Statements by leading members of the Trump administration regarding European security quickly reveal something worrying — a series of uncertainties and contradictions that make its positions hard to understand and risk serious worldwide consequences.
While Defense Secretary Hegseth ruled out US forces participation in a peace mission and NATO membership for Ukraine; he also clearly indicated Washington’s desire to dissociate from the alliance by arguing that Washington could no longer guarantee security there and in Asia.
This was not the conclusion of a strategic review, rather Hegseth’s statement reflected the deeply held beliefs of the administration. Many are debatable, to put it politely. The new defense secretary then underlined that Ukraine, not Russia, must make concessions, although he walked back many of the comments the following day and said everything was in the hands of President Trump.
At about the same time, Vice-President JD Vance used an interview with the Wall Street Journal on February 14 that Washington had military and economic tools to induce Putin to negotiate. That also lasted all of a day before Vance claimed that “his words had been twisted” by hostile journalists at the Murdoch-owned Journal.
Even as his officials were correcting themselves in Europe, President Trump called Putin and agreed to negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine. In other musings, Trump mentioned that Ukraine might one day be part of Russia, and that the great powers should reduce military spending by 50%.
In this context Vice-President Vance’s speech to the conference on February 14 hardly improved matters with European allies. Vance berated Europe for being undemocratic, inter alia for not allowing extremist parties like the Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) and France’s National Rally, who have also been aided by Russia, to be considered “normal” political parties and join in government.
Vance omitted any mention of Russia, beyond saying that the Kremlin and China were not the main threat to Europe. That he could give such a speech underscores the second takeaway we can discern in administration statements. Vance’s speech shows that the administration is uninterested in European realities.
A third conclusion is that instead of having a reality-based policy process, the administration’s real goal is an illiberal government by fiat that in some ways emulates other illiberal governments like that of Hungary.
Europe was warned repeatedly about this kind of government coming to power in the US. Likewise, Presidents since Eisenhower have been urging Europe to do more on defense with little or no success.
And yet the situation now is much more serious. Assuming Washington’s disengagement from a peace mission in Ukraine, there are not enough European troops to hold the line between Russia and Ukraine.
If neither NATO nor American forces will be on call, the only viable defense for Ukraine then would be nuclear. And any new attempt by Kyiv to go nuclear means a return to war.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that neither Defense Secretary Hegseth, nor Vance, nor Trump has seriously thought about this war or about European security. Similarly, Trump’s willingness to negotiate over Ukraine’s head and his statements that Ukraine might become part of Russia or that NATO enlargement is the cause of this war, as well as his many previous exaggerations of US aid to Ukraine and demeaning of Europe’s efforts, suggests policy based on “gut” and not on rationality.
All this was apparent during Trump’s first term and now Europe is harvesting the results of neglect of its own defenses. Indeed, part of the problem is, as Bismarck noted, Europe remains merely a geographical idea not a political or strategic reality. Its governments are divided, chained to a suboptimal EU formula and unwilling to change or explain to its peoples that they are under attack from Russia and that therefore defense spending must rise and economic policy must change.
Thus, Europe is now challenged by a Russia determined to restore its empire and an American government that neither wants to know or be engaged with European strategic realities. Ideologically we see a right-wing crusade to enforce what Anne Appelbaum terms regime change in America a change towards an illiberal, and even anti-democratic autocracy.
Apart from Vance’s defense of right-wing extremists in Europe, Elon Musk supports them while he is also, for example, threatening to tear down Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America, supposedly because it is filled with left-wingers and nobody listens to its programs.
It is a dark time for the European continent, which must now stand up for the survival of eight decades of prosperity and open democratic advance.
It must succeed because the alternative is a continent once again darkened by the lamps going out, the loss of the dream of a Europe whole and free, and a continent that once again provides a playground for malevolent and untrammeled strongmen.
Stephen Blank is Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
