Lithuania’s 2025 Eurovision entry is a dark and deeply unsettling song that reaches crescendo simultaneously with a haunting picture of the world, projected on the screen behind the band, falling apart into pieces. This looks like an apt parallel to the geopolitical landscape we find ourselves living in these days, with the old certainties and conventions burning and collapsing one after another. Meanwhile, Donald J Trump brings his worldview, instincts, character, and grudges to bear upon the world that America has once led.
What we are witnessing is not yet another sudden deterioration in the transatlantic relations that litter the past, let alone a managed but much-accelerated rebalancing of the relationship that will make it healthier and happier. Trump has taken a wrecking ball to it — by verbally attacking the allies, piling pressure on the war victim, and siding with the demands of the aggressor — at a time when Europe remains vulnerable and wary of losing its pivotal ally. Of course, Europe has a major share of fault in this predicament, which both the Trumpist crowd and long-time critics of European comatose defence never fail to emphasise, but rushing to pull a rug from under this relationship now serves Russia’s fundamental interest of cutting Europe from America’s involvement first and foremost.
Nor is the looming Trump-Putin — or Trumputin — deal just another naïve and misguided attempt by the US to reset relations with Russia. Trump seems to genuinely admire Russia’s dictator and never mutters a word of criticism towards him. The US reportedly refused to mention Russia’s aggression in a G7 statement on the anniversary of the full-scale invasion and also demanded that Ukraine withdraw its draft UN resolution condemning this aggression. It then voted against that resolution in a spectacular alignment of its diplomatic position with Russia, North Korea, Belarus, Eritrea, and a few other countries. In an Orwellian twist, the victim has become the villain who “should not have started it,” echoing one of the Kremlin’s main propaganda points. Further, it has been subjected to highly extortionist economic demands as well as, after labelling the Ukrainian President “dictator without elections,” demands for leadership change.
It is increasingly obvious that the Manhattan bully feels more affinity to Piter’s thug than to European establishments or war-hardened Ukrainian leaders. He will turn against Putin only when he feels deeply insulted or swindled, which the latter — a KGB-trained master of manipulation and deceit — will make sure never happens. For now, in Trump’s worldview, Russia has a legitimate sphere of influence that Ukraine belongs to and thus must bow to Putin’s will if it wants the war to stop.
Europeans’ Fears, Hopes, and Dilemmas
The biggest optimists might still think Trump is engaged in some complex geopolitical chess game where Ukraine’s and Europe’s best interests will be properly attended to. This is increasingly unlikely. Whatever is driving Trump’s motivation to strike a lopsided and hasty deal to deliver ‘peace’, or rather a chimaera of peace while essentially handing Ukraine over to Moscow, Europe faces a near-existential dilemma: Accept the outcome and abandon Ukraine, thus increasing the probability that it will have to directly clash with newly empowered Russia later? Or turn Trumputin’s table upside down by throwing Europe’s full weight behind Ukraine and thus risk losing the US support to collective defence of the continent right away?
Those who would consider the former as the only viable option — because, as the adage goes, in the new-old world, “The strong do what they please, while the weak suffer what they must” — might still harbour hope that Trump, his MAGA extremists, and the US in general stand by the collective defence commitments to Europe. So, when push comes to shove after throwing Ukraine under the bus, Washington’s cavalry will still ride in to help. It can be argued, with reference to recent statements by the US defence secretary in Brussels, that America is not turning its back on collective defence and that NATO is humming along, with all the right things needed to further strengthen it well in motion. Looking back at Trump 1.0 of 2017-20, it may sound reasonable to suggest we ignore Trump’s words and wait for his actions, even though rhetorical deeds matter in diplomacy and deterrence. The continued presence of the US troops in Europe — especially on NATO’s eastern flank — and the absence of indicators of their imminent withdrawal are taken as the best measure of the continued commitment.
