Manufactured Hysteria: Europe’s Panic Play to Keep Trump’s America Paying for Ukraine
The autumn of 2025 has been marked by a sudden outbreak of panic across Europe’s eastern flank. Russian drones are said to have violated Polish airspace. Russian MiG-31s allegedly crossed into Estonia. Copenhagen airport was shut down after reports of an unidentified drone. Each incident is magnified in headlines, each one framed as proof that NATO’s eastern frontier is under direct assault.
But look closer, and the pattern is less about Russian aggression than about European anxiety. Behind the hysteria lies a deeper truth: America under Donald Trump is pulling back, and Europe unable to defend itself, unwilling to admit defeat in Ukraine is manufacturing urgency to keep Washington anchored in the theatre it wishes to leave.
Trump’s Posture: Objectives Without Strategy
Donald Trump governs through posture rather than plan. He sets objectives but avoids roadmaps. His objectives in Europe are clear:
- End “endless wars.”
- Make Europeans pay their way.
- Concentrate on China.
In April 2025, his administration signalled the end of direct U.S. funding for Ukraine. No more blank cheques, no more free flows of weapons. Instead, aid would be transactional: Washington would sell arms, but Europe would foot the bill.
Then in early September, the Financial Times revealed a second step: Washington would phase out security assistance for Poland and the Baltic states. These states had relied on U.S. subsidies to maintain defence spending of 3–4% of GDP. Now, they were told to manage it alone.
For Trump’s domestic audience, the message was blunt. America would no longer subsidise European security. The arms industry would still profit, but U.S. taxpayers would not. For Europeans, the message was devastating. The American spine that had always underwritten NATO’s deterrence was being withdrawn.
Europe’s Dependency
The eastern flank states — Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are doubly dependent. Economically, they are net recipients of EU funds, surviving on subsidies from Germany, France, and Italy. Militarily, they depend on the U.S. for logistics, training, and hardware. Remove either pillar and the structure wobbles.
The western donors are equally trapped. Germany, France, and Italy finance the EU budget. They are under economic stress at home. Their publics resist endless commitments. They cannot fund both Ukraine’s war effort and the east’s rearmament. Their instinct is to stall and disguise weakness in rhetoric.
The European Commission is caught in the middle. It issues slogans “Ukraine can win” but behind closed doors, it knows the war is not winnable. The panic in Brussels reflects the collision of dependence and denial.
The NATO 5% Trap
The NATO summit in mid-2025 made matters worse. Allies pledged to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP. It was an ambitious number few can sustain. For Trump, it was perfect: if Europeans are promising 5%, America can reduce its own outlay. For Europeans, it was disastrous: they cannot meet the pledge, they cannot replace depleted stockpiles, and they cannot match Russia’s industrial scale.
Air-defence is the starkest example. Patriots, interceptors, and missile batteries are in short supply. Eastern states poured their systems into Ukraine. The U.S. is simultaneously supplying Israel and Taiwan. Production lines cannot catch up before 2027. Europe promised more than it can deliver, exposing the hollow core of its security posture.
The Fiscal Constraint in Washington
Trump’s withdrawal is not only strategic; it is fiscal. U.S. federal debt has surpassed $37 trillion. Annual interest payments are now $1.1 trillion, greater than the entire defence budget. For a trade-oriented president, this is simple arithmetic: supporting Europe is a negative return on investment. It drains money without delivering gain.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s stance is consistent. America will sell arms, but it will not pay for them. It will posture hawkishly “shoot down jets,” “retake territory” but it will not deploy its own resources. Europe must either defend itself or face exposure.
The Wave of Incidents
It is precisely at this moment April cuts, September withdrawal, the 5% pledge — that the wave of “incidents” begins.
- 9–10 September: Nineteen drones enter Polish airspace. They are Gerbera drones, unarmed decoys, designed to attract air-defence fire. They crash into fields once their fuel is exhausted. Polish investigators confirm they carried no explosives. Yet headlines present them as a grave incursion.
