Out with the old in the Old World: How Trump can usher in Eastern Europe’s moment

“In times of rapid change,” remarked industrialist J. Paul Getty, “experience could be your worst enemy.” For those in Washington, Brussels, and Berlin who are panicking about what a second Trump term means for global affairs, this advice is worth taking.

European counterparts who are thinking about the new Trump administration by relying on the old habits of foreign policy, signified by rhetorical crutches about the demise of democracy and temptations of isolationism, are doing themselves no favors. In a trans-Atlantic world shifting at breakneck speed, it’s those who adapt and evolve who come out on top. And no one understands this better than President-elect Donald Trump.

As he returns to power, the comebacker-in-chief brings with him a foreign policy cadre armed with a vision shaped not by nostalgia for the past but by a pragmatic understanding of the new geopolitical landscape. The world Trump is set to lead is one where his top trade partner is also his greatest adversary. He is expected by everyone to end a war in Europe in which is he not fighting, and he has no clear counterpart at the helm of Europe. A president able to address these challenges must be more nimble, precise, creative, and fast-moving with his every step than any president we have encountered before.

His critics may dismiss his approach as reckless, but there is a compelling case to be made that Trump’s strategies on Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and China will usher in necessary transformations on both sides of the Atlantic that will benefit Europe’s constituents and their steadfast ally, the United States, in the long term.

A reasoned and reasonable Ukraine policy

Trump has faced relentless criticism for his stance on Ukraine, with many accusing him of planning to abandon Kyiv in favor of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aspirations for territorial enlargement and domination of Eastern Europe. But a closer examination reveals a more nuanced and, likely, more reasonable approach.

As Europe and the U.S. have poured billions into the conflict, the harsh reality is that Ukraine remains mired in a stalemate. Despite the heroism and ingenuity of Ukrainian forces, backed by Western support, the Biden administration’s strategy has not led to a decisive victory. Instead, it has prolonged a brutal and costly war with no clear end in sight. The conflict began with Ukraine at a significant military disadvantage, which is now exacerbated by material support for the Russians from North Korea and China. These developments compound an unfavorable trajectory for the conflict.

Trump’s critics often overlook that he is not advocating a desertion of Ukraine. Rather, he seeks to negotiate a settlement that prioritizes saving lives while preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty. His advisers, including Vice President-elect J.D. Vance and soon-to-be national security adviser Michael Waltz, have made it clear that they envision a future in which Ukraine remains secure while also acknowledging the limits of Western intervention after nearly 1,000 days of assistance that has proven always too little, too late.

There is a difference between abandoning a cause and choosing to fight another day. A bungled prelude to the current moment, with insufficient aid delivered tardily, has created difficult circumstances for the incoming administration to overcome.

Trump’s leadership team has shied away from “cut and run” rhetoric. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), his secretary of state nominee, pointed out, for example, “You don’t have to be a fan of Vladimir Putin to want to end the war.” Waltz has emphasized the need for prompt negotiations while questioning the wisdom of open-ended support. Their approach is grounded in a belief that diplomacy, not perpetual conflict, is the key to stability.

It is also worth noting that both Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin have stated they believe Trump has an innate and immediate ability to end the violence. That window of opportunity is not lost on Trump.

Relying on past strategies in times of rapid change can be detrimental. Trump’s willingness to embrace a new approach could be the first step toward a more sustainable resolution. Preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty in the short term, rather than risking a more disastrous definitive Russian victory, makes imminently more sense amid the current, desperate phase of the war.

Critics will likely decry any steps toward a cessation of hostilities as “appeasement.” But even within the Biden administration, there have been whispers of a similar pragmatism taking root. Fighting to the last Ukrainian has become less palatable with each pearl-clutching simper about escalation. Reports have surfaced of Biden officials quietly nudging Ukraine toward negotiations, recognizing that a complete liberation of occupied territories may not be feasible. Trump’s willingness to say out loud what others are only willing to murmur may ultimately bring about a peace that has eluded more conventional leaders.

Embracing Eastern Europe’s rise

One of the most underappreciated aspects of Trump’s foreign policy is his recognition of Eastern Europe’s growing influence within the European Union. As Western European powers such as Germany and France struggle with internal turmoil, Eastern European nations are stepping up, both economically and politically, into more decisive leadership positions within the European Union.

