The shifting sands of global power dynamics are causing anxiety worldwide, especially in Eastern Europe. A recent statement by the Honorary Consul of the Republic of Latvia in Vermont paints a stark picture of uncertainty in the face of evolving U.S. foreign policy. As of February 25, 2025, concerns are mounting, especially in nations like Latvia, regarding the potential impacts of U.S. foreign policy shifts and the influence of figures like Donald Trump on future alliances and security commitments. Daris Delins, the Honorary Consul, provides insights into the prevailing atmosphere within the U.S. and its implications for global stability.

Recent discussions in Latvian media and among officials reflect a growing unease about the future,largely driven by concerns surrounding donald Trump’s potential policies. To gain a clearer understanding of the situation, perspectives from within the United States are invaluable.

Delins addresses these concerns directly, stating:

“Every day, when you get to know the announcements of the US President and the White House, it is indeed difficult to understand what is real, who can beleive, but what is pure nonsense. Though, it is indeed clear that we have switched to a new geopolitical era that raises questions about the reality we have experienced in the last 33 years – as the restoration of Latvia’s independence.”

This statement underscores a notable shift in the global landscape, prompting a re-evaluation of established norms and alliances. The consul suggests that the customary understanding of international relations is being challenged, necessitating a more cautious and strategic approach. The implications of this shift are far-reaching, impacting not only political landscapes but also economic and social policies worldwide.

delins further elaborates on the perceived underpinnings of the current U.S. approach, noting:

“In his opinion, in the Trump system, every decision is based on the principles of trading, thinking what good he or she can gain from something. This is the new reality for the whole world.”

This transactional view of international relations introduces an element of uncertainty,as nations grapple with the potential for shifting priorities and conditional support. This approach marks a departure from traditional diplomatic strategies, where long-term partnerships and shared values frequently enough took precedence over immediate gains.

The implications of this shift extend beyond political considerations,potentially impacting economic and social policies as well. Delins highlights the potential consequences for European nations, stating:

“If an American in the US thinks he does not affect him, but is more focused on getting the eggs in the stores more expensive, what will he say next? If Ukraine can be sold, maybe someone will decide to “take” Taiwan. everything is going on is a serious signal for Europe to think more about protecting its security, as America’s support is no longer as guaranteed as it has been accepted so far. More money in Europe will be spent on defense, so the people will have to put up with less postpone social care, schools, roads, etc.”

This perspective suggests that increased defense spending in Europe may come at the expense of social programs and infrastructure advancement, potentially creating internal challenges for these nations. The need to bolster security measures could divert resources from essential services, impacting the quality of life for European citizens.

Specifically regarding Latvia,Delins expresses concern about the perceived prioritization of American interests,stating that in America there is a feeling that the slogan is American first,Latvia Last.

He raises critical questions about Latvia’s strategic options in this evolving geopolitical habitat:

“What could be a strategy for latvia if there is a bully on the geopolitical playground, who is just looking for attention in the media and social networks, looking for benefits to himself and its collaborators? The opposition country has disappeared, even the Conservative Republicans do not want to annoy the “king”.”

These questions underscore the challenges faced by smaller nations in navigating a world dominated by powerful actors with potentially unpredictable agendas. Latvia, like many other countries, must carefully consider its alliances and strategies to safeguard its interests in an increasingly complex global arena.

Delins also contemplates broader systemic shifts, asking:

“Have we come to Yalta 2? At Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact 2? Some great powers will divide the world into interests? If the clouds have tightened over latvia,that means that the country’s economy will pass the investment from abroad.”

These historical references evoke concerns about potential realignments of power and the division of spheres of influence, raising anxieties about the future of smaller nations. The specter of past agreements that disregarded the sovereignty of smaller states looms large in the current geopolitical climate.

Despite the prevailing uncertainty, Delins offers a glimmer of hope, concluding:

“If there is excitement in Latvia, you are not the only ones! We are here in the same nervous state. Some of my colleagues used to say, “If you are not worried about, then something is not good with you.” Though, if you have to find something that could bring a positive outcome, it is indeed to be hoped that in June Latvia will be able to be in the UN Security Council. Then we will have a place at the big table.”

Latvia’s potential inclusion in the UN Security Council offers an prospect to advocate for its interests and contribute to international discussions on security and stability. This provides a platform for Latvia to voice its concerns and actively participate in shaping the global agenda.

