Some analysts argue that Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is not merely driven by imperial ambitions or fears, but rather by a sense of disrespect from other nations. Once recognized as a superpower alongside the United States, Russia has lost that status and the global respect it once commanded. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine may be viewed as an attempt to regain that lost stature.

A parallel can be drawn to Donald Trump’s evolving stance on Europe, which appears to be motivated by similar desires for recognition. Trump seems to be aware that his aggressive political strategies might not win him affection from nations whose respect he covets. Thus, if love is unattainable, he seems willing to settle for fear; within a global hierarchy that deems him inferior, the impulse to become a disruptor is strong.

Like Putin, Trump seeks to challenge an established order that views him and his ideologies with disdain. While he has garnered admiration from authoritarian leaders, many democratic counterparts regard his administration skeptically. This dynamic indicates that the U.S. under Trump seeks to dismantle existing structures of respect, aiming instead to establish a world where Trump receives unwavering deference.

The United States, ironically, was instrumental in creating this global order that Trump seems intent on demolishing. After World War II, a bipartisan belief took root that a world founded on American democratic values would ultimately benefit the U.S. itself. Democracy, governance based on law, and respect for human rights became the yardstick by which nations were evaluated.

Despite notable instances of hypocrisy—where the U.S. has acted undemocratically—the foundation of American soft power rested on its ability to influence global opinion through culture and democratic ideals. Other nations once viewed the United States as a model worth emulating.

Modern Europe stands as perhaps the greatest achievement of this global liberal order. Following WWII, the U.S. assisted in the economic reconstruction of Western Europe, fostering the rise of liberal democratic parties and sometimes covertly undermining those deemed too leftish or right-wing.

The European Union, born from efforts to coordinate U.S. aid through the Marshall Plan, evolved into a framework for collaboration, prioritizing law and liberal democracy. Its growth after the collapse of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe further solidified its commitment to these values, often embodying the principles of the U.S.-backed liberal order more than the U.S. itself.

Currently, however, the Trump administration seeks to dismantle this order, favoring strategies rooted in power and national self-interest. While proclaiming an intention to sustain U.S. “soft power,” the national security strategy emphasizes recognizing “America’s inherent greatness and decency.” Yet, such claims about respect seem unfounded, as countries adhering to liberal values view the Trump administration with increasing skepticism.

The U.S.’s soft power and its influence over other democracies are rapidly diminishing. This decline may explain why the national security strategy targets Europe with criticism. The administration’s contradictory stance looks to both retreat from reshaping global politics while simultaneously trying to influence European dynamics.

The Trump administration is focusing its support on far-right parties in Europe, contrasting starkly with the post-WWII U.S. strategy of promoting cooperation. There are efforts to exploit discontent among newer EU member states as a way to fracture the liberal, democratic values held by the EU, transforming Europe into a collection of fiercely nationalistic and culturally homogeneous nations.

In this envisioned scenario, Europe could cease to act as a counterbalance to nationalist ideologies propagated by Trump’s administration. However, the challenge remains: the U.S. lacks both the capacity and ambition to bring about such significant change.

Much like Russia, the Trump administration craves respect but has less power to effect meaningful change beyond being a disruptive force. While pushing to decrease involvement in global affairs, especially within NATO, it simultaneously seeks to impose its vision upon Europe.

The strategy criticizes the military, diplomatic, intelligence, and foreign aid structures that have underpinned U.S. global ambitions, yet dismantling this “complex” undermines the very capacity to reshape Europe in its image. Although the administration might attempt erratic interventions and support far-right parties, historical precedents, such as the situation in Brazil, show that such strategies often backfire.

The apparent desire for respect and soft power underlies the Trump administration’s actions in Europe. However, the push to retract from global commitments risks reducing the U.S. to a regional power, focusing on exerting influence through coercion rather than collaboration. The ambition to have both global respect and a more isolationist approach is ultimately unsustainable.