- 19 September: Estonia claims three Russian MiG-31s violated its airspace for twelve minutes. NATO issues a statement of solidarity. Estonia releases a line on a map, not radar evidence. In April, Estonia had passed a law expanding its military authority over its exclusive economic zone, blurring the line between territorial waters and international airspace. Whether the jets crossed into sovereign space is unclear. What is clear is the political use of the claim.
- 22–26 September: Drones reported over Denmark and Norway. Copenhagen airport is shut temporarily. The Danish defence minister calls it “hybrid warfare”; the foreign minister later rules out Article 4. Police investigations suggest the case may have been misidentified. Nonetheless, the story circulates as proof of NATO’s vulnerability.
Each incident follows the same pattern. Limited, ambiguous, or even decoy events are magnified into existential threats. Each is presented as a reason for U.S. presence to continue.
Manufactured Hysteria
This is not to say the incidents are wholly fabricated. Drones do cross borders. Jets do fly provocatively. But the key point is how they are framed. In a Europe facing military bottlenecks, fiscal exhaustion, and American withdrawal, every minor incident becomes an opportunity to cry crisis.
The purpose is transparent: to keep America in.
- Poland and the Baltics want Washington back as guarantor.
- Germany and France want U.S. cover to avoid admitting defeat in Ukraine.
- Brussels wants to hide the incapacity of its own defence industrial base.
By exaggerating threat, Europe seeks to re-Americanise the war.
| Incident | What Happened | Why It Was Harmless / Exaggerated |
|---|---|---|
| Poland Drone Incursion (9–10 Sept 2025) |
Nineteen Gerbera drones entered Polish airspace; four shot down; debris found in villages. No explosives or casualties. | These were decoys, confirmed unarmed. Media framed it as a Russian attack on NATO, though they had no destructive capacity. |
| Estonia MiG-31 Claim (19 Sept 2025) |
Estonia said three MiG-31s crossed its airspace for ~12 minutes. Released only a map line, not radar data. NATO condemned. | Estonia had expanded “warning zones” into EEZ areas earlier in 2025. The jets likely flew in contested space. Lack of radar proof suggests overstatement. |
| Denmark/Norway Drones (22–26 Sept 2025) |
Drone sightings shut Copenhagen airport and briefly disrupted Oslo airspace. Flights delayed; “unidentified objects” cited. | Officials later admitted attribution was unclear. No proven Russian link, no damage. Media inflated it into a NATO-wide scare. |
Trump’s Calculus
Trump sees through this. He knows Europe is dependent. He knows the incidents are magnified for effect. His response is to double down on America First. He will not fund Europe. He will not re-enter Ukraine. He will let the panic rise, while the arms industry sells to those who can pay.
This does not make the situation less dangerous. Panic can escalate into miscalculation. A decoy drone can trigger an Article 4 debate. An ambiguous jet flight can spark a confrontation. Manufactured hysteria may serve European political ends, but it also raises the risk of real conflict.
The Bigger Picture
The hysteria is the symptom of Europe’s deeper crisis. The continent has no strategy, no unity, and no industrial base to match its rhetoric. It is trying to drag America back in to cover its weakness. But America is leaving, constrained by debt and focused on China.
In that gap lies the danger. A Europe that cannot fight, cannot pay, but cannot admit its own limits. A United States that refuses to underwrite failure. And a series of drones and jets, magnified into existential threats, used as props in a desperate bid to hold the alliance together.
The headlines speak of threats. The reality is of weakness. Europe, unable to sustain its own defence, is orchestrating hysteria to keep America in. Trump, constrained by debt and guided by America First, is stepping out. The incidents — drones, jets, “hybrid” threats — are not just military events. They are political theatre, staged to prolong an American presence that is already slipping away.
The real danger is not Russia’s decoys, nor Estonia’s maps. It is Europe’s refusal to confront its own incapacity — and the risk that in trying to drag America back, it provokes a war it cannot fight and America will not pay for.
