By Bruno Surdel
Europe in 2025 has faced a complex puzzle: how to maintain pressure on Moscow while responding to unpredictable US–Russia diplomacy under President Donald Trump. Recall, the high-stakes Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage in mid-August, framed as a reset but yielding little clarity, had left EU capitals watching anxiously. Since then, the American tone towards Moscow has fluctuated between pressure and rapprochement, unsettling allies who fear that engagement may look like appeasement. Now the US has cancelled the planned Trump-Putin summit in Budapest after Russia’s firm stance on Ukraine. The American President says he’s not going to meet Putin unless a peace deal is near.
On 15 August 2025, Trump and Putin held a high-stakes summit in Alaska. The meeting was billed as a chance to break the impasse over Ukraine. But the result was ambiguous: Putin insisted Crimea stay Russian and demanded guarantees or neutral status for Ukraine. European analysts greeted the summit with caution. Some saw it as President Trump attempting to reset American engagement with Russia on his terms. Others worried that Moscow could exploit a US–Russia detente to divide Europe. Importantly, the summit served as a signal: Trump’s transactional diplomacy, in which deals are shaped quickly and opportunistically. Some in Europe fret that Putin may court the US to reduce Western sanctions pressure, thereby peeling away European leverage. In response to new US–Russia engagement, Europe has been pursuing a multi-track line: retain maximum sanctions pressure, strengthen its own defence posture, and seek to preserve diplomatic space. Beginning of October, the European Parliament passed a call for a “unified EU response” to Russian provocations, including further sanctions and counter-measures to hybrid warfare at the borders of the Union. Germany, France, and Italy have urged greater caution, emphasising that engagements with Russia, direct or mediated through third parties, should not undermine unity or be exploited by Moscow. Poland, given its proximity to Russia and Belarus, is among the hardest hit when the strategic equilibrium wobbles. In 2025, Warsaw has insisted that Europe must not allow US–Russia talks to erode the position of Ukraine or dilute collective sanctions. Warsaw has also accused Moscow of hybrid tactics—using drones, cyberattacks and clandestine sabotage—to probe NATO’s resolve.
Indeed, the early September 2025 Russian drone incursion into Poland (19 to 23 drones crossing into Polish airspace) heightened War Saw’s fears that the Kremlin is testing thresholds. Poland invoked Article 4 of NATO and pressed for rapid air policing support. In parallel, Warsaw has rejected narratives that it obstructs EU unity on Russia. Domestically, Warsaw has moved to strengthen its internal resilience: bolstering counterintelligence, passing laws to intercept drone incursions, and closing sections of its border with Belarus after drone routes were traced through Belarusian airspace. That closure disrupted rail traffic, including China–EU freight, underscoring how Poland acts when it believes the threat is imminent.
From New Delhi’s perspective, Europe’s contest over Russia diplomacy carries several lessons and potential leverage points. First, Europe’s determination to maintain sanctions and deterrence, sometimes despite US diplomacy, shows that soft power and economic tools matter. India, too, must consider how trade, finance and norms can be part of a strategic posture. Second, Polish insistence on both the strategic alliance with Washington and the European capabilities offers a model: Warsaw does not depend entirely on US grand bargains but builds capacity and voice within multilateral systems. Third, in times when superpowers negotiate, regional actors become critical—Europe is pushing its own agenda even as at times, President Trump courts Putin. India, in Asia’s relations with China and other powers, should aim to be that agenda shaper. In the end, President Trump’s preference for deals over principles serves as a reminder to democracies everywhere. Poland’s stance in this regard remains firm and articulate, both a warning and an example in a world where diplomacy itself can be rewritten overnight.
