Trump Is Seen as Europe’s Enemy by a Majority of Europeans

An Anomaly Explained

Poland stands out clearly from its European partners in this poll, with only twenty-eight percent of its citizens describing Donald Trump as an enemy of Europe—a figure well below the European average and one that reveals a unique stance worthy of careful analysis. Moreover, nearly half of Poles—forty-eight percent, to be exact—choose the neutral option of viewing the U.S. president as neither a friend nor an enemy, a cautious stance that stands in stark contrast to the much more pronounced polarization observed in other European countries. This distinctive Polish trait can be explained primarily by the unique geopolitical situation of this Central European country, which shares a direct border with Russia and retains traumatic memories of the Soviet domination that befell it after World War II.

For decades, Poland has benefited from enhanced U.S. military protection, which has taken the form of the permanent deployment of U.S. troops on its soil and the installation of missile defense systems on its territory—measures that have rightly been regarded as vital safeguards against any hint of Russian aggression. This structural dependence on U.S. security creates a paradoxical situation in which Polish public opinion finds itself torn between its traditional loyalty to its American ally and its growing attachment to the European project, which it enthusiastically embraced after regaining its freedom in 1989. Poles are aware that a break with Washington would leave them terribly vulnerable to the Russian threat—a prospect that naturally prompts them to exercise caution and restraint in their judgments of the U.S. president, despite his authoritarian tendencies.

I understand the Poles’ position; I understand it perfectly in all its tragic and impossible dimensions. Imagine yourself in their shoes, caught between two giants who have little regard for you, forced to choose between the American protectorate that shields them from the Russian bear but threatens to make them pay dearly for that protection in terms of sovereignty and dignity. It is an impossible choice, a Cornelian dilemma that reminds me of the worst moments in European history, when small countries had to align themselves with one of the blocs to survive the ambitions of the great powers. I feel compassion for this people who have suffered so much and who, even today, must navigate dangerous waters to preserve their independence and security in a world that seems to respect the rules that have maintained peace since 1945 less and less.

The Geopolitical Implications

Poland’s unique position in this poll reveals a deep rift within the European Union that could have major geopolitical consequences in the coming years if current trends continue and intensify. As long as Europe remains divided in its perception of the American threat—with an eastern bloc firmly committed to the security alliance with Washington for existential reasons and a western bloc increasingly hostile to Trump’s policies—it will be impossible for Europe to develop genuine, credible, and coherent strategic autonomy. This internal division constitutes a structural weakness that Europe’s adversaries—notably Russia—will undoubtedly exploit to weaken the European Union and prevent the emergence of a European power capable of exerting independent influence on the international stage.

The implications of this rift are all the more concerning as they arise at a time when Europe is facing unprecedented security challenges, including the war in Ukraine, rising tensions in the Balkans, and the questioning of the European security architecture inherited from the Cold War. Europe’s inability to present a united front in the face of U.S. provocations on issues as sensitive as Danish territorial sovereignty sends a message of weakness and division that can only encourage revisionist powers to test European resolve on other potentially explosive issues. Germany and France in particular, which have always aspired to give Europe a common voice on the international stage, now find themselves confronted with the brutal reality of the deep divisions running through the continent, which render any dream of strategic autonomy in the short or medium term illusory.

This European division breaks my heart because it is precisely what Europe’s enemies dream of seeing happen. Vladimir Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee as he watches Europeans divide over the American issue, unable to agree on a common response to provocations that threaten the sovereignty of a member state. It is as if we have forgotten the lessons of history, as if we have erased from our collective memory the centuries of wars that ravaged our continent the moment we stopped speaking with one voice. I sometimes wonder if we are not witnessing the end of a dream—that of a united and powerful Europe capable of protecting its citizens and promoting its values in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable world.