However, given Trump’s disdain for alliances in general and Europe in particular, this is a conditional guarantee at best, with the conditions ranging from much-increased defence spending to, judging from JD Vance’s speech in Munich, ideological alignment that entails letting the pro-Kremlin populist forces unfettered access to power as well as free reign to Elon Musk’s and GRU’s X bots and trolls. Trump’s personal likes and dislikes towards individual leaders, and what sort of deals those leaders can offer, would inevitably play a role in his crisis decision-making. All that NATO buzz at the practical level might be just the nerve impulses of a beast, whose heart has already stopped beating, while the security relationship with America is silently shifting towards bilateral transactionalism.
Those of us bracing ourselves for the latter option — i.e., ignoring the Trumputin deal because sacrificing Ukraine is an absolute non-starter — put a lot of faith in Europe’s capacity to unite and act at the speed and scale of relevance. This is a problematic proposition if Europe is defined as the EU or European NATO, given that the pro-Moscow governments of Slovakia and Hungary wield veto power over their decisions. This would have to be a ‘coalition of the willing’ that includes the UK, Norway, even Canada, maybe Türkiye, and, of course, Ukraine. But even then, the arrangement will remain vulnerable to the rise of the extremist populist forces in some of the key participating nations, whom the Musk-GRU tandem is keen to enable and facilitate. Much of Europe is also highly dependent on the American-made equipment and weapons that the US can exploit in case it is not happy with what the Europeans do.
In theory, Europe has the resources and even staying power to step up and keep its own game rolling, but the question is whether it has the leadership capacity, cohesion, and stamina to do so. Washington’s leadership has always been pivotal at the time of major crises, suppressing European cacophony and ensuring that a common response is more than just a sum of its parts. This leadership is gone and is yet to be replaced by an effective pan-European arrangement, even though the UK-French duo is emerging as a potential engine.
Steering in the Middle or Fighting Back?
Some European nations will be trying to chart a middle course between these two horns of the dilemma by remaining staunch supporters of Ukraine and even mulling Europe’s security guarantees to Ukraine post-ceasefire. This entails preparing to go to war with Russia when it inevitably breaches that ceasefire and courting Washington with the charts of increased defence spending and new purchases of American weapons. Polish President Andrzej Duda’s dash across the Atlantic for what turned out to be merely a 10-minute-long meeting with Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s planned visit to the White House after expressing unwavering support to Ukraine are good examples of that. The underlying assumption is that Trump can still be bribed, or that his narcissist ego based on a strongman image can be sufficiently massaged to avoid the worst outcomes, especially if his whisperers are of the same ideological cut as President Duda, or are in the good books as French President Emmanuel Macron. But even ideologically similar leaders such as Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — a staunch supporter of Ukraine — will find it a very difficult balancing act that risks compromising on one or another side of the equation.
This middle course is, however, increasingly looking like an effort to slow down the transatlantic divorce and manage its consequences by appeasing the man in the White House, while hoping to keep his attention or survive until someone else takes the helm a few years from now. That someone else, of course, might be more hostile, even if less verbose or rambling than Trump, or just completely indifferent — a possibility prompting would-be German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz to state that Europe must become independent of the US in defence, and thus effectively subscribing to the French idea of ‘strategic autonomy’.
At the very worst, the Europeans might find themselves in a long-term position of having to simultaneously contain assertive predatory America and deter as well as attrite aggressive Russia in a ‘no limits’ partnership with China, which will be an uphill and, if the Trumputin axis outlives these two gerontocrats, protracted struggle. Europeans know fully well what they must do to protect themselves and go on the offensive to disrupt or neuter this axis already today, at its infancy, but tough statements — important as they are for mobilising the continent’s collective willpower — still much outweigh the breadth and depth of action. The opening line of the Lithuanian Eurovision entry says, “Empty words only increase fire.” We’d better heed this warning with the utmost urgency.
Views expressed in ICDS publications are those of the author(s).