Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic / Translation iPress
In the publication The Atlantic, renowned columnist and journalist Anne Applebaum argues that Trump acts solely under the influence of his whims and impulses and may not remember what he did the next day, as he is already driven by new whims or impulses. Therefore, he constantly lies when his new actions contradict previous decisions. She emphasizes that allies understand that their efforts will never be appreciated, so they have stopped paying attention to Trump’s antics and his calls.
Donald Trump does not think strategically. He also does not think historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect the actions he takes on one day with the events that occur weeks later. He does not consider how his behavior in one place will change the behavior of others in other places, writes Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic.
According to her, he also does not consider the broader consequences of his decisions. He does not take responsibility when these decisions turn out to be wrong. Instead, he acts on whims and impulses, and when he changes his mind because he is driven by new whims and impulses, he simply lies about everything he previously said or did.
Over the past 14 months, the author notes, few foreign leaders could admit that a person without any strategy could truly be the President of the United States. Of course, murmured foreign policy analysts, Trump does not think only about the current moment. Surely, whispered foreign statesmen, he adheres to some ideology, some scheme, some plan. Words like “isolationism” and “imperialism” were used in attempts to place Trump’s actions in a historical context. Serious articles appeared about the alleged significance of Greenland, for example, as if Trump’s interest in this Arctic island stemmed entirely from the fact that on the Mercator projection map, this island appears very large.
In Anne Applebaum’s opinion, something broke this week. Perhaps Trump does not understand the connection between the past and the present, but others do. They see that as a result of decisions made by Trump, which he cannot explain, the Strait of Hormuz is blocked by Iranian mines and drones. They see oil prices rising worldwide and understand that it will be difficult and dangerous for the U.S. Navy to solve this problem. They also hear the president repeatedly lashing out, trying to shift responsibility to others, and threatening them if they do not act.
NATO faces a “very bad” future if the alliance does not help clear the strait, Trump told the Financial Times, seemingly forgetting that it was the United States that founded and has led this organization since its creation in 1949. He also stated that he is not asking but ordering seven countries to assist. He did not specify which countries. “I demand that these countries intervene and protect their territory, because it’s their territory,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on its way from Florida to Washington. “This is the place where they get their energy,” he added. In reality, it is not their territory, notes the author, and it is his fault that their fuel is blocked.
But in Trump’s view, these threats are justified: he currently has a problem, so he wants other countries to solve it. It seems he doesn’t remember or care about what he said to their leaders last month or last year and does not understand how his previous decisions have shaped public opinion in their countries or hurt their interests. But they remember, they care, and they know.
In particular, as Applebaum reminds, they remember that over the past 14 months the American president has imposed tariffs on them, mocked their security concerns, and repeatedly insulted them. As recently as January 2020, Trump told several European officials that “if Europe is attacked, we will never come to your aid and support you.” In February 2025, he told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky not to expect support either because “he has no cards to play.” Trump mocked Canada as the “51st state” and referred to both the current and former Canadian prime ministers as “governors.” He falsely claimed that allied forces in Afghanistan were “holding slightly back, staying slightly off the front lines,” deeply offending the families of soldiers who died in battle after NATO invoked Article 5 of the organization’s treaty to help the US. He called the British “our once-great allies” after they declined to participate in the initial attack on Iran. When earlier this month allies discussed sending several aircraft carriers to the conflict zone in the Persian Gulf, he mocked the idea on social media: “We don’t need people joining wars after we’ve already won!”
Sometimes, observes Anne Applebaum, this nasty rhetoric becomes something worse. Even before his second inauguration, Trump began hinting that he did not rule out the use of force to annex Greenland, a Danish territory and a close NATO ally. At first, it seemed like trolling or a joke, but by January 2026, his public and private statements had convinced the Danes to prepare for an American invasion. Danish leaders had to consider whether their army would shoot down American planes, kill American soldiers, and die from them, and this was such a painful consideration that some have still not recovered. A few weeks ago in Copenhagen, I was shown a Danish app that informs users which goods are American so that they know not to buy them. At that point, it was the most popular app in the country.
According to Applebaum, economic damage is not trolling at all. Throughout 2025, Trump imposed tariffs against Europe, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, often arbitrarily, or again, whimsically, without thinking about the consequences. He raised tariffs for Switzerland because he didn’t like the Swiss president, then lowered them after a Swiss business delegation brought him gifts, including a gold bar and a Rolex watch. He threatened to impose 100-percent tariffs on Canada if Canada dared to enter a trade agreement with China. Not worrying about potential conflicts of interest, he conducted trade negotiations with Vietnam while his son Eric Trump was laying the groundwork for a $1.5 billion golf resort project there.
Europeans might, the author suggests, have tolerated these insults and even the trade damage if not for the real threat that Trump now poses to their security. For 14 months, despite talks of peace, he encouraged Russian aggression. He stopped sending military and financial aid to Ukraine, thereby giving Putin hope for victory again. His envoy Steve Witkoff openly started negotiating business deals between the United States and Russia, although the war had not ended and the Russians had never agreed to a ceasefire. Witkoff presents himself to European leaders as a neutral figure, somewhere in between NATO and Russia, as if, again, the United States were not a founder and leader of NATO, and as if European security were not a special concern for Americans. Trump himself continues to attack Zelensky and lies about American support for Ukraine, which he occasionally estimates at $300 billion or more. In reality, that figure is closer to $50 billion over three years. At the current pace, Trump will spend that much in three months in the Middle East, starting a war rather than trying to stop it.
According to Anne Applebaum, the result is this: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada will not participate in “the offensive operations of Israel and the USA,” and never will. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated: “This is not our war; we did not start it.” The Prime Minister of Spain refused to allow the United States to use bases to start the war. Britain and France might send a few ships to protect their own bases or allies in the Gulf, but none of these countries will send their soldiers or sailors to offensive operations initiated without their consent.
She is convinced that this is not cowardice, but calculation: if the leaders of the allies thought their sacrifice could matter in Washington, they might make a different choice. But most of them have already stopped trying to find hidden logic in Trump’s actions and understand that any of their contributions will mean nothing. In a few days or weeks, Anne Applebaum emphasizes, Trump will not even remember this happened.
