263395720935376
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deconstructing-trumps-foreign-policy/
- Wikipedia. (2025). 2025 China Victory Day
Parade. Retrieved from en.m.wikipedia.org.
- ChinaFile. (2015). What Is China’s Big Parade
All About? Retrieved from www.chinafile.com. https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-chinas-big-parade-all-about
- Reuters. (2025). Defying West, China’s Xi
Gathers ‘Axis of Upheaval’ at Military Parade. Retrieved from www.reuters.com.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/defying-west-chinas-xi-gathers-axis-upheaval-military-parade-2025-08-28/