American journalist and novelist, deputy editor and columnist for The Washington Post, David Ignatius, shared his view on how US President Donald Trump might react if Russian President Vladimir Putin were to attack Europe.
Source: Bukvy
Ignatius noted that Putin is a “paranoid” about his enemies and may feel cornered this spring. The Russian army is not advancing in Ukraine and is suffering significant losses. He cannot help Iran, one of his few allies. And his best friend in Europe — Viktor Orbán — has lost elections in Hungary.
More problems are likely ahead. Despite a short-term unexpected gain from rising oil prices, Russia’s economy is in poor condition. European countries are becoming stronger and more determined, and NATO forces are deployed from the White Sea in the Arctic to the Black Sea in the south. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues, and the chances of the decisive victory Putin seeks are low.
Therefore, the journalist believes that in such a situation Putin may consider war against Europe.
The prospect of a future conflict between Russia and Europe is the subject of an important but little-known study published in March by Eugene Rumer, a former US national intelligence officer for Russia and now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The title of the report summarized its message: “Warring and Besieged: Russia After the War with Ukraine.”
Here is Rumer’s stark warning: “Having invaded Ukraine under the false pretext of securing its western flank, Russia may emerge from the war less secure, more aggrieved, and more threatening to Europe than before. Its threat perception will cast a long shadow over Europe.”
Rumer and his Carnegie colleagues explained in interviews this week why the war in Ukraine remains a persistent security challenge for the West, despite the chaos of the Iranian conflict.
“I proceed from a deep conviction that Europe is the most important theater of military operations for Russia. That is where Putin’s energy will be focused,” Rumer said. He added that as long as Putin is alive, Ukraine will remain “unfinished business.”
Michael Kofman, another senior fellow at Carnegie, noted that Russia failed to achieve the breakthroughs it sought last year and has had a poor start to 2026.
In March, Russia lost between 30,000 and 35,000 killed and seriously wounded, likely losing more troops than it can replace monthly. This year, according to Kofman, “Putin will try to maintain the same pace as last year.”
Ukraine threatens Putin precisely because it wants to be part of Europe. This makes it the tip of what he sees as a European spear.
“From the Kremlin’s perspective, as repeatedly stated by senior Russian officials, Europe is at war with Russia,” Rumer wrote.
While Putin is waging a “hybrid” campaign of covert sabotage against Ukraine’s allies, Europe understands the message.
Russia “may be ready to use military force against NATO within five years,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned in a speech at Chatham House in London last year.
“Let us not deceive ourselves, we are all on the eastern flank now,” Rutte said.
This week, Russia increased pressure on Europe, stating it could attack European countries that produce drones for Ukraine.
Dmitry Medvedev, former president of Russia, who now appears to specialize in saber-rattling, posted threateningly on X that the Russian Defense Ministry’s statement is a list of targets: “When the strikes become reality depends on what happens next. Sleep well, European partners!”
Putin is a risk-taker, as demonstrated by his invasion of Ukraine. What if he decides that his window of opportunity to challenge NATO and impose a new order has arrived?
In the most ominous passage of his report, Rumer writes: “If Putin truly intends to impose his vision of European security on the continent, he may decide that time is not on his side, as Europe rushes to rearm, and launch an attack against a Baltic neighbor to demonstrate that NATO’s Article 5 is essentially a dead letter.”
What would Trump do if Putin struck a European country? Trump spends so much time criticizing NATO that Europeans already doubt the credibility of American security guarantees. His recent anti-NATO remarks have focused on Europe’s refusal to support the United States and Israel in a war with Iran.
Ahead of Rutte’s visit to Washington this month, Trump called NATO a “paper tiger” that “Putin is not afraid of.”
The Trump administration has even formalized its hesitation in writing. A national security strategy published in November called for Americans to remain balanced amid growing antagonism between Russia and Europe.
“Managing Europe’s relations with Russia will require significant US diplomatic engagement, both to restore conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian continent and to reduce the risk of conflict between Russia and European states,” the document stated. It is no wonder Europeans are concerned.
One of the most difficult things Trump could do in foreign policy would be to abandon America’s NATO allies in Europe at a moment when they face a growing, explicit threat from Russia.
As Rumer writes, “A transatlantic divorce before Europe builds its conventional defense and addresses the challenge of deterring Russia’s nuclear threats without the US nuclear umbrella would create a window of opportunity for Vladimir Putin to realize his ambitions.”
Europe hears the siren at night. Trump is so preoccupied with his list of anti-NATO grievances that he seems deaf to what could become the biggest crisis of his presidency.
“If one day historians ask: ‘Who lost Europe?’ what will Trump’s unflappable national security advisers say in response?” Ignatius concluded.
Discussion about this post