A Potential Casus Belli

The specific context of this poll—conducted during a period when Donald Trump was issuing repeated threats against Greenland—largely explains the extent of European opposition it reveals and the intensity of the emotions it stirs among the public in the seven countries surveyed. Greenland, a vast autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, occupies a crucial geostrategic position in the North Atlantic, with early-warning systems capable of detecting any hostile air or naval movements coming from the east—a function vital to the security of the entire European and North American continents. Donald Trump’s statements regarding his willingness to acquire this territory by force if necessary were perceived by the overwhelming majority of Europeans as an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a European Union member state and as a fundamental challenge to the international order based on respect for established borders.

The survey reveals that 93 percent of Europeans were aware of Trump’s statements on Greenland at the time they were surveyed—a level of awareness that attests to the massive media impact of this crisis and the public’s awareness of it. Furthermore, 84 percent of respondents considered these statements to be serious, with 63 percent even describing them as very serious, demonstrating that Europeans do not take Washington’s threats lightly and are convinced that the Trump administration is prepared to act if it sees an opportunity to do so. This perception of a real danger is all the more alarming because it extends across the entire European political spectrum, transcending traditional divides between right and left, suggesting the emergence of a national consensus on the need to guard against any potential American aggression.

When I heard Trump talk about invading Greenland, I initially thought it was a tasteless joke, one of those usual provocations that characterize his political style and to which we had grown accustomed since he took office. But when I realized that the U.S. military was seriously planning scenarios for an invasion of this European territory, I felt a chill run down my spine—the same chill our ancestors must have felt when German panzers crossed the Polish border in 1939 or when Soviet armies crushed the Hungarian and Czechoslovak revolutions. It’s the same feeling of helplessness in the face of brute force, the same realization that the rules we thought were eternal can be abolished in an instant by a lawless head of state.

The European Response

Faced with this unprecedented threat, European public opinion has shown remarkable unity and resolve in its determination to defend Danish territorial integrity and, by extension, that of the European Union as a whole. Eighty-one percent of those surveyed stated that U.S. military intervention in Greenland would constitute an act of war against Europe—a legally precise formulation that shows Europeans are prepared to regard such an act of aggression as a casus belli justifying a collective military response by the European Union. This extremely firm stance is all the more significant given that it comes from populations that have historically been pacifist and committed to the peaceful resolution of international disputes, which attests to the exceptional gravity with which Europeans view the threat posed by the Trump administration’s expansionist ambitions.

Even more surprising is that sixty-three percent of Europeans say they would support the deployment of European troops to defend Greenland in the event of a U.S. attack—a figure that rises to eighty-four percent in Denmark itself, which is directly affected by the crisis. This determination to engage militarily against a historic ally in the event of an attack on a member state represents a true revolution in the European mindset, marking the end of the era of unconditional dependence on American protection and the emergence of a European consciousness of collective security. Europeans seem to have realized that their security can no longer be guaranteed exclusively by Washington and that they must be prepared to defend it themselves, even against their former protector should it threaten their vital interests.

This willingness to fight for Greenland fills me with a strange and contradictory sense of pride—the pride of seeing Europeans finally ready to defend themselves, but also the sadness of having to contemplate a conflict with the one who, for decades, was our protector and our most loyal ally. It is as if a child had to learn to box to defend himself against his father, who has turned violent—a situation unlike any other that upends all the familial and emotional references we had incorporated into our conception of transatlantic relations. I don’t know if we’re ready for this ordeal, or if our militaries and societies could withstand the psychological and material shock of a conflict with the United States, but I do know that we’ve reached the point of no return.

The Verdict on Trump

Beyond the specific issue of Greenland, the poll reveals a deep and widespread crisis of confidence among Europeans toward Donald Trump as the head of a Western democracy and toward the fundamental democratic principles that the United States is supposed to embody. Only 10 percent of those surveyed believe that Donald Trump respects democratic principles—a dismal figure that constitutes a genuine rejection by populations that have long viewed America as the quintessential democratic model and as the city on a hill toward which all the world’s democracies should aspire. This near-unanimous rejection spans all socioeconomic groups and political spectrums, suggesting that Europeans have been able to observe and objectively analyze the Trump administration’s authoritarian tendencies without the usual ideological biases clouding their judgment.

