Is Trump Putin’s Poodle?

It is an allegation that goes back some time from when he ambushed President Zelensky in the White House by a planned humiliation and has resurfaced now that he has lifted sanctions on Russian diesel and called for Zelensky to be replaced. In effect, he has blamed Zelensky for a conflict which was started by an act of naked aggression contrary to international law through the unprovoked invasion of his country by Putin. 

Is the attribute fair or is there some other interpretation of the President of the United States’ actions?

The case for the prosecution was summed up in a recent article in the Business section of the Daily Telegraph, a national British newspaper, on 14 October by columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who wrote “Trump has made matters more dangerous with the cynical charade of his diesel deal with Putin. Russia cannot add net supply in any plausible timeframe; Putin is having to import fuel from India and Kazakhstan. He may even be importing diesel from Iran via rail links and the Caspian which implies that any “Russian” diesel that reaches the US may in fact be Iranian. Need one add credible reports that the Kremlin is helping Iran to kill American servicemen. Another national newspaper: ”Turncoat Trump is costing Ukrainian lives by cosying up to Vladimir Putin” – the Mirror.  History is littered with examples of unintended consequences but surely this must be among the most bizarre and, if true, one that the American public, already reeling under increased prices at the pump and in the shops, will not easily forgive.

Yet Trump is a transactionable politician without seemingly being troubled by any moral compass – he may still achieve an end to the Ukraine war by offering Putin a lifeline but it is questionable if any settlement that would please Russia would be acceptable to Ukraine. To the cynical what is clear is that Putin is luring Trump with the prospect of his family being able to gain a stake in Russian Lukoil. It is clear that Trump sees his Presidency as a way to achieve personal enrichment – much like other autocrats have done in the past. Nazi leaders were notorious for abusing their position to amass large collections of artwork and other valuables but, of course, these were stolen rather than the result of deals (although some were superficially legitimised by purchasing goods at unrealistically low valuations). If there is only a shaky ceasefire then almost certainly future conflict will break out again with potentially even greater ferocity and the danger of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The way in which Putin is playing Trump is his cynical disregard of Trump’s so called negotiated ceasefire on energy targets – so it is small wonder that having initially stated that he would abide by such a ceasefire Zelensky, having seen Putin violate it, is no longer playing that game. All this is predicated on the view that Putin has not pushed his luck too far in probing NATO’s resilience and through miscalculation perpetrated a full European war. It is clear that the Europeans are uncertain as to whether or not the USA would come to the rescue resulting in a messy war of attrition between the NATO European countries and Russia in which, no doubt, energy supplies and communications would be attacked so as to undermine the resolve and capacity of Europe to sustain a war in the way in which, miraculously, Ukraine has been able to do. If Europe succumbed it would leave a settlement in the hands of the White House and the Kremlin in which any relationship between Trump and Putin (assuming that both of them are still there) could be critical.

Every day now carries news in Europe of NATO fighter jets being scrambled to deal with objects (mostly drones) invading or coming close to violating NATO nationals’ boundaries. If, heaven forfend, full-blooded war does break out I suspect that history will term this time as the phony war.

Wherein lies the voice of reason for lasting peace and a return to the, admittedly largely unenforceable but widely accepted civilised norm, of an universal rule of law of behaviour which has inhibited states since the last World War from engaging in outright aggression? Clearly, it is not to be found in Beijing, Moscow or Washington. In fairness, it was never expected from the first two but the United States has been pleased to declare itself, and has largely acted, as the force of good and champion of universal human rights and the overthrow of tyranny wherever it may be found. We now see that has been diluted if not destroyed by Presidential action which has become the despair of the free world and is now personified as a global bully in support of its own narrow interests. It is beyond sad and, although matters can change rapidly, I suspect that it will take a long time for a different globally philanthropic administration to regain the confidence and trust of the rest of the world. 

Trump's intemperate return to lambasting Zelensky and stating that he should be replaced as President of Ukraine is an unsubtle precursor to providing a scapegoat for a failure to bring a negotiated end to the war. It cannot have escaped President Trump's notice that having called for a ceasefire on targeted energy plants his plea has been spectacularly ignored by Putin who has even stepped up the attacks - it is a massive snub and exposes America's lack of influence over the Kremlin. What is clear is that, despite the bluster, President Trump and his envoys no longer control the situation in either Ukraine/Europe or the Middle East and Iran. The exposure of that impotence of USA will go down badly with many of its leaders, citizens and the military.

