US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are notorious nationalists and corrosively critical of the world order based on universal rules and norms. But quite ironically, they do not understand nationalism. They impose self-righteous greed on others under the name of nationalism, while dismissing the pressured or attacked nations’ quest for sovereignty and national pride. That is witnessed in Trump’s Donroe Doctrine and Putin’s Russkiy Mir ideology.
Now, let me talk about Trump’s Western Hemisphere policy and trans-Atlantic disputes. As soon as reinaugurated, Trump declared to annex Greenland and Canada and regain ownership of the Panama Canal, which startled the global community and spurred vehement criticism from NATO allies. Also, he argued that Ukraine should concede its territory for Russia to end the war quickly, completely dismissing the principle of territorial integrity. In all cases, Trump treats national territory and sovereignty like a transaction of real estate property.
I. Trump’s self-righteous nationalism and real estate instinct clash with nationalism abroad
(1) Greenland:
Trump did not care about the long path of history in which indigenous people struggled against Denmark to win their autonomy. How could they accept a sudden change in their status imposed by an erratic foreign leader? Let me review its history. Since Erik the Red came to Greenland around 980, Norsemen found their settlements in Greenland. But as the Little Ice Age began in the 14th century, they gradually abandoned those settlements. Europeans recolonized Greenland after the Denmark-Norway expedition in the 17th and 18th centuries. After Denmark split from Norway during the Napoleonic Wars, Greenland became Danish territory. Since then, indigenous Innuits have struggled for their autonomy against Denmark. One of the most noticeable issues is the 1951 defense agreement with the United States, which forced local Inuit to leave their traditional hunting grounds to expand the Thule base for the USAF.
The milestone of the postwar Danish rule in Greenland is the Constitutional Act in 1953, which aimed at decolonization through integration. Greenland became a country within the Danish realm. Since then, rapid modernization, economic development, and Danification were pursued in the 1950s and the 60s. In the 1970s, further assimilation pressure was imposed on native Greenlanders. In the referendum about EEC membership in 1972, Greenland was forced to join despite opposition from its residents. They were concerned about negative impacts on their fishing rights and the cession of their political decision-making to the Danish government and Eurocrats in Brussels.
Increased frustration led indigenous Greenlanders to protest the Danish rule and EEC membership. Greenland and Denmark had lengthy talks about autonomy and EC membership since 1975 through the Home Rule Commission. They were approved to leave the EC after a new referendum in 1982. Denmark went further to ratify the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 at the UN level in 1996 to recognize cultural identity, socio-ecological rights, and political autonomy. (1)
Trump does not give even the slightest consideration to such historical backgrounds. As shown in his notorious phrase, “drill baby drill”, the socio-ecological rights of indigenous people are none of his interest. Also, they were forced to relocate their habitats for the USAF base in the past. Considering their historical grudge, Trump’s territorial claim could simply provoke anti-American sentiments among them. It seems that small nations and ethnic minorities are virtually nonexistent in his geopolitics.
(2) Canada:
Likewise, Trump showed no interest in Canada’s quest for a distinct national identity from both Britain and America in history. In response to Trump’s outrageous pressure that Canada be merged with the United States to resolve the tariff war and to strengthen its national security, Prime Minister Mark Carney replied clearly, “Canada is not for sale,” like the White House and Buckingham Palace. (2) In Trump’s real estate mindset, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are not serious concerns. Therefore, let me mention Canada’s historical pursuit of self-rule and diplomatic independence.
First, I will talk about Canada’s path to independence from Britain. It began when the UK Parliament adopted the British North America Act in 1867 to found a staunch confederation of Canada in view of the rise of America after the Civil War. It was Britain’s imperative to stop another Boston Tea Party in its white dominions to foster a common imperial foreign policy. However, dominions became increasingly self-aware through their contribution to the victory in World War I. One of the noticeable examples is Canada’s concern with the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. The rise of Japan after the war was changing the global balance of power so much, which made the United States, and also Canada, critically alarmed by that. As a result, Britain was forced to repeal the alliance with Japan. With the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada was approved to become an independent country within the British Commonwealth. (3)
As Canada was gaining equal status with Britain gradually, trade relations with the United States were splitting the nation toward the 20th century. Conservatives were pro-British and protectionist, while Liberals were pro-American and free traders. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 strained bilateral relations through tariff hikes, which pushed Canada to join the British imperial trade bloc. Though the relationship with the United States improved after it joined the Allied Forces in World War II, Canada continually had complicated relations with the big neighbor in the south. As British influence faded and American influence grew after the war, Canada became more conscious of its distinct identity.