The figures regarding perceptions of Donald Trump’s governing style are even more alarming and revealing of the depth of the breakdown in trust between Europeans and the U.S. president. Forty-four percent of Europeans believe that Donald Trump has authoritarian tendencies—a judgment that is already harsh and speaks volumes about how Europeans interpret his decisions and public statements. But this figure becomes truly explosive when one considers that an additional 44 percent go even further by asserting that Donald Trump behaves like a dictator—an extreme characterization that reveals absolute distrust of American leadership and places Donald Trump in the category of leaders whom Europeans view as direct threats to democracy and fundamental freedoms.

When I see these figures, I think of all those Americans who voted for Trump believing he would drain the Washington swamp and return power to the people, and I wonder how they feel today upon discovering that the whole world now views them with suspicion and concern. America has lost its moral aura—that special status as an indispensable and exemplary nation that gave it influence disproportionate to its purely material power—and this loss seems irreversible to me over the course of a generation. It is as if a beloved star had deliberately discredited himself in public, ruining in just a few years the capital of esteem and respect accumulated over decades of effort and good deeds.

The Implications for the West

Europeans’ disaffection with Donald Trump has implications that go far beyond the strictly bilateral framework of relations between Europe and the United States and threaten the very existence of the concept of the West as we have known it since the end of World War II. The West is not merely a geographical or economic reality; it is, above all, a community of shared values—a civilization founded on liberal democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and the market economy—that has found its institutional expression in the alliance between Europe and North America embodied by NATO. If one of the fundamental components of this alliance—namely, trust in American leadership as the ultimate guarantor of democratic values—were to disappear, then the entire Western edifice risks collapsing like a house of cards under the force of a violent wind.

Europeans are, in fact, beginning to draw conclusions from this realization and are seriously considering a strategic reorientation that would gradually move them away from the American orbit. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed say that the European Union should be able to guarantee its own defense without relying on American support—an overwhelming proportion that shows that the idea of European strategic autonomy, long considered an intellectual utopia reserved for federalist circles, now enjoys majority support among the public. Only 22 percent of Europeans still believe that Europe can count on Washington to ensure its security—a residual figure that foreshadows major transformations in the European security architecture in the years to come.

This shift toward strategic autonomy fills me with both fear and hope. Fear because I realize the immensity of the task awaiting Europeans if they truly wish to establish a credible defense system independent of America; fear because I know how much Europe’s internal divisions make this goal difficult to achieve within a reasonable timeframe. But I also feel hopeful because I sense that we may finally be growing up, becoming adults, and taking control of our collective destiny without waiting for others to come and protect us or dictate our actions. This is a necessary step in building a mature and autonomous European identity—a rite of passage that could reveal a stronger, more self-confident Europe.

An Alliance in Question

NATO, an organization founded in 1949 to guarantee the security of Western Europe in the face of the Soviet threat, is today facing an unprecedented existential crisis that calls into question its very foundation and its future relevance in a profoundly transformed world. The Atlantic Alliance has always been based on an implicit pact whereby the United States provided military protection to Europe, while Europeans aligned their foreign policies with U.S. interests and accepted American leadership in world affairs. This pact was based on mutual trust and shared values, but recent events have shown that this trust has eroded dramatically and that Europeans are no longer willing to accept unquestioningly a U.S. leadership that they now view as potentially hostile to their vital interests.

