NEW DELHI: Is US President Donald Trump, in his second term, aligning himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin — or is he simply echoing a worldview that conveniently overlaps with the Kremlin’s? A recent analysis by Bloomberg suggests the former, sparking a wave of commentary about whether Trump’s rhetoric and policies are veering dangerously close to Russia’s.
Titled “Trump Tells Americans What Putin Wants Them to Hear”, the Bloomberg investigation presents a data-driven assessment of how Trump’s public statements and online posts mirror the Kremlin’s narrative. Using a large language model to examine over 300 public comments by Trump between August 2024 and mid-March 2025, as well as more than 3,000 social media posts from the Trump administration, the study found notable parallels in tone and message.
The findings reveal that Trump’s commentary — particularly regarding Nato, Ukraine’s sovereignty, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s legitimacy — often aligns with positions publicly held by Moscow. This includes a recurring narrative on the occupation of Ukrainian territory and criticism of Kyiv’s Nato ambitions, both long-standing Russian talking points.
However, world politics expert Prof Pushpesh Pant disagreed with this analysis and said that Trump’s foreign policy cannot be simply reduced to an alignment with Putin.
“Donald Trump is irrational and unpredictable. Any attempt to interpret his foreign policy through tweets or Western media analysis is ultimately futile,” Prof Pant said in a discussion with Times of India.
“No matter how much he wants to appear aligned with Putin, that stance will hold only as long as he needs to counterbalance China.”
Referring to past presidential misjudgements, Pant added, “As George W Bush once famously said about his first meeting with Putin, ‘I looked into his eyes and I saw his soul. I trusted him.’ That quote has become emblematic of how easily some leaders have misread Putin, and Trump is no different from that list.”
This rhetorical shift is also apparent in Trump’s own remarks. At a February rally, he recounted a conversation with a foreign leader: “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’… ‘No, I would not protect you.’” The comment, which drew condemnation from US allies, was interpreted as a direct challenge to Nato’s collective defence commitments — a position long sought by Russia to weaken the alliance.
Bloomberg also noted that social media content from Trump administration officials prioritises themes like immigration, internal discord, and trade, with noticeably fewer mentions of Russian aggression or support for Ukraine. The report concludes: “The linguistic evidence points to a fundamental reorientation of American foreign policy discourse under Trump’s leadership — one that increasingly overlaps with how Russian officials describe global affairs.”
Parallel reporting from CNN paints a similarly uneasy picture. The network revealed that US intelligence agencies have warned lawmakers about ongoing Russian interference efforts aimed at aiding Trump’s re-election and now his presidency. “It’s not a comfortable position,” one Republican lawmaker told CNN. “But it’s a situation that is becoming harder to ignore.”
However, Prof Pant provided another perspective: “Trump’s perceived tilt towards Putin by the global media also stems from ongoing allegations that Russia, under Putin’s leadership, orchestrated cyber-attacks during Hillary Clinton’s campaign, possibly influencing her defeat.”
On the issue of Trump’s rocky rapport with President Zelenskyy, Prof Pant cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions. “Regarding the Ukraine mineral deal with Zelenskyy, it would be wrong to assume that Trump will have an upper hand. The deal contains clauses that suggest unless Trump settles prior financial commitments, no new understandings with Zelenskyy will materialise. Moreover, the Russia-Ukraine war remains deeply asymmetrical and tilted in favour of Putin.”
He added: “One key detail that deserves attention is that the final Ukraine-US mineral agreement, compared to earlier drafts, is less skewed in favour of the US and not as far-reaching. It now allows for future American military aid to Ukraine to be treated as investment, rather than demanding reimbursement for past assistance.”
The larger geopolitical picture, according to Pant, cannot be separated from Putin’s own historical vision. “Putin sees himself as deeply connected to Europe — especially to Orthodox Christian populations — and does not recognise Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, or Tajikistan as strategically vital. For him, Ukraine — especially Crimea and Kyiv holds historic and emotional significance. He is not going to back off easily.”
“If Putin succeeds in absorbing Ukraine, neighbouring countries like Poland and Hungary will have reason to be deeply concerned. As a Nato member, Poland could find itself under direct pressure, triggering a ripple effect that would unsettle all of Eastern Europe,” he warned.
As Trump gears up for further consolidation of power in his second term in a rift with China, the debate over whether his foreign policy is strategically calculated or ideologically susceptible to Putin’s worldview is likely to grow sharper.
What remains clear, however, is that the lines between political pragmatism and geopolitical alignment have never been blurrier.
