Strategic decisions made in Poland over several consecutive decades have built a lasting foundation for Poland’s alliance with the United States, subsequently strengthening relations and introducing new elements that anchor the American presence in Poland. Today, Poland and the United States maintain highly robust cooperation, particularly in the field of national security. This makes the ongoing activities—which increasingly resemble an attempt to alter the perception of these relations—all the more concerning. Poles are being subjected to manipulation and the falsification of reality. Should this operation prove successful, it could lead to Poland viewing the USA with distrust. The authors of these actions aim for something even more detrimental: destabilizing the formal Polish-American alliance, the significance of which is currently critical to the security of the Republic of Poland, as well as the entirety of NATO. A disinformation operation is currently underway in Poland, aimed at shifting the perception of the American state and its activities.
Activities targeting the image of the United States have intensified across Europe since the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential term, which triggered a new dynamic of actions directed against the USA and its reputation. It must be noted that from that moment onward, a very potent anti-American current has also become visible in Poland, with Polish politicians and commentators actively participating in it. As discussed in subsequent sections of this analysis, the Russian Federation is also conducting its own activities, identifying current conditions as an opportunity to introduce strategic changes in the West that favor its own interests. It is clearly evident that the Kremlin intends to exploit the political climate and emotions between allies to execute genuinely dangerous, hostile actions against us. The stimulation of anti-American sentiments in Poland and the stoking of tensions between Poland and the USA are also visible in the activities of German entities. Media outlets, commentators, and politicians from the Federal Republic of Germany are disseminating a narrative designed to impede dialogue between Warsaw and Washington, as well as to reinforce a sense of mutual distrust between the capitals. Political tensions between NATO countries are being fueled by information policies implemented by German media, which are directing their anti-American influence particularly toward Poland.
Poland-USA relations, which are crucial for the entirety of NATO, are currently under pressure from several directions simultaneously. We are dealing with domestic information campaigns that are complemented by Russian propaganda channels and German media. Together, this creates a dangerous combination intended to produce a specific political outcome: driving a wedge between Poles and the United States, and deprecating allied guarantees. In light of Poland’s interests and NATO’s security policy, this campaign is both hazardous and absurd. Nevertheless, it continues. The success of the described process would carry severe social consequences, but its primary objective is to influence Warsaw’s political decisions—decisions of profound significance for our future and security.
The REPORT by the National Security Institute Foundation describes phenomena that pose a threat to the Republic of Poland, while also highlighting specific theses and methods of influence. In our analysis, we demonstrate how the image of Polish-US relations is being shaped, point out the manipulative activities of Russian special services and German media, and juxtapose publicistic narratives with an analysis of Washington’s actual political actions. We encourage you to read the report and welcome you to join the discussion!
Stanisław Żaryn – President of the National Security Institute Foundation
I. Vilifying the United States
According to a survey conducted in March of this year by the British public opinion research agency YouGov, 68% of Britons believe that the United States has a negative influence on the global situation. Only 10% of respondents indicated that America’s global impact was, to a greater or lesser extent, positive. These results demonstrate how drastically the perception of US actions on the international stage has shifted—especially considering that for years, the United Kingdom was regarded as the primary ally of the USA and the European pillar of transatlantic relations. The situation in the UK is part of a broader phenomenon wherein shifts in public attitudes toward the United States—whether spontaneous or engineered—are becoming visible across Europe. We are observing this trend in Poland as well, which could in the future lead to the undermining of one of the strategic paradigms of Polish security and foreign policy. Consequently, this phenomenon must already be assessed through the prism of its impact on the security of the Republic of Poland.
The perception of the USA is shaped by a variety of factors, including the global geopolitical situation, decisions made by the sitting president, the foreign policy of their administration, and economic issues. However, a factor that often determines public attitudes to a greater extent than facts, hard data, or substantive analysis is the narratives emerging in the information space, which become the foundation for shaping views and assessments among audiences. To illustrate the power of information delivery, an anecdote from the Persian Gulf War is frequently cited. „I have to see it on CNN,” General Norman Schwarzkopf—then commander of the allied forces in Operation Desert Storm—allegedly replied when asked if the war had been won. Thirty-five years have passed since then, and with the digital revolution, the significance of narratives present in the infosphere has grown on an unprecedented scale. Crucially, the information space has become another domain of warfare, and the cognitive warfare waged within it is utilized by many actors as an element of hybrid warfare and a complement to conventional operations. From this perspective, narratives concerning global politics, alliances, or ongoing conflicts must be viewed not merely as positive or negative media coverage, but as an element of combat and a potential means to achieve specific strategic objectives, which can Ultimately decide our security.
A Shift in Sentiments within Poland
For years, Poles were considered the most pro-American society in Europe, and successive Polish governments were seen as particularly pro-Atlantic compared to other Western partners. It was a virtually unquestioned raison d’état to ground our security strategy in a special alliance with the United States, rooted in the conviction that America is our most reliable guarantor of security in the face of the growing Russian threat. It is impossible not to notice that this approach is beginning to shift, both within a section of the political class and in public perception. A visible turning point occurred after the recent US presidential election, with the prelude to it being the voices raised in the Polish media and political arena during the American election campaign. There was no shortage of headlines predicting drama, catastrophe, and essentially the end of the Polish-American alliance in the event of a Donald Trump victory. Conversely, signals were emanating from the Polish government regarding the necessity of pivoting toward a European course in security matters, alongside announcements proclaiming the end of geopolitical outsourcing. Following Donald Trump’s election victory, such voices intensified, building upon already well-prepared ground. The alarmist and often emotionally charged statements from the campaign period thus became an open door through which narratives could enter the Polish infosphere—initially targeting the credibility and policies of Donald Trump, before seamlessly transitioning into an anti-American message that questions the long-term rationale for maintaining such close relations with what has hitherto been our key ally. The depth to which anti-American narratives have penetrated Polish discourse is evidenced by the fact that today, even the Prime Minister of the Polish government publicly attacks the US President and questions his loyalty to allies. Donald Tusk’s earlier statements, in which he even suggested covert ties between Donald Trump and Russian special services, served as a prelude to domestic actions by the government, which maintains a politically and informationally provocative stance toward the United States.
Trump is a „Madman” Who Will Set the World on Fire
One of the more frequently recurring narratives in the Polish infosphere since Donald Trump reassumed power in the US consists of highly emotional speculations that the American leader is not acting rationally, and—in an extreme but similarly repeated version—is simply a madman operating in a frenzy, or even a mentally ill individual. In the context of current United States policy, commentators speak of political madness, chaos, and Trump being detached from reality. Based on this, conclusions are subsequently drawn that it is futile to look for substantively justified decisions, strategy, and rationality in Donald Trump’s actions. Frequently, the analysis of facts or the actual consequences of Trump’s policy gives way to emotional, alarmist, or even hysterical outcries that the American president’s actions are leading the world toward catastrophe. There were numerous voices sounding the alarm that Donald Trump planned to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Assertions were made about sleepless nights spent in fear of a nuclear strike by Trump, and accounts emerged on social media claiming that Donald Trump was essentially ready to „use the nuclear codes” but was stopped at the last minute by one of his generals. These sensational reports were dismissed with the assertion that the US President had „gone completely mad.” „We will all suffer the consequences of this madness,” „there is probably no doubt left that Trump is mentally ill,” „Trump is a stupid, psychopathic madman.” Such statements appear not only on ordinary or anonymous social media accounts but are articulated by columnists and commentators who exert influence over Polish public opinion. These repeatedly echoed themes have forged a public image of the American president as an unstable individual who poses an outright threat to the world.
Trump Will Destroy NATO, Withdraw the US from Europe, and Leave Poland to Fend for Itself
„Trump to strike at NATO overnight,” „following the Trumpian turn, Europe finds itself isolated,” „the time for decision is approaching. Will US troops leave Poland?” Lately, scarcely a day passes without someone in the Polish public debate outlining a scenario of the imminent twilight of NATO. The thesis that Donald Trump’s policy poses a threat to Poland’s security is also reflected in narratives indicating that the American leader is acting to the detriment of NATO, dismantling the Alliance, undermining its credibility, and aiming in the long term to withdraw US troops from Europe or even to exit the North Atlantic community—which would carry profound consequences for Poland extreme danger for Poland in the face of growing pressure on our country from Russia. In this context, assertions are made regarding the dismantling of the European security system and the undermining of allied commitments. Columnists and commentators question whether the US would come to Poland’s aid in the event of a Russian attack on NATO’s eastern flank, while also pointing out that the US’s readiness to potentially fulfill Article 5 may be conditional. Such deliberations lead to the conclusion that the withdrawal of US troops from Poland is a realistic scenario. These narratives are complemented by a vision of Poland left isolated and „abandoned” by its closest ally, whose favor Polish authorities have hitherto so vigorously courted. This argument is raised particularly within the current political struggle. Opponents of the former United Right government, and now of President Karol Nawrocki’s camp, point out that a strongly pro-American stance will achieve little, as it cannot be ruled out that a whim-driven and unpredictable Donald Trump might fail to assist his „model ally” at a decisive moment.
