US expert: Trump thinks he will simply tell the Europeans what to do and they will adapt

Lavrov’s remark doesn’t surprise me. For many years, if not decades, the Russians have deemed the presence of any NATO troops in Ukraine as entirely unacceptable. This stance seems to rule out one of the main components of a potential peace agreement. The question now is how the Trump administration will respond.

There are so many differing voices within the administration regarding Ukraine, making it unpredictable. It’s hard to speculate whether Lavrov’s statement is merely a negotiating position, whether this issue was even discussed during the meeting, how the Americans reacted, and what the next steps in the discussions will be.

Regardless, the mere fact that this meeting took place, aiming to improve relations with Russia, and that high-ranking officials were sent, marks one of the first significant moves by this administration in foreign policy. It sends a clear signal that we’re already witnessing a dramatic shift in approach not only toward Ukraine but all of Europe.

The Americans insist they’re not negotiating with Russia over the heads of Ukrainians and Europeans, claiming these are just preliminary talks to gauge Moscow’s willingness to engage and that they’re about improving bilateral relations. Yet, they hesitate to commit to giving Ukraine and Europe a seat at the table. Let’s be honest: this was the first stage of negotiations between two major players, excluding others. U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, made this quite clear in Munich.

– Within less than a month of Trump taking office, his top officials met with the Moscow team. Neither Ukraine nor Europe was invited. This is a pivot in American policy.

In any negotiations – especially those aiming to end a war – preliminary talks are crucial. They’re essentially part of the negotiation process. While they might not delve into specifics, setting the terms for negotiations is a vital element. This represents a significant change in Washington’s approach, and it’s quite likely we’ll see more shifts.

The head of the U.S. delegation in Riyadh, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, noted that it’s possible to develop geopolitical and economic relations with the Russians – but only after the war ends. However, finance expert Kirill Dmitriev also attended the Riyadh meeting. Russia is enticing American oil companies to re-enter its market. Meanwhile, Trump envisions readmitting Russia into the G7, turning it back into the G8. Doesn’t all this suggest that – contrary to Rubio’s words – Trump might soon resume business with the Russians?

– Rubio and other American officials have made it clear that the U.S. seeks to reestablish strong relations with Russia, both geopolitically and in terms of business, trade, and investment.

This is a key aspect of Trump’s foreign policy approach: a focus on business and transactional relationships. He doesn’t differentiate between business deals and geopolitical strategy.

I was surprised, though not entirely, that public statements from both sides emphasized the priority of restoring business relations. Last week, there were reports that the U.S. attempted to strike a transactional deal with Ukraine regarding rare metals, which Ukraine declined. This was another signal of how important the transactional aspect of Trump’s foreign policy is.

After sanctions were imposed, many American oil companies had to leave Russia. Being from Minnesota, I’m well aware that numerous grain corporations also had to withdraw. It would be very interesting to know whether specific potential deals were discussed or if they were merely setting the stage for future negotiations.

I think this aspect is very important to Trump. It’s possible his team presented a series of demands.

Independent Russian media reported that Arctic specialist Vladimir Proskuryakov was also present at the Riyadh meeting. How do you interpret his presence, and would you connect it to Trump’s narrative regarding Greenland and its resources?

– Oh, I wasn’t aware of that. There are so many overlapping interests and a chaotic approach to them!

Trump’s statements about Greenland have referenced both resources and – especially during his first term – the crucial access to trade routes opening up due to global warming. This isn’t a new topic. Strategists from the U.S., Russia, Norway, and Canada have long discussed Greenland's geostrategic role.

It’s interesting, then, that the Russians included such an expert in their delegation. It would also be worth analyzing the full composition of the American team. Everyone talks about its leaders...

The key trio leading the talks included Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

– But beyond them, there were also those who sat in the second row, as always at such meetings. They provide expertise, take notes, and then return to Washington – to take action.

This meeting wasn’t just about Ukraine. When news of it first broke, we assumed Ukraine would be the main topic. But it’s clear now that the broader goal was to reestablish strong U.S.-Russia relations.

Of course, the war remains a crucial issue, but other topics emerged as well – business relations, strategic areas like the Arctic, and the return of great-power diplomacy, which, by its nature, sidelines Ukraine, the rest of Europe, and other countries.

But how does Trump even imagine negotiating over Ukraine and Europe without involving Ukraine and Europe? There are so many things he simply cannot promise, from territorial concessions in Ukraine to the conditions of a European peacekeeping mission.

