Europe’s hidden fear of Trump

Despite the recent US-Russia negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine ending without results—reportedly due to deadlock over Trump’s 28-point plan—, NATO foreign ministers have taken a firm stance. Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard explicitly stated that Russia has no interest in peace and that the only solution is to increase support for Ukraine and intensify pressure on Russia’s oil and gas revenues. This official narrative emphasizes unity and resilience against Moscow.

This public stance, seemingly based on the failed negotiations and the need to strengthen the joint front, is part of a complex diplomatic strategy. However, in informal Brussels circles, this official narrative is seen as a shield against a larger reality that threatens Europe’s security and independence.

Behind Brussels’ diplomacy, there is a deep concern about a more complex game. Europeans fear that the public narrative of failed negotiations and the need for increased pressure may actually be a coordinated diversion by Washington—and even the Kremlin. The aim of this messaging is to create a relative inertia in Europe’s current positions—i.e., adherence to the existing strategy—so that any domestic efforts to seek alternative solutions or reduce commitments are overshadowed.

This hypothesis is based on the idea that both the current US and Russian administrations, for different reasons, are interested in maintaining the status quo for a certain period. For Washington, maintaining the appearance of a firm alliance against Russia is critically important. For Moscow, this narrative allows Western pressures to appear futile and ineffective, while behind the scenes, alternative paths are pursued to achieve its objectives.

This apparent inertia functions like a security cover for Europe. As long as Europe sees itself committed to the “maximum pressure” strategy, it is less likely that member states will individually or collectively seek ways to reduce the direct costs of supporting Ukraine or prepare proactively for unexpected scenarios.

The concern over this inertia stems from the potential for sudden shifts in Trump’s behavior. Europe is acutely worried that the balance of power could suddenly change. Trump may impose a completely different approach, based on negotiation and reduced US commitments to NATO, or present a new peace roadmap to Europe—or even revive his 28-point plan in its current or modified form.

Trump’s potential plan includes a fundamental reassessment of US obligations under NATO’s Article 5. This could place European countries, particularly in the East, who heavily rely on Washington’s security guarantees, under increasing threat. Security analysts in Brussels are concerned that if the US distances itself from frontline military support, Europe will be forced to fill the gap—something that will be extremely difficult given its current military capacities.