In this context, themes emerge indicating the necessity of building an alternative to NATO or remodeling its operations, with the robust participation of countries such as Germany and France. Here, narratives supporting the German and French vision of creating a European Union army come to the fore, accompanied by a shift away from pro-Atlantic accents in the European security strategy. Voices are resonating ever more strongly that since we can no longer rely on the North Atlantic Alliance, the weight of security matters must be transferred to the European Union. „NATO is a pact that is faltering, obviously due to Donald Trump, but as long as the European Union remains whole, we are safe”—similar opinions voiced by commentators or even experts illustrate just how significantly priorities regarding the perception of our security strategy have shifted in the Polish public debate.
America is No Longer the Global Guarantor of Security
In the media narrative, including the mainstream press, the USA is presented not only as failing to guarantee Poland’s security, but also as no longer being the guardian of democratic values or an actor capable of ensuring global order. The USA is beginning to be portrayed as a factor destabilizing the global situation. American actions are commented upon through the prism of non-compliance with international law and are perceived as a policy of chaos and the execution of the American president’s whims, which leads to an erosion of trust in the United States and a departure from viewing America as a global leader taking responsibility for the world order.
Compounding the voices critical of American foreign policy are accusations against Donald Trump of acting to Russia’s advantage, or outright of being pro-Russian. The American strike on Iran itself is sometimes compared to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, while Donald Trump’s rhetoric and specific actions toward Russia are deemed to favor primarily Putin—often in defiance of obvious facts. The traditional role of the US is being questioned, and the perception of the United States as a global guarantor of security is undergoing erosion. In the view of commentators, we can no longer count on the US’s readiness to defend the international order as we did in the past, because the American administration has altered its approach to existing alliances, opting for a more transactional, but also unpredictable, stance. These arguments are being advanced despite the fact that, to this day, there is no actual confirmation of them.
Iran: Defeat Before the Operation Began
Another example of the divergence between dominant narratives and attempts at factual assessment is the American strike on Iran. From its very inception, the American operation „Epic Fury” was portrayed as doomed to fail and essentially lost before it even began. „Donald Trump’s war with Iran is already lost,” „Trump went to war he cannot win,” „Trump cannot win the war against Iran”—predicted the headlines. Media reports are dominated by the conviction that launching the strike was yet another whim of the American president, and that the entire action lacks a clear plan or any cohesive strategy.
Interestingly, such definitive assessments are being made even though the war has not concluded and the US plan of action remains unclear. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to judge today whether the war has been a failure or a success—unless, of course, such assessments are based on biases one way or the other. Nevertheless, analyses continue, despite the lack of obvious facts to facilitate them.
US strategic documents clearly indicate that Washington is preparing for a confrontation with China in the Pacific, and it is this direction of global rivalry that they treat as a priority. However, the American expert community is well aware that Washington must properly prepare for such a clash, in part by reducing its commitment in other parts of the world and resolving issues in regions that could prove problematic for the US. This thesis may be corroborated by ongoing US actions: the detention of the Venezuelan president, the weakening of Iran before it fully develops its nuclear potential, and pressuring Europe to increase its commitment within NATO and shoulder the primary burden of supporting Ukraine. Iran is a piece of a larger puzzle that is becoming increasingly vital for America. Therefore, the assessment of the American involvement in Iran is neither clear nor obvious. Crucially, when viewed through the prism of rising tensions between the US and China, it is evident that striking Iran serves to weaken China. Washington has sent Beijing two critical signals: America is capable of physically eliminating the entire establishment of a state deemed hostile, and it is also capable of destroying the economic and political infrastructure of the Chinese state. These actions must therefore be viewed within a broader perspective.
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?
When analyzing the public debate, the voices emerging in the information space, and societal sentiments, it is notable that the perception of the United States has shifted, and opinions that were previously on the fringes of public debate have entered the mainstream. Today, virtually no one is surprised by voices questioning the US commitment to European security and deprecating the role of transatlantic relations. A distinct shift is also visible within society. According to a poll conducted for RMF FM in February of this year, in the event of a threat, Poles rely more on the assistance of European allies than on an intervention from across the ocean. Conversely, an April survey for Wirtualna Polska indicates that more than half of the respondents do not consider the United States to be a stable and reliable guarantor of Poland’s security. According to the results of another poll, this time conducted for Onet, nearly 60% of respondents believe that President Donald Trump’s current policy does not work to Poland’s advantage. According to another, over half of Poles fear the US leaving NATO. A noteworthy picture also emerges from a study by the Ogólnopolska Grupa Badawcza (All-Poland Research Group) commissioned by the National Polish American Foundation, in which respondents were asked what values they associate with the United States. The top three responses were „money,” „greed,” and „hypocrisy.” Based on these studies, it can be concluded that Poles increasingly less perceive the US as a guarantor of security and are more inclined to place greater hope in European allies. Here, it is worth asking to what extent these clear shifts in sentiment result from an analysis of the policies pursued by Donald Trump and an assessment of their consequences, and to what extent they are the aftermath of increasingly pervasive anti-American narratives in the infosphere?
Propaganda vs. Reality
The openly declared aversion toward the US by certain representatives of the Polish authorities, the emotional theses in publicistic discourse regarding Donald Trump’s madness, or the constant agitation predicting that Washington will destroy NATO and lead the world to catastrophe, all weaken the Polish state’s capacity to conduct an effective and substantive dialogue with the US. Furthermore, the rhetoric and often hysterical tones may become a more severe problem than the actual actions of the United States. Indeed, when stripping away the communication layer and disregarding the nonchalance in the actions of the current American administration, Poland has no reason for alarmist tones. Washington has repeatedly indicated that it treats its alliance with the Republic of Poland in a special manner, and that Poland is an important partner for the United States.
From the very outset, the Trump administration indicated that it was interested in developing relations with Poland, and that our military alliance is important to the American side. Words began moving into the implementation phase when the US President, and subsequently the Pentagon, indicated that more troops were to be deployed to Poland. As part of the announced review of the geographic distribution of American forces in Europe, the contingent currently present in the Republic of Poland is to be reinforced. There is currently talk of at least 5,000 additional soldiers, and it is already known that a public debate is underway in the United States regarding a change in the nature of the American presence. The rotational presence is to be replaced by a permanent base. Furthermore, as revealed by the Financial Times, the United States is considering new locations for its nuclear arsenal currently stationed in Europe. According to the newspaper’s reports, Poland is one of the locations under consideration.
Setting aside emotions and drawing conclusions based on words and interviews (which are not without significance), it is worth pointing out that the actual decisions and actions of the Trump administration have, so far, been favorable for Poland. There is no question of a reduction in American commitment; rather, there is a signal of a desire to deepen contacts and open new avenues through which Poland-US relations are to be strengthened. This is consistent with the declarations we have heard from the American side from the beginning. Looking at Poland’s interests, the actions of the American side are therefore not negative. Moreover, they stem from a rational, previously signaled assessment of American needs and potential. The US has long maintained that European allies must assume a greater share of the responsibility for security, while the US will focus on the Pacific. In strategic documents, this region has been highlighted as pivotal for the US. Today, the United States wishes to concentrate on threats from China and its own interests in the Western Hemisphere. Shifts in commitment in Europe, potentially tied to a reduction in the total number of troops on the continent, should therefore be anticipated by the allies. This does not mean, however, that we will be condemned by the US to Russian dominance. Actual decisions and concrete actions do not justify such alarmist tones.
Trump Strikes at „Political Correctness”
Poles who fall under the influence of the aforementioned theses are being subjected to manipulation. This is unfortunately facilitated by the style of governance—and above all, the information policy—conducted by the American administration. The US leader communicates his intentions and decisions in an unceremonious manner, criticizes his allies directly and bluntly, and the style of his remarks must be deemed nonchalant, if not outright confrontational and emotional. In his statements, he emphasizes a position of strength and resorts to harsh language as one of his negotiation techniques. For some commentators, this controversial style constitutes a deliberate communication strategy designed to exert pressure on both partners and adversaries, as well as to keep them in a state of constant uncertainty, thereby forcing concessions or actions desired by the American side. It is in this manner, among others, that Trump’s statements regarding NATO are interpreted. Threats to exit the Alliance, dividing member states into good and bad allies, or even conditioning security guarantees on member states fulfilling their obligations are meant to mobilize NATO countries toward greater commitment, and thus to assume greater responsibility for European security—something the US will undoubtedly require in the event of a potential direct confrontation with China. However, such a method of communication does not foster a positive atmosphere for conducting American-European dialogue. Consequently, it is exploited for activities aimed at destabilizing relations within NATO. It is impossible not to notice that it is simply difficult to speak of any rapport between Donald Trump and a portion of European leaders; mutual relations are dominated by an aversion openly displayed not only by the US president but also by the European political class and Western liberal elites since Trump’s first presidency.
Washington is nonchalant in building relations with allies, frequently surprises with its actions, and President Trump amplifies emotions—and at times doubts regarding intentions—through his manner of communicating political decisions. This makes it easier to play allies off against one another and is exploited both by the political competitors of the current US administration and by actual enemies who wish to fragment and weaken NATO. Today, however, what is striking is the ease with which political centers hostile to the US are able to circulate theses aimed at the credibility of the United States and the cohesion of the West. From the perspective of Polish interests, what is being said is unjustified and unwarranted. In conducting a dialogue with the US, Polish authorities should be guided primarily by the Polish raison d’état. American policy cannot be judged solely through the prism of the eccentric communication conducted by Donald Trump, and building our security strategy is a long-term process that extends far beyond the framework of a four-year term in the White House. It is therefore imprudent to make strategic decisions regarding our relations with the US based on an aversion to the sitting president or his operational style. This is particularly true given that—as indicated above—his actual policy has, so far, favored the strengthening of Poland.