– That’s a valid concern. This administration has been in power for just a month. This time, Trump has surrounded himself with people who are ready to act – his people – not figures from the Bush administration or establishment politicians. They are there to do what he tells them.

He believes he can simply tell Europeans what to do, and they will comply. We know that won’t be the case.

We’ll see if his team can convince him that NATO allies – and certainly Ukraine – must be deeply involved in negotiations from the outset. If not, these talks will collapse before they even begin.

Wouldn’t excluding Europeans from negotiations contradict Trump’s insistence that they take more responsibility for their own security?

– It’s yet another example of his contradictory approach. He sees NATO in a very specific way: the U.S. has done so much for Europe, Europe has never paid its fair share, so now it should follow America’s lead. This perspective completely disregards the interests of European nations and the necessity of involving all stakeholders in negotiations.

Trump views global affairs through the lens of personal relationships: he believes he can make a deal with Putin, and everyone else will simply fall in line. That won’t work.

Look back at his first term and his two summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. He genuinely believed that if he met with him, he could solve everything. He excluded South Korea, Japan, China – everyone. And he failed. Yet he’s still using the same approach.

His team will have to try to convince him that key NATO allies – such as Poland, Germany, France, and the UK – need a seat at the table.

Who do you think has the best chance of being the voice of reason? Many hoped Rubio would play that role, but he doesn’t seem to have much influence.

– Senate Democrats also hoped that Rubio would understand America’s foreign policy commitments and institutions. But within a month, it’s become clear that he’s not a strong player. He did nothing to stop the dismantling of USAID. He apparently had no idea about Trump’s plans for Gaza. So no, I don’t see him in that role.

Perhaps Waltz will have more sway. During Trump’s first term, his national security advisors were establishment Republicans whom he didn’t trust and with whom he didn’t get along.

Waltz is from Florida, which gives him an automatic ten-point advantage.

– True, but honestly, I don’t see anyone who could really make Trump understand certain realities. A few Republican senators have voiced concerns about Ukraine and NATO, but so far, they haven’t openly opposed him. Vice President J.D. Vance is even more rigid in his nationalist approach to foreign policy.

That said, if Trump’s current Ukraine policy leads nowhere, he might change course.

And in the end, I wouldn’t rule out the influence of European leaders. During his first term, he had a surprisingly good relationship with French President Emmanuel Macron. Pete Hegseth’s visit to Poland also suggests that the U.S. values Polish leadership in this context.

The question is: how should Europe respond after Vance’s frankly insulting remarks in Munich...

– Oh, absolutely.

...as well as being sidelined in Saudi Arabia and last week’s comments by Hegseth in Brussels? How can Europe articulate its interests without engaging with Trump’s team’s provocations, which would only deepen divisions? We need a "Trump whisperer" – a role once attributed to former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who is now NATO’s Secretary General. Could he be the one to succeed?

– We have to take Trump seriously when he lays out his vision of a transactional world dominated by major players and when he disparages NATO. During his first term, he often criticized the Alliance, but he wasn’t organized enough to take concrete steps against it.

European leaders need to view him with a clear-eyed realism, free of illusions. And they should also remember that NATO has another ally on this side of the Atlantic – Canada, which is also struggling to respond to Trump’s bizarre statements, not just about tariffs but even about a hypothetical "51st state." Justin Trudeau has made it clear that he takes these comments seriously.

One new development – evident in Vance’s remarks last week – is direct interference in the domestic politics of EU countries, starting with Germany, and the promotion of narratives suggesting that far-right groups are supposedly "defending" Europe, while restrictions on neo-Nazi hate speech are allegedly an attack on free speech and democracy. In the U.S., we’ve already seen how damaging this ideological approach can be.

Is there a real risk of the U.S. withdrawing troops from NATO’s eastern flank? After Tuesday’s meeting between Polish President Andrzej Duda and Kellogg, Duda stated that he had no such concerns.

– This is yet another issue where contradictions make it difficult to predict anything with certainty.

From the perspective of conservative, pro-Trump circles, Poland is seen as one of the "good" NATO allies. The visit of the Secretary of Defense, who made his first bilateral visit to Poland

– after attending a ministerial meeting in Brussels and visiting a base in Germany – also sent a strong signal that Poland is an important partner.

However, bilateral relations and Hegseth’s praise are one thing. The other reality is that Poland is a member of both NATO and the EU, meaning it could be indirectly dragged into any disputes Trump has with these organizations.

If Poland pursues a "special relationship" with the U.S., it could come at the cost of European unity.

