Trump’s interview with Politico is full of cold truths whose price Europe will soon pay. While he praises peace for Ukraine, Trump threatens Europe with disintegration — and behind the grand words lies the same old calculation: the interests of Washington and big capital
In a major interview for Politico, Donald Trump steps into a role that suits him perfectly: a man formally declared the “most influential person for Europe,” who uses the stage not to strengthen Europe, but to portray the European Union and its leaders as worn out, weak, and lost. In the same conversation, he claims Russia is clearly in a stronger position than Ukraine, argues that Europe has no idea what it’s doing, threatens interventions in Venezuela, and at home gives himself a grade of “A-plus” on the economy. Taken together, this reveals not only Trump’s psychology, but the direction of U.S. policy toward Europe and the current war in Ukraine.
To begin with, his diagnosis of Europe is harsh: he speaks of a decaying continent whose elites are weak and obsessively “politically correct,” claiming that some states, if they continue their current immigration policies, will stop being viable. He names London, Paris, Sweden, and Germany as negative examples, while praising Orbán and Poland because they “let no one in.” At the same time he boasts that he is raising NATO spending from 2% to 5% of GDP, repeating his familiar line that “NATO calls me Daddy” (NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte certainly helps here), placing himself not as a partner but as a pater familias to whom everyone must answer.
All of this fits into the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which openly states that Washington’s goal is to cultivate resistance inside European states against the EU’s current political direction. The document praises patriotic European parties and borrows the vocabulary of the right about “civilizational erosion” and “loss of identity.” In the interview, Trump only intensifies this logic, promising to continue supporting his political favorites in European elections regardless of how much Brussels or Berlin see this as meddling in their internal affairs. It is interesting that this same Europe never complained when the U.S. interfered far more aggressively in other countries’ internal affairs (Libya, Syria…), and indeed often helped enthusiastically.
The paradox is that many of his criticisms of Europe’s elites, especially concerning migration and energy policy, are at least partially true. It is the Brussels establishment’s inability to admit its own failures that opened space for the right — and for the rhetoric of “decline” (which they will now adopt strongly, together with Trump). But Trump does not offer European emancipation; he wants to reshape the continent so that those in power fit more easily into his version of “America First” — a mix of culture war, high military spending, and complete subordination to U.S. geopolitical interests. Unfortunately, many Europeans, who are rightly angry at their ruling elites, fail to see this.
The heart of the interview, however, is the war in Ukraine. Trump states clearly that Russia is without doubt in a stronger negotiating position — it is bigger, stronger, and “in the end size usually wins.” He calls the war a tragedy that should never have happened and insists it would not have occurred during his first term. He accuses European leaders of “only talking and producing nothing,” while the war enters its fourth year.
“Well, there can be no question about it. It’s Russia. It’s a much bigger country. It’s a war that should never have happened. Honestly, it wouldn’t have happened if I had been president, and it didn’t happen for four years. I watched it unfold and I said: ‘Wow, they’re going to cause trouble here.’ And it started, and it could have grown into, uh, World War Three, honestly. I don’t think that will happen now. I think that if I weren’t president, you could have had World War Three. I think you’d have a much bigger problem than you have now, but now it’s a big problem. It’s a big problem for Europe. And they’re not handling it well.”
— Donald Trump in Politico, Dec 9, 2025
It is hard to disagree with him, except perhaps on the claim that the war would not have happened if he were in power. But what if the rest of NATO would have pushed the war anyway, as it does now? How would he have prevented it? Perhaps the same way he is currently failing to end it — those famous “24 hours” passed long ago, his first year in office is slipping away, and he still cannot bring the conflict to a close. A significant part of Ukraine’s military still depends on U.S. intelligence without which fighting would be far more difficult. Trump knows all of this, but ironically none of the key actors dares to point it out — Kyiv and the EU don’t want him to stop helping, and Russia doesn’t want to antagonize him.
Trump’s story about his peace plan is, let’s say, interesting. He claims his team has been shuttling between Putin and Zelensky for months with various proposals, that Ukrainian officials are thrilled, but that Zelensky allegedly hasn’t even read the latest draft — adding a mocking remark that “it would be nice if he read it, because people are dying.” At the same time he says his son Eric’s claim that he might abandon Ukraine is not true but “not entirely wrong,” because Kyiv “must play by the rules” if it wants U.S. support.
This is classic Trump. Rhetoric about peace is mixed with threats to withhold aid in order to force a settlement defined by Washington, perhaps with Moscow’s input, while Europe watches from the sidelines. Trump openly claims that the U.S. is no longer paying anything for Ukraine (which, as we have noted, is questionable) after Biden “stupidly gave $350 billion,” and shifts the burden onto European states — which are already paying the highest price through energy shocks, refugee waves, and militarized economies. But Trump does not tell Europe to stop; on the contrary, he encourages militarization because it suits him — and because it brings enormous profits to the U.S. military-industrial complex.
On the likely outcome of the war, Trump almost openly concedes that Ukraine is losing. He speaks of the long stretch of coastline lost before he came to power, of large areas of fertile land now under Russian control, and describes Crimea almost as a real estate agent would — warm, beautiful, and strategically perfect, a parcel “Obama practically gave away.”
From this perspective, if Trump truly uses his position to end the war — even on a compromise that leaves Russia with some occupied territories — it objectively means saving thousands of lives and lowering the risk of a global conflict. In that sense, he deserves support for that specific goal. But so far he has wavered repeatedly. Sometimes he threatens Moscow, sometimes he praises it; sometimes he promises “peace in 24 hours,” sometimes he signs huge military budgets and demands 5% of GDP be spent on weapons. There is no guarantee he will follow through on a peace course — especially if the Pentagon, the arms industry, or his own party resist.
Europe, meanwhile, reacts with confusion. European Council President Antonio Costa publicly warns Washington that allies should not threaten to intervene in each other’s democratic processes, while German Chancellor Merz says the new U.S. strategy shows the need for greater European security autonomy. But the concrete response is familiar: instead of distancing itself from American hegemony, the EU commits to even greater military spending and deeper integration into NATO structures, under the slogan that this reduces dependence on the U.S. — even as Trump demands these increases as proof of his dominance over Europe.
The interview then shifts to Latin America, showing the second face of Trump’s “peacemaker” persona. He sees Venezuela primarily as a “narco-state” sending criminals and gangs into the U.S. He refuses to rule out an American ground invasion, saying he “doesn’t want to talk about strategy,” but that “Maduro’s days are numbered.” He is willing to use force similarly in Mexico and Colombia. Simultaneously he boasts about pardoning the former Honduran president convicted of involvement in a major drug cartel, claiming that “good people” told him it was political revenge. In plain terms — it’s all a farce, there are only those who are “with us” and those who are “against us.”
This is a familiar tactic of U.S. policy toward the Global South. Under the cover of a “war on drugs,” doors are opened to military interventions and regime change whenever a disobedient government needs discipline. Those who still see Trump as an authentic anti-interventionist should carefully read or listen to this interview. The same man who today says he wants to stop the war in Ukraine may tomorrow start a new one against Venezuela — a country long targeted by Washington for refusing to fit into the neoliberal model.
On the domestic front the picture is equally contradictory. Trump gives himself perfect marks for the economy, claims prices are falling everywhere, energy is much cheaper, and that $18 trillion in investment is flowing into the U.S. thanks to tariffs and his policies. When asked about voters still suffocating under housing, food, and healthcare costs, he reduces the problem to “Biden’s violent inflation” which he is now supposedly correcting. For the future Federal Reserve chair, he sets a clear condition: whoever it is must immediately start cutting interest rates — central bank independence does not concern him.
On healthcare, everything remains murky. His attack on Obamacare as a “gift to insurance companies” is legitimate, but the problem is that even in this interview Trump offers no alternative model, while subsidies that keep premiums affordable for millions are expiring. When asked whether he will support temporarily extending them, he replies: “I don’t know. We’ll see,” adding a nervous “don’t be dramatic” when the journalist notes that people are planning their family budgets right now. This is a classic example of how social issues are pushed aside in his politics in favor of capital — in this case pharmaceutical and insurance corporations.
Finally, there are the Supreme Court and immigration. Trump strongly supports attempts to reconsider birthright citizenship in the U.S., claiming that the rule was meant only for the descendants of slaves after the Civil War, not wealthy foreigners who come to “give birth and leave.” Together with the wall, border militarization, and criminalization of migrants, this leads to a system where millions live and work in the U.S. without full rights — an ideal reservoir of cheap, frightened labor.
What does this interview tell us? Many of Trump’s criticisms of Europe — from incoherent migration policy to illusions about “victory” in Ukraine — sound painfully true. But everything he says, he says above all in the interest of America, and especially big capital, of which he is a part. He is not a partner of Europe, nor an allied alternative to Biden’s administration — just another style of the same system. Fewer niceties, more blackmail. Fewer phrases about shared values, more open brutality.
If Trump really signs an agreement that stops the war in Ukraine, he deserves recognition — not for his sake, but for the people who will no longer die. But everything beyond that must be viewed soberly. His criticisms of the EU may often be correct, but there is no room for illusions. He is not an ally of Europeans; in the end, he is not even an ally of the European right, although they obviously don’t mind anything he is doing. He is a representative of the American oligarchy that has merely changed its mask. Europeans must use any potential end of the war to strengthen real European and global autonomy — rejecting both Brussels obedience and Trump’s “Daddy NATO” paternalism, while showing clear solidarity with countries like Venezuela that once again find themselves in Washington’s sights.
About the Author