Socio-culturally, Canada adopts bilingualism in English and French and multiculturalism. In domestic politics, American-style revolution and republicanism were not embraced, which led to less inclination toward individualism and a market economy, and more to governmental activism in this country. That has made Canada a welfare state with strict gun controls. These are completely at odds with MAGA dogmatism of anti-DEI, anti-welfare, and anti-gun control. Despite such historical backgrounds, Trump speaks about Canadian territory and sovereignty like real estate property and ownership, so lightheartedly.
In foreign policy, Canada places emphasis on soft power diplomacy and focuses on foreign development aid for its political presence in the world, just like Nordic nations. That is starkly in contrast with the hard power diplomacy of the United States and Britain. Though sharing Anglo-Saxon culture with them, Canada has neither nuclear weapons nor power projection capabilities militarily. Therefore, this country uses development aid as a strategic tool for trade and national security interests, (4) as well as for liberal values and humanitarianism. Like Nordic nations, Canada’s aid policies are founded on multilateralism and conducted through close partnership with UN agencies. (5) Such strategic soft power diplomacy is something akin to Japan’s proactive pacifism. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech for a middle power coalition impressed the global public so strongly, but his idea was not suddenly made but deeply embedded in Canadian foreign and domestic policies for decades. Trump’s idea of annexing Canada is so impromptu and ridiculous.
3) Panama:
In addition to Greenland and Canada, the annexation of the Panama Canal is the most critical strategic issue. Though Trump is wrong to claim that China controls the canal, its exit ports to the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are managed by a subsidy container terminal operator of the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. That raises critical concerns about Chinese BRI outreach among American geostrategists. (6) However, current Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino is conservative and pro-American, and therefore, it is quite unlikely that he tilts toward China at the expense of America.
Professor Javier Corrales of Amherst University and Senior Lecturer James Loxton of Sydney University criticize Trump’s bulldozing as counterproductive in their joint article, based on the following points. For Panama, a sovereign canal is the centerpiece of national identity, and unilateral bullying would boost anti-Americanism precipitously vis-à-vis China, though Latin Americans do not necessarily view this country favorably. Also, such sentiments would nurture guerrilla violence throughout Latin America, as it happened in the 1960s and 70s since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, typically seen in Colombia and Nicaragua. For fear of that, the United States started the canal talks with Panama in the Nixon era, which were concluded by the Carter administration. Finally, the canal dispute could lead to the emergence of an anti-American coalition of leftists and military dictatorships like the Torrijos administration in 1968. (7)
While Trump is so obsessed with Chinese influence on the Panama Canal, he did not tell Brazilian President-then Jair Bolsonaro to stop China’s BRI-invested highway and railway projects through the rainforests in the Amazon, despite environmental and geopolitical concerns. His Donroe Doctrine is so contradictory. That shows us that this America First nationalist is not only ignorant of nationalism abroad. Actually, he is not seriously interested in stopping China, not to mention saving the environment.
(4) Ukraine:
His poor understanding of nationalism was also witnessed in Ukraine when this country was not fighting the war advantageously against Russia. Last year, when Ukraine was fighting an uphill battle against Russia, Trump told Ukraine to cede occupied lands and limit the size of its armed forces to end the war without a solid security guarantee. That raised critical concerns on both sides of the Atlantic, and his whimsical greed for the Nobel Peace Prize or some kind of legacy is harshly questioned. (8) Despite Trump’s lack of insight about Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, European officials were fully aware that American involvement was indispensable to manage Russian threats in Ukraine and the whole of Europe. (9)
Ex-Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg criticized Trump, confusing business and war, as the former Special Envoy for Ukraine of his administration. While Trump regards the peace process as just a swap of lands and a personal relationship as the cornerstone of diplomacy, KGB-minded Putin has no room for embracing such a real estate way of deal-making. (10) I quote him to show how absurd Trump’s approach is, even from a right-winger like Kellogg, who is one of the founders of the America First Policy Institute.
What Putin really wants is not tiny pieces of territory in Donbas and Crimea, but the annihilation of Ukrainian sovereignty and statehood, according to Peter Dickinson of the Atlantic Council. A sovereign and independent Ukraine symbolizes the enthrallment of the former Soviet bloc and the victory of Western liberalism, which struck Putin as the most catastrophic humiliation in his life. His political manipulation history in Ukraine traces back to as early as 2004, when his attempt to install a pro-Russian puppet was sidelined in the Orange Revolution, a decade before the annexation of Crimea. (11) Actually, the Special Military Operation was intended to immediately replace President Volodymyr Zelensky with a pro-Russian puppet. However, Russia failed to seize Kyiv, and the war continues unexpectedly long for Putin. This is why Ukraine is fighting this war so unyieldingly.
