Jamie Dettmer serves as the opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
The ongoing war in Ukraine highlights a significant divide between America and Europe, particularly regarding the blame for the conflict and potential resolutions.
Central to this disagreement are contrasting assessments of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical ambitions and whether he aims to reassert influence over parts of Europe.
While U.S. President Donald Trump often extends the benefit of the doubt to Putin, Europeans—especially those near Russia or with memories of Soviet occupation—maintain a watchful stance. Thomas Nilsson, head of Sweden’s military intelligence, emphasized this cautious approach during the Munich Security Conference, stating that Sweden must prepare for a hostile and unpredictable Russia, particularly if Moscow succeeds in Ukraine. He warned that once fighting subsides, Russia is likely to return to the Baltic region, potentially establishing bases along new front lines with Finland and into the Arctic.
Russia’s hybrid tactics against Sweden persist, including disinformation campaigns and cyber aggression. Recent investigations into cable breaks under the Baltic Sea raise questions about possible sabotage, though nothing has been confirmed. Nilsson noted the need for heightened awareness of hybrid threats, stating, “We see patterns.”
Earlier this year, Swedish defense officials advised citizens to mentally prepare for war, a suggestion that drew accusations of alarmism from opposition politicians.
Sweden’s concerns mirror those of other European nations. The growing disparity between U.S. and European perspectives on the Russian threat is a source of anxiety among European defense and intelligence leaders, particularly when Trump downplays the Kremlin’s aggression, sometimes echoing Kremlin narratives. His recent comments blaming Kyiv for the conflict have left Ukrainians furious and Europeans astonished.
Trump has expressed trust in Putin’s intentions, stating, “I know him very well. Yeah, I think he wants peace. I trust him on this subject,” during a recent press conference. However, many Europeans view peace as low on Putin’s agenda, recalling his history of using negotiations to gain strategic advantages in conflicts like those in Ukraine and Syria, often with the help of his adept Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov.
Putin’s past actions, such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the denial of intentions to invade Ukraine in 2022, have led Europeans to view him with skepticism. During his presidency, Trump has often sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election, stating, “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
Trump’s dismissive remarks regarding the necessity of U.S. security guarantees for a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine further highlight the divergent views on security in Europe. He claimed that Europe “wouldn’t need much backing.”
For Trump, Putin’s assurances appear sufficient, but for Europeans and Ukrainians, security guarantees hold paramount importance. They cannot ignore Putin’s militaristic past or his goal to restore Russia’s status as a great power, a fundamental aspect of his foreign policy since 2000.
In contrast, Trump and his allies often downplay these concerns, attributing Russian aggression to NATO’s eastward expansion. Senator Markwayne Mullin stated, “I don’t believe for a second Russia is going to advance a war in any other country right now.” Yet, the overarching fear among Europeans is that future aggression remains a possibility, particularly for nations in proximity to Russia, such as the Baltic states and Poland.
Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service has warned of Russia’s military expansion in preparation for potential conflict with NATO. Danish intelligence indicates that Russia could be prepared for a “large-scale war” in Europe within five years. Lithuania has reintroduced military conscription and increased its defense spending to 3.45 percent of GDP, while Latvia’s intelligence service believes Russia is deliberately enhancing its capabilities to confront NATO. The apprehension surrounding Russia has driven both Finland and Sweden to seek NATO membership.
The stark contrast between assessments of Russia’s geopolitical aims exemplifies the divide between most of Europe and Trump’s administration, as well as Putin’s allies like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico.
Orbán believes that post-Ukraine deal, the situation will improve. Yet Nilsson warns of the possibility that Russia may test NATO’s Article 5 commitment in the long term. Although Nilsson does not claim an immediate military threat exists, he asserts that once the war in Ukraine concludes, Russia will reestablish its military presence near Sweden, likely with upgraded and more sophisticated capabilities.
In summary, the ongoing war in Ukraine continues to shape the discourse on defense and security within Europe and the U.S., with divergent views creating a complex landscape for future transatlantic relations.