In the Service of Russian Propaganda
The fragmentation and marginalization of NATO remain an immutable strategic pillar of the Russian Federation’s doctrine. Russia perceives the Alliance as the primary threat to its geopolitical interests; hence, it systematically endeavors to weaken the North Atlantic community. It pursues this objective, inter alia, by disrupting American-European relations. Fostering anti-Americanism in Europe, tarnishing the image of the US, and undermining Washington’s credibility are therefore staples of the repertoire of Russian strategic propaganda. The entire Russian propaganda apparatus is harnessed to disseminate anti-American narratives: from special services, leading ideologues, and propagandists, through the entire Russian disinformation media ecosystem, to agents of influence (as well as mere useful idiots), through whom the distilled message can permanently penetrate the Western mainstream and, over time, influence public sentiment.
A vital element within this mechanism is „narrative laundering.” Anti-American narratives emerge in the statements of influencers and are published by „independent portals” and ostensibly citizen journalists or experts. As a result, the narrative infecting the infosphere ceases to be perceived as Russian and begins to function as a grassroots message propagated by ordinary participants in the public debate—thereby gaining credibility. Consequently, it becomes arduous to trace who the primary source or the potent promoter of the topic was.
Currently, the anti-American theses identified in Poland coalesce around several central themes. Firstly, they consistently amplify the topic of a crisis in American-European relations, thereby demonstrating a lack of cohesion within NATO and questioning the Alliance’s capacity to guarantee the security of its members. Such a message is designed to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) within European societies regarding the credibility of the transatlantic community and—as is currently occurring in the case of Poland—to undermine what has hitherto been a virtually unquestioned rationale for grounding one’s security in a close alliance with the United States.
Russian propaganda also fuels the polarization forming around the persona of President Donald Trump. Any of his controversial remarks are instantly seized upon to stoke societal emotions. To this end, the topic of the American strike on Iran is also exploited. The war in Iran has become another arena for Russia to advance its anti-American agenda. In this instance, Russia supports the pro-Iranian narrative and amplifies arguments that question the moral norms of the Western world, the legitimacy of US actions, the cohesion and subsequent credibility of Western alliances, as well as the efficacy of the American military. From the very inception of the American operations, the US involvement in Iran has been portrayed as doomed to fail, with Russian propaganda drawing a parallel between Operation „Epic Fury” and the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Such maneuvers are intended to erode trust in Western institutions and in America itself as the guardian of the global order and a guarantor of security.
Fracturing NATO’s unity, weakening the Alliance, and pushing US troops out of Europe constitute the primary strategic goals of Russian propaganda. When analyzing current media coverage, it is difficult to escape the impression that Western liberal politicians, mainstream media, and commentators—driven primarily by a personal aversion to President Donald Trump—are living out their anti-American dream, or rather, remaining in an anti-American lethargy. In doing so, they are participating in a large-scale psychological-information operation aimed at shifting the attitude of Western societies toward the USA as the guarantor of our security. Unfortunately, public opinion in Poland is also being subjected to this operation, which is detrimental to our policy. Building Poland’s defense strategy in opposition to the transatlantic alliance—by departing from the paradigm that strengthening NATO is in our interest and instead turning toward new European alliances that exclude America—stands in direct contradiction to our raison d’état. The presence of American troops—the world’s most powerful military—on Polish soil serves as a tangible deterrent against Russia. A cohesive, united, and decisive NATO, with a fully engaged United States, currently represents the best safeguard against further escalation by the Kremlin, which remains keenly aware that the Russian military, bogged down in Ukraine, currently stands no chance against NATO’s combined potential. It is quite another matter when NATO is divided and weakened, even if only by the vision of a lack of American support. This vision may embolden Russia to further test our reactions and intensify its hostile activities. In this scenario, the eastern flank, including Poland, is the most vulnerable.
The United States is the most critical guarantor of allied support for Poland. Only the US currently possesses the capacity to wage a large-scale war against Russia, only the US possesses the potential to deter Moscow, and only the United States is respected by the Kremlin as a credible guarantor of deterrence. This image has actually been reinforced since President Trump initiated a policy based on the tangible application of American military potential. The collapse of the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the elimination of Iran’s leadership, the blockade and subsequent offensive steps against Cuba—all of this demonstrates that the US is capable of utilizing its military superiority to secure its own interests. Consequently, the US must be reckoned with all the more. In Russian eyes, therefore, American guarantees and deterrence carry even greater weight. Today, Poles are being subjected to a wide-ranging information-psychological operation, the consequences of which are intended to be strategic in nature. The success of these activities will result first in questioning the strategic alliance with the US, and subsequently in the political weakening of relations with our most vital ally. The vacuum left by the Americans, should they be pushed out of Poland, would likely be filled by other states. This would signify a profound degradation of our capacity to repel critical threats, which stem primarily from the Kremlin’s overt aggressiveness toward Poland. Anyone who lends a hand to this shift exposes Poland to exceptionally severe dangers.
II. Defense Policy According to President Trump
A serious offer from Poland to the US is required, alongside a tangible strengthening of relations between Poland and the US. Several observations following the US National Defense Strategy (hereinafter NDS).
The NDS signals that the primacy of American interests will be maintained in security policy, which is an extension of the US National Security Strategy and should come as no surprise. Most importantly for Poland, the US is not abandoning its policy of global engagement, although it clearly indicates that the current scale of its activities will be revised. However, a withdrawal of the United States from Europe is not on the horizon. Europe will be subjected to a process of review and strategic adjustments regarding American forces. Importantly, the American document foresees a similar review in other regions of the world, such as the Middle East or the Korean Peninsula.
The new NDS indicates that the US expects its allies to demonstrate greater commitment and assume greater responsibility for protecting common interests. This shift in philosophy concerns the method of providing military support to allies. Illustratively, it can be noted that under the new plan, the US is to provide support in the form of precise, narrow areas that are critical to a given region. For Europe, this will likely translate into an overall reduction of American engagement in favor of relying on select allies and providing support and defensive capability in key areas and locations—hopefully within Poland.
The document assumes the continuation of the previously announced „peace through strength” strategy, which should be understood as a pledge to reinforce the US military potential in order to combat adversaries and provide support to allies. In the document, the US reinforces the point that not every region or conflict will carry equal weight for Washington. The US is moving away from being the guardian of the international order, yet it is not withdrawing from assisting allies in times of need.
The Pentagon document indicates that the Western Hemisphere and China remain the priorities for US security policy. In the Americas, the US intends to defensively protect its interests, while identifying China as its primary competitor and threat. However, the document indicates that it will compete fiercely with China while simultaneously seeking to avoid confrontation and conflict. This appears to be a rather conciliatory approach, as the United States itself foregoes—from the very outset—exerting sharp pressure on China. The declarative desire to fiercely combat Chinese potential and engage in active rivalry clashes with the message that the US wishes to avoid rivalry at all costs.
A step in the right direction—something that was sorely lacking in the National Security Strategy—is the explicit indication that Russia constitutes a threat. It is surprising, however, that the US stops halfway, asserting that the Russian threat impacts only NATO’s eastern flank, which might suggest that Russia’s actions are not identified as a threat to the Alliance as a whole. This is an error; recognizing Russia as a threat to NATO in its entirety should be a matter of course, particularly in light of Moscow’s increasing aggression and its clearly stated attempt to destroy the Alliance in its current form (which was the essence of the December 2021 ultimatum).
The United States announces in its document that it will expect Europe to assume responsibility for its own defense capabilities and to strengthen its deterrence potential. Europe is also expected to ensure the stability of the situation in Ukraine following the conclusion of peace negotiations. The document explicitly outlines Washington’s expectation for Europe to be more strategically autonomous than it has been hitherto. Additionally, the US indicates that certain European nations may hold the status of special allies, which is intended to encompass Europe within a new system of more targeted, narrow support for specific countries and specific specializations.
A very important element of the international situation analysis is the indication of threats resulting from the cooperation of states hostile to the West and US interests. Although it is not stated explicitly, it is obvious that this refers to the new axis of evil—namely, the collaboration between China and Russia and their allies. This is a significant implication that corroborates assessments regarding joint Russian-Chinese threats to the West. It is to be suspected that the US possesses actual intelligence concerning potential joint, aggressive military actions by Moscow and Beijing. It is increasingly stated in public discourse (as explicitly noted, for instance, by the NATO Secretary General) that Russia and China are building the capability for a joint, simultaneous attack on Europe and Taiwan. The US Defense Strategy indicates that Washington recognizes this threat.
Another pivotal thesis is the announced modernization of the nuclear arsenal, an arms race in this domain, and countering nuclear blackmail. The US indicates that its nuclear arsenal will serve as a tool of leverage and deterrence, which appears to be a tangible operational measure aligned with the „peace through strength” strategy. Importantly, this announcement can and should result in a military-financial rivalry that may prove to be a threat to Russia, as it will lead to a greater exhaustion of the Russian economy.
