Ricardo Fan – DefesaNet
The political trajectories of Donald Trump, former president of the United States, and Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, are marked by strong nationalism and the rejection of some norms of the international order. However, while both share expansionist elements in their strategies, their goals and methods differ substantially. This article explores these differences and similarities from an analytical perspective.
Similarities in the nationalist approach
Both Trump and Putin conducted their leaderships with a strong discourse of national sovereignty. Trump, with his “America First” motto, has sought to prioritize the interests of the United States over multilateral agreements. Putin, on the other hand, has consolidated Russia’s sovereignty as the basis for justifying interventions and rejecting external influences.
Both have also been skeptical of multilateral institutions. During his presidency, Trump criticized NATO and withdrew the US from agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, arguing that these treaties did not favor US interests. Putin, on the other hand, often challenges international norms, seeking bilateral alliances or unilateral measures that expand Russia’s strategic reach.
Differences in expansionist objectives
Despite their similarities, the expansionist agendas of Trump and Putin differ in terms of scope and methods.
Trump: Economic and Geopolitical Expansionism
The Trump administration was marked by an expansionism aimed primarily at strengthening the United States economically and geopolitically. This has included renegotiating trade treaties, such as NAFTA (transformed into the USMCA), and imposing tariffs against rival powers, especially China. Trump has also prioritized the isolation of adversaries, such as Iran, through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, but has avoided large-scale military interventions, unlike his predecessors.
Initially his expansionism was not territorial, but focused on securing what he considered competitive advantages for the United States in the international arena. During his first term, this strategy included a restrictive migration policy and a protectionist stance to reverse industrial relocation.
After a four-year break from government, Trump is about to take up his second term with a more assertive agenda. Now, geopolitical threats are gaining prominence, including controversial statements about the acquisition of Greenland, the strengthening of the US presence in the Panama Canal and renewed trade pressures on Canada. These moves indicate a possible shift from his initial approach, with greater emphasis on geopolitical strategies that can directly impact the sovereignty of other countries.
In recent years, Trump has also threatened neighboring countries such as Mexico and Canada with tariff measures and the construction of border barriers. These threats, while not resulting in military action, were intended to influence the domestic politics of these countries and strengthen US control in the region.
Putin: Territorial and Military Revisionism
In contrast, Vladimir Putin’s expansionism is explicitly territorial and military. Since his rise to power, he has sought to restore what he considers to be Russia’s “historical sphere of influence”. Examples include the annexation of Crimea in 2014, support for separatist regions in Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia), the occupation of parts of Transnistria (in Moldova) and the recent large-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Putin combines the use of military force with hybrid warfare tactics, such as disinformation and cyber-attacks, to achieve his goals. His revisionist vision is also grounded in historical and cultural narratives, which justify the actions as necessary to protect Russian identity and sovereignty against Western influences.
The invasion of Ukraine, one of the most significant events in Putin’s revisionism, has deep roots in his expansionist agenda. As with Crimea and the breakaway regions of Georgia and Transnistria, Putin is trying to redraw European borders in Russia’s favor. This policy has had a direct impact on global stability, amplifying the conflict between Western and Eastern blocs.
Impacts on the war in Ukraine
Putin’s tactics in Ukraine have provoked a firm response from the international community, with economic sanctions and increased military support for the Ukrainian government from NATO and the European Union. On the other hand, Trump’s stance on Ukraine, as he is about to resume the presidency of the United States, remains ambiguous. Trump has been widely criticized for making military support for Ukraine conditional on personal political interests, as evidenced in the impeachment process related to the Hunter Biden investigation.
While Putin intensifies his military and territorial approach, Trump demonstrates a hesitancy to adopt firm positions that could jeopardize the immediate geopolitical interests of the US, often preferring a political pragmatism aligned with his own objectives. This ambiguity could significantly influence the course of the conflict in Ukraine, especially in the context of the new US global leadership.
Putin’s expansionism in Ukraine, in contrast to Trump’s political and economic threats, highlights how different approaches can impact the global order. While Trump preferred to use economic pressure to shape international relations, Putin resorts to military force and territorial control. The persistence of the war in Ukraine could influence not only the region, but also shape the dynamics between great powers in the future.
Conclusion
Although there are points of convergence between Trump’s and Putin’s agendas, such as the focus on sovereignty and the rejection of multilateral rules, the differences are profound. Trump has prioritized economic and commercial expansionism, while Putin seeks territorial and military expansion based on a revisionist project.
These distinctions highlight how two nationalist leaders can adopt fundamentally different strategies to reshape the global order, each in their own way and according to the objectives of their respective countries. The war in Ukraine, in this context, is a symbolic and real battleground for the unfolding of these agendas on the global stage.