President Trump has now dangled the prospect of a summit between himself, Putin and Xi Jing Ping. It is a bold suggestion and one that he might well pull off taking account of his previous attitude towards both Moscow and Beijing. If that averts World War Three he may well deserve the Nobel Peace Prize that he so urgently and desperately seeks - but it is a tall order as it would have to enshrine guarantees not only on Ukraine but also on Taiwan as well as a peaceful end to the Iranian war (which an emboldened Iran seems determined to escalate through its proxies now that it sees that it has America on the run). Yet this breach is not unfillable. Into this dangerous and unpredictable world step cautiously the middle-ranking powers. 

There is every indication that middle-ranking countries, some as outspoken as Canada which has the benefit of a history and practice that invited little resentment among other states, are seeking collectively to fill that void. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently published a paper entitled The Middle Power Moment which asserted "Middle powers are having their moment. Not a week passes in the policy world, it seems, without a conference, speech, or article on the role that systemically important, second-tier powers could play in improving international cooperation. And with good reason. Multilateralism is in crisis. The United Nations and other legacy organizations seem fatally blocked, the United States has abdicated its traditional managerial role, and China is unprepared and arguably unsuited to step up as global leader in Washington's place. The long-ailing rules-based international order has died and been interred, but it is unclear what, precisely, will succeed it. At this moment of global turbulence and geopolitical fluidity, might a loose network of middle-ranking powers spanning both the Global South and North help revive and reform multilateral cooperation?" Yet is also strikes a note of caution that any such initiatives are unlikely to replace the previous certainly of the superpowers squaring up to one another: "Rather than anticipating a consistent, united front, one should expect a shifting set of plurilateral initiatives, as subsets of middle powers opt into (or out of) specific endeavors."

These efforts, however, go largely unheralded in a global media obsessed by the superpowers and their autocratic leaders yet they are worthy of note.  There are several agreements which specifically deal with security such as the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security (2026) which mandates direct, leader-level security and defence consultations between these two critical Indo-Pacific middle powers, escalating their relationship beyond basic ministerial pacts. There is also the Canada-Denmark Arctic Cooperation Agreement (2026): a strategic security arrangement established by Ottawa and Copenhagen to fortify defence and territorial claims across the Arctic. In the Far East the Japan-Australia Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) simplifies military deployment and joint exercises between the two states, serving as a blueprint for middle-power defence integration. 

There are then what are termed "Minilateral" and Issue-Specific Agreements which address technology, supply chains and green energy away from the sometimes stultifying requirements of larger bodies. Among these are the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue): While containing the US, its architecture is largely driven by middle-ranking powers India, Australia, and Japan cooperating on maritime safety and tech standards.The MIKTA Partnership is a formal, cross-regional consultative platform specifically established by five middle powers-Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia-to coordinate global governance and foster economic resilience.

There are then what are known as Cross-Regional Trilaterals ie active non-binding frameworks established to secure trade and maritime routes, such as the India-France-UAE Trilateral and the India-Japan-Australia Supply Chain Resilience Initiative.

On a wider front the International Solar Alliance (ISA) with its headquarters in India as a treaty brings together 121 countries (including mid-tier powers like the UAE) to bypass superpower gridlock and mobilize solar technology.

Another category is what is described as Mega-Regional Trade Agreements. Middle powers are very dependent on global commerce so, with the retreat from globalisation and frustration of WTO and other trading rules by the superpowers, have created rules-based multilateral economic treaties. These include the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) which is a trading bloc promoted largely by middle powers like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Vietnam. 

The European Union actively uses its economic weight to bring together independent middle powers through EU Trade Diversification Pacts such as free trade agreements with Indonesia and has finalized trade pacts with India. The BRICS+ Framework, although underpinned by China and Russia, functions primarily as an ad-hoc alliance mechanism for influential middle powers-including India, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE and Indonesia-to amplify their collective economic bargaining leverage.

All these measures add up to an admittedly disparate and not centrally focused but, nevertheless, determined approach by the middle-ranking powers to stand against the disruption and destruction of international norms by the superpowers. Surely, although it will be a very different and less focused world order, it is to those powers that all world federalists should be looking to provide more stability in a world more fractured that at any time during the last eighty years.

Keith Best TD, MA is a former Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Anglesey/Ynys Môn and served as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Wales. Major in airborne and commando (artillery) forces, practising barrister, liveryman (Loriner), and Freeman of the City of London, Keith was named one of the 100 most influential people in public services in the UK by Society Guardian. Keith has made significant contributions to international refugee and human rights initiatives, including serving as Vice Chair of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and as a member of the Foreign Secretary’s Advisory Panel on Torture Prevention. He is the Chair & CEO of the Wyndham Place Charlemagne Trust, Chair of the Universal Peace Federation (UK), patron of TEAM Global, and a trustee of several national and international organisations. 

The views and opinions expressed in our International Insights are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or positions of TEAM Global or its affiliates.