Trumpian Unilateralism, Not China, Is the Real Engine of Global Instability

In the shadow of China’s largest-ever military parade—an event thick with symbolism, strategic messaging, and geopolitical theater—the international system finds itself at a crossroads. While Western narratives often cast China as the principal source of global uncertainty, a growing body of expert analysis suggests that the destabilizing force is not Beijing’s assertiveness but Washington’s retreat from multilateralism, particularly under the Trump administration. The parade, held to commemorate 80 years since Japan’s defeat in World War II, was not merely a showcase of military hardware but a stage for ideological confrontation. President Xi Jinping’s warning against a return to the “law of the jungle” was a thinly veiled critique of hegemonism and power politics—terms that have become synonymous with U.S. foreign policy in the post-2016 era.

The presence of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un at the parade, both pariahs in the Western diplomatic sphere, underscored China’s pivot toward alternative alliances. Yet the optics of this alignment are less about aggression and more about counterbalancing a global order increasingly shaped by American exceptionalism. Experts like Wen-Ti Sung of the Atlantic Council argue that the leading source of uncertainty in the international system is not China’s “wolf warrior” diplomacy but Trumpian unilateralism. From withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal to undermining NATO and the World Health Organization, the Trump administration systematically dismantled the pillars of cooperative global governance. These moves have left allies scrambling and adversaries emboldened, creating a vacuum that China is now attempting to fill—not necessarily with conquest, but with a competing vision of order.

Taiwan’s reaction to the parade was predictably defiant. President Lai Ching-te’s statement that his country does not commemorate peace “with a barrel of a gun” was a sharp rebuke of Beijing’s militarized messaging. Taiwan’s government also warned its citizens against attending the parade, fearing it could legitimize China’s territorial claims. Yet this framing obscures the deeper dynamics at play. China’s military posturing, while provocative, is also reactive—shaped by decades of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, naval patrols in the South China Sea, and strategic ambiguity that often veers into provocation. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s budget has ballooned to over $13 billion in 2025, with a significant portion earmarked for deterrence operations near Chinese waters. In contrast, China’s defense budget, while growing, remains less than one-third of the U.S. total military expenditure, which reached $886 billion in 2024 according to SIPRI.

The parade also served domestic purposes. Analysts noted its role in galvanizing patriotic sentiment and deflecting attention from internal challenges, including a sweeping corruption crackdown within the People’s Liberation Army. More than a dozen generals have been purged, many with close ties to Xi Jinping. This internal house-cleaning reflects not just authoritarian consolidation but an attempt to restore credibility to a military apparatus long plagued by graft. In contrast, the U.S. military-industrial complex continues to operate with minimal accountability, with defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon receiving billions in no-bid contracts while lobbying for perpetual conflict.

Xi’s invocation of World War II as a turning point in China’s “great rejuvenation” was not just historical nostalgia—it was a strategic narrative. By positioning China as a victim-turned-vanguard, Xi seeks to reframe global leadership as a contest of legitimacy rather than brute force. His call for unity against “hegemonism and power politics” is a direct challenge to the U.S. model of global dominance, which has often relied on coercion rather than consensus. The release of 80,000 peace doves at the parade may seem performative, but it contrasts sharply with the U.S. record of drone strikes, regime change operations, and economic sanctions that have devastated civilian populations from Iraq to Venezuela.

Critics will argue that China’s human rights record and authoritarian governance disqualify it from moral leadership. But this binary framing ignores the complexity of global power. The question is not whether China is perfect—it isn’t—but whether the U.S. retains the moral and strategic coherence to lead. Under Trump, and arguably beyond, that coherence has eroded. The Biden administration has attempted to restore alliances, but the damage to trust and multilateral institutions remains profound. Meanwhile, China is building its own networks—from the Belt and Road Initiative to regional security summits—that offer an alternative, however imperfect, to U.S. hegemony.

In the end, the parade in Beijing was not just a spectacle—it was a statement. It declared that the era of unipolar dominance is over, and that the future will be shaped by competing visions of order. The real danger lies not in China’s rise, but in America’s refusal to adapt. Trumpian unilateralism may have receded from the headlines, but its legacy continues to haunt the international system. If the U.S. wishes to reclaim its role as a stabilizing force, it must abandon the politics of dominance and embrace the principles of cooperation, accountability, and shared leadership. Otherwise, the “law of the jungle” that Xi warned against may become the new normal—not because of China’s ambitions, but because of America’s abdication.