In conclusion, the US National Defense Strategy is an important and clarifying expansion of President Trump’s policy and the US National Security Strategy. In the NDS, the United States highlights Russian threats and signals that it will expect greater activity from its allies. The US unequivocally announces a revision of its global engagement, while not withdrawing its protective umbrella from key regions. Targeted support—smaller but adequate to face actual threats—is to become the new format for safeguarding the interests of both the US and its allies. This concept presents an opportunity for Poland and enables us to strengthen the US-Poland alliance. For Poland, this document serves as yet another signal of opportunities to reinforce security in cooperation with the United States. It is time to concretize plans for strengthening the Polish-American alliance. It is time for a serious offer from the authorities of the Republic of Poland regarding further joint cooperation.
III. American Assessment of Global Threats
The annual threat assessment signed by the US Director of National Intelligence (Annual Threat Assessment) reveals a highly compelling perspective and the American appraisal of global threats. This time, the assessment carries an operational and tactical dimension. Although embedded within the frameworks of previously published Strategies, it sheds new light on numerous issues.
The analysis reflects the strategic pivot executed by the US administration—it points to a concentration on the Western Hemisphere, and above all, on the security and protection of domestic US interests. The report places significant emphasis on combating criminal threats, including the narcotics trade and human smuggling along illegal migration routes into the United States. It also highlights efficacy in countering threats generated by foreign nationals already residing illegally within the US. The matter of homeland security is treated as an absolute priority. Substantial attention is likewise dedicated to the Western Hemisphere, including threats generated by regimes, gangs, and pathologies present in and emanating from Latin America. For the US, this represents a crucial center of gravity.
Conversely, to comprehend future threats and challenges, the technological themes are both intriguing and vital. The report unequivocally points not only to a conventional arms race—the expansion of conventional, nuclear, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenals—but also to a technological arms race. It highlights increasingly severe clashes in cyberspace, attempts to militarize space, and the employment of artificial intelligence and quantum technologies within security and armaments policy. It signals not only the threats generated today but also future challenges—such as protecting information and communication channels against advanced quantum technologies. In short, the American analysis shapes a picture of mounting threats to global security arising from rapid technological development. Every nation, including Poland, must be cognizant that the development and advancement of technology must also be our endeavor. If we fail to participate in this revolution, we will cease to be capable of countering threats.
A highly critical layer of the study is the sectoral description of threats, categorized both geographically and substantively. Virtually every one of them—military, space, and technological threats, cyberwarfare, disinformation-psychological operations, the struggle for resources, and actions across every geographic region—is described according to a single template. In this framework, the United States must contend with a more or less aggressive (depending on the topic) bloc of adversarial nations: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Content analysis indicates that the US perceives and identifies growing cooperation among these countries, as well as the mounting threats intentionally generated by them. The description indicates that the American intelligence community also observes these countries exploiting and preying upon various regions to build a capacity for actions directed against the US and its allies.
The description of threats resulting from the construction of the aforementioned „axis of evil” is understandably American-centric. However, for Poland, it is a decisively positive signal that Washington detects Russian fingerprints across every threat domain. Russia is explicitly designated as a strategic competitor generating threats. In the chapter concerning the war against Ukraine, it is noted that Russia generates threats—both conventional and hybrid—which could lead to a major NATO-Russia war. While the depiction of threats from Russia and China designates the latter country as the top priority in US security policy, Russia is specified as a state generating severe threats, consumed by the ideology of Soviet imperialism, and attempting to reconstruct the power of the USSR era. It is precisely indicated that the Kremlin generates severe threats. Here, the document primarily presents a European perspective, but it is clearly stated that the US is threatened due to Moscow’s policy—both directly and within the framework of the bloc of adversarial states.
Against this backdrop, one observation and one specific sentence are deeply concerning; they blur the description and assessment of Russia, and must raise serious doubts regarding US plans. The document states: „A durable resolution to the war in Ukraine could open the path toward a thaw in US-Russia relations and an improvement in bilateral geostrategic and commercial ties.” This sentence, standing in direct contradiction to the description of the strategic threats generated by Russia, invites skepticism and demands exploration. Are we dealing with a backdoor left open for Russia? Is it a form of testing public opinion before announcing cooperation with Russia? Or perhaps it is an attempt to draw the Russian leadership into some kind of geostrategic gambit? It is difficult to judge conclusively, but this sentence may conceal intentions to establish an understanding and cooperation with Russia—which, in light of the description of Russian policy and designs, is detrimental. Furthermore, it must trigger anxiety in nations such as Poland and across NATO’s eastern flank. This statement raises concerns regarding the US’s potential acceptance of long-term threats generated by Russia, which are, after all, independent of the current phase of the war against Ukraine.
Among the chapters analyzing the situation by region, one can also find a highly critical and defeatist description of Europe. The US reiterates previously known grievances regarding the current state of the continent, although it notes that many nations are drawing conclusions and investing in reversing the trends that have led to its weakening. Among the factors deemed hazardous from an American perspective are policies of disarmament, diminished social stability, uncontrolled migration, and issues tied to the suffocation of economic growth. In this depiction, Europe is a profoundly weakened and uncertain region, incapable of fighting for its own interests, and particularly unable to stand up to future challenges due to policies that destroy European capabilities and foundations for development.
The analyzed assessment constitutes a pivotal document and is yet another report that opens a window of opportunity for Poland to negotiate regarding US relations and the joint countering of threats. In connection with the US identifying growing cooperation between Russia and China, Poland should strive to deepen collaboration and increase the presence of American capability on Polish soil. It is time for tangible, concrete decisions that will expand the military and defense potential on the eastern flank. It is time to strengthen cooperation among NATO countries to exert pressure on the axis of evil described by the US in the report. The contents of this document clearly delineate the framework for joint action to safeguard the security of both Poland and the US. This opportunity must be seized swiftly. What is required here are concrete decisions and proposals regarding US-Poland relations and the policy priorities of the authorities of the Republic of Poland. Cooperation with the United States must be deepened, the nature of Russian threats must be continuously explained, and Polish policy must focus on strengthening military potential, societal resilience, developing means of intelligence and neutralization of Russian actions, and investing in modern technologies within the state security system. This American report deserves to be taken seriously in our country’s public debate.
IV. The New US Strategy in Practice
What we are witnessing around Venezuela is the US National Security Strategy (NSS) in practice… for Poland, the conclusions to be drawn from this are not clear-cut. The US has demonstrated that—in accordance with the provisions of the NSS—it intends to arrange the Americas on its own terms. If necessary, this will be achieved through military action and brutal methods of safeguarding its own interests in the Western Hemisphere (as defined by the Strategy). The operation against Venezuela proves that the United States will not heed the protests of China and Russia, both of which were actively involved in supporting Maduro. This did not protect him from being captured and targeted by the US. In short, the United States has shown where its exclusive sphere of influence lies—a sphere into which no other global player is permitted entry. This is precisely how the Strategy views it, pointing to the need to project influence over the Americas in order to protect US interests.
The open question remains how this will reverberate across other regions of the world. By arranging the Americas on its own terms, including through the use of military action, while expecting silence and acquiescence from Russia and China, will the US grant the same latitude of action to Beijing and Moscow in those regions that are neither critical nor interesting to Washington?
This is a pivotal issue in the longer term, particularly given the still ambiguous approach of the American administration toward its relations with Europe and the US stance toward Russia. For Poland, it is precisely the US attitude toward Moscow that will serve as the most critical indicator of America’s international policy. Should a reset or cooperation occur along the Moscow-Washington axis, it will undoubtedly impact our security and interests. This has always been and will always be the case. Concessions of some kind will be extracted by Russia from any American administration that desires to cooperate. For countries like Poland, this will therefore be a paramount concern.
In the short term, it is beneficial for Poland that D. Trump emerges from the strike on Venezuela strengthened; his administration has demonstrated decisiveness and efficacy, crossed boundaries, shattered psychological barriers, and will gain momentum, including in its dealings with other partners. Such a Trump administration is an even more attractive ally for Poland. Furthermore, Washington’s potential to deter Russia has increased since the US decided to launch an offensive operation and remove the Venezuelan dictator.
The collapse of the Maduro regime translates into US influence over Venezuela and (at least to some extent) its future policy. However, it will also likely lead to severing Venezuela’s ties with Russia and China, which are losing an ally in a region critical to them. The American strike also severs Beijing’s energy cooperation with Venezuela, effectively cutting that country off from Venezuelan oil. This is unfolding concurrently with mounting internal destabilization within Iran, which could also precipitate changes regarding political, military, and energy cooperation along the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran axis. Recent events, surely not by coincidence, are to some degree constraining the operational capabilities of the axis of evil being constructed by Moscow and Beijing.
The described conditions mean that the US strike on Venezuela has positive aspects for Poland—as it strengthens our strategic ally. A potential cost for us could be a disruption in the oil market, though this is not a foregone conclusion. The problem is that there is still no clarity as to how the US views Poland in the new international alignment. Words regarding our important role are not being followed by any concrete proposals known to us, and the spirit of the US National Security Strategy suggests that for the D. Trump administration, economic cooperation with Russia carries significant weight. If Trump, who employs brutal methods of political leverage within the US sphere, turns a blind eye to similar methods utilized by Russia or China, Poland’s situation will become exceptionally grave.
V. The German Perspective on US-Poland Relations
Statements by politicians appearing in the Polish public square regarding Polish-American relations are diligently noted and amplified by the German media, which frequently resort to overinterpretation or even manipulation to accentuate their confrontational nature. German narratives portray our country as contesting its existing relations with the United States and seeking new alliances—predominantly within the European Union. Their objective is to highlight alleged divergences between Poland and the US, and to foster an impression of waning trust between the allies. Some of these narratives explicitly call into question the continued presence of American soldiers in Poland. Concurrently, Berlin is sending clear signals to Washington that it desires to be the United States’ primary partner in Europe.
A juxtaposition of sample articles from German internet portals over the past few months illustrates how the media there attempt to stoke the impression of a mounting crisis in Polish-American relations. To achieve this, they exploit adversarial comments directed at the US by Polish politicians, including the Prime Minister. When Donald Tusk published a post on the X platform speaking of „the threat of NATO collapsing, the relaxation of sanctions against Russia, a powerful energy crisis in Europe, the halting of aid to Ukraine, and the blocking of a loan to Kyiv by Orbán” and that „all of this looks like Putin’s dream plan,” the newspaper Münchner Merkur ran the headline: „NATO Ally—Poland Strikes Hard at Trump.”
When the Speaker of the Sejm, Włodzimierz Czarzasty, publicly speculated about a Nobel Prize nomination for Donald Trump, accusing the US President, inter alia, of violating international law—to which the US Ambassador Tom Rose reacted—the newspaper Handelsblatt informed its readers of a „sharp diplomatic dispute” and that „close relations between Poland and the US are being put to the test”: „Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize or not? This question is triggering a dispute between Poland and the United States.” The German Press Agency (DPA) noted in a dispatch distributed to the media that solidarity with Czarzasty was expressed at the time by „many Polish politicians and American diplomats.” Furthermore, an exchange of words between Tom Rose and an anonymous user on the X platform—in which Rose, following a demand for him to go home, questioned whether the United States should remove „all soldiers and all equipment” from Poland (a post he later deleted)—was characterized by the newspaper as a threat to withdraw American forces from Poland, thereby overinterpreting the ambassador’s words. „US Ambassador Tom Rose even threatened to withdraw American troops,” could be read in Handelsblatt.
The German media also engaged in anti-American overinterpretations and manipulations when commenting on the words of Polish President Karol Nawrocki, who in one interview postulated that Poland should consider developing its own nuclear capability while respecting all international regulations. Texts appeared in the German press framing President Nawrocki’s declaration as a direct challenge to close relations with the US. „President Nawrocki wants to make Poland more independent from the US. A place could alternatively be found under the nuclear umbrella of France or Great Britain,” wrote the newspaper Tageszeitung. The paper’s Warsaw correspondent, Gabriele Lesser, caustically asserted in her commentary that President Nawrocki „seems not to have noticed that this could be an affront to the United States, which also guarantees its nuclear umbrella to Poland.”
Similarly, the daily Die Welt interpreted the words of President Karol Nawrocki in the context of contesting existing security guarantees from the US. The author of the commentary, Phillip Fritz, pointed out that this type of debate is currently unfolding in many countries covered by the US nuclear umbrella, such as South Korea or Japan. „All these countries are shaken by Donald Trump’s policy. In some cases, there are serious doubts as to whether the United States would provide assistance to a given state in the event of war,” the German journalist wrote. According to him, what is particularly concerning for Poland is that the United States has curtailed aid to Ukraine, while the American president is attempting a rapprochement with Vladimir Putin. „This is the soil from which the Polish nuclear debate is growing,” the Die Welt journalist emphasized.
An article published on the Focus portal also carried a heavily anti-American undertone. In it, the author, describing the potential transfer of US troops to Poland „as a reward for loyalty,” dedicated a significant portion of the piece to the grievances of the former head of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, Andrzej Derlatka, which were reprinted from the Onet portal. „The former intelligence chief warns of a cost explosion,” Focus emphasized, quoting Derlatka, who stated that if the number of American troops in Poland increases substantially, „our budget could suffer as a result.”
The reaction of the German media to the stance of the Polish Minister of National Defense, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, regarding the deployment of Polish Patriot batteries to the Middle East—a move which, according to unofficial information, Washington had been soliciting—was equally characteristic. The Focus portal brought to the fore the information on how swiftly Poland issued a refusal. „Poland rejects US request the same day: It will not deploy its Patriot systems to the Middle East. Warsaw emphasizes the priority of its own security and its role on NATO’s eastern flank,” it read. The weekly Der Spiegel also covered the Polish refusal in a piece with a suggestive headline: „Will NATO Collapse Because of the War with Iran?” „NATO partners have long courted Trump, but now more and more European countries are rebelling against the United States, led by Spain’s Sánchez. Why do they no longer want to bow to 'daddy’?” Der Spiegel asked.
Donald Trump’s remarks concerning Greenland also became an occasion to contest Polish-American relations. The daily Die Zeit published a commentary by Piotr Buras, a Polish columnist and head of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), entitled: „Trump’s Threat Against Denmark is a Drama for Poland.” The text read, inter alia, that Trump is forcing a „hitherto loyal country to America into a dangerous dilemma.” Buras characterized the US president’s actions regarding Greenland and Denmark as „unrestrained,” leading „not only the transatlantic alliance but also the European Union to the brink of the abyss.” Attention was also drawn to commentaries linking Viktor Orbán’s defeat in the recent elections in Hungary to the endorsement given to him by Donald Trump, and indicating that this could loosen the ties between the Polish right wing and the American president.
„PiS must first put its own house in order,” stated Agnieszka Łada-Konefał of the German-Polish Institute, as quoted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. „The Polish right, which constantly emphasizes its closeness to US President Donald Trump, must also take into account that Orbán lost the election despite having Trump’s backing. They will probably no longer praise Trump in every other sentence,” could be read in the columns of the FAZ.
Meanwhile, the Focus portal published a critical piece by Anne Applebaum—the wife of the Polish Foreign Minister, Radosław Sikorski—concerning the war waged by the US in Iran, under the headline: „Trump Bombs the Government but Continues to Scorn the Iranian People.” In her text, Applebaum pointed out that bombs alone will not create a stable regime, and that the Trump administration’s policy is characterized by the lack of a cohesive plan. „Iran does not need a new dictatorship, but rather self-determination and a pluralistic government,” Applebaum emphasized in the German media outlet.
The headlines of German internet portals are designed to create the impression that a gradual disintegration of existing bonds is occurring within Polish-American relations. The structure of these relations is being undermined on several levels, which can broadly be classified into three categories: political—consisting in portraying the alleged instability of the Donald Trump administration and the associated risks; economic—by demonstrating that the presence of soldiers in European countries, including Poland, generates high costs disproportionate to the resulting benefits; and finally military—the core of which lies in the desire to pivot away from procurement within the American defense industry in favor of European, primarily German and French, manufacturing plants.
Amplifying and overinterpreting anti-American messages emanating from Poland may also indicate that European leaders wish to distance themselves from the current United States administration without directly jeopardizing their own nations’ relations with Washington. Concurrently, such publications—by signaling to the Americans that they are no longer as welcome in Europe as they once were—open up a space for the realization of Germany’s ambitions, which seeks to capitalize on the weakening of the US position to assume its role on the Old Continent toward countries like Poland. Furthermore, by highlighting critical opinions or confrontational questions, such as those voiced by Donald Tusk, Germany demonstrates that even an ally as close to the US as Poland is losing trust in its partner in light of the policy-making style of the current US President, Donald Trump. This prompts questions about the future of transatlantic relations and, by extension, the future of NATO itself. Additional light is shed on these German media narratives by recently disclosed information regarding the intention of Donald Tusk’s government to sign a defense cooperation agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany—a move that aligns seamlessly with German plans aimed at pushing the US out of Europe and occupying its place in the security sphere.
All of these narratives adversely affect Poland’s security, particularly in the face of the growing threat from Russia. They project our country on the international stage as one that is critical of the US, publicly demonstrating a lack of trust in its greatest ally—as a country where provocative actions toward the White House are regularly visible, while simultaneously being open to proposals and alliances with other nations to compensate for the potential fallout of weakened ties with Washington. This not only fractures NATO from within and erodes the US role in the alliance, but it also negatively impacts Washington’s willingness to deepen its commitment as the paramount guarantor of global, and by extension Polish, security.
Moreover, the cited narratives create the impression that a debate is currently underway in Poland questioning the rationale for expanding or even maintaining the American contingent in our country, particularly at a time when Donald Tusk’s government is forging increasingly close security relations with Germany and France. These narratives pose a significant threat to the information security of the Republic of Poland and may carry severe consequences, as they complement political actions that could result in a permanent restructuring of Europe’s relations with the US—unfolding at the expense of Polish security. The narrative constructed by the German media through the manipulation of messaging from Poland casts our country as a catalyst for actions that tangibly damage relations between Warsaw and Washington. This could result in a lowered level of trust and cooperation, and could foster a conviction within Europe that it is time to turn away from the United States, given that „even a threatened Poland” desires to reorient its political-military relations. Given the power and influence of the German media on global public opinion, it must be noted that this type of influence carries a high potential of risk for the interests of the Republic of Poland.
VI. US Troops in Poland, a Headache in Germany
The German media portray the American administration’s decisions regarding the number of US troops in Poland through the prism of turmoil and friction in Polish-American relations, as well as a threat to European unity and NATO stability. When, shortly after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s remarks on temporarily halting the transfer of additional soldiers to our country, President Trump announced that their numbers would increase after all due to his close relations with President Karol Nawrocki, the German media accused the American leader of unpredictability, a lack of military strategy, and acting on purely political motives aimed at supporting right-wing leaders and interfering in the domestic affairs of European states. They also pointed out the laconic nature of Trump’s announcement, questioning if and how it would manifest in reality.
