Answering Your Questions About Trump’s Impact on Foreign Relations, with Peter Pomerantsev

In a recent conversation on Navigating Noise, Peter Pomerantsev, senior advisor at Filter Labs, explored the shifting landscape of international relations and what it means for America's place in the world.

What struck me most was how our discussion lead to a fundamental question:

How do nations define friendship in an increasingly transactional world?

I found myself drawing on Aristotle's framework of friendship – a philosophical lens that helps explain our current geopolitical relationships. Aristotle identified three types: friendships of pleasure, utility, and virtue. As I explained in our discussion, Americans tend to believe all their international relationships fall into that highest category of virtuous friendship. Yet the reality is far more complex, and this misunderstanding creates persistent diplomatic blind spots.

Peter offered a compelling metaphor that perfectly captured the state of our traditional alliances. As he put it, they're "like the friends that your parents arrange, and they come to your party, and everyone's sitting there going, 'Why am I here? Why did mommy and daddy set me up with this?'" This Cold War arrangement has lost its emotional resonance, replaced by more practical concerns about supply chain security and economic interdependence.

What fascinates me about our current moment is how quickly these relationships can shift. Peter highlighted this fluidity when discussing how public sentiment toward different nations can transform overnight – from viewing European allies as "parasitic" one moment to celebrating them as heroic partners the next. This volatility reflects a deeper uncertainty about America's role in the world.

Through our work at Filter Labs, we've observed how this confusion manifests in social media discourse and public opinion. As Peter noted from his research, "People are facing a sense of total chaos... They don't understand America's role in the world. They don't understand why these alliances exist." This uncertainty creates fertile ground for simplified narratives that promote isolation over engagement.

Yet what gives me hope is people's intuitive understanding of certain geopolitical realities. As Peter observed, average Americans often show better instincts than Beltway insiders when it comes to recognizing malign intent from actors like Russia and China. The challenge isn't perception but articulation – we lack a compelling narrative that explains how these threats affect everyday Americans and what "winning" looks like in this new era.

Perhaps most importantly, our conversation revealed the limitations of viewing international relations purely through a transactional lens. While pragmatic partnerships are necessary, reducing everything to transactions risks losing sight of the deeper bonds that sustain meaningful international cooperation. As Peter suggested near the end of our discussion, we might need to start thinking about "flourishing transactionalism" – relationships that begin with practical needs but evolve into deeper partnerships based on mutual trust and shared values.

This balance between pragmatism and principle will define the next chapter of American foreign policy. The question is whether we can find a way to explain this complexity to an American public yearning for clearer narratives about their place in the world.

Of course, all of this is complex and can’t be sufficiently summarized in an essay. To learn more of the nuances, listen to my full conversation with Peter— and be sure to check out his new book, How to Win an Information War, which is available now.