Trump and Zelensky: Is the damage irreparable?
US President Donald Trump and the Republicans gave many indications that they were not fans of the Biden-era foreign policy towards Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which was sticking with Ukraine for "as long as it takes." Before his second inauguration, what Trump would do with US military support for Ukraine was a tense topic under his "America First" transactional foreign policy. Then it really exploded, much beyond the worst nightmare of European leaders. Vice-President JD Vance and Trump attacked Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, with Trump going on to accuse Zelensky of playing with "World War III." During the internationally televised meltdown, the message was clear, if it had not been before: in the current US foreign policy, the US is only interested in supporting Ukraine if it serves the current president and his administration's broader political goals.
Underpinning what was largely an unstrategic—not to mention immoral—and ill-tempered treatment of the Ukrainian leader, is Trump's larger vision that the post-World War II-era geopolitics is one that has led to what he calls "America's decline." For Trump, it's always, "What's in it for me?" And that policy is framed as "America First." But Trump's notions about what is to his advantage remains questionable. He believes that his country has the power to secure any deal under him, similar to Zelensky's foe, Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has broken ranks with European leaders on Putin. Before Zelensky's visit, he called the Ukrainian leader a dictator, and said Putin should be allowed to return to G7, from which he was expelled in 2014 after annexing Crimea.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. On Monday, the US president paused all military aid to Ukraine, as reported by Bloomberg. Prior to the news, Trump had again taken to social media to chide Zelensky's assessment of the war with Russia. In a social media post, pointing to recent comments in which Zelensky said the end of his country's war with Russia remains far off, Trump said the US "will not put up with it for much longer," adding that Zelensky's assessment was "the worst statement that could have been made." To reporters on Monday afternoon, Trump continued to suggest that Zelensky "doesn't want to make a deal," and that one could "be made very fast." Trump went on to say he believed that "Russia wants to make a deal," and that "certainly, the people of Ukraine want to make a deal. They've suffered more than anybody else."
The warnings from the meltdown—and the clear fact that Trump openly dislikes Zelensky—extended to Europe. Zelensky left early; the deal to offer Ukraine's rarest minerals to the US remained unsigned on the table. European leaders have stepped up, and the UK has taken on an urgency to seize the moment. The UK signed a $2 billion deal with Ukraine and paved a way for the country to tap into Russian frozen assets, which have been under Europe's jurisdiction. The deal will allow Ukraine to use export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, which will be made in Belfast.
On Monday, while Trump continued to sideline Ukraine, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also declared a four-point plan for Ukraine, which included a "coalition of the willing" that would come together to draw up a peace plan to end the war. He said he would present it to the US president for his support. Unlike NATO and other alliances, "a coalition of willing" is designed to be palatable to the US president in the sense of nation-states that are willing to join in by not sending in their troops. The UK and France have mentioned that they are willing to commit troops in the event of a peace deal.
Starmer, European leaders, and Zelensky reiterated that the success of a peace deal would need strong US backing. Starmer told the UK members of parliament that Trump's commitment to achieving peace in Ukraine is "sincere." As the British prime minister spoke of the "heavy lifting" that Europe would have to do but reiterated the need for US support in the House of Commons, the US president posted on social media, saying, "Europe… stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the US—probably not a great statement to have been made in terms of a show of strength against Russia. What are they thinking?"
Trump's strangely antagonistic statements towards Europe on the issue of Ukraine, along with the bullying of Zelensky, has generated rife speculations of US military aid cuts in the media. According to analysts, large spending cuts would definitely result in greater loss of life and could easily result in Ukraine losing the war.
The war is currently stalemated, but Russia has the initiative. Ukraine's defences on the eastern front are weak, though not breaking; it retains an enclave in Russia's Kursk region. Russia has made small but continuous gains in Ukraine's east since the Ukrainian counteroffensive halted in November 2023, but at a high cost. In 2024, the Russians suffered more than 420,000 casualties, and the combat losses since 2022 are set to cross one million by mid-year, and Putin has not yet called for a second mobilisation. The US provides Ukraine with the full spectrum of equipment that a military needs.
To understand the importance of the US, militarily for Ukraine: the packages run the gamut from heavy weapons to munitions—artillery shells and air defence missiles—to medical equipment and cold weather gear supplies. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), recent packages appear to provide the monthly production of equipment that is in short supply in the US, such as artillery shells, air defence systems, and anti-tank weapons. Around a dozen HIMARS to boost Ukrainian firepower and a dozen National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) for air defence were contracted in 2022 and will soon appear on the battlefield in Ukraine.
The focus on military equipment should not discount the "soft" support—training and intelligence data, for example—that the US provides. Although such support cannot be counted in the same way that equipment can, it has been critical in building Ukraine's military capabilities, and Europe cannot replace the same intelligence as to when Russia would attack or not.
Trump's approach to the so-called "peace deal," which he keeps referring to, has so far included dialogue with Putin. On February 12, Donald Trump said Ukraine would not recover all its territories or join NATO, and said he would meet with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. On February 13, Trump broke ranks with G7 leaders, who expelled Russia after it annexed Crimea in 2014, and said Putin should be allowed to return. For Trump, his path to "peace" between Russia and Ukraine is an image of himself standing between the countries. He has not agreed to provide any security guarantees that Starmer has spoken of, and solely focused on the deal to open up Ukrainian minerals to US companies, arguing that the presence of US workers in Ukraine itself would discourage Russia from attacking or encroaching on the Ukrainian territory.
But if Trump's ultimate goal is normalisation with Moscow, and he is willing to make that deal, where is the line where he would settle with Putin? Vladimir Putin is not a reliable ally, with the robust track record of turning back on agreements, and if Trump wants to rewrite the history of the US and Russia, what are the concessions he would be willing to settle on with Russia? If those concessions come at the cost of Ukraine's sovereignty, neither Ukraine nor Europe would be onboard. On Monday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters, "We see that the collective West has begun to partially lose its unity."
While Zelensky has said the US-Ukraine relationship is salvageable, and Europe refuses to—on the diplomatic front—reconsider the US as a steady ally, the prospects for Ukraine remain as bleak as ever. Trump continues his divisive language, but as we have seen before, his actions are often divorced from his words. US relations with Russia have always enjoyed a rare bipartisan consensus, even during recent times, despite talks of aid cuts. But the current atmosphere seems to have upended the earlier equation—for now. After the fiery meeting that drew backlash, Trumps cabinet, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others, continue to back him and have vaguely said that the efforts to end the war need a "reset." It is unclear whether the entire administration remains aligned with Trump on whatever position he has on normalising relations with Russia, but his critics have accused him of essentially selling out Ukraine.
In the coming days, the best case scenario would be the continuation of US and European aid to stabilise front lines, defend Russian attacks, and find a footing for a negotiated settlement, and perhaps Russia would be more willing to make a deal as its cost of war piles up, as casualties are looking to surpass a million. What will happen is frankly too soon to tell, but the way the meeting-turned-shouting match between Zelensky and Trump blew up on live television—juxtaposed with the new tone of US foreign policy—the writing is on the wall: expect the unexpected.
Ramisa Rob is in-charge of Geopolitical Insights at The Daily Star.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
We welcome your contributions and analysis of global events, and responses to our articles. To submit articles to Geopolitical Insights, please send an email to [email protected].
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
Comments