„Poland Furious with the Americans”—this is how the daily Bild described the initial announcement of the suspension of the transfer of 4,000 American troops to Poland, articulated by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. According to the newspaper, this declaration triggered a shock in Warsaw and an „alarm on NATO’s eastern flank.” „The Poles Demand Respect from the US,” the daily noted, citing numerous statements by members of the Polish government expressing surprise and disapproval, including remarks by Prime Minister Donald Tusk. It also described the surprise that Hegseth’s words caused even within the ranks of the US military. The Focus portal went further, calling the American defense secretary’s announcement „Job’s news that caught the Polish government completely unprepared” and caused „profound shock” and „fears over its own security” in Poland. The portal did not fail to note that previously, it was the politicians of the conservative Law and Justice party who „did not hide their joy over the punishment of the Germans” via the withdrawal of 5,000 troops announced by Trump, while expressing hope that these soldiers would be reassigned to Poland.
Meanwhile, the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, commenting on the US announcements regarding the withdrawal of a portion of troops from Germany and the halting of their expansion in Poland, assessed that chaos and a lack of communication with Europe do not enhance the US’s predictability toward the NATO alliance. In the newspaper’s view, the punishment intended for Chancellor Friedrich Merz for his critical remarks regarding the Americans’ lack of strategy in the war with Iran did not affect Germany, but rather Poland, „whose right-wing populist president, Karol Nawrocki, is an avowed supporter of Trump.” Citing NATO officials, the German daily observed that „everything would be half as irritating and concerning” if allies in Europe knew what the Americans intended to do and when. Without this, it is „practically impossible” to properly plan the transformation whereby Europeans assume greater responsibility for conventional defense so that no „deterrence gap” emerges. Alliance officials quoted by the newspaper pointed out that no one knows what the figures presented by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth actually mean: „5,000 troops from Germany, 4,000 troops from Poland—and whether they should be added together, or if the smaller contingent is in fact part of the larger one,” it read.
When President Donald Trump announced on May 21 of this year that, in connection with Karol Nawrocki’s electoral success, the United States would send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland, the Germans did not hide their surprise, while simultaneously speculating about what truly lies behind the US president’s decision. „A few thousand fewer US troops in Germany, and surprisingly, a few thousand more in Poland: is there a military strategy behind President Donald Trump’s recent announcements regarding troop strength in Europe? Or is Trump primarily concerned with rewarding loyalty and punishing criticism?” ponders the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The daily points out that Trump’s promise lacks concrete details, such as when and from where these soldiers will be transferred to Poland. The article also reflects astonishment at Donald Trump’s motivation, as he „did not justify his decision with military strategy, nor even with reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank, but rather with his good relations with Poland’s right-wing conservative president, Karol Nawrocki.”
Tagesschau, the news portal of the public broadcaster ARD, citing sources within the United States Department of Defense, asserted that „Trump has introduced chaos—even among his own people.” „Clear statement, unclear consequences”—assesses Tagesschau, writing about the disorientation that the American president reportedly triggered among NATO partners, in Poland, and „apparently also within the Pentagon.” „Because the idea of additional troops has apparently not yet been discussed in depth,” the portal claims. In the conclusion of another article dedicated to the American president’s decisions resulting in an increase in the number of American soldiers in Poland and a reduction in Germany, Tagesschau levels an even heavier accusation against the American leader: „Critics accuse Trump of weakening NATO through his actions and thereby playing into the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
The narrative line regarding an alleged lack of strategy in Donald Trump’s actions is also sustained by the daily Handelsblatt. According to the newspaper, Trump’s decision to deploy additional troops to Poland was motivated more by political reasons than military ones. The fact that, despite the US intent to downscale its military presence in Europe, an additional 5,000 soldiers will be sent to Poland indicates, according to the daily, that „Trump’s favor toward the national-conservative Polish president, Karol Nawrocki, carries more weight than purely military-strategic arguments.” As the authors of the article claim, this highlights „the proximity of the American MAGA movement to the new right in Eastern Europe.” Karol Nawrocki is concurrently portrayed as a president who „regularly puts the brakes on the pro-European Prime Minister, Donald Tusk.” Trump’s decision can also be interpreted as a signal following Viktor Orbán’s defeat in Hungary that Washington „continues to bank on right-wing national partners in Eastern Europe,” the daily claims. The authors of the article assess that „the US is becoming increasingly involved in Polish domestic politics.” In their view, foreign policy during Donald Trump’s presidency has ceased to be a classic policy of alliances, turning instead into „a means to deliberately influence the domestic politics of Western democratic countries in order to strengthen right-wing parties while simultaneously weakening the UE, which Trump has criticized for years due to its trade and regulatory policies.” „Allies are treated in a differentiated manner, allowing political pressure to be exerted upon them,” it reads.
The political context of Donald Trump’s declarations, contingent upon the US president’s personal relationships with European leaders, is also highlighted by the weekly Der Spiegel. „In other words—if Friedrich Merz criticizes Trump, the latter withdraws 5,000 troops from Germany. And because he likes Nawrocki, he sends 5,000 more to Poland,” the weekly writes.
The narratives streaming from across our western border also aim to convince public opinion that potentially removing American soldiers from Germany and reassignment them to Poland is a flawed idea. This would be difficult, and the reason is geography—writes the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, justifying that western Germany, where the Ramstein base is located, is „optimally distanced” from the potential adversary, namely Russia, whereas Warsaw and Berlin find themselves within the range of Iskander missiles deployed in Kaliningrad. The newspaper quotes US General Ben Hodges, who believes that Ramstein is the most critical American installation in Europe, and that Trump would need decades and billions of dollars to build an alternative elsewhere. In the American military officer’s view, Trump, by seeking to punish the German government, is harming America and damaging the deterrence potential in Europe.
An analysis dedicated to American plans to withdraw a portion of military personnel from Germany was also published by the Federal Agency for Civic Education (BpB). „The majority of political observers do not believe that shifting a few thousand soldiers would severely damage German national defense and NATO’s response capabilities. Some, however, point out that this move could weaken the credibility and cohesion of NATO. When it comes to potential deterrence, at least some experts fear that Trump does not intend to implement the 2024 agreement between the United States and Germany regarding the deployment of cruise and hypersonic missiles in Rhineland-Palatinate,” the German government institution notes.
In the publications cited above, there is a visible exaggeration of the alleged crisis in Polish-American relations following Pete Hegseth’s announcement regarding the temporary suspension of the relocation of American soldiers to Poland. The undertone of certain commentaries suggested that the United States might fail even its closest and most loyal allies. Following Donald Trump’s decisive declaration to deploy an additional 5,000 military personnel to our country, many media outlets shifted their focus toward portraying the American leader’s unpredictability and undermining trust in the United States as the strongest member of NATO and the guarantor of global security. The objective of the identified narratives was also to indicate that Trump’s decision to reassign more soldiers to Poland was ill-considered and had not been coordinated with the Pentagon, that it is disadvantageous from NATO’s perspective, and that it is backed by no military strategy (this follows the exact same line of accusations against the US that characterized Chancellor Merz’s critical remarks regarding American actions in Iran), serving merely a desire to influence the Polish political situation and exert pressure on Germany. Accusations were also leveled against Donald Trump that he was attempting to play his own geostrategic game with Vladimir Putin at the expense of NATO’s stability and European security. Concurrently, the German media exploited the decision of the American leader—whom they hold in disfavor—to stigmatize President Karol Nawrocki and the conservative political camp in Poland, both of whom advocate for close relations with the US. A number of centers also attempted to convince public opinion that any potential transfer of American soldiers from Germany to Poland is detrimental to the security of the entire Alliance.
Undoubtedly, the world of German politics and media will closely monitor the further development of events and amplify any commentaries or occurrences that could tarnish Poland’s good relations with the United States and torpedo the potential transfer of a portion of American soldiers from Germany to our country. The monitoring conducted by the National Security Institute Foundation indicates that this activity by the German side is of a permanent nature, and stoking animosities and aversion between Poland and the United States is a structural goal of the activities of German media and state entities. From the perspective of Polish interests, it is crucial to maximize the opportunities presented by Donald Trump’s announcements, which favor our security, and not to allow ourselves to be dominated by the stance pushed by the Germans—namely, that increasing the number of American troops in Poland, should they be reassigned from Germany, negatively impacts the European security architecture and the North Atlantic Alliance’s capacity to deter Russia—because the exact opposite is true.
VII. Anti-American Discourse in Russia’s Information Operations
An analysis of publications appearing within the Polish-language segment of the pro-Russian network of websites indicates that the output of this infrastructure is an element of a broader Russian information ecosystem. Its objective is to systematically reinforce a pro-Russian interpretation of international events while simultaneously eroding public trust in the United States, NATO, and the entire architecture of transatlantic security. Within this model, individual publications serve as vectors for recurring theses: the US is portrayed as an unstable, egotistical actor that treats its allies instrumentally, whereas transatlantic relations are depicted as a source of escalation, economic costs, and the threat of war.
