A Week of Uncertainty: Trump’s Decisions Send Shockwaves Through Central and Eastern Europe

One week. That’s how long it took for President Donald Trump’s words and decisions to first shock Europe and then cause deep-seated anxiety.

These concerns are particularly evident in Central and Eastern Europe, which in recent years has made significant efforts to strengthen cooperation with the United States and to increase defense spending in the face of the Russian threat.

In Poland, frustration and uncertainty about the future are growing, especially given that many political circles had high hopes for Trump’s victory. Now, even his most ardent supporters – who, caught up in the fever of the recent U.S. presidential campaign, proudly wore red MAGA hats – have fallen silent.

Trump’s push for peace is understandable in the region, though many argue it is a mistake. Critics warn that the Kremlin will exploit any pause in hostilities to regroup and rebuild its forces, allowing it to resume its aggression against Ukraine in the near future.

Worse still, many fear that Russia may turn its sights on weaker NATO states, such as Romania, and particularly the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) where concerns are at their highest. These countries know that, in the event of Russian aggression, they stand little chance of maintaining their independence without decisive external support.

Even neutral commentators, as well as those who have previously been sympathetic to Trump, struggle to comprehend the White House’s rhetoric toward President Zelensky. Listening to Trump, one might get the impression that Russia is America’s ally, while Ukraine is the enemy.

Even more bizarre is Trump’s criticism of Ukraine for not holding presidential elections — especially when contrasted with his praise for Vladimir Putin, an autocratic despot. Trump’s statement blaming Ukraine for starting the war in 2022 has reverberated widely. The overall rhetoric from the White House suggests that NATO is America’s greatest adversary – something that is simply not true.

Central and Eastern Europe is deeply uneasy about the direction and nature of negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. This is not just because Ukraine has been excluded from talks that concern its fate. The situation evokes memories of the 1938 Munich Conference, where European powers decided Czechoslovakia’s future without its participation.

It also brings painful recollections of the Yalta Conference in 1945, where Central and Eastern Europe was divided into spheres of influence, handing it over to the brutal rule of the Soviet Union – Russia’s predecessor, to which Vladimir Putin has frequently expressed nostalgic attachment.

These concerns stem from concrete reasons. First, the U.S. has placed itself in a weak negotiating position by failing to set any preconditions and preemptively agreeing to allow Russia to retain the Ukrainian territories it has occupied.

Ending the war is crucial, but any agreement must be durable. In Russia’s case, the only credible guarantee of compliance is a strong military deterrent that prevents the Kremlin from violating the terms.

One must not forget that Russia’s goal is neither Crimea nor Donbas, but rather to (1) restore its influence in Central and Eastern Europe; (2) permanently weaken Western Europe, and (3) remove the American influence from Europe.

Second, such a deal sets a dangerous precedent and rewards aggression. It will only embolden Russia to escalate further, as it will see that its strategy yields tangible benefits.

It also sends a dangerous signal, for example, to China, which may escalate aggressive actions against Taiwan. The war will impact not only security in East and Southeast Asia but also the U.S. position as a global power vis-à-vis China and the world economy, including the American economy.

Third, Europe recognizes that for President Trump, countering China’s rise is the top priority. However, the U.S. stands a better chance of success against China with Europe’s support than without it. Even the strongest advocates of U.S.-European ties are now questioning whether the time has come to seek alternative partners. Some openly argue that, under these circumstances, Europe should move closer to China.

If Donald Trump believes that his decisions will draw Putin’s Russia to the U.S. side and sever its ties with China, he is gravely mistaken. The Kremlin’s relationship with China is not merely tactical but strategic and long-term. The current course of action is leading the U.S. into a scenario where, without European support and with increasingly wary allies in the Indo-Pacific, it will have to confront China while still facing an unresolved threat from an aggressive Russia.

Perhaps Trump’s calculations go even further, assuming that the U.S. will cease to concern itself with European security altogether. This would mean the end of NATO – an alliance that cannot survive without American leadership. If such a scenario unfolds, as many in Central and Eastern Europe fear, it would be a geopolitical twist beyond the imagination of even the most creative writers of political fiction. NATO would not be defeated by its historical adversary, Russia, but by its own founder and principal member – the United States.

Trump’s administration has plunged NATO into what may be its greatest crisis since its founding in 1949. This raises pressing questions: Can Indo-Pacific allies like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia still trust American security guarantees when a single decision from Washington now places NATO’s very existence in jeopardy?

Perhaps Trump does not intend to destroy NATO. However, the growing rift between the U.S. and Europe is undeniable, unnecessary, and potentially dangerous. Since the 1950s, NATO and the American presence in Europe have been a thorn in Moscow’s side.

Now, Putin faces a golden opportunity. Russia would never dare attack a strong NATO under decisive U.S. leadership. But the current situation is the complete opposite, offering the Kremlin a chance to escalate tensions, possibly even targeting the vulnerable Baltic states.

Recent media reports about a potential withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region were likely Russian disinformation. Instead of dismissing these rumors and reaffirming NATO’s Article V security commitments, the White House remained silent. This silence only encourages Russian aggression.

At little cost to itself, with no U.S. response and a weak Europe, NATO could cease to exist.

But would America’s global standing truly be stronger in such a world?

Credit: ID 344625828 | Putin Trump © L9871456 | Dreamstime.com