Trump may have changed his approach to peace in Ukraine in view of their resilience, and he does not talk about territorial cession as frequently now. But it is quite unlikely that he has deepened his understanding of Ukraine's quest for freedom and that he has changed his real estate thinking in the war.
(5) Iran:
Trump recklessly talked about regime change without noticing Iran’s long history of nationalism to resist invaders. He may have thought this job would be done with just a few drops of bombs to kill Shia and IRGC leaders, but Iran has a huge reserve of élites to fill vacancies. His success in Venezuela is not applicable. Also, Trump belittled Iran’s grit to fight against the enemy. Remember, they overcame the supply chain crisis of strategic materials, including weapons, during the Iran-Iraq War, as typically seen in the case of F-14 Tomcat fighter jets. They were brand-new weapons that the Shah invested a huge number of petrodollars in, but ever since American engineers had withdrawn, they faced a severe lack of equipment and components for operation. Iranians barely managed to revive those “Persian Cats” to defend their airspace from Saddam Hussein’s air force.
From domestic politics to foreign affairs, Trump’s self-claimed “art of the deal”, which is poker game styled bluff to pretend his upper handedness, resorts to various verbal abuse and shaming, negative labelling like “communist” and “woke”, coercive measures like National Guard deployment and use of force pressure, to gain what he wants, without persuading others. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations comments that such ways of bullying just boomerang on him as opponents and foreign nations take damaging retaliation, and Iran is no exception. Now, hardliners are invigorated in Tehran, and the Strait of Hormuz is the hostage of their “art of the deal”. (12)
Here again, Trump falls into real estate thinking, as in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. He even mentioned his plan to annex the Strait of Hormuz (13) but does not show the idea of how to defend there and ensure Persian Gulf security from Iranian drone attacks in waves, which led to the defense pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. (14) Furthermore, Elliot Abrahams of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that US troops are considering relocating forward bases out of the Iranian drone range, as they are concentrated on the Gulf area for the War on Terror. (15) Trump may be experienced in swapping land in the real estate business, but state territories are accompanied by nationalism, national security, and territorial integrity. He is even unlikely to be aware of the Atlantic Charter, which is the foundation of international rules and norms today.
II. Putin’s bogus vision of the Russkiy Mir and Ukraine
Before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin published the notorious essay, “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” in 2021. He assumes that the Kievan Rus was a rigidly monolithic ethnic entity, but it was actually a loose political federation. Shortly after the publication of this controversial essay, Professor Andrew Wilson of University College London criticized that Putin intentionally confuses the Ancient Rus with Russians. Though Modern-day Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians descended from the Rus, they have had a long history of separate nation-building for centuries. In addition, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been influenced by the Renaissance and its subsequent religious movements, unlike the isolated Russian Orthodox Church. From this point, I would argue that Ukraine’s tilt to the West is more natural than to Russia. Ukrainians have no reason to embrace Czar-worship among Russians.
Furthermore, Wilson flatly denies Putin’s claim of Russia’s historical territorial rights in Crimea, the annexation of which in 2014 was the precursor to the current war. This is a strategic location to control the Black Sea trade route for exporting agricultural products. Nevertheless, Putin mentions the unproven history of Kievan Rus Prince Vladimir’s baptism in Crimea. Clearly, he wanted to impress the spiritual value of Crimea on the Russian nation. The place of Prince Vladimir’s baptism is in dispute among historians, but Putin dismisses the fundamental point that Crimea was an alien land for both the Kievan Rus and modern-day Russians until colonized by Catherine the Great. Prior to her conquest, it was inhabited by Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Armenians, etc. (16)
Even if Russians and Ukrainians shared a common language and culture as Putin says, I would argue that that does not necessarily substantiate his one-nation theory. Canada has sought autonomy, sovereignty, and identity from Britain and America. Putin’s ambition to exterminate Ukraine and Trump’s eagerness to merge Canada sound like Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Austria by Germany. Those poorly grounded one-nation claims come from megalomania. Above all, Putin is not interested in academic integrity. That essay is a showcase of KGB-bred disinformation.
III. Trump and Putin compared in personal backgrounds
Both Trump and Putin live in an information bubble, but that is not the only reason why they dismiss nationalism against a repressive foreign power in other countries, while boastfully claiming self-righteousness for their own countries. After all, they satisfy their nationalism through bullying others. They are extremely zero-sum minded from their lifetime experience in the real estate business and intelligence service, respectively. For further understanding, I would like to mention the personalities of both leaders.
