The perils of foreign policy neutrality

President Trump has not reinvented American policy in his second term, he has instead intensified the strategies he introduced during his first. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric has now become a calculated approach, leaving both Europe and India at a crossroads.

On 24 February 2025, the United States aligned with Russia during a United Nations General Assembly vote on the Ukraine conflict. This move signalled a growing rift between the US and its European allies. The vote also demonstrated a decline in global support for Ukraine, with only 93 votes in favour compared to 141 in the previous resolution on 23 February 2023 — reflecting a broader erosion of international consensus.

India’s abstention from the vote underscores its strategic predicament. While New Delhi champions strategic autonomy, its repeated reluctance to take a firm stance on Ukraine raises concerns about its credibility as a global power. By avoiding clear positions, India risks being perceived as indecisive at a time when global alignments are shifting rapidly.

This approach may offer short-term flexibility, but invites long-term questions about India’s reliability as a strategic partner. If China were to escalate border conflicts with India, which major power would step up to support New Delhi? India’s balancing act provides a temporary buffer, given its defence ties with Russia and economic ties with the West, but ambiguity as a default position limits its geopolitical leverage.

Trump’s recent meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in Washington highlighted the deepening discord between the United States and Europe over Ukraine. Europe favours a security-first approach, whereas Trump prioritises economic interests and quick deals, signalling a shift away from transatlantic unity. By aligning with authoritarian regimes like Russia and China, Trump is actively dismantling the post-World War II liberal order and adopting a transactional foreign policy that forces European allies to bear more security responsibilities.

A recent survey of European security experts compared a US withdrawal from Europe to the destruction caused by a Russian nuclear strike — an alarming analogy that is increasingly becoming a real possibility. Trump’s administration has taken swift actions: negotiating with Russia without consulting Ukraine or European allies, imposing tariffs on European goods and using military disengagement as a bargaining tool.

These manoeuvres follow two interconnected strategies. First, the US is pressuring European nations to increase defence spending and make concessions on trade and technology. Second, there is a clear military retrenchment, shifting America’s focus away from Europe to domestic priorities.

Conventional US military assets in Europe are being redirected, leaving European nations to take greater responsibility for their own security. Yet Europe remains divided and unprepared. Instead of forming a unified strategy to counterbalance US disengagement, European leaders remain reactive, scrambling for short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions.

This lack of coherence makes Europe vulnerable at a time when decisive action is most needed. While some nations, such as Poland, are increasing military spending, many others remain hesitant, constrained by political inertia and deep-seated rivalries.

Unlike Europe, which faces immediate security concerns due to Trump’s policies, India faces a different but equally pressing challenge. As global alliances shift, New Delhi must navigate a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. Historically, India has balanced its relationships with the US and Russia to maintain its so-called strategic autonomy. However, Trump’s transactional foreign policy means India can no longer rely on Washington’s support without offering something in return.

Trump has made it clear that alliances are no longer driven by shared values but by immediate self-interest. India has benefitted from closer US ties in defence and nuclear technology, yet its hesitation to take a stand on Ukraine exposes vulnerabilities.

If India continues its neutral stance, it risks being sidelined in crucial geopolitical decisions.

China’s growing assertiveness in South Asia adds another layer of complexity. India faces increasing military pressure along its northern borders and economic competition in its neighbourhood. While the US has signalled support for India against Chinese expansionism, Trump’s unpredictability raises concerns about the reliability of such assurances.

During Modi’s visit to the White House, Trump even suggested mediating between China and India. New Delhi must carefully weigh its options: maintaining strategic ambiguity may work for now, but failing to assert its position could undermine its aspirations for global influence.

India also faces internal challenges in positioning itself as a leader among emerging democracies. While Europe struggles with internal divisions, India has the potential to build stronger ties with nations in the Global South. However, its hesitation to take the lead in global democratic initiatives due to self-doubt limits its ability to counterbalance China’s influence. Countries like Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa look to India for leadership, yet India’s confused and often inconsistent diplomacy results in missed opportunities to shape the international order.

Trump’s second-term policies mark not just a continuation of his earlier rhetoric but the full realisation of a transactional world order. Europe is grappling with the unravelling of decades-old transatlantic security ties, while India faces growing uncertainty in a world where traditional alliances no longer hold the same weight.

For Europe, the challenge is existential. The European Union must overcome its divisions, increase defence spending and form stronger security partnerships to counterbalance US disengagement. Without decisive leadership, the continent risks further fragmentation and vulnerability to external threats.

For India, the path forward requires recalibrating its diplomatic strategy. It must actively engage with democratic allies, assert its position in global crises and ensure that strategic autonomy does not become a liability. The world is shifting toward a multipolar order, and India has the opportunity to shape it — but only if it remains a secular democracy and moves beyond confused neutrality in foreign policy.

Trump’s policies have set the stage for a world where power is dictated by immediate self-interest rather than longterm alliances. Both Europe and India stand at a crossroads, facing the urgent need to redefine their roles in the global order. Their choices will determine whether they emerge as leaders or remain passive observers in a rapidly changing world.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden