Eastern European leaders are increasingly worried that the United States might not come to their defense if Russia attacks, as the Trump administration's rhetoric and policies create unprecedented uncertainty. The concern has grown so acute that officials in Poland and the Baltic states are privately discussing scenarios where Washington abandons its allies, even as they publicly insist on unity.
US Undersecretary Evades Question on Troop Commitment
In mid-May, at a gathering in Tallinn, US Undersecretary of State Thomas DiNanno was asked directly whether American troops would fight if Russia invaded the Baltic states. He shifted uncomfortably and gave a meandering answer that did not include the word "yes," according to attendees. The evasion shocked many in the room and highlighted the growing doubts about US reliability.
Politicians from the region usually try to sidestep the issue in public, claiming Washington's commitment to Nato allies remains strong. "We shouldn't pour fuel on the fire," one minister from an eastern flank country told the Guardian, speaking on condition of anonymity. Others admit that relations are fraught but say a break is unthinkable because the security gaps would be unbridgeable. Dovilė Šakalienė, a former Lithuanian defence minister, compared the relationship to "a dysfunctional family where divorce is not an option."
Private Whispers and Public Denials
In private, informal conversations are taking place in whispers. Officials are debating what the response to a Russian attack would look like without US help, whether Europe should do everything to keep Trump on side or prepare for a US withdrawal, and whether Vladimir Putin will exploit the unease to test Nato's resolve. This account, based on interviews with dozens of officials including national leaders, foreign and defence ministers, intelligence bosses, and diplomats, tracks how the mood has shifted from cautious approval of Trump's demands for more European spending to real doubts over US commitment.
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."
Hegseth's Warnings and European Reactions
The first warning shots came in February 2025, less than a month into Trump's second term, when US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Nato headquarters in Brussels. He told allies that European security would no longer be a US priority and that Europe had to pay for its own defence. "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," Hegseth said.
During an informal lunch, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius asked Hegseth for a timetable for the US drawdown. The idea was not popular. "Lots of us were upset with Pistorius," said one European official present. "The feeling was that the Americans haven't even made their mind up yet, so don't tempt them with an idea that might actually push them into it and speed things up."
Many from eastern Europe saw a positive side: Poland and the Baltic states had long pushed western Europe to increase defence spending. "Europe had avoided, lagged behind and procrastinated for decades, so that cold shower was justified and necessary," said Šakalienė, who was Lithuania's defence minister at the time.
Ukraine Humiliation and Intelligence Cutoff
Hegseth's aggressive messaging on Ukraine was harder to swallow. Two weeks later, Trump humiliated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a televised White House showdown. Soon after, the US halted intelligence-sharing with Ukraine. The cutoff was reversed after little more than a week, but it left a lasting impression. The moment had a particular impact on Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and his inner circle. "It felt like the ground shifting beneath their feet," said one well-connected source in Warsaw.
One senior European official raised these concerns directly with then US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. The official asked how the US could abandon Ukraine in the middle of a war, noting that senior military officers at home felt betrayed. Waltz said Ukraine was different and that such a decision would never be taken regarding a Nato ally. The official pushed back, pointing out that deterrence is based on perception: "I said to him: 'In these kinds of discussions, what people believe is almost more important than what the reality would be.'"
The 'Coalition of the Willing' and Keeping Trump Engaged
A few days after the Oval Office debacle, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer gathered leaders of what became known as the "coalition of the willing" in London. Inside the room at Lancaster House, there was a feeling that something had broken. "I could see it on the faces of all these leaders – no matter if they were from the left or right, it was clear they understood that the world had changed," said one person present. The group continued with regular video calls, ostensibly focused on Ukraine's security but with a subtext of keeping Trump engaged in European security. "We'd coordinate the messages and think about how to spin it to Trump in a positive way," said a source on many calls.
Nato Summit in The Hague: A Success Despite Fears
In June, the annual Nato summit took place in The Hague amid apocalyptic predictions that Trump could use it to sound the death knell of the alliance. In the end, it was a success, largely thanks to Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who made it his personal mission to keep Trump happy. Member states committed to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 – a level already approached by Poland and the Baltic countries. Rutte made it clear this was Trump's achievement, delighting the US president. Rutte's fawning, including calling Trump "daddy" on the sidelines, was seen as distasteful but tolerable. "It's cringe, but most European leaders are fine with it as long as he delivers Trump," said one Nato official.
The summit's afterglow allowed some in eastern Europe to argue that Trump could be a net positive. "Barack Obama and Joe Biden asked politely for Europeans to spend more and it got us nowhere," said former Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid. "It is only by being impolite and insistent that you can get Europe to change."
The Problem of Unpredictability
The problem is that in Trump's world, a firm promise today can be undone by a Truth Social post tomorrow. The stated US strategic goal of shifting away from Europe was unwelcome but manageable; the chaotic implementation was harder to deal with. For smaller states, access to Trump's court is difficult. "In Trump 1.0 we had nothing to complain about," said Artis Pabriks, a former defence and foreign minister of Latvia. "People in the Pentagon and state department understood our needs very well. Now it's completely different. We can't get to deliver our message, we cannot predict, we cannot talk."
Russian Drones Enter Polish Airspace
In September, about 20 Russian drones entered Polish airspace on a single night, in what appeared to be a calculated escalation. Nato's US chief commander in Europe, Alexus Grynkewich, liaised with Polish military headquarters in real time, opening corridors for Dutch and Polish pilots to shoot down many drones. "All sides try to compensate for the political situation with the quality of ties at a technical level," said Polish analyst Sławomir Dębski.
Political messaging was more questionable. Trump posted an excited "Here we go!" on social media and later suggested it "could have been a mistake." In a rare rebuke, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski told the Guardian: "You can believe that one or two veer off target, but 19 mistakes in one night, over seven hours, sorry, I don't believe it."
Greenland Threats and Iran War
In January, Trump doubled down on threats to annex Greenland from Denmark, a fellow Nato member. Some national capitals wrote alarmed requests asking if Denmark could invoke Article 5. One Nato diplomat described the feeling as like looking into an abyss. The scare passed with Rutte's diplomacy, but was followed by Trump's war on Iran, which delayed US weapons deliveries to Europe and contributed to chaotic messaging. In mid-May, Poland learned that a rotation of 4,000 US troops scheduled for deployment had been cancelled. Some had already arrived. "We're trying to find out what's happening, but it's hard to find an American who knows what's happening," said one official.
Trump soon reversed the cancellation via Truth Social, saying he was doing so because of his friendly ties with Poland's nationalist president, Karol Nawrocki, who is at odds with the Tusk government. The implication was that troop levels could depend on Trump's personal relationships.
Hegseth's Latest Address and the Ankara Summit
Just as allies were reiterating the need for unity ahead of the Nato summit in Ankara in July, Hegseth delivered another combative address. He blasted as "shameful" the decision by many European countries not to grant basing and overflight rights for Washington's Iran war, and attacked Europe for focusing on "gender equity and climate change" instead of "tanks and fighters and air defences." Hegseth announced a six-month review of US force posture in Europe and said the US would lower its financial contributions if others did not meet their targets. The eastern flank countries are ahead of spending targets and should "pass" the review, but the public attacks undermine the alliance.
To Placate or Prepare?
Throughout the turbulence, Europe has faced a choice: placate Trump and hope for a more predictable successor, or speak publicly about frustrations and prepare for a future without the US. Rutte has told leaders there is nothing to be gained from airing anger in public, and many agree. "It is not in our interest to be over-critical to the United States, given the personality of the American president," said Czech President Petr Pavel. However, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's acrimonious spat with Trump last week shows that patience is wearing thin even among ideological allies.
Among eastern European nations, the Polish government has become an increasingly vocal outlier. "We have been and will remain a loyal ally of America, but we cannot be suckers," Sikorski told parliament in February. In the Baltic states, caution still dominates. "Of course the tension is concerning, but it needs to be dealt with in very calm ways," said Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna.
Dr Kristi Raik of the ICDS thinktank said the Baltic consensus might need to be overhauled. "We cannot prepare ourselves for this possible future scenario if people are too scared to talk about it," she said. She noted a level of self-censorship in public foreign policy discourse not seen since the late Soviet period.
European Efforts to Fill the Gap
To show seriousness, several European countries have sent troops to the Baltics. Germany is deploying a full brigade to Lithuania, its first permanent foreign base since World War II. The EU has created a defence commissioner role, and French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to extend France's nuclear umbrella over more countries, including Poland. However, high-quality air defence systems, deep-strike capabilities, and intelligence gathering are difficult to replace. A senior European intelligence official said the combined collection capabilities of all Nato intelligence agencies minus the US still amount to "less than the US produces on its own."
Nato Secretary General Rutte bluntly told the European Parliament in January: "If anyone thinks that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming. You can't."
The Question of Russian Perception
In the short term, the key question is whether public tensions have eroded the Kremlin's perception that an incursion into Nato territory would provoke an overwhelming response. "I'm more concerned about the projection of unity that we're showing to Russia, that they could find themselves making the crazy assessment that maybe it's the right time," said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys.
During Estonia's annual "spring storm" military exercises, 44,000 Estonian soldiers and volunteers, along with French and British troops, practised repelling a Russian ground invasion. As long as the Russian army remains tied up in Ukraine, the Kremlin has little capacity for a traditional attack. "We don't see it. There are no capabilities," said Tsahkna. Instead, Putin is likely to continue with hybrid attacks involving sabotage, drones, or grey-zone warfare to test Nato's red lines while retaining deniability.
One possible disaster scenario is presented in the book If Russia Wins: A Scenario by German academic Carlo Masala, which depicts a hypothetical crisis in spring 2028 where Russia rolls tanks into Narva, Estonia, and a Trump-like US president says: "I'm not going to risk World War III over some small town in Estonia." Some eastern European officials dismiss the scenario, noting that Nato's top commander now has authority to reinforce border zones as soon as signs of Russian preparation appear. However, Masala argues that political control means a single phone call could overrule troop movements.
This uncertainty is at the core of European concerns. Jana Puglierin of the European Council on Foreign Relations calls it "Schrödinger's Nato" – a state of ambiguity over whether the US is in or out, which will continue until a moment of truth arrives. "Nobody knows the real status of the relationship until we 'open the box' – until Nato is tested militarily," she said. "But by then, it might be too late for the Europeans."
