Talks on peace in Ukraine are becoming increasingly active, and tensions surrounding them are rising. The US president is reportedly trying to push the process forward at any cost, aiming for results by around Christmas. Europe is speaking ever more openly about security risks, while Kyiv is attempting to accommodate even Donald Trump’s most unreasonable proposals in order not to anger the leader of the free world.
For the Baltic states, these discussions are directly linked to their own security, as any concession to Russia alters the regional security balance. This is why the Baltic countries are watching the new US foreign policy strategy with growing concern — one in which Russia is no longer described as a threat, but rather as a strategic partner, Latvian investigative programme Nekā personīga reports.
Shockwaves were sent through Europe in February following remarks by US Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference. His statements were blunt, direct, and for many in Europe, offensive. Vance criticised European policies, values, and even Europe’s understanding of democracy.
“The threat I worry about most in the European context is not Russia, not China, and not any other external force. What concerns me is the threat from within — Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States,” said US Vice President James David Vance.
That same approach has now been embedded in the new US foreign policy strategy
— a document that will shape the Trump administration’s policy for the coming years.
“As Latvia, we must listen carefully and look at how America now sees itself. The world we grew up in after the Cold War — and in which Latvia as a restored state also grew — is, with this document, effectively being brought to an end,” says Kārlis Bukovskis, Director of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs and Associate Professor at Riga Stradiņš University (RSU).
“The new world America envisions is one in which it acknowledges — perhaps not explicitly, but clearly — that it is no longer the sole dominant power. Europe is now at a moment where either unity and the European project move forward, or Europe risks being sidelined altogether amid the major geopolitical restructuring we are witnessing.”
Diplomacy, as Europe has known it, is being replaced by a far more transactional, economically driven approach: either you are with us, or you are left outside. For decades, transatlantic relations were built on shared values and compromise. That language has now been replaced by a far sharper and more direct style, the programme reports.
Asked which country currently holds the stronger position, US President Donald Trump stated bluntly: “There’s no question. It’s Russia. It’s a much bigger country.
I give the Ukrainians credit for their courage and fighting spirit, but in the end, size wins.”
Eastern Europe Policy Research Centre researcher Elīna Vrobļevska commented on Trump’s remarks: “This shows how simplistically Trump actually thinks. He does not see international politics as an interconnected system where actions reverberate elsewhere. For him, Russia, Europe, and China are separate compartments. But that’s not how the world works — states exist in an interdependent system. You can simplify reality as much as you want, but especially a superpower like the US must see the bigger picture. Russia can win — if it is allowed to win.”
In the new US strategy, Russia is no longer portrayed as an isolated evil, but as a player to be reckoned with. Particular concern is raised by the document’s reference to “restoring strategic stability with Russia” and its goal of achieving a rapid end to the war in Ukraine.
“Since regaining independence, Latvia’s security doctrine has been based on the US as our strategic partner and security guarantor,” says Mārtiņš Vargulis, Director of the PowerHouse Latvia analytical group and RSU lecturer.
“With this national security strategy, the US is saying it no longer wants to be the global policeman.
The problem is that security vacuums do not exist. Someone will try to fill them — and in our region, that someone is Russia. This clearly shows that the US is shifting its focus from Russia to China.”
Bukovskis adds: “This is about what the world will look like in a few years. America sees Russia as a permanent player. In cold strategic calculations, the disappearance of Russia is not in anyone’s interest right now. Putin and the Russian state are doing everything to ensure that does not happen — often using the most reprehensible methods.”
Vargulis further notes that leaked discussions suggesting an accelerated withdrawal of US forces from Europe by 2027 represent a major danger, as the Kremlin would interpret this as a window of opportunity.
In Europe, Russia continues to threaten neighbours and stage provocations.
Financial Times warns that such actions could intensify. Baltic prime ministers, meeting recently in Riga, stressed the need for greater preparedness, higher defence spending, and clear signals to Washington that the region remains a reliable ally.
However, when asked to openly criticise Trump’s recent statements and the new strategy, the prime ministers remained cautious.
Vrobļevska interprets Washington’s message as a wake-up call: “The US is saying: ‘We won’t manage this for you — you must become more independent.’ We can either panic about that, or see it as an overdue alarm bell — especially in security and defence.”
Amid this uncertainty, Europe’s internal politics are also shifting. Parties emphasising national interests, war fatigue, and “putting ourselves first” are gaining traction. Such sentiments benefit the Kremlin: when Western unity fractures, security weakens — especially along NATO’s eastern flank.
Against the backdrop of the new US foreign policy document,
the idea is increasingly voiced that a full Ukrainian victory may be unattainable
— and that peace could come at the price of territory. From the Baltic perspective, this would be a painful and dangerous precedent.
Vrobļevska concludes: “We may have reached the point where we must face an unpleasant reality: the absolute Ukrainian victory we would like to see may not materialise.”
Bukovskis echoes this assessment: “There will come a moment when President Zelenskyy must make a horrific decision — human lives versus burned-out territories. Sadly, history shows this is not unprecedented. From Finland during the Winter War to Ukraine today, force can be used to seize land, children, and resources. Eventually, you face the choice: continue bleeding, or say — take it, choke on it.”
Peace, the programme concludes, is not the same as security. Without guarantees, it becomes merely a pause — and history shows that such pauses in Europe often come at a very high price.
Read also: Ukraine offers to abandon NATO membership in exchange for peace