Eastern European member states, once seen as the periphery of the EU, are now emerging as vital players. Countries such as Poland and the Baltic states have shown remarkable resilience and have taken a more hard-line stance against Russian aggression. Those nations understand the threats posed by Moscow in ways that their Western counterparts often do not. Trump’s critics may accuse him of undermining traditional alliances, but in reality, he is repositioning the U.S. to support the new power centers of Europe.

Trump has always paid special attention to the leaders of Eastern Europe, who share his skepticism of bureaucratic overreach and embrace national pride as a guiding principle. He has built strong relationships with figures such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Polish President Andrzej Duda.

By prioritizing these alliances, Trump is betting on a more dynamic and assertive Europe that is willing to take responsibility for its own defense. He is also reducing the burden of aligning U.S. interests on the continent by engaging receptive parties who will similarly prioritize their national interests as well. After all, diplomacy is as much about exerting your influence as it is about reaching agreements with partners. As global institutions come under strain, it is dangerous to seek recourse to their consensus-based constraints.

Rubio is expected to play a crucial role in this realignment. Rubio, who has long been a vocal advocate for a stronger NATO, will immediately face choices about whether to support Eastern European countries countering Russian aggression. His steadfast support for Ukraine’s struggle is not incompatible with the recurring impetus for greater burden-sharing. A seasoned foreign policy thinker, Rubio will not skip a beat in carrying out Trump’s vision for a Europe made up of partners who invest in their own defense capabilities. Meanwhile, Waltz, as Trump’s national security adviser, can be counted on to facilitate military cooperation and preparedness that will ensure NATO remains a credible deterrent to any threats emanating from the usual suspects in Moscow and Beijing.

Eastern European countries are experiencing noteworthy economic growth that is also recalibrating how investors and businesses view opportunities on the continent. Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, and other members of the long-stalled Three Seas Initiative are seeing sustained, multiyear GDP growth above that of their Western European counterparts. A pillar of Trump’s foreign policy will reflect this opportunity, and work to both accelerate and protect these economic trends. Given that Trump’s 2017 National Defense Strategy, which made the inaugural assertion that “economic security is national security,” identifies the relationship between capital and national security, his foreign policy team will lean equally on diplomatic and economic channels to more closely align America and Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, in Western Europe, the capitulation of Germany’s ruling coalition is the latest development in a worrisome trend occurring in London and Paris. A shift in resolve and the capacity to wield power is occurring within institutions typically favored by American administrations. Reorienting Washington’s foreign policy to emphasize Eastern Europe is not just about military strategy or economic cooperation. It reflects a broader recognition that the center of gravity on the ground and in the EU is moving eastward. The old powerhouses of Western Europe are no longer as dominant as they once were, and Trump’s hard-earned reputation for collaboration in Eastern Europe could help usher in a more balanced and resilient continent.

Confronting China’s malign influence

While Trump’s approach to Europe itself will be crucial in defining U.S. ties to the continent, his stance on China may prove even more consequential. The Biden administration has taken a mixed approach to Beijing, attempting to balance engagement with confrontation. Trump, however, suffers no such foolhardiness. He views China as the greatest threat to American and global security, and he is prepared to take bold steps to counter Beijing’s influence.

Europe needs to come to grips with this monumental tilt in global affairs. Half measures will not suffice. Whether Beijing drives a wedge between Brussels and Washington will determine the extent to which the EU’s member states have positive or negative relations with the Trump administration. Across the continent, the moment has come to take stock of what exactly lingering ties to China are delivering for European countries. Reducing dependencies and vulnerabilities nurtured by authoritarian nations should be common sense.

Trump’s economic policies toward China, including tariffs and strategic decoupling, have already begun to reshape global trade. But his second term is likely to go even further. He has advocated a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and has called for tougher export controls on any technology that could benefit the Chinese military. These measures, while controversial, are aimed at curbing China’s ability to project power and undermine democratic values worldwide.

Rubio, who has long been a hawk on China, will undoubtedly aim to strengthen alliances in the Indo-Pacific and promote economic policies that reduce dependency on Chinese manufacturing and hamper its technological pursuits. Similarly, he has long supported policies that incentivize the fundamental restructuring of trade and capital flows away from China, pushing to distribute them across other emerging or developed economies.

