There are analysts who argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine is motivated not solely by security fears or imperial ambitions, but also by a deep desire to regain lost respect on the international stage. Russia, once one of the two global superpowers, has seen its influence diminish since the Cold War, and this decline has been publicly acknowledged, including by former US President Barack Obama, who described it as “a regional power”.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump/PHOTO: EPA/EFE
According to an analysis published by The Telegraph, the war in Ukraine would represent, from this perspective, an attempt by the Kremlin to reaffirm its status. Even if this strategy does not garner international sympathy, it at least aims to instill fear.
In a seemingly paradoxical way, the authors of the analysis claim that some of the actions of US President Donald Trump towards Europe would have similar motivations. Professors Henry Farrell and Sergey Radchenko of Johns Hopkins University state that when an international actor feels treated as secondary in the global order, there is a temptation to become a destabilizing factor.
In their view, Trump would have tried to undermine an international system that, in his perception, looks down on both his person and the political vision he represents. Although the Trump administration found some appreciation among authoritarian or monarchical leaders, it knew that many leaders of Western democracies viewed it with skepticism or superiority.
Europe, with its emphasis on the rule of law, multilateral institutions and common rules, is being portrayed as the most coherent example of the post-war liberal order – an order that the Trump administration would like to weaken or replace.
The irony, the authors note, is that this order was created by the United States itself. After World War II, Washington promoted an international system based on democracy, rules, and cooperation, believing that these values serve both global and American interests. Even if the US has not always followed these principles, they have become the foundation of what is known as American “soft power”.
Today's Europe reflects the values originally promoted by Washington
Today's Europe is often considered one of the clearest results of this project. The economic reconstruction of Western Europe, the eastward expansion of the European Union, and the conditioning of membership on compliance with democratic norms consolidated a model that, in many ways, reflected the values initially promoted by Washington.
The analysis argues that the Trump administration has sought to replace this model with one based more on power, national sovereignty and narrow interests. Although official documents invoked the maintenance of US global influence, they emphasized the idea of an “inherent greatness” of America rather than international cooperation.
The problem, the authors say, is that this approach has not increased respect for the United States among liberal democracies. On the contrary, symbolic influence and the ability to persuade through shared values have eroded considerably.
In this context, the Trump administration's constant criticism of Europe is seen as a direct consequence of this loss of influence. Instead of supporting European integration, Washington would have tried to exploit internal tensions in the European Union, encouraging a fragmented vision dominated by nationalism.
The authors conclude that, like Russia, the Trump administration sought global respect and influence but lacked the means to achieve it through construction and cooperation. Instead, he resorted to disruptive actions.
“Simultaneously trying to gain influence through > and relinquish the role of global leader is a fundamental contradiction,” the professors say. In this tension, Europe became not only a geopolitical actor, but also a symbol of the order that both Putin and Trump wanted to challenge.
