'What Does Trump See in Putin?' A Conversation With Fiona Hill

Fiona Hill

A recent Foreign Affairs podcast between Dan Kurtz-Phelan and noted Russian expert Fiona Hill is perhaps the best analysis of the Trump-Putin dynamic this year. It's quite lengthy, so I asked ChatGPT to summarise the transcript - see below. Here is the link to the original (may be gated).

---

What Does Trump See in Putin?

Fiona Hill’s contributions throughout the interview provide a penetrating analysis of how personal dynamics, strategic miscalculations, and a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape are reshaping U.S. foreign policy, European security, and the global balance of power.

Rapid Pace and Unpreparedness

Hill begins by expressing surprise at the lightning-fast pace of events in Trump’s second term. While many outcomes were anticipated, the sheer speed and “furious” nature of developments caught even seasoned observers off guard. This rapid evolution of U.S. policy has left both allies and adversaries scrambling to understand and adapt to a new reality—a reality in which the old assumptions about deliberate policymaking have given way to a volatile and reactionary approach.

Trump’s Personalized Diplomacy

A recurring theme in Hill’s commentary is Trump’s hyper-personal approach to international diplomacy. Reflecting on the Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky, she underscores how Trump’s dismissive treatment—reducing established agreements to mere personal whims and treating foreign leaders as pawns in his quest for image management—illustrates a dangerous departure from institutional norms.

According to Hill, this personalized style of negotiation not only undermines the continuity of U.S. foreign policy but also leaves counterparties ill-prepared for the fast-paced, high-stakes encounters that define today’s diplomatic landscape.

In a realm where precision and cultural nuance matter, even small missteps, such as Zelensky’s choice to speak in English without the full support of a skilled interpreter, can have outsized consequences.

The Putin Paradigm and Institutional Contrast

In stark contrast to Trump’s improvised style, Hill paints a vivid picture of the Russian approach under Vladimir Putin. For Putin, decision-making is centralized and supported by a cadre of experienced officials—figures like Lavrov and Dmitriev—who are well-versed in the art of diplomacy and adept at communicating a consistent message.

This disciplined and institutional framework stands in sharp relief against Trump’s tendency to fixate on the individual, particularly his obsession with meeting Putin face-to-face. By sidelining experienced advisors and professional diplomats, Trump risks simplifying complex geopolitical realities, a miscalculation that inadvertently bolsters Putin’s image as a strong and in-control leader.

Europe’s Agency and the “Vassal State” Debate

A significant portion of Hill’s analysis is devoted to Europe’s precarious position amid these shifting power dynamics. She argues that Trump’s “America First” approach, combined with his overt antagonism toward European security interests, is effectively relegating Europe to a collection of “vassal states.”

In her view, this dynamic is twofold. On one hand, European nations—ranging from Poland and Finland to the Baltic states—are compelled to rapidly rearm and invest in their own military capacities in response to a perceived abandonment by the United States. This reactive posture suggests that while Europe is often depicted as fragmented and dependent, it does retain a measure of agency; its leaders are now more urgently recalibrating their defense strategies and pooling resources in a bid to assert independence.

On the other hand, Hill is skeptical about the extent of this agency. She notes that the deep-rooted institutional weaknesses and the slow pace of reform across much of Europe mean that even well-intentioned moves toward self-reliance may prove too little, too late in the face of an assertive Russian posture aimed at regaining its sphere of influence.

Dividing the World into Spheres of Influence

In her broader reflections on global order, Hill discusses the emerging paradigm of dividing the world into three primary spheres of influence—America, Russia, and China—a model in which Europe is conspicuously marginalized.

In this vision, Europe is not seen as an independent actor but rather as a subordinate entity whose destiny is to be dictated by the strategic interests of these dominant powers. Hill points out that such a tripartite division is reflective of a nostalgic, almost eighteenth-century mindset where power was concentrated in the hands of a few autocrats.

For Trump and, to some extent, for Putin, this framework offers a simplified narrative: strongmen should control distinct regions of the world, leaving little room for the multilateral and often messy realities of European politics.

However, Hill challenges this notion by highlighting Europe’s complex identity—its population of 550 million, its diverse political systems, and its economic clout—which collectively underscore that Europe, though currently sidelined in strategic narratives, does possess the potential to reshape its role if it can overcome internal fragmentation.

Implications for Global Order and Nuclear Proliferation

Hill’s reflections extend to the broader implications of this evolving order. The personalized, reactionary diplomacy of the United States, coupled with an emboldened Russian strategy, is not only eroding traditional alliances but also creating an environment in which nuclear proliferation becomes a tangible risk.

With countries in close proximity to Russia, such as those in Eastern Europe, now forced to rethink their security arrangements, there is a real danger that nations will rush to acquire nuclear capabilities. This proliferation is not confined to Europe; Hill warns that similar dynamics could spread to other regions, thereby destabilizing an already fragile global balance.

Admiration and Misguided Affinities

Another critical aspect of Hill’s analysis is her exploration of the peculiar personal dynamic between Trump and Putin. She contends that Trump’s admiration for strongmen is driven by a personal affinity for the image of power rather than an objective assessment of geopolitical threats. 

Drawing on historical analogies, Hill likens Trump’s mindset to that of eighteenth-century monarchs, suggesting that his tendency to view international relations through the lens of personal relationships and flattery is both anachronistic and dangerously simplistic. This personal affinity, she argues, has led Trump to downplay or even dismiss actions by Russia that undermine U.S. credibility and international stability.

Conclusion: A Call for Strength, Unity, and Institutional Integrity

In her concluding remarks, Hill emphasizes that the only viable path forward lies in restoring a credible deterrence posture, strengthening internal cohesion, and re-engaging with global partners. The emerging order—with its tripartite division and its reduction of Europe to a secondary role—serves as a stark warning about the long-term consequences of neglecting institutional foundations.

For Hill, the solution is not to return to the old ways of personalized, autocratic diplomacy but to reaffirm the principles of strength, unity, and multilateral cooperation that have underpinned international stability for decades.

Overall, Fiona Hill’s insights offer a sobering and multifaceted analysis that not only critiques the current leadership styles of Trump and Putin but also highlights the broader systemic shifts reshaping global power. 

Her reflections on Europe’s dual status as both a potentially autonomous actor and a group of “vassal states” within a tripartite world order underscore the urgency for renewed commitment to collective security and institutional integrity in an increasingly complex and competitive international landscape.