Trump lacks the intellectual competence to understand foreign history and global affairs. When he was young, he boasted to have graduated first in his class from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania (17), but that was flatly denied by the late Professor William T. Kelley, as he revealed that Trump was the dumbest goddamn student he ever had. (18) Wharton is a prestigious school, but as his academic performance there was so poor, he is not bright enough. No wonder he is so hateful to established intellectuals. Some commentators misunderstood that Trump got an MBA degree. No, his achievement was so bad at the bachelor’s level. MAGA people are fond of politically incorrect attacks regarding race and gender. Then, let’s fight back in their politically incorrect manner to mock Trump’s poor brain. Go for it!
On the other hand, Putin is molded into a KGB-brained. Soviet elites were grouped by two pillars, and the Communist Party lost power, but the Cheka survived the collapse of the union. Ideologically, they have converted from Marxism for workers of the world to authoritarian nationalism of the secret police. Senator John McCain talked about Putin: “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G, and a B,” when he competed for the Republican Party nomination in the US presidential election in 2000. (19) His ideological opponent, ex-Lieutenant General Kellogg, who believes in America First, firmly agrees with him about this. Anyone seriously committed to national security shares common views regardless of political position, but does Trump really understand this?
Ironically, Putin is prosecuted by the ICC now, which has hindered him from attending the BRICS summit in South Africa and Brazil, though he focused on international law and trade at Leningrad State University (St Petersburg State University today), an archrival to Moscow State University. His KGB training was more influential in shaping his thoughts than his college education.
IV. Exploitative or predatory nationalism of Trump and Putin
Despite some differences in individual backgrounds, Trump and Putin are quite like-minded as they try to impose their tribalistic views on others by any means. They do not see the world from intellectual modesty, but from exploitative or predatory nationalism. They want to seize what they want, whether legitimately or illegitimately. They do not care about moral and logical contradictions in what they claim. That leads them to repress liberal nationalists in other nations. Liberal nationalism rises from the quest for autonomy and freedom, as seen in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. That is not an ideology of hate, which is favored among MAGA mobs and other Western right-wingers. It is not exploitative and predatory.
Leaders like Trump and Putin are so conscious of the great-power status of their countries that they are bulldozing the world with their exploitative and predatory greed, but are not interested in providing global public goods or fulfilling responsibility to the world in accordance with their national power. Meanwhile, some middle-power leaders like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada stand against them with liberal nationalism for their own countries and liberal internationalism for the global community.
Footnotes:
(1) "Greenland's autonomy: Nothing about us without us"; Eurac Research; 16 March, 2026
(2) "Carney tells Trump that Canada 'won't be for sale, ever'"; BBC News; 6 May 2025
(3) "Canada becomes independent from Great Britain"; ESBCO; 2022
(4) "Why Canada’s deeper linkage of foreign aid with trade outcomes is raising concerns"; Tront Star; August 12, 2026
(5) "What do Canada’s political leaders want to do with foreign aid?"; CTV News; April 13, 2025
(6) "Who Controls the Panama Canal?"; Council on Foreign Relations; January 29, 2025
(7) "Why the U.S. Should Not Take Back the Panama Canal"; Americas Quarterly; January 23, 2025
(8) "Ukraine would cede territory to Russia in draft of Trump peace plan obtained by AP"; AP; November 21, 2025
(9) "How European leaders are responding as Trump urges Ukraine to cede territory to Russia"; PBS News; October20, 2025
(10) "Europe should tell US to ‘take a back seat’ on Ukraine, ex-Trump envoy says"; TVP World; 1 July, 2026
(11) "Alaska Summit: Trump wants a real estate deal. Putin wants an empire."; Atlantic Council; August 14, 2025
(12) "Trump’s bullying has backfired"; Washington Post; August 24, 2026
(13) "Trump posts map labeling Strait of Hormuz as US territory"; Hill; August 18, 2026
(14) "Saudi defence pact with Turkey and Pakistan is a verdict on the reliability of US security guarantees"; Conversation UK; August 11, 2026
(15) "Rising U.S. Casualties in the Iran War Should Force a Rethink of Middle East Basing"; Council on Foreign Relations; July 21, 2026
(16) "Russia and Ukraine: ‘One People’ as Putin Claims?"; RUSI; 23 December, 2021
(17) "Fact-Checking All of the Mysteries Surrounding Donald Trump and Penn"; Philadelphia Magazine; September 14, 2019
(18) "Trump’s professor thought he was his ‘dumbest student’ ever"; Study International; 25 May 2026
(19) "John McCain saw through Vladimir Putin better than anyone"; Washington Post; August 27, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment