Donald Trump’s U-Turn Will Finish Off NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty provided for an automatic obligation for the entire alliance to come to the aid of any member under attack. The U.S. president has made aid dependent on his political sympathies.
Four days after Donald Trump announced on social media that he would send 5,000 U.S. troops to Poland, it is still unclear what the American leader had in mind. The resumption of the armored brigade combat team rotation that was suspended on May 12? The transfer of part of the U.S. forces from Germany to Poland? On Friday, during a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Helsingborg, Sweden, Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted that the America's plans are not yet fully clear to him.
In his post on Truth Social, Trump announced an "additional" 5,000 U.S. soldiers in Poland; however, this seems unlikely. In any case, the head of Polish diplomacy Radoslaw Sikorski said in Sweden, "Thank you for the fact that the presence of American troops will remain at roughly the same level." Defense minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz also admitted that "what seems certain" is the continuation of the existing contingent.
The Pentagon has not yet published a strategy for its military forces review.
The Wall Street Journal believes Washington is planning to move its troops from Germany to Poland. This would involve the dislocation of the Second Cavalry Regiment, which today is stationed in Vilseck near the German border with the Czech Republic. In order to clarify U.S. plans, Germany’s ambassador to NATO, Detlef Wächter, flew to Washington. According to Spiegel, he was supposed to get assurances from the Pentagon that the Americans do not intend to limit their presence on the Rhine to more than one brigade.
In Germany, the idea of transferring some U.S. units to Poland has not caused a unified backlash. "Germany is no longer a front-line country like it was during the Cold War. Now it is Poland," the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung points out.
A much bigger problem is American unpredictability. "It is very difficult to understand all this," admitted the host of the meeting in Helsingborg, the head of Swedish diplomacy Maria Malmer Stenergard. A year and a half since Trump took office, the Pentagon has still not published a strategy for reviewing its military forces, which would allow the Europeans to plan their own defense.
The Baltic states have especially strong reasons to be concerned. Washington has announced that there will be no rotational presence of the American battalion in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. This is part of the limitation of the availability of the U.S. armed forces within the resources specified in the so-called NATO Force Model. The dire news coincides with the Kremlin's increasing provocations against Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn, including drone strikes. Germany is forming the 45th Armored Brigade about 30 km from Vilnius, which will be the first ever permanent foreign base of the Bundeswehr. It is set to eventually include almost 5,000 troops. The unit, however, is still in the process of formation.
"Poles have a sense of betrayal by the U.S.," U.S. Ambassador Thomas Rose reportedly wrote.
However, the way in which the armored brigade combat team rotation was halted is also a cause for concern. The Wall Street Journal reports that the initiative was taken by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which supposedly displeased Trump. This version of events seems unlikely. The decision was at least approved by the White House on May 12. Earlier, Trump himself announced that he was withdrawing 5,000 American soldiers from Germany in response to criticism of Friedrich Merz. The German chancellor said Iran was "humiliating" America and Washington had no strategy for running an Iranian campaign. Also in his Thursday post on social media, the U.S. president gave a bizarre reason for sending "additional" forces to Poland. It was supposed to be ... the victory of Karol Nawrocki, who was endorsed by Trump in the Polish presidential election. In Poland, the declaration immediately sparked a dispute between the government coalition and the opposition Law and Justice circles over who has more merit in leading to the "reversal" of the U.S. president's decision. The fact that the basis of NATO's credibility is the automatic assistance of allies to the attacked state has not even been mentioned. Yet it seems that something entirely different had the decisive influence on Trump's U-turn. On the one hand is the growing resistance from Republicans in Congress; on the other hand is the equally harsh reaction of the American media, which generally hold a favorable view of Poland.
However, the diplomatic note for Secretary of State Marco Rubio and signed by U.S. ambassador to Warsaw, Rose -- obtained by Politico -- admitted, "The dominant emotional reaction is one of perceived betrayal, particularly given repeated public characterizations of Poland by President Trump as America’s most reliable and committed ally in Europe." [https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/22/cable-us-polish-troop-fracas-00934590] [PS] The ambassador mentions "surprise" and "sincere panic " over the Vistula River. However, he also notes that the strengthening of the U.S. military presence in Poland after the start of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb. 2022 was supposed to be temporary from the start. Yet in his opinion, in our country there was a prevailing impression that the presence was supposed to be permanent, and in Washington nobody wanted to deny it. At the moment there are about 10,000 U.S. troops stationed in Poland. Rose suggests that a smaller but permanently deployed contingent of U.S. troops would be a better option. It would focus on reconnaissance, command systems, surveillance of U.S. military equipment depots, and providing rapid response in the event of an emergency. The Pentagon declined to comment on Politico reports. It is not clear how realistic the ambassador's proposal is.
Perhaps European allies will get more clarity about Washington's intentions at the NATO leaders' summit in Ankara in early July. However, Poland first wants to sign agreements on cooperation in security matters with the UK (May 27) and Germany (June 17). Just in case.
Four days after Donald Trump announced on social media that he would send 5,000 U.S. troops to Poland, it is still unclear what the American leader had in mind. The resumption of the armored brigade combat team rotation that was suspended on May 12? The transfer of part of the U.S. forces from Germany to Poland? On Friday, during a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Helsingborg, Sweden, Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted that the America's plans are not yet fully clear to him.
In his post on Truth Social, Trump announced an "additional" 5,000 U.S. soldiers in Poland; however, this seems unlikely. In any case, the head of Polish diplomacy Radoslaw Sikorski said in Sweden, "Thank you for the fact that the presence of American troops will remain at roughly the same level." Defense minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz also admitted that "what seems certain" is the continuation of the existing contingent.
The Pentagon has not yet published a strategy for its military forces review.
The Wall Street Journal believes Washington is planning to move its troops from Germany to Poland. This would involve the dislocation of the Second Cavalry Regiment, which today is stationed in Vilseck near the German border with the Czech Republic. In order to clarify U.S. plans, Germany’s ambassador to NATO, Detlef Wächter, flew to Washington. According to Spiegel, he was supposed to get assurances from the Pentagon that the Americans do not intend to limit their presence on the Rhine to more than one brigade.
In Germany, the idea of transferring some U.S. units to Poland has not caused a unified backlash. "Germany is no longer a front-line country like it was during the Cold War. Now it is Poland," the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung points out.
A much bigger problem is American unpredictability. "It is very difficult to understand all this," admitted the host of the meeting in Helsingborg, the head of Swedish diplomacy Maria Malmer Stenergard. A year and a half since Trump took office, the Pentagon has still not published a strategy for reviewing its military forces, which would allow the Europeans to plan their own defense.
The Baltic states have especially strong reasons to be concerned. Washington has announced that there will be no rotational presence of the American battalion in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. This is part of the limitation of the availability of the U.S. armed forces within the resources specified in the so-called NATO Force Model. The dire news coincides with the Kremlin's increasing provocations against Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn, including drone strikes. Germany is forming the 45th Armored Brigade about 30 km from Vilnius, which will be the first ever permanent foreign base of the Bundeswehr. It is set to eventually include almost 5,000 troops. The unit, however, is still in the process of formation.
"Poles have a sense of betrayal by the U.S.," U.S. Ambassador Thomas Rose reportedly wrote.
However, the way in which the armored brigade combat team rotation was halted is also a cause for concern. The Wall Street Journal reports that the initiative was taken by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which supposedly displeased Trump. This version of events seems unlikely. The decision was at least approved by the White House on May 12. Earlier, Trump himself announced that he was withdrawing 5,000 American soldiers from Germany in response to criticism of Friedrich Merz. The German chancellor said Iran was "humiliating" America and Washington had no strategy for running an Iranian campaign. Also in his Thursday post on social media, the U.S. president gave a bizarre reason for sending "additional" forces to Poland. It was supposed to be ... the victory of Karol Nawrocki, who was endorsed by Trump in the Polish presidential election. In Poland, the declaration immediately sparked a dispute between the government coalition and the opposition Law and Justice circles over who has more merit in leading to the "reversal" of the U.S. president's decision. The fact that the basis of NATO's credibility is the automatic assistance of allies to the attacked state has not even been mentioned. Yet it seems that something entirely different had the decisive influence on Trump's U-turn. On the one hand is the growing resistance from Republicans in Congress; on the other hand is the equally harsh reaction of the American media, which generally hold a favorable view of Poland.
However, the diplomatic note for Secretary of State Marco Rubio and signed by U.S. ambassador to Warsaw, Rose -- obtained by Politico -- admitted, "The dominant emotional reaction is one of perceived betrayal, particularly given repeated public characterizations of Poland by President Trump as America’s most reliable and committed ally in Europe." [https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/22/cable-us-polish-troop-fracas-00934590] [PS] The ambassador mentions "surprise" and "sincere panic " over the Vistula River. However, he also notes that the strengthening of the U.S. military presence in Poland after the start of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb. 2022 was supposed to be temporary from the start. Yet in his opinion, in our country there was a prevailing impression that the presence was supposed to be permanent, and in Washington nobody wanted to deny it. At the moment there are about 10,000 U.S. troops stationed in Poland. Rose suggests that a smaller but permanently deployed contingent of U.S. troops would be a better option. It would focus on reconnaissance, command systems, surveillance of U.S. military equipment depots, and providing rapid response in the event of an emergency. The Pentagon declined to comment on Politico reports. It is not clear how realistic the ambassador's proposal is.
Perhaps European allies will get more clarity about Washington's intentions at the NATO leaders' summit in Ankara in early July. However, Poland first wants to sign agreements on cooperation in security matters with the UK (May 27) and Germany (June 17). Just in case.
Previous article![]( "Who Will Collapse 1st Economically … The United States or Iran?")
Next article![]( "Trump Powerless against Xi")