Trump’s approach is not isolationist. Rather, it seeks to build a coalition of like-minded nations that can stand up to Beijing. By focusing on partnerships with countries such as Japan, Australia, and India, Trump aims to create a united front against Chinese aggression.

Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, alongside Waltz, has demonstrated in his commentary that he understands the significance of modernizing the U.S. armed forces to ensure they are equipped to deal with the challenges posed by a rising China and remain decisive in lingering operations aimed at counterterrorism activities. Following on the legacy of Trump’s first administration, these leaders will almost certainly push for increased military cooperation with allies in the region, from joint exercises to intelligence sharing. Trump’s critics may label his policies belligerent, but the last four years have borne out the follies in confusing human rights and climate change as elements of an appropriate national security policy fashioned to address these challenging times.

The stakes are high. China has made no secret of its desire to supplant the U.S. as the world’s leading power. From its aggressive actions in the South China Sea to its crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong, Beijing’s behavior has only become more brazen. Trump’s determination to hold China accountable and protect American interests could define his legacy, not just as a president who built walls but as one who tore down the barriers that allowed malign actors to thrive.

A crumbling wall of nostalgia

For decades, many Europeans have comfortably relied on the unwavering support of the U.S., basking in a post-Cold War era that offered security guarantees and economic ties largely without strings. This era fostered an unspoken expectation: America would always be there, ready to underwrite Europe’s safety and stability. But that nostalgic reliance is beginning to look more like a long hangover than a durable arrangement.

The world has shifted beneath Europe’s feet. Trump, in his second term, is poised to challenge these old assumptions, insisting that allies step up and shoulder their share of the burden. This moment of reckoning isn’t just about defense spending — it’s about a deeper need for Europe to engage more realistically in self-governance with matters such as China’s growing influence and the conflict in Ukraine.

It is perhaps fitting that Trump’s reelection occurred during the same week as the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — a moment epitomizing the end of the Cold War and a truly divided world. Keen observers of the period that followed might have sensed a chilling monument rise from the ashes of the Cold War order. While the physical wall in Berlin came down, one might say a wall of nostalgia arose in its place. It has slowly distorted Western policies since then — Washington too often took a Western European view of the trans-Atlantic world.

But shared values alone are a trite and unconvincing basis for a vital alliance. Trump’s presidency may be the force that finally brings down the psychological barrier that obscures the same threats it has helped to create.

The fall of Olaf Scholz’s government in Berlin and the political crises facing the United Kingdom and France highlight Western Europe’s moment of weakness. Meanwhile, Eastern Europe is rising, and the U.S. must adapt to this new balance of power. Trump’s willingness to embrace these changes rather than resist them could pave the way for a more secure and prosperous future for both continents.

The indications of what foreign policy under a refreshed Trump administration and his thoughtfully selected Cabinet of military, economic, and foreign policy professionals should assuage rather than concern his European counterparts.

Indeed, Trump’s next four years in the White House may be some of the most productive, measurably significant, and structurally formative for the trans-Atlantic relationship since the fall of the Soviet Union. The next Trump administration is postured to bring meaningful market incentives to support sustained economic growth, increased awareness of and response to the risks posed by economic entanglement with China, enhanced security preparedness given concerns arising from Russia’s aggression, and be the catalyst for substantive increases in both the quality and quantity of European security capabilities writ large.

The president’s lessons learned from his first term, his mandate for changing the status quo back to one that places American interests, which include a strong and prosperous Europe, as his key priority, and his willingness to include proven outsiders who are set on reforming underperforming institutions or flawed approaches to foreign policy to his brain trust should give international affairs observers comfort rather than concern.

In times of rapid change, experience could indeed be our worst enemy. The world has moved on from the era of the Berlin Wall, and Trump’s pragmatic approach may be what’s needed to navigate the challenges ahead. By being reasonable on Ukraine, empowering Eastern Europe, and confronting China head-on, Trump is poised to usher in a new era of strength and stability. And that, ultimately, could be his greatest legacy.

George Bogden is a Tony Blankley fellow for the Steamboat Institute. David Rader is an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Defense Department official.