Donald Trump’s Europe policy is neither subtle nor consistent. It swings between indulgence and sudden reversals, leaving allies uncertain about the durability of American commitments. Yet beneath the surface chaos lies a coherent worldview. Trump sees Vladimir Putin as his equal — a strongman who commands respect by defying rules and exercising unrestrained power — while European leaders are seen as vassals, compelled to seek favour through deference rituals.
This imbalance is no accident. It reflects Trump’s conception of international politics as a contest between a handful of great men. In this hierarchy, Putin earns parity, while Europe’s elected leaders are diminished to petitioners. The consequences for NATO, for Ukraine, and for the transatlantic alliance are already visible.
READ I India’s agriculture crisis deepens amid tariff war
Europe’s rituals of deference
The behaviour of European leaders illustrates the uncomfortable position they find themselves in. Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, extended an invitation for a state visit as a guest of the King — and secured temporary relief from punitive tariffs. Finland’s president sought to impress Trump on the golf course, seeding the conversation with warnings about Putin’s trustworthiness. NATO leaders went further, presenting their defence budget increases as tributes to the US president’s superior statecraft.
Even NATO’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, offered flattery of a kind rarely heard in multilateral settings, praising “daddy Trump” for forcing Europeans to spend more on their own defence. The result was temporary. NATO, often derided by Trump as obsolete, was spoken of with uncharacteristic warmth. For a brief moment, Putin faced a cooler reception. But the charm offensive did not endure. Within weeks, Putin countered with his own campaign of flattery, culminating in the Anchorage summit. There, Trump embraced Moscow’s narrative of parity with Washington and left Ukraine marginalised.
Putin’s stagecraft at Anchorage
The Alaska summit was a masterclass in Putin’s use of symbolism. No ceasefire was announced. No territorial concessions were demanded of Russia. Yet Putin walked away with two crucial victories: a red-carpet welcome to US soil after years of isolation, and the optics of Cold War–style superpower diplomacy.
For Putin, that was enough. He returned home able to claim restored equality with the United States. For Trump, the summit served different purposes. It gave him a stage to relitigate the 2016 election investigation, dismiss it as a hoax, and reaffirm his personal rapport with Putin. He even entertained the suggestion of a future summit in Moscow — an offer unthinkable for his predecessors.
By contrast, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky was left waiting for a separate White House meeting. His exclusion was not merely symbolic. It revealed Trump’s instinct to treat Ukraine as a pawn in negotiations between the real powers — Washington and Moscow.
Putin and Trump’s Europe policy
The contrast between Putin and Europe in Trump’s worldview is stark. Putin is not regarded as the leader of a diminished petrostate; he is treated as a historical equal, a man with whom borders can be redrawn and destinies reshaped. Their relationship rests on personal admiration, authoritarian affinity, and a shared belief that greatness comes from the unilateral exercise of power.
European leaders, by contrast, are compelled to perform. Their standing depends on ceremonial invitations, carefully worded tributes, or contrived demonstrations of loyalty. Tariff relief or kind words about NATO are the rewards for successful performance. The imbalance is structural: Putin communicates with Trump on a higher frequency, while Europe must rely on rituals that collapse at the first sign of Kremlin flattery.
The result of Trump’s Europe policy is a reactive European diplomacy, aimed not at asserting its own vision, but at nudging Trump away from excessive indulgence toward Moscow. This may bring temporary results, but it never alters his core view of a world divided between strongmen and vassals.
The fragile game of Trump-whispering
This imbalance has given rise to what might be called Trump-whispering. European leaders now focus on repetition, numbers, and carefully choreographed gestures to persuade Trump that his path to greatness lies through NATO solidarity and Ukrainian survival. There have been modest successes: his temporary embrace of NATO, and his acknowledgment of the need for some form of security guarantee for Ukraine.
But the method is fragile. Each time European leaders believe they have secured Trump’s attention, Putin reasserts his influence. Flattery from Moscow carries greater weight than flattery from Brussels. Worse, the very act of ritual supplication diminishes Europe’s dignity. It creates the impression that the transatlantic alliance survives not on the basis of shared values, but on the whims of a mercurial American president.
Towards a European policy pivot
The danger is plain. If Europe remains dependent on Trump’s moods, it will oscillate between fragile security and sudden vulnerability. The long-term solution cannot be more elaborate rituals of deference. It must be the development of Europe’s own strategic autonomy.
This requires three steps. First, defence spending must be more than tribute to Washington; it must create a credible European deterrent, commanded and coordinated at the continental level. Second, Europe must harness its economic weight — still among the largest markets in the world — to command respect in trade and technology negotiations. Third, it must articulate a geopolitical vision of its own, one that is not hostage to Washington’s mood swings or Kremlin flattery.
Trump will not change his worldview. He will continue to indulge Putin as an equal while treating Europe as a collection of supplicants. The challenge for Europe is to prove that it is neither.
Trump’s Europe policy is not an aberration but an expression of his worldview. He respects strongmen who act without restraint, and he diminishes allies who rely on institutions, rules, and collective security. Putin, therefore, is his peer; Europe, his vassal.
The response cannot be ritual supplication. If Europe wishes to escape the vassal trap, it must demonstrate the autonomy of a true power. That requires institutional resolve, military credibility, and collective will. Only then can it command the respect of a US president who measures relationships not by history or values, but by the brute calculus of power.