The reverberations of the unfolding second Trump presidency are being felt across the world. While reactions in the United States are polarized—ranging from exuberant praise to outright despair—Europe, where I live, has largely settled into a state of disbelief, dismay, and, at times, deep disdain. Nowhere is this clearer than in the uproar surrounding President Trump and Vice President Vance’s very public spat with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the recent Oval Office press conference.

European voices, while condemning the harsh treatment of President Zelenskyy in Washington, responded with what can only be described as a collective sulk. Former French President François Hollande set the tone by declaring, “Even if the American people remain our friends, the Trump administration itself is no longer an ally.” The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, went even further, ominously stating, “The free world needs a new leader.” Was this a veiled call for overturning American democracy barely fifty days into the new administration? Or merely a desperate acknowledgment that someone, anyone, in the European Union should assume the mantle of “leader of the free world”?

More alarmingly, former Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili accused Trump of “seconding Putin’s Russia” rather than prioritizing America’s own strategic interests. This rhetoric quickly made its way into the Democratic Party’s talking points, reinforcing the now-familiar claim that Trump is little more than a Kremlin surrogate.

Rhetoric vs. Reality: The Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy

The prevailing narrative in Europe and among Trump’s domestic opponents dramatically understates the shift that is underway. Trump’s foreign policy is not merely about disrupting the logic of old alliances—it is about recalibrating America’s global posture in a way that is profoundly different from past presidents, both Democratic and Republican. The days of grand abstractions about “defending” or “exporting” democracy and maintaining a U.S.-led global order are being replaced with a blunt and transactional approach: What’s in it for America?

European leaders—and much of the American Left—remain tethered to the post-World War II alliance system, invoking moral imperatives rather than hard-nosed strategic interests. But Washington, under Trump, is increasingly skeptical of these old paradigms.

From the new White House’s perspective, Ukraine is now a bad investment. Senior Trump officials seem to believe that the war was effectively lost months ago, even if European leaders refuse to admit it. Thus, continuing to funnel resources into Kyiv is not just a case of diminishing returns—it is an outright liability, both in financial and human terms. The conflict has also strengthened the China-Russia axis, failed to deter countries—especially many major countries in the expanded BRICS—from circumventing Western sanctions, and appears to them as a far-away, local war of attrition of local concern.

More significantly, Trump and his allies view Ukraine as a reckless and destabilizing force that risks escalating into a global war. The insistence on the part of Europeans, soon after the Oval Office kerfuffle, that the war must continue at all costs is seen in Washington as brinkmanship—an invitation for escalation that could draw all of NATO into direct conflict. This is one of the main reasons why Ukraine’s NATO membership remains off the table: the U.S. does not want an alliance member whose instability could pull America into a larger Article 5 confrontation, where an attack on a NATO member by a non-NATO member automatically implies an attack on all NATO members.

Trump’s Foreign Policy Doctrine: Beyond Left and Right

Many political observers have struggled to classify Trump’s foreign policy within traditional ideological frameworks. Even though it is still very early days, thus far, his approach appears neither isolationist nor neoconservative, neither purely realist nor libertarian. Instead, it blends elements of multiple traditions while rejecting the ideological constraints of all of them.

Foreign Policy as Transaction, Not Obligation

Trump does not seek total U.S. retreat from global leadership, but he redefines it. He envisions America not as the global “policeman” but as a “Chairman of the Board”—where other great powers share responsibilities for maintaining order in their own spheres of influence. He prefers regional hegemony models rather than a single, U.S.-led global order. Trump does not see alliances as moral commitments; they are deals that must deliver tangible benefits. He rejects Wilsonian interventionism and the idea that the U.S. must export democracy or police the world. Instead, he evaluates engagements on a cost-benefit basis: Does this serve America’s immediate national interest?

Shared Global Burdens for a New World Order

Trump does not advocate for a full U.S. retreat from global leadership but rather a restructuring. Instead of a single U.S.-led world order, he envisions a decentralized system where regional powers bear responsibility for their own spheres of influence.

