Enemies By Design: How The US And USSR Shaped Each Other's Identity

 By Heraldviews

The early months of President Donald Trump’s return to office have marked a decisive shift in the United States’ foreign policy, one increasingly driven by economic self-interest, bilateral relationships, and a retreat from global commitments, analysts say, departing sharply from the internationalist approach that defined the country’s role in the decades following World War II.

Geopolitical experts and foreign policy scholars suggest that Trump’s strategy reflects a broader recalibration of U.S. priorities, with far-reaching implications for global stability, alliances, and the future of multilateral cooperation.

“It essentially means, in a lot of cases, the U.S., and the rest of the world, will be on its own in a way that it hasn't been since before World War II,” said Ryan Bohl, a geopolitical analyst. “Under Trump, the U.S. is less engaged, less focused, and less willing to flex its muscles to resolve issues that are not core U.S. interests.”

Rewiring the World Order

For many foreign policy observers, Trump’s renewed focus on national sovereignty and economic advantage represents not only a tactical shift but a structural one.

“Trump is trying to fundamentally change the world order,” said M. Steven Fish, a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Fish and others argue that the resulting vacuum in global leadership is providing new opportunities for rival powers, particularly China, to expand their influence.

“What we're seeing is probably a world order that will be led by China,” Fish said. “A world order in which China perhaps even will become the most trustworthy guardian of the financial system.”

Frayed Alliances, New Alignments

The administration’s pivot away from traditional alliances has already begun to reshape U.S. global engagement. Relations with Europe, long anchored in NATO and transatlantic cooperation, have cooled considerably. The administration has signaled that it no longer sees itself as the default guarantor of European security.

“The time has come for Europe to stand on its own feet,” Vice President J.D. Vance wrote in an opinion article published in the Financial Times, referencing what he described as “deep and lasting cuts” to European defense budgets that Washington has had to counterbalance.

Bohl said Trump’s aim appears tactical, pressuring allies to strengthen their own defenses against adversaries like Russia and China so the U.S. can reduce its own burden. “It’s a significant push to get the Europeans to rearm,” he said.

Others see a less strategic rationale. Scott Lucas, a professor of U.S. and international politics at the University College Dublin’s Clinton Institute, argued that Trump’s foreign policy remains anchored in short-term political and economic gain.

“Trump is only going to get involved in those issues on the basis of: do I benefit from this economically or politically?” Lucas said. That, he added, represents a rupture with decades of bipartisan consensus around rule-of-law-based diplomacy and global leadership.

Redrawing the Trade Map

Perhaps the most dramatic shift under Trump has come in the realm of trade. His administration has revived and expanded a slate of tariffs affecting nearly every major U.S. trading partner, aiming to reshape economic ties and insulate American industries.

“The U.S. has been ripped off for years and years,” Trump said, defending the measures as necessary corrections to longstanding imbalances. He has rejected calls for a unilateral reduction of tariffs on China, making clear that any relief will be contingent on Beijing negotiating a new deal.

Supporters say the approach has forced trading partners to reconsider their own economic dependencies. “This is the most significant and impactful thing that he has done, much faster than many observers expected,” Bohl said.

But critics warn that the unpredictable nature of these policies has introduced volatility into the global economy. “All of these countries, from China to the EU, are having to redo the way that their trade networks work,” Bohl said, pointing to rising uncertainty about whether these policies will endure.

A Turn Toward Nationalism

Trump’s disengagement from international bodies and agreements has become a defining feature of his foreign policy. During his previous term, the U.S. exited the Paris Climate Accord and severed ties with the World Health Organization. Now, his administration is doubling down on a nationalist vision that places American sovereignty above international obligations.

“Trump is acting like the isolationist, abandoning our allies at the same time,” said Fish. He sees echoes of 19th-century “great power politics,” in which powerful nations carved the world into spheres of influence, a trend he fears could resurface, particularly with Russia asserting claims over its former Soviet neighbors.

Lucas argued that Trump’s approach has blurred the line between democratic governance and autocratic rule. “Trump appears much more of an autocrat,” he said.

The administration contends that its strategy is about restoring executive authority, cutting bureaucracy, and prioritizing the interests of American communities. Officials frame it as part of Trump’s broader campaign promise to “drain the swamp” and return power to local governments.

Expansionist Rhetoric

One of the more controversial elements of Trump’s foreign policy is what some analysts call “symbolic expansionism.” From suggesting the U.S. acquire Greenland to floating the idea of adding Canada as the 51st state, Trump has raised eyebrows with talk of territorial growth.

Before returning to office, Trump described Greenland as “a wonderful place” and said its acquisition would bolster U.S. national security. On Canada, he claimed that annexation would ensure economic stability and provide a buffer against “Russian and Chinese ships.”

Bohl sees such comments as largely rhetorical. “They’re not terribly strategic in the way they are being implemented,” he said. “He’s not serious at the moment about moving into Panama or Greenland.” Still, Bohl warned that the language reflects a growing narrative around competition for resources and influence, even if it lacks a coherent expansionist agenda.

Peacemaker or Power Broker?

Trump has often portrayed himself as a unique diplomatic force, capable of ending entrenched conflicts through personal outreach and dealmaking. He has promoted ceasefire efforts in Gaza and claimed he could end the war in Ukraine quickly if given the opportunity.

But analysts remain skeptical.

Lucas suggested such overtures are often more about legacy than substance, particularly in relation to former President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. “When it comes to resolving conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, his strategy has leaned toward personal outreach rather than multilateral negotiation,” Lucas said.

Fish was more critical, arguing that Trump’s proposals in Ukraine mirror the Kremlin’s own talking points.

“Trump wants to hand Crimea over to Russia legally, to allow Russia to keep the territories that it now occupies, to demilitarize Ukraine, which means dismantling Ukraine’s military, and to seek [President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy’s resignation,” Fish said. “This can’t possibly be the basis for peace. The Ukrainians will never accept it. The Europeans won’t. Most of the world won’t.”

Still, Trump has defended his position as one grounded in humanitarian urgency. “Two thousand people have been killed every single week,” he told Congress. “I want it to stop.”

An Uncertain Trajectory

Whether Trump’s foreign policy will be sustainable, or reshape global relations in a lasting way, remains an open question. What is clear, analysts say, is that the U.S. is undergoing a redefinition of its global role.

“The U.S. is stepping away from being the anchor of the liberal international order,” Bohl said. “What comes next is far more uncertain.”

With additional agency reports