Here’s how Donald Trump has transformed the world and America’s role in it.
Ronald Reagan, the first US president to stay at Windsor Castle, was chastised in Britain in 1982 by protesters who believed he was too tough on the hard men in the Kremlin.
Trump, who will also spend 900 years at the home of England’s monarchs this week, is accused of doing the opposite: constantly caving to Russia, as evidenced by his latest withdrawal from the Ukraine war.
Before departing for Britain on Tuesday, Trump wriggled out of his most recent deadline to impose harsh sanctions on Moscow. This was despite Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly embarrassing him by raining down death on Ukrainian civilians after their Alaska summit last month. Trump left their conversation convinced that peace was on its way and that he was getting closer to receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Events have exposed his error in judgment.
The US president has also downplayed alarming Russian drone incursions into NATO nations. His docility in the face of Moscow’s aggression (he suggested that the violations were an error) would have astounded Reagan, whose policies helped the US win the Cold War nearly two and a half decades before Trump derided the GOP’s hawkish internationalism.
Trump’s latest sanctions shuffle received little attention in the United States, where media coverage was concentrated on the assassination of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk. However, over the weekend, he posted a letter to NATO members on Truth Social, stating that he was prepared to “impose major sanctions on Russia.” However, there was a condition: alliance members must stop purchasing oil exports that fund Moscow’s war effort.
“I’m ready to ‘go’ whenever you are. “Just say when?” Trump wrote.
This is a clever ruse. At first glance, the president’s statement appears to be inherently reasonable. Why are NATO countries still buying Russian hydrocarbons despite viewing Russia as a mortal threat to their security?
However, Trump’s offer was a feint. He set conditions that are unlikely to be met, letting him off the hook yet again with Putin, whom he rarely exposes to significant US coercive power.
Four things Trump’s Ukraine policy shows
Among the other concessions Trump demanded from NATO members was that they join his trade war with China by imposing 50% to 100% tariffs on its goods in order to “break that grip” he claims Beijing has on Moscow. The post disregards the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance, not a trade bloc. And alliance members who have already been targeted by Trump’s tariffs, including the European Union and Canada, appear unlikely to respond to further bullying. In any case, such moves would be disastrous for their respective economies.
But Trump’s post is instructive about his presidency on several levels.
It demonstrates how he cleverly connects seemingly contradictory foreign policy priorities or emergencies, always looking for leverage over other parties — in this case, NATO members.
Trump, unlike Reagan, makes little distinction between American allies and adversaries. He is willing to undermine American alliances, including the most successful alliance in military history, in order to achieve his own personal policy objectives.
For Trump, almost every foreign policy issue boils down to a transactional financial arrangement. In his post, he warned NATO that if it did not cooperate, “you are just wasting my time, as well as the time, energy, and money of the United States.”
Finally, his gambit highlights how frequently Trump uses Putin’s rhetoric. He again blamed former President Joe Biden and the invaded nation’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for starting the war.
The risk posed by Trump’s accommodation of Putin
Trump’s unwillingness to confront Putin, who is constantly seeking to divide the United States from its European allies, could lead to dangerous scenarios.
Faced with no opposition from the US, Russia is becoming more daring, both in its targeting of missile and drone attacks in Ukraine and in its posture in Eastern Europe. As Trump insists that Putin wants peace, Russian missiles have slammed into civilian targets across Ukraine, hundreds of miles from the frontlines. A US-owned factory was targeted, and EU offices in Kyiv were damaged.
Last week, Poland shot down several Russian drones over its airspace. It claimed that the incursion was a test of NATO’s resolve. After Trump failed to take a firm stance, alliance jets scrambled to intercept another Russian drone, this time over Romania.
Trump’s subordinates have not remained silent. Rubio stated on Sunday that airspace violations are a “unacceptable, unfortunate, and dangerous development.” Dorothy Shea, the acting US ambassador to the United Nations, stated that the drone flights “show immense disrespect for good faith US efforts to bring an end to this conflict.”
However, everyone understands that Trump is the ultimate guarantor of NATO’s security. In a crisis, he would be responsible for determining whether the United States honors alliance mutual defense guarantees. By undermining his own officials, the president risks sending a message to Russia that further provocations will not result in a response. Finally, if Russia came to believe Trump would not respond to attacks on NATO countries, and then he did, a dangerous cycle of escalation between Washington and Moscow could ensue. Misunderstandings can be just as dangerous as deliberate acts of war.
European leader: Trump makes ‘a very valid point’
The best explanation for Trump’s ongoing failure to stand up to Putin is that he is attempting to avoid a direct confrontation. By claiming that the drone incursions were an error, he is giving himself and Putin an out.
Many European leaders may agree with him that NATO states should not contribute to Russia’s war treasury by purchasing its oil products.
“President Trump has made a very valid point,” Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković told CNN’s Richard Quest.
However, this is a complicated question—one that exposes the hypocrisy and trade-offs that frequently cloud geopolitics.
Since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, Europe has significantly reduced its reliance on Russian energy. Moscow was once the bloc’s largest petroleum supplier, but it has since banned maritime oil exports and refined oil products. Russian oil imports to Europe fell to $1.72 billion in the first quarter of 2025, a decrease from $16.4 billion in the same quarter of 2021.
Hungary and Slovakia are Europe’s largest importers of Russian oil. Both countries have populist governments that back Trump and lean towards Putin. Surprisingly, if he is willing to try, the US president may have as much influence on these leaders as his European counterparts.
Turkey is also a major importer of Russian oil and a member of NATO. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long pursued a foreign policy that differs from the other alliance members while remaining consistent with his country’s footprints in Eurasia and the Middle East. Trump is well aware that weaning his economy off Russian oil at rock-bottom prices is unlikely. This makes it highly unlikely that NATO will meet his demands, and Trump will have to follow through on his promise to be tough on Putin.
Two ways that Trump won’t emulate Reagan
Despite Trump’s close ties to Putin, America’s transatlantic allies have been desperate to keep him on the side of Ukraine.
This week, the task will fall to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who hopes that the pomp and ceremony of Trump’s second state visit to the UK will suffice.
Since the Alaska summit, the European “coalition of the willing” has attempted to demonstrate to Trump that it is willing to bear the continent’s security burden by offering to send troops to Ukraine following any peace agreement. On Monday, the European Commission announced new sanctions against Russia, targeting both the “shadow fleet” that transports its oil exports and visas for Russian tourists and diplomats within the bloc.
However, 80 years after the end of World War II, Europe’s security remains dependent on the willingness of the American president to backstop it — which is why some of the questions Trump has raised over the last decade are worth considering.
Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom this week, like Reagan’s 43 years ago, will be marked by widespread protests against the American president.
Trump is unpopular in the UK, but his populist policies on issues such as immigration are gaining traction, as his friend Nigel Farage’s Reform Party leads national opinion polls.
Reagan sparked mass anti-nuclear protests with his bellicose rhetoric toward Moscow and an arms race that eventually bankrupted the Soviet Union.
His visit coincided with one of the most dangerous periods of the standoff between the Kremlin and the US and its allies. However, his support for democracy and the West, as well as his opposition to totalitarian forces in Moscow, were unwavering.
“If history teaches us anything, it’s that self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly,” Reagan told Parliament in London, warning allies that only strength could prevent war. In reference to World War II, he warned that “the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us.”
It’s nearly impossible to imagine Trump imitating Reagan on two fronts this week.
He’s unlikely to swing his leg over a horse and canter through Windsor Great Park with King Charles III, as the Gipper did with Queen Elizabeth II.
It would also be a major surprise if Trump repeated Reagan’s tough talk toward the Kremlin.
