U.S. President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky at the White House revealed a new direction in American foreign policy, highlighting the shifting dynamics between the United States and Russia, and the role of the U.S. in protecting Europe and continuing its support for Ukraine.
The interview also showcased an American diplomatic arrogance that had not been seen before from the White House, surpassing the norms and diplomacy traditionally practiced globally. History may later remember this meeting as a turning point in reshaping U.S. foreign policy priorities and marking the beginnings of a new, multi-polar global system, one in which the United States no longer plays the role of the global police, a position it had held since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
President Trump is determined to shift the direction of American foreign policy in a way that has not been seen since the end of World War II.
Trump and Post-World War II Security Arrangements
The founding fathers of the United States initially adopted a foreign policy based on political isolationism, fully distancing themselves from European conflicts and focusing on developing the United States.
The isolationist policy continued for a long period until World War I, when the U.S. entered the war two years after it had begun. Following the war, U.S. soldiers returned home, and America again embraced its isolationist stance, avoiding involvement in European or other global conflicts.
The attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan was the direct cause that led the United States to enter World War II, tipping the scale in favor of the Allies. The defeat of Germany and Japan followed, and with it, the end of the war.
After the end of World War II, the U.S. abandoned its isolationist policy and adopted a new international approach, taking on the role of the global policeman. The U.S. helped build international organizations like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which later evolved into the World Trade Organization, forming the structure of the international system that has lasted until today.
Additionally, one of the key post-World War II arrangements was the U.S. commitment to providing military protection to its allies in Western Europe through NATO, the strongest international military alliance, with the U.S. playing a leading role.
If we strip away the media noise that often accompanies President Trump’s statements, it becomes clear that Trump fully grasps the exorbitant financial cost of the U.S. leading the world, particularly when it comes to protecting Europe and confronting Russia.
Trump won the recent presidential election on the platform of “America First” and “Make America Great Again,” a slogan that subtly signaled the end of American hegemony. This opens the door for the rise of new international powers attempting to fill the vacuum left by the absence of U.S. military power in Europe and other parts of the world.
This shift will undoubtedly raise important questions for many European countries such as Germany, France, the UK, and Italy about how to interpret the recent U.S. stance on the Ukraine war and the renewal of diplomatic and trade relations between the U.S. and Russia.
Can Europe Form Its Own Military Bloc?
Europe does not appear to be in the best position as it tries to navigate its relationship with President Trump. On one hand, it does not want to sever ties with the United States, but on the other hand, it cannot bear the financial burdens of protecting the European continent, supporting the war efforts, and facing Russia in Ukraine without strong U.S. support.
France has offered to contribute a nuclear umbrella to protect Europe and deter Russia from future aggression, pledging to continue supporting Ukraine even if President Trump completely abandons Ukraine and Europe. France, along with some other European nations, has expressed interest in sending international peacekeeping forces to monitor any ceasefire agreements in Ukraine, which Russia currently rejects.
The consequences of Trump’s foreign policy direction regarding Ukraine and Russia have already begun to show, with Europe announcing unprecedented increases in its defense and national security budgets, thus contributing more to NATO military spending.
The Ukrainian war is likely to mark a significant turning point in Germany’s military spending, as its defense budget has already increased to nearly $100 billion since the start of the conflict. The next German government will likely continue to increase military and economic spending to support Europe’s defense structure, given the real concerns about NATO’s future.
Had it not been for U.S. legislation preventing the president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without Congressional approval, Trump might have found a way to exit the alliance sooner.
Europe has other options to help Ukraine despite the economic and political challenges it faces. For example, it could seize Russian assets, estimated at $200 billion, to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. However, such a decision would provoke a strong response from Russia, with potentially severe consequences.
The Secret Relationship Between Trump and Putin
In the past, any American-Russian rapprochement was seen as a hopeful step toward global security and international peace. Although President Trump’s calls to improve relations with Russia, lift economic sanctions, and end the war in Ukraine to avoid a potential World War III may seem like positive steps, the dynamic between Trump and Putin raises significant concerns rather than hope for many international actors.
The special relationship between Trump and Putin confounds many American observers and politicians. While President Trump spares no effort in responding harshly to any political opponent or activist, he has been notably reserved in his criticism of President Putin. His stance on the war in Ukraine seems almost aligned with Russian strategies.
For example, Trump has increased pressure on Ukraine to submit to peace terms with Russia by freezing U.S. aid to Ukraine. This decision poses a serious threat to the progress of military operations in Ukraine, unless Trump reverses his decision or European nations step in to make up for the loss of U.S. support.
President Putin is likely to maximize the benefits of this U.S. rapprochement to break the economic blockade and international isolation of Russia without offering any fundamental concessions in the Ukraine war. Putin may manage to retain parts of the territory his forces have occupied in Ukraine, which would intensify European fears about Russian expansion.
There is no doubt that Trump’s new positions on Ukraine and Russia will drive Europe to become more independent from the United States. It will also make Russia an international power to be reckoned with, capable of waging wars and annexing the territories of other countries without significant repercussions.
The Changing World Order Under Trump
Trump began his second term by dismantling the foundations of the global system the United States had built since the end of World War II, maintaining it for decades, which made America the enforcer of international rules and decisions.
If the current situation persists, the result will likely be a new, multi-polar world order that includes the United States, Russia, an independent Europe, China, and other countries such as India, Brazil, and Turkey, each trying to find its place in this new international system.
The danger in dealing with Trump in his second term lies in his exaggerated sense of ability to solve many of the internal problems of the United States, as well as complex global issues, relying on a political vision that lacks scrutiny and review by an experienced advisory team, as was the case during his first term.
Trump may be able to decide whether the U.S. will maintain post-World War II security arrangements, but he will not have total control over how a new, multi-polar world order will take shape.
The coming years will reveal whether this new order, if it takes form, will lead to a world characterized by security and stability, or whether it will resemble the international system between the two World Wars, where international competition and colonial ambitions were at their peak.
