The memorable meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy wasn’t just a diplomatic blunder; it signified the fading chapter of international politics as we’ve known it. As Zelenskyy shifted his focus to a defense summit in London with fellow European leaders, it became all too clear that Trump’s handling of the situation underscored the current US stance on Ukraine’s war and hinted at future US foreign policy directions.
We can’t overemphasize how significant a change this was. Since World War II’s conclusion, the United States has been at the helm of an intricate network of international institutions, from NATO to the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. These partnerships forged a security framework that proved more beneficial than costly, fostering political stability and granting US and European businesses unparalleled market access. The US was quite content to share the spoils of this order with allies, even extending some of the benefits to rivals.
Indeed, the US enjoyed the lion’s share of advantages: it defined trade conditions and projected influence globally. The system, though not perfectly equitable, aimed to offer widespread benefits. Yet, it drew its fair share of critics, especially from countries like Russia and China. Their leaders often complained about perceived injustices, clamoring for more substantial representation. Meanwhile, the US and its allies grew complacent, even as their military resources dwindled. Russia and China, on the other hand, were busy forming alliances with like-minded propagandists and officials, all united in their quest to pinpoint and exploit Western vulnerabilities and promote political discord.
Recent years have seen unprecedented challenges to Western cohesion. Brexit, nationalist uprisings across Europe, and notably, Trump’s rise have strained transatlantic relationships and shaken security agreements. His skepticism towards NATO and traditional alliances has swayed American public opinion, with many now viewing international partnerships as more trouble than they’re worth.
So when Trump candidly told Zelenskyy, “make a deal or we’re out,” it wasn’t entirely unexpected. Trump consistently treats foreign policy like a business transaction, favoring quick returns over long-term stability. His disinterest in championing democratic ideals or combating authoritarian forces, particularly in Russia, is evident. Trump’s foreign strategy is characterized by unpredictability and personal gain.
His reluctance to directly challenge aggressive nations further illustrates his transactional mindset. He seems willing to barter away the security of others for personal advantage. As Zelenskyy pointed out, the US benefits from geographical isolation, a luxury Europe does not share. Trump’s preference to let Europe handle its own defense overlooks the crucial interconnectedness of European stability with US economic and strategic interests. By cozying up to Vladimir Putin, Trump risks undermining a global order that has largely benefited the US. Ironically, the imperial, influence-driven world that Putin desires would likely be disadvantageous to America.
During discussions, Trump likened his handling of foreign affairs to a card game, yet it’s clear his intentions might involve convincing Republican skeptics to halt sending military support to Ukraine and lift Russian sanctions. He and Putin might paint an enticing, albeit dubious, picture of economic opportunities in Russia, thus swapping stable European markets for the uncertain Russian landscape.
Europe faces a stark choice: either passively accept this shift and hope Russia’s ambitions stay limited or take charge of its defense and decision-making in a world without US backing. Historically, European unity has been tough to achieve, and the stakes are now at an all-time high.
For Ukraine, the road ahead is daunting. Despite the setbacks, Zelenskyy wisely resisted being strong-armed into an unfavorable ceasefire driven by Russian terms. Such an agreement, lacking proper security assurances, would be catastrophic. Although Trump might declare a diplomatic triumph, justifying reduced military aid and lifting Russia sanctions under the guise of peace, Putin’s past breaches of ceasefires mean that any ease in sanctions would only allow Russia to regroup for future attacks on a weakened Ukraine. While resisting Trump’s pressure might result in similar scenarios for Ukraine, at least it remains free of a lopsided deal.
Even with diminished US backing, Ukraine’s military and diplomatic standing is more robust than in early 2022. Although the situation looks bleak, international politics is fluid, and Trump is no stranger to reversing his stance. He might yet reconcile with Ukraine, sealing mineral agreements, and repairing ties with European allies. However, with its sovereignty in jeopardy, Ukraine cannot gamble on possibilities.