– Poland’s leadership is politically divided – between President Duda and Prime Minister Tusk – but they are both highly experienced, particularly Tusk and the foreign minister.

From what I see in their public statements, they are well aware of the current risks. I think Poland is fortunate to have leaders who have worked with multiple U.S. administrations. Tusk, having led the EU, understands the complexities of U.S.-EU relations inside and out.

What should we expect from Thomas Rose, Trump’s pick for U.S. Ambassador to Poland?

– Of course, he still needs to be confirmed by the Senate. I don’t anticipate any issues there, given how quickly senators have approved other government appointments.

He is a textbook example of a Trump-era ambassador: highly ideological, having repeatedly voiced support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. It’s quite unusual for a former publisher of The Jerusalem Post to be appointed ambassador to Poland. He has already made comments about Poland’s domestic affairs and elections in the past, which aligns with J.D. Vance’s stance in Munich.

I can imagine that if he continues in this manner, it could create difficulties – especially if he arrives in Poland before the presidential election. A fundamental rule of diplomacy is that ambassadors in democratic countries do not openly support any candidate.

Rose got this position because he’s part of Trump’s circle of ideological allies. And if you have issues with an ambassador, that means you have issues in your bilateral relationship – because ultimately, he represents the president.

But we’ll see. He hasn’t even had his Senate hearing yet. Senators are still focused on confirming high-level government officials, which always takes priority over ambassadorial appointments.

Since you mentioned Netanyahu, let’s talk for a moment about Trump’s Middle East policy. Should we take his plan for Gaza seriously – the idea of relocating all Palestinians and turning it into the "Riviera of the Middle East"?

– I’ll say that one more time: Trump should be taken seriously and literally. He and the Israeli far right certainly take this idea seriously. That said, I don’t think it stands a real chance.

Just like in Europe, Trump will face obstacles with the very countries he’s trying to build relationships with – especially key players in the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf states. None of them will be willing to take in the Palestinians.

This is yet another example of Trump’s business-oriented, transactional approach aligning with Israel’s ideological and expansionist vision. His talk of a "Riviera" reflects his worldview – he sees prime real estate, a place where someone could build something profitable.

Trump also wants good relations with Arab states. It’s telling that recent talks with Russia took place in Saudi Arabia. I’m almost certain that, at the same time, discussions were happening with the Saudis about their total opposition to this plan.

Trump doesn’t seem to grasp the long-term consequences of his actions. Take China, for example – he and his team talk a lot about the need to focus on intensifying competition with Beijing, yet some of his decisions are actually making it easier for China to expand its global influence. By putting Latin American allies in a tough spot, freezing foreign aid, and undermining America’s credibility as a stable partner, he’s creating openings for Beijing.

– Many people would agree with that. There’s been an ongoing debate in the U.S. about how China has managed to execute projects in Africa that deliver visible results almost immediately – bridges, railways, highways. Yes, there are drawbacks to China’s approach, but for years, U.S. foreign aid has failed to counter Beijing’s growing influence on the continent.

In that context, dismantling USAID in such a way – cutting off assistance without warning, including highly successful programs like the fight against HIV in Africa, which had generated significant goodwill toward the U.S. – only weakens American influence and opens the door for China.

On the other hand, the tariffs imposed on China have had an interesting effect: many companies are now moving production to countries where export duties to the U.S. are lower. Trump’s decisions have wide-ranging consequences.

Still, during his first term, he was far more focused on China than he is now.

But this is Trump we’re talking about – he could shift his focus back to China in two days, forget about it the next week, and move on to something else entirely.

– Exactly, he’s unpredictable. Right now, he’s interested in restoring ties with Russia and holding a summit with Putin. Ahead of the Saudi-hosted talks, there were signals that such a meeting could happen as soon as next week. However, Tuesday’s statements suggested that this was just an initial step, with no set date for the summit yet.

One thing is certain: this time, Trump has a more prepared team. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but they are definitely better organized and moving quickly on key issues – from Russia to Gaza to trade tariffs.

Whether he’ll achieve his goals remains to be seen, but there’s no doubt that Trump and his team are determined to implement major shifts in U.S. foreign policy.

*Dr. Mary Curtin – retired lecturer at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. She spent 25 years working for the U.S. State Department, including in Poland (2004–08), as well as in the U.S. missions in Brussels, Tunisia, Mali, and Chile. She is an expert on European affairs, the Middle East, and human rights.

Translation: Patrycja Eiduka