Of particular significance is the fact that this messaging is directed at a Polish audience—the society of a NATO frontline state directly engaged in deterrence policy, supporting Ukraine, and reinforcing the Alliance’s eastern flank. For this reason, the propaganda does not confine itself to a generalized critique of the West; instead, it constructs messages tailored to specific Polish anxieties: the risk of war with Russia, the costs of security, the presence of US troops, relations with Germany, allied commitments, and the potential of Poland being „dragged” into external conflicts. This mechanism is psychological in nature: the recipient is intended not only to question the political decisions of the authorities but also to begin perceiving their own security as being jeopardized by the very alliances formally meant to enhance it. Thus, an attempt is made to shift the perception of reality, ensuring that allied guarantees and the allies themselves are viewed as a source of problems and threats.
The dominant technique visible in the analyzed material is the inversion of responsibility. Russia, despite remaining the source of military aggression, hybrid pressure, and regional destabilization, is presented as a state merely reacting to the actions of NATO, the US, Poland, or Europe. Conversely, deterrence policy, defense modernization, support for Ukraine, and the reinforcement of Western military capabilities are described not as a response to the Russian threat, but as evidence of alleged militarization, escalation, and preparations for war. Through this approach, the propaganda attempts to cognitively disarm the recipient: shifting their attention away from Russia’s actions toward the purported errors, ambitions, or provocations of the West.
A vital element of the examined narratives is also the attempt to sever Poland from its strategic partners. The US is presented as an uncertain and transactional guarantor, Europe as an entity devoid of agency, NATO as an internally fracturing structure, and Poland as a state exploited in someone else’s geopolitical game. Such a message is intended to lead to the erosion of public acceptance for the presence of American troops, military cooperation with allies, increased defense spending, and continued support for Ukraine. This is particularly critical because the propaganda does not need to convert the recipient to an overtly pro-Russian stance; it is sufficient to induce uncertainty, discouragement, a sense of isolation, and the conviction that Western security guarantees are unreliable.
In the analyzed period spanning late April and early May 2026, the messaging concerning the US and transatlantic relations functions as a strategic perception management operation. Its goal is to gradually undermine the foundational pillars upon which Polish security policy rests: trust in NATO, the credibility of American guarantees, allied solidarity, and the conviction that deterring Russia demands Western cohesion. In practice, this represents an attempt to weaken the societal resilience of a frontline state by consistently portraying alliances as a source of danger, and Russia as an actor with whom relations should be „rationally” reconstructed.
A. List of Narratives Targeting the Perception of the US
1. The US as a Strategically and Militarily Exhausted State
A narrative constructed around the thesis that the war with Iran, commitment in the Middle East, and support for allies are „depleting” American arsenals and lowering the real capacity of the US for deterrence and operational activities. This narrative does not necessarily directly deny the military might of the US, but rather suggests that it is dispersed, overstretched, and insufficient to handle multiple crises simultaneously. Its objective is to weaken faith in American security guarantees and to prompt the question: would the US actually be capable of defending Europe given its alleged resource gap?
2. The US as a Hegemon Treating Allies Instrumentally
In messaging concerning the presence of US troops in Europe, a thesis emerges that Washington does not operate under the logic of allied solidarity, but rather according to a logic of disciplining, rewarding, and punishing European nations. Within this framework, decisions regarding troop movements are interpreted not as an element of strategic planning, but as proof of arbitrary US dominance over Europe. The function of this narrative is to portray the relationship with the US as one of dependency rather than partnership. Concurrently, personal attacks on President Donald Trump and the undermining of United States leadership are intended to suggest that allied relations in Europe hinge upon the fleeting whims of Donald Trump and cannot provide a sense of stability or enduring alliances.
3. The US as an Unreliable Guarantor of Security
Propaganda fabricates a picture of political tensions within the NATO community—while also exploiting real ones—concerning the presence of American troops in Europe to expand the thesis that American guarantees are fragile. The issue of the withdrawal of a portion of US soldiers from Germany and debates over Washington’s loyalty to NATO are transformed into the message: „America may leave as soon as it deems it advantageous.” The goal is not so much to convince the recipient that the US has already abandoned Europe, but to sow permanent uncertainty regarding Article 5 and the US presence on the eastern flank.
4. The US as a Power Dragging Poland into External Wars
In this narrative, Poland is not portrayed as a state making sovereign defense decisions, but rather as an executor of American strategy directed against Russia, Iran, or China. An example of this broader pattern is an earlier narrative logged by EUvsDisinfo, according to which Donald Trump was allegedly preparing Poland for a war with China through the Fort Trump project. The mechanism relies on an inversion of the meaning of defense cooperation: instead of deterring Russia, the propaganda frames it as the subordination of Poland to the global, aggressive designs of the US.
5. The US as an Actor Destabilizing the Middle East, thereby Threatening European Security
Themes concerning Iran and the Strait of Hormuz are used to portray the US as a state that generates crises far from Europe, yet transfers their consequences onto its European allies. Within this construct, America is not a guarantor of international order, but a source of escalation, rising energy prices, military tensions, and logistical disruptions. The psychological function of this narrative lies in linking the US presence with everyday security costs: more expensive energy, the risk of war, and dependency on Washington’s decisions. The generalization embedded within this propaganda message is intended to condition recipients to believe that these are the inevitable outcomes of any activity and cooperation with the US.
6. The US as a State Conducting a Policy of „Allied Blackmail”
The message is built upon suggestions that the US evaluates NATO member states based on the criterion of obedience rather than a shared strategy. Information concerning disputes with Germany, pressure exerted on European nations, or the potential relocation of troops is interpreted as proof that Washington utilizes security as an instrument of political leverage. Such messaging serves to undermine the moral legitimacy of the US as the leader of the West and to portray it as a transactional, unpredictable, and egotistical power.
7. The US as the Center of the „Collective West” Responsible for Confrontation with Russia
This narrative does not always explicitly name the US; instead, it conceals it beneath the concepts of „the West,” „NATO,” or „Anglo-Saxon strategy.” Within this framework, the war and tensions with Russia do not stem from Russian aggression, but from the alleged expansion of the American security system in Europe. This represents a classic inversion of responsibility: the aggressor is portrayed as a reactive actor, while the defensive system is framed as the source of the threat.
8. The US as an Internally Weakened and Politically Chaotic State
Materials regarding tensions surrounding Trump, Pentagon decisions, disputes with allies, or crises surrounding Iran are utilized to construct an image of a state mired in decision-making chaos. Within this narrative, the problem is not merely a specific administration, but the American model of leadership itself, which is presented as unstable, impulsive, and subordinated to ongoing political conflicts. The intended effect is to diminish the attractiveness of the US as a reference point for security, democracy, and the international order.
9. The US as a Power Utilizing Europe for Its Own Global Rivalry
Themes concerning China, Iran, and Russia are woven into a broader framework: Europe and Poland are framed as mere assets in the American game to maintain global dominance. The propaganda suggests that the US military presence in Poland or the wider region does not serve the security of frontline states, but rather the preparation of infrastructure for conflicts waged in Washington’s own interest. This is an exceptionally dangerous narrative, as it directly targets public acceptance of the presence of US troops and defense cooperation with America.
B. List of Narratives Targeting Transatlantic Relations
1. NATO as an Alliance in a Phase of Collapse
Propaganda exploits actual statements by European leaders regarding tensions within NATO to reshape them into a picture of the inevitable disintegration of the transatlantic community. The theme of Donald Tusk’s remarks concerning the „ongoing collapse of the alliance” is highly useful for propaganda purposes, as it allows the NATO crisis to be presented as a fact validated by the Western elites themselves. The objective is to engineer an impression that NATO is no longer a dependable organization or a lasting guarantee of security, but rather a structure that is politically fracturing from within.
2. US–Europe Relations as a System of Dominance, Not Partnership
The messaging accentuates that Europe is entirely dependent on Washington’s decisions regarding military affairs, energy, and policy toward Russia and the Middle East. Within this narrative, European nations are not treated as sovereign entities of the transatlantic community, but as clients of the American security system. The operational function lies in strengthening anti-Americanism in Europe and presenting strategic autonomy as the sole alternative to „vassalization.”
3. Poland as a Frontline State Exploited by the US and NATO
Propaganda portrays Poland as a buffer territory where the West can offload the risk of war with Russia. The theme of the US troop presence, debates over shifting forces from Germany, and Poland’s role on the eastern flank are interpreted as proof that Warsaw is being pushed closer to a potential conflict. The objective is to induce fear that Polish-American defense cooperation does not enhance security, but rather makes Poland the primary target for Russian retaliation.
4. Europe as a Hostage to American Decisions on War and Peace
Within this framework, the war in Ukraine, tensions with Iran, and policy toward Russia are presented as processes controlled primarily by the US. Europe is to be shown as an actor devoid of agency, which shoulders the costs of American decisions but exercises no real influence over their direction. This narrative is calculated to amplify frustration toward the US and to weaken transatlantic solidarity in moments of crisis.
5. NATO as an Escalatory rather than Defensive Structure
Russian propaganda regularly inverts the meaning of NATO’s deterrence measures, framing them as preparations for aggression. The most striking example is the narrative regarding alleged Polish-French nuclear exercises simulating strikes on Russia and Belarus, which EUvsDisinfo classified as disinformation; there is no public evidence that such scenarios form a part of any official exercises conducted by Poland, France, or NATO. The function of this narrative is to justify Russian militarization and to forge a conviction that it is NATO provoking nuclear escalation.