Interview with Dr. Anya Petrova, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University

Senior Editor (SE): dr. Petrova, the recent statements from the Latvian consul in Vermont express deep concern about the potential ramifications of a perceived shift in US foreign policy, particularly regarding the influence of figures like Donald trump. Can you elaborate on the historical context of US-Latvian relations and the current anxieties?

dr. petrova (DP): The anxieties expressed by the Latvian consul reflect a broader unease among smaller nations that have historically relied on the US for security guarantees. Latvia, having experienced Soviet occupation and regaining independence relatively recently, has a particularly acute sensitivity to shifts in global power dynamics. The US has played a crucial role in Latvia’s post-Soviet security architecture, and any perceived weakening of that commitment naturally creates worry. Understanding these anxieties requires looking back at the post-Cold war era, particularly NATO expansion and the guarantees of collective security that it offered. The current concerns stem from a perceived move away from these established norms,replaced by a more transactional and perhaps unpredictable approach to foreign policy.

SE: The consul mentions a “transactional” approach to international relations, suggesting that decisions are increasingly based on what benefits the US. Is this a fair assessment of the current geopolitical landscape?

DP: The consul’s assessment highlights a crucial shift. For decades, the US championed a rules-based international order. The perceived shift toward a more transactional approach, where alliances and support are conditional on immediate benefits, introduces considerable instability. This “America First” approach, as exemplified by the quote in the article (“American first, Latvia Last”), raises questions about the reliability of long-standing alliances and the predictability of US actions on the world stage. This transactional approach is a departure from the previous emphasis on shared values and commitment to international norms. the question then becomes, how do smaller nations navigate this world where alliances are less certain?

SE: The consul also expresses concerns about the implications for European security and defense spending. Can you break down the potential economic and social trade-offs for European nations?

DP: The increase in defense spending that the Latvian consul foresees is a direct outcome of heightened uncertainty regarding US commitment to collective security. To answer your question clearly, European countries may face difficult choices. Increased funding for defense will almost certainly compete with funding for social programs, educational initiatives, and infrastructural development. This trade-off between security and social well-being is a significant concern for European policymakers. we’ve also seen instances where these funding priorities clash, forcing governments to make difficult cuts and allocate resources based on perceived threats and risks. This is not a lasting model for long-term stability and prosperity.

SE: The consul uses historical references like Yalta and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to heighten the sense of apprehension. How relevant are these historical parallels to the current situation?

DP: The consul’s references to Yalta and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact are powerful evocations of historical anxieties about great power realignments and the division of spheres of influence. While not direct parallels, they effectively capture the feeling of uncertainty and vulnerability that smaller nations, especially those bordering larger, potentially aggressive powers, could experience. These references bring to mind historical moments where the absence of clear commitments, or the prevalence of power politics at the expense of smaller nations, led to catastrophic consequences. The uncertainty is the most concerning factor,and this fear is easily amplified by analogies to past periods characterized by intense strategic competition and territorial disputes.

SE: What strategies can smaller nations like Latvia adopt to navigate this evolving geopolitical landscape?

DP: Smaller nations face immense challenges in navigating great-power politics. The key is strategic diversification. This includes:

• Strengthening regional alliances: Focusing on partnerships with neighboring countries and like-minded allies can provide critical support and reduce reliance on any single major power.
• Investing in cyber resilience and national security: Small nations are increasingly vulnerable to cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns,requiring focused investment in defense and resilience.
• Maintaining strong economic ties with diverse partners: Reducing reliance on any single trading partner mitigates economic vulnerabilities.
• Actively participating in multilateral forums: Engaging in international organizations like the UN provides a platform to promote national interests and shape the international agenda, as highlighted in the article concerning Latvia’s potential UN Security Council seat.

SE: In closing, Dr. Petrova, what is the overarching message we should take away from the Latvian consul’s concerns?

DP: The Latvian consul’s concerns reflect a basic shift in the international order. The traditional assumptions about US leadership and the reliability of alliances are being challenged. Smaller nations need to adapt to a more unpredictable and competitive habitat, focusing on building resilience, diversifying their partnerships, and actively engaging in multilateral diplomacy. This is an example of the changing times in global leadership and foreign policy.The future of international relations rests on adapting to this new era of uncertainty. Let’s encourage further discussion of these issues below in the comments section! Share your thoughts and perspectives.