Donald Trump’s recent statements about Europe—that the continent is not heading in the right direction—have been perceived as unacceptable interference in European internal affairs and as a challenge to Europeans’ right to determine their own political and social future. Even more troubling, the national security strategy published by the Trump administration last December asserted that migration threatened Europe with civilizational extinction and called for fostering resistance within European right-wing parties—remarks that many Europeans interpreted as an attempt to manipulate their internal political life and to support the populist and nationalist forces that threaten European integration. This attempt at direct political interference was the breaking point for many Europeans, who saw it as definitive proof that the Trump administration no longer viewed Europe as a partner but as a territory to be ideologically conquered.

The NATO I knew—the one that protected us during the Cold War and ensured our security in the decades that followed—that NATO is dying before our very eyes. I can’t help but feel a certain melancholy at this inevitable demise, as if a loyal friend who had been with us through the best and worst of times were irrevocably drifting away from us. But at the same time, I realize that this demise was perhaps inevitable, that history never stands still, and that organizations that once served a purpose eventually become obsolete as the world changes. NATO served its purpose; it protected us when we were weak and vulnerable, but it no longer fits the world we are building.

Possible Scenarios

Several scenarios are conceivable for NATO’s future in this new context of mutual distrust between Europe and the United States, ranging from the gradual transformation of the alliance to its outright collapse in the coming years if current trends continue. The most optimistic scenario—though difficult to achieve in the short term—would be a far-reaching reform of NATO that would allow Europeans to play a much greater role in the organization’s decision-making and command, gradually transforming the alliance into a true partnership among equals rather than a hierarchical relationship in which Washington dictates the course of action. This scenario would, however, require a radical shift in the American mindset and Washington’s willingness to share decision-making power with allies who would no longer be subordinates but autonomous partners.

An intermediate—and undoubtedly more realistic—scenario would be one of a difficult coexistence between a NATO that is formally maintained but gradually stripped of its substance and meaning, while Europeans simultaneously develop their own autonomous defense structures, such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office or the existing European Rapid Reaction Force. In this scenario, NATO would become an empty shell—a formal structure without any real operational substance—maintained primarily for symbolic reasons and to avoid giving the impression of an explicit break with the United States. Finally, the most pessimistic scenario would be an open and official break between Europe and the United States, leading either to a U.S. withdrawal from NATO or to the creation by Europeans of a new autonomous defense alliance that would directly compete with the historic transatlantic organization.

I do not know which scenario will prevail, but I sense that we are at a tipping point—one of those historic moments when the choices we make today will determine the fate of our children and grandchildren for decades to come. The path we choose—whether that of confrontation or renewed cooperation—will shape not only relations between Europe and America but also the entire global geopolitical balance for the twenty-first century. It is an overwhelming responsibility that rests on our shoulders—that of architects of a new world that we are building without always even realizing it.

Awakening

The findings of this survey come at a time when Europe is already engaged in a profound process of reflection on its place in the world and on how to ensure its security and prosperity in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable international environment. The war in Ukraine served as a major wake-up call for the European public, which discovered to its astonishment that armed conflicts between nations had not disappeared with the end of the Cold War and that Europe’s security still depended largely on the willingness and ability of the major powers to uphold the international order. This collective realization has led to a significant increase in member states’ defense budgets and to increasingly serious discussions about the need to develop genuine European strategic autonomy.

Donald Trump’s aggressive statements about Greenland and his questioning of the U.S. commitment to European security have accelerated this process of reflection and transformed what was still considered just a few years ago to be an intellectual project into an urgent political necessity. Europeans now realize that their security cannot be guaranteed either by American goodwill or by the mere existence of international structures such as NATO, but that it depends above all on their own ability to defend themselves and project a credible force capable of deterring any potential aggressor, whether from the east, the south, or even the west, as recent events have shown. This realization is all the more significant because it spans the entire European political spectrum, transcending the traditional divides between pro-European and Euroskeptic parties.

It took a threat from the west for Europeans to finally realize their vulnerability and the need to take charge of their own security. It is a cruel irony of history that we waited until our American protector became a potential threat before we began to think seriously about our own defense. But perhaps this was necessary; perhaps we needed this shock to rouse us from our lethargy and intellectual complacency, which had led us to believe we were living in a safe and protective world. Reality is harsher, more complex, and demands efforts and sacrifices from us that we had long forgotten.

The Challenges Ahead

The path toward true European strategic autonomy is fraught with obstacles of all kinds, ranging from internal political divisions to budgetary constraints, not to mention resistance from certain member states that remain committed to the traditional alliance with Washington. The first and undoubtedly most significant of these difficulties lies in the lack of a common and determined political will among all member states to resolutely commit to this path, with some countries—such as Hungary and Poland—continuing to prioritize their bilateral alliance with the United States at the expense of European defense integration. These internal divisions constitute a major obstacle to any attempt to build an autonomous and credible European defense, as they prevent the emergence of a consensus on Europe’s strategic objectives and the means necessary to achieve them.

Budgetary constraints represent a second major obstacle on the path to strategic autonomy, as the development of a credible European defense would require massive and sustained investments that many member states are struggling to afford amid an economic slowdown and high public debt. Europeans will have to make difficult choices among various budgetary priorities, perhaps sacrificing certain social or investment programs to fund the defense effort necessary for their collective security. Finally, the industrial and technological dimension of European defense poses a third major challenge, as Europe will need to develop and maintain a defense industrial base capable of supplying the equipment and technologies required by its armed forces without relying on American or Chinese suppliers, who could use this dependence as a means of political pressure.

I realize the immensity of the task ahead of us, and I must admit that at times I have doubts—doubts about our ability to unite, to make the necessary sacrifices, and to build this common defense that is so vital to us. But at the same time, when I look at the history of Europe, I tell myself that we have already overcome far greater obstacles, that we were able to rebuild our continent from the ruins of World War II, and that we created a union unlike any other in the world out of nations that had been killing one another for centuries. If we have been able to accomplish all of that, then we can also rise to the challenge of our strategic autonomy, provided we remain confident in ourselves and in our collective destiny.

The Course of History

The results of this groundbreaking survey undoubtedly mark the end of an era and the beginning of a new phase in relations between Europe and the United States—a phase characterized by growing mutual distrust and the search for new forms of cooperation that are no longer based on American hegemony but on a partnership of equals between two autonomous and sovereign powers. Europe is gradually emerging from the state of dependence in which it had found itself since the end of World War II and is beginning to fully assume its responsibilities in the management of global affairs, including in the realm of security, where for too long it had delegated to Washington the role of protector and ultimate guarantor of its territorial integrity. This evolution is inevitable and reflects the deeper current of history that drives nations toward greater autonomy and responsibility as they become aware of their strength and their ability to act on their own.

Europeans do not blame the American people for the excesses of their leadership; they know how to distinguish between a nation and its temporary leaders, but they have come to understand that the era when the United States could claim to lead the world and dictate the behavior of other nations is over. The multipolar world emerging today demands new forms of cooperation based on mutual respect and recognition of each power’s legitimate interests, and Europe has fully understood that it must position itself as one of these powers if it wishes to influence the shape of tomorrow’s world. This realization is all the more important as it comes at a time when global challenges such as climate change, poverty, and pandemics demand strengthened international cooperation, and when Europe has a special role to play in promoting an international order based on law and justice rather than on force and domination.

When I look to the future, I see a stronger, more confident, and more self-reliant Europe—a Europe that will have finally embraced its destiny and learned to defend itself without depending on the goodwill or the will of others. It will be a Europe different from the one I have known—perhaps a Europe that is more unsettling for some—but above all, it will be a more mature, more grown-up Europe, better able to take its place in the complex and unstable world that lies ahead. I have faith in this Europe, faith in its ability to overcome its divisions and build a shared future that respects its diversity while affirming its unity. This is the legacy we will leave to our children: a Europe that is free, sovereign, and capable of defending itself if necessary.