• As the architect of the path-breaking Abraham Accords, he promoted regional stability without heavy U.S. involvement.
• Recently, NATO allies were pressured to increase defense spending so that non-U.S. NATO members, especially in Europe, can carry their own weight for European troubles.
• Earlier, in his first term, he directly engaged North Korea, bypassing traditional multilateral mechanisms in the Pacific region.
• On Gaza, he indirectly pressured Arab leaders to take responsibility for a locally owned and funded solution (or else!).

Anti-Bureaucratic in Foreign Policy but Not Anti-Government

Unlike traditional libertarians, who oppose government expansion, Trump specifically targets bureaucratic power centers that he perceives as operating independently of what he sees as American interests. He views intelligence agencies, foreign assistance bodies (most notably USAID), and others as the “deep state”—obstacles to the executive branch’s control over foreign affairs. Thus, Trump’s approach suggests that bureaucracy should be purely subordinate to the executive branch of government in foreign (and domestic affairs)—not an autonomous foreign policymaking force. This belief aligns more with strong-executive systems (like France, India, Turkey and so on) than with traditional American approaches thus far.

Nation-States as the Primary Units of Power—Not Supranational Institutions

Trump rejects globalism, but not global engagement. He sees nation-states, not international organizations, as the legitimate decision-makers.

• Unlike neoconservatives or multilateralists, he treats global governance bodies (UN, WHO, WTO) as secondary to bilateral and regional power dynamics.
• His foreign policy style overturns the post-WWII order and aligns more with pre-WWII balance-of-power politics, where each state operates independently but pragmatically—cooperating when beneficial and withdrawing when not.

Europe’s Strategic Myopia: A One-Person Policy

Europe’s reaction to Trump’s policies reveals a deeper strategic shortcoming. European leaders have placed all their bets on a single man—Zelenskyy—rather than developing a long-term policy toward Russia that accounts for potential post-war realities.

In contrast, Asia has taken a more measured approach to great-power relations, hedging against geopolitical uncertainty rather than adopting a rigid moral stance. Ironically, Trump’s foreign policy mirrors this pragmatic Asian approach. Notably, India has maintained its economic relationship with Russia despite Western sanctions, while simultaneously maintaining cordial relationships with its Western allies. India’s stated policy of “strategic autonomy”allows it to pursue self-interest rather than align rigidly with any single power bloc. European leaders began to entertain the idea of strategic autonomy only recently, after witnessing the dressing down of Zelenskyy—an idea they had famously scoffed at when Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar offered strategic autonomy and its implied self-interest as a reason for not joining Western sanctions against Russia while maintaining friendly ties with the West in the context of the Ukraine War back in 2022.

Sovereign Realism as a New Foreign Policy Doctrine?

If Trump’s approach continues to evolve (even through its unpredictability), it could emerge as a distinct and lasting foreign policy doctrine—one that neither fits neatly into liberal idealism nor aligns with past neocon interventionism. One could call it Sovereign Realism: a vision of world politics where nation-states act as self-interested players in a decentralized, multipolar system rather than adhering to an abstract, ideological global order.

Under this framework, the U.S. is not retreating from the world—it is redefining its role within it. Whether this new model will bring stability or chaos remains an open question. But one thing is certain: European leaders must wake up to the reality that the old order is disappearing. Perhaps it has served its time. They can either adapt or risk wandering in foreign-policy wilderness in a world that is increasingly moving beyond ideological commitments and toward hard geopolitical pragmatism. One thing is for sure: To sulk is not an option.

Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this article/column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of South Asian Herald.

Related posts:

75th Anniversary NATO Summit in Washington to reaffirm support for Ukraine and Indo-Pacific among others  ‘We see it in citizens across the world peacefully choosing their future — from Ghana to India to South Korea’ says President Joe Biden during his UNGA Address President Biden says Ukraine will fight Russia with collective support of NATO; White House says India can help end the war in Ukraine Ukraine-India Relations: Navigating Historical Ties and Russian Disinformation in a New Geopolitical Era