• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Erik Brattberg"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "EP",
  "programs": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Pompeo’s Courtship of Central Europe May Backfire

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo toured Central Europe this week. The United States needs these countries as a buffer against its competitors to the east. But ignoring their drift towards internal repression would be foolish.

Link Copied
By Erik Brattberg
Published on Feb 13, 2019

When U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visited Europe this week, he stopped in Budapest, Bratislava, and Warsaw. The destinations were a window into the Trump administration’s strategy to reengage allies in Central Europe, who are confronting growing pressure from Russia and China.

Devoting more attention to Central Europe is sensible, given the need to keep vulnerable allies close amid rising geopolitical pressure from Russia and China.

But Washington must also use its influence to push back against illiberal trends and democratic backsliding in states such as Hungary and Poland. The Obama administration shunned nationalist, populist leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. By contrast, the Trump administration has concentrated on security relationships, while publicly downplaying the importance of democracy and the rule of law (although Pompeo, to his credit, did meet with Hungarian civil society and promised more U.S. support for independent journalism in Hungary).

The Trump administration views nationalist leaders in Central Europe as likeminded—for instance, when it comes to supporting tough immigration policies. Trump praised both Hungary and Poland in his speech before the UN General Assembly in September 2018, where he delivered a strong nationalist message. Trump’s visit to Warsaw in July 2017 was also interpreted by some in the Polish government as an endorsement of its policies, and a snub against the EU.

However, the swing towards repression in some countries in Central and Eastern Europe is a worrying internal threat to the transatlantic community and the values underpinning it. In Freedom House’s 2019 Freedom in the World rankings, Hungary dropped from “free” to “partly free,” as its independent judiciary, civil society, and media face growing pressures from Orbán’s government.

What’s more: Russia and China stand to benefit from these authoritarian tendencies. Hungary is already a proponent of stronger relations with Vladimir Putin and has sought to prevent EU sanctions against Russia and NATO’s engagement with Ukraine. Similarly, Hungary is openly inviting Chinese investments (including on 5G development) and has tried to block or weaken EU statements concerning China’s actions in the South China Sea, human rights violations, and the Belt and Road Initiative. Hungary’s inability to tackle corruption also provides opportunities for Russian and Chinese influence.

Isolating troublesome Central European allies like Hungary makes little sense. But if the United States only reengages with countries in Central and Eastern Europe on security—without explicitly addressing other concerns—it will damage U.S. interests in the region. To push back against Russia’s and China’s efforts to spread authoritarian influence in Europe, it is ultimately up to the U.S. and EU to show Central and Eastern European countries why Western democratic values and norms are more appealing than authoritarian-style politics and investment.

About the Author

Erik Brattberg

Former Director, Europe Program, Fellow

Erik Brattberg was director of the Europe Program and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He is an expert on European politics and security and transatlantic relations.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    How the Transatlantic Relationship Has Evolved, One Year Into the Biden Administration
      • +11

      Cornelius Adebahr, Dan Baer, Rosa Balfour, …

  • Paper
    China’s Influence in Southeastern, Central, and Eastern Europe: Vulnerabilities and Resilience in Four Countries
      • +1

      Erik Brattberg, Philippe Le Corre, Paul Stronski, …

Erik Brattberg
Former Director, Europe Program, Fellow
Erik Brattberg
Political ReformForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?

    Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.

      Maksim Samorukov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital Ambitions

    Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.

      Aruzhan Meirkhanova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum

    Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.

      Vladimir Solovyov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.