As the U.S. has signaled effectively to capitulate early to Russian demands, it has exposed a number of risks to Trump’s impulsiveness as well as the impact of placing people lacking experience and disciplined negotiating skills in positions that impact European and U.S. security in the near to medium term.

I am reminded of a Futures Industry Boca event from years ago when Condoleeza Rice cautioned Bush and Obama against reaching out in friendship to Putin. She said in summary "that you should not reach out your hand to a man and energy cartel that views you as its mortal enemy and expect them to act against their nature." Trump while possibly more motivated by his admiration of Putin and the desire to benefit his loyalists is making the same mistake but at a grand level.

As a first order of thinking he has clearly sent the message that he will no longer support Europe as a security partner. In doing so, Europe has begun to question whether has he simply abandoned them or effectively switched sides. I doubt if it is intended as the latter outside of Trump's inner circle. That would indicate the U.S. is changing its value of Freedom as a country which I think will outlast Trump for the most part.

What he and those that he tasks with delivering his messages seem to have neglected is something that every effective leader has developed as a core competence. It’s been called second order thinking but is essentially the act of thinking out two or three steps and listing the good and bad consequences of each and the assumptions you are making in your first order actions.

Ray Dalio put it well when he said “Failing to consider second- and third-order consequences is the cause of a lot of painfully bad decisions, and it is especially deadly when the first inferior option confirms your own biases. Never seize on the first available option, no matter how good it seems, before you’ve asked questions and explored.“

At this juncture, similar to the mistakes Russia made when they started the war on Ukraine, the U.S. is expecting Europe to do nothing in response to U.S. agreement with Russia. I think in particular this is naive when it comes to the Baltics, Finland and Poland. I do not think that their history will allow them to ignore reality. Neither do I think that Ukraine will actually de-fang itself putting it further at risk for the next Russian effort at expansion.

I was at FIA Boca speaking with an investment banker with ties to the region, is very business focused but also hopes that Europe and especially the U.S. will not allow a restating of a narrative of the war that removes accountability from Russia and gives into authoritarian power that is ultimately bad for business. General David Patraeus in his book, Conflict, recounts that “Putin believed in a revanchist Russia operating as a great power. The President hoped his invasion would be a swift…attack by special forces, Wagner mercenaries, and the regular army …This would be supported by nuclear threats to discourage Western intervention.” As Trump and his team of communicators have given renewed voice to Putin’s message, and may end up crafted a UN resolution in partnership between Russia and the U.S., it is important to remember that these messages will have second and third order consequences that we should look at before just simply agreeing to Russia’s narrative.

It may be that Europe will not coalesce around the defense of Ukraine, but I do think that it will around the rest of the region. NATO, in reality, is part of why Ukraine was able to defend itself from Russia, a country with three times the people and eight times the territory. This does not mean it was a NATO conspiracy, but it does mean that Ukraine realized it needed to make its military more professional.

Initial signs are that Europe will come together in some way around its own security, as perhaps intended. But it may also come together against the United States for the first time in well over 100 years. How this looks in 5 or 10 years I think is what is actually in play at the moment. There will be those working behind the scenes to preserve this notion that the U.S. and Europe stand together. Namely the UK who is well within reach of Russia will work to maintain a bridge to the security needed in Europe.

In the meantime, the second order effects are already in play where Russia will work to create ahead of negotiations agreement that it keeps that lands it invaded which will allow it to re-supply for its next target; perhaps the Baltics. It will be stronger then and Europe needs to decide now, what is the risk of that happening and would they rather tackle a weakened Russia now or a stronger Russia in 5 years.