6. The Europeanization of Defense as Proof of Severed Ties with the US
Any debate concerning greater European responsibility for its own security is presented not as a complement to NATO, but as proof that the US is abandoning the continent. Within this propaganda logic, increased European spending, the development of the defense industry, or French concepts of nuclear deterrence do not reinforce the Alliance, but rather confirm its crisis. The goal is to establish a false dichotomy: either the US and a lack of European agency, or Europe without the US and the end of NATO.
7. Germany as the Weak Link and Source of Conflict within NATO
The narrative concerning the withdrawal of US troops from Germany reinforces the image of Berlin as a state in conflict with Washington, strategically unreliable, and punished for insufficient loyalty. Within the Polish context, this message can operate along two tracks: it simultaneously undermines NATO cohesion and suggests that if Poland competes for soldiers withdrawn from Germany, it will become entangled in the logic of the US’s transactional approach to military cooperation. This serves to antagonize allies within NATO and erode the perception of a shared security interest.
8. France and Poland as the Vanguard of War with Russia
Propaganda constructs an image of Paris and Warsaw as entities attempting to shift Europe from the logic of deterrence to the logic of active confrontation with Russia. The theme of the French nuclear umbrella, exercises over the Baltic Sea, and Poland’s reconnaissance role is transformed into a suggestion of offensive preparations. The psychological function is evident: to link Poland’s military cooperation with France to the fear of nuclear war, thereby triggering a reflex of opposition toward the West.
9. Russia as a Defensive Actor Forced to Respond to NATO Provocations
An inversion of responsibility is present in nearly all the highlighted themes: Russia, despite being the actual aggressor, is portrayed as a state reacting to Western pressure. It is NATO, the US, Poland, and France that are depicted as the initiators of escalation, while Russian threats or demonstrations of force are framed as a „response” to alleged provocations. This mechanism allows propaganda to simultaneously justify Russian actions and delegitimize Western deterrence measures.
10. Transatlantic Relations as a Source of Economic Costs for Poland and Europe
The anti-transatlantic message is not confined to the military sphere; rather, it links security with the cost of living, energy, sanctions, and the severing of ties with Russia. Within this framework, loyalty to NATO and the US is purported to lead to the loss of cheap raw materials, higher defense expenditures, and the subordination of the economy to the logic of war. The objective is to transform an abstract geopolitical dispute into the recipient’s personal economic calculation: „It is because of the West that you pay more and live under a greater threat.”
Analytical Commentary
The analysis of these narratives demonstrates that Russian propaganda targeting the US and transatlantic relations does not operate via isolated theses, but through a cohesive interpretative framework. Its foundational premise is to portray the entire Western security architecture as an unstable, costly, aggressive structure incapable of providing real protection to its members. Within this messaging, the US is described as an exhausted, chaotic, and egoistic power, while NATO is framed as an alliance that, instead of deterring Russia, allegedly provokes escalation.
The primary objective of these narratives is to erode the Polish public’s trust in the alliances that form the bedrock of the state’s security. Propaganda attempts to convince the recipient that the presence of US troops in Poland increases the risk of war, that NATO might fail to function in a crisis scenario, that Europe shoulders the costs of American decisions, and that Poland is being exploited as a frontline state in someone else’s global game. Such a message does not need to translate into open support for Moscow; its efficacy lies in generating doubt, fatigue, defeatism, and pressure toward the „neutralization” of security policy.
The recurring inversion of responsibility is of paramount importance. Russia is presented as a state reacting to the actions of the West, while the activities of NATO and the US are described as the source of tensions and threats. This maneuver carries fundamental propaganda value, as it allows attention to be diverted away from Russian aggression, militarization, and hybrid operations, while simultaneously delegitimizing Western defensive measures. Consequently, the recipient is led to conclude that the problem lies not in Russian imperial policy, but in the anchoring of Central and Eastern European states within the structures and community of the West.
The second critical mechanism is the economization of the security narrative. Propaganda links transatlantic relations with the costs of energy, sanctions, armaments, and aid to Ukraine, suggesting that a pro-Western orientation yields primarily losses for society. This is an attempt to translate geopolitics into the everyday emotions of the recipient: fear over the standard of living, aversion to defense spending, frustration toward elites, and the conviction that military security comes at the expense of economic security. Within this logic, Russia is to be normalized as a potential partner, while the West is portrayed as a source of pressure.
The third element consists in fracturing allied cohesion by playing the US, Europe, Germany, France, and Poland off against one another. In the propaganda narrative, every political tension within NATO is presented as proof of collapse, every discussion on increased defense spending as militarization, and every debate on the American troop presence as confirmation of Europe’s dependency on Washington. The goal is not only to degrade the image of the US but also to undermine the conviction that Western nations share common strategic interests regarding Russia.
In the operational dimension, the analyzed narratives must be assessed as an attempt to erode Poland’s informational resilience. They target trust in security institutions, the rationality of deterrence policy, the credibility of alliances, and societal readiness to bear the costs of defense. They are also aimed at undermining the state’s capacity to sustain a long-term strategic course: supporting Ukraine, reinforcing NATO, developing cooperation with the US, and reducing dependency on Russia.
The propaganda message aligns with the broader logic of Russian information operations directed against NATO frontline states. It is not merely a critique of America or Europe, but a gradual undermining of the rationale behind Western strategic solidarity. The propaganda endeavors to ensure that the Polish recipient begins to perceive the US as an unreliable patron, NATO as a source of threat, Europe as a community in crisis, and Russia as an actor with whom confrontation must be avoided at all costs. It is precisely for this reason that these narratives should be treated as an element of long-term interference targeting the information security, societal resilience, and strategic orientation of Poland.
VIII. SUMMARY
The public opinion in Poland is being subjected to a multi-level cognitive operation aimed at altering the perception of international reality and weakening the image of the United States in Poland. As demonstrated in the above report, the objective of these actions is to erode the US’s allied credibility and to challenge the strategic direction of Polish policy in the defense and security sector. These operations are conducted across several manipulative dimensions and feature the simultaneous activity of multiple diverse entities. The messaging exhibits the use of shallow slogans, the deliberate omission of numerous aspects of the analyzed actions of the American administration, the deployment of emotional language, and a series of overinterpretations that indicate the ill intentions of the authors behind these efforts. Concurrently, within Polish public discourse—as across the rest of Europe—these topics display a heavy dose of political interests and a tendency to condition the perception of US policy on mutual, including individual, dynamics. The described threats are amplified by the actions of the American administration itself, which, through its approach to allies and nonchalance in the realm of information policy, facilitates the execution of operations detrimental to the NATO community.
The synergy visible in the analyzed activities reinforces both the scale of their impact and their efficacy, which is a cause for concern. Given the mass scale of these actions, the analyzed manifestations of this information-psychological operation pose a threat to the interests of the Republic of Poland, including its security. Consequently, these activities must be evaluated as a threat to the information security of the Republic of Poland, and the potential fallout of these operations must be continuously neutralized through an information influence campaign implemented by the institutions of the Polish state. The situation demands an effective response in light of the identified dangers.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the significance of the United States, its military and intelligence potential, as well as its role for Poland, it must be unequivocally stated that it is in the interest of the Republic of Poland to significantly strengthen relations with the US and to work toward increasing the American presence across numerous branches of Polish policy and economy. This obviously applies to security policy, which—in light of mounting Russian threats—represents the priority area of cooperation between the US and Poland. Polish authorities should endeavor to increase the engagement of US forces in Poland, including extending an offer for the establishment of a permanent US military base in Poland, and working toward encompassing Poland within the United States’ nuclear protective umbrella. Washington has signaled an openness to such offers. Concurrently, the Polish government should reinforce its lobbying efforts in the US to enhance its influence over American policy and expand opportunities for informal action in support of Polish interests. In public communication, it is recommended to shift the manner of describing American policy and to place emphasis on long-term actions benefiting Polish-American interests. It is necessary to abandon the formulation of emotionally charged assessments and to focus instead on analyzing the interests of the Republic of Poland and the impact of American actions on Poland’s strength and security.
In view of the ongoing political dispute between European leaders and the US administration, and taking into account the objective need for the US to alter the geographic distribution of its forces in Europe, Poland should primarily operate bilaterally, building a robust position for the Americans in Poland. Without antagonizing other NATO allies, it must be explicitly indicated that the reinforcement of the Republic of Poland should be Warsaw’s primary concern. Furthermore, Poland possesses the potential and strength to become—once reinforced by the US—the most powerful NATO country in Europe in terms of military and deterrence capabilities. Consequently, foreign and security policy must be conducted in a manner that prioritizes Poland’s national interests above all else, and in areas of dispute or diverging allied interests in Europe, the Republic of Poland should pursue its own interests through direct contact with the US. Poland cannot allow itself to be held hostage to political stances, emotional approaches, or mutual animosities between the United States and European capitals.
The US presence must not be understood as a substitute for Poland’s own potential or the security guarantees derived from strong and effective Armed Forces and special services. Therefore, Poland must continue—and indeed accelerate—the modernization processes of its military, while also increasing the efficacy of its security system, including the special services. Crucially, such actions will not only demonstrate to our adversaries our strength and determination to defend our interests, but will also facilitate more partnership-based discussions with the US, which has repeatedly signaled that it will assist those who take care of their own security. Poland and the US currently have an opportunity to reinforce their cooperation, an outcome that will positively impact the security of the entire Alliance and should remain a priority in the actions of both capitals.
Analytical Team
National Security Institute Foundation
Dodaj komentarz