Shaun Walker – TheGuardian.com
Trump administration’s rhetoric has created so much uncertainty that Poland and Baltic states have fresh doubts as alliance prepares to meet next month
Anightmare scenario has been playing on eastern European minds with increasing intensity since Donald Trump returned to the White House: what if Russia attacks and the US does not join the fight?
On the rare occasions the question is posed out loud, nobody much likes the answer. In mid-May, at a gathering in Tallinn, the US undersecretary of state Thomas DiNanno was asked directly whether American troops would fight if Russia invaded the Baltic states. He shifted uncomfortably in his chair, then gave a meandering answer. It did not include the word “yes”.
Politicians from the region usually try to sidestep the issue in public, claiming Washington’s commitment to Nato allies remains strong, and the alarming rhetoric from the Trump administration should not be taken to heart. “We shouldn’t pour fuel on the fire” is a mantra that was repeated in interviews by ministers from several countries on the eastern flank, where proximity to Russia infuses security debates with extra intensity.
Others admit that things are fraught between Europe and the US, but say a break in relations is out of the question, because the security gaps if the Americans absconded would be unbridgeable. Dovilė Šakalienė, a former Lithuanian defence minister, compared the relationship to “a dysfunctional family where divorce is not an option”.
In private, informal conversations are taking place in whispers. What would the response to a Russian attack look like if the US did not show up? Should Europe be doing everything to keep Trump on side – or be drawing up plans for the event that Washington does not come through? And will Vladimir Putin look at the unease in Nato and decide it is the perfect time to test the alliance’s resolve?
This account tracks the discussions in the eastern half of Europe during the 18 months since Trump took office for a second term, and shows how the prevailing mood has morphed from cautious approval of his demands for Europe to spend more into real doubts over US commitment to collective defence. It draws on interviews with dozens of officials in multiple countries, including national leaders, foreign and defence ministers, intelligence bosses and diplomats, many of whom spoke without attribution to discuss one of the most sensitive current foreign policy debates.
Ultimately, it is a psychological question as well as a geopolitical one. Eastern Europe has been one of the world’s most pro-American regions since the fall of communism. Poland joined Nato in 1999, the three Baltic states joined in 2004, and US security guarantees have been a fundamental part of national defence strategies ever since. Now, these countries face the possibility they might be abandoned by their primary ally.
One senior official in the region described a sense of bemused disillusionment: “What do you do when your beloved father figure suddenly starts drinking and behaving in a way that is utterly incomprehensible? It’s hard to know how to act.”
The first warning shots came in February 2025, less than a month into Trump’s second term, when the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, visited Nato headquarters in Brussels. In remarks laced with disdain, Hegseth told allies that in a world where China was on the rise, European security would no longer be a priority for Washington. Europe had to step up and pay for its own defence, said Hegseth, and the US would seek to withdraw from much of its stake in the continent’s security. It was an unwelcome reality check for many Europeans, who had hoped Trump’s second term would be much like his first – fiery rhetoric but little real policy change.
Hegseth chastised Europeans for making lofty speeches about values while expecting Washington to foot the bill. “Values are important, but you can’t shoot values, you can’t shoot flags, and you can’t shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power,” he said.