We must be honest—first and foremost with ourselves. Letting go of illusions is the cornerstone of any effective strategy. While geopolitics is a complex game of 3D chess, the new US administration appears to be playing something closer to Monopoly mixed with a shell game, all the while accusing Ukraine’s president of gambling with high stakes despite a weak hand. At this point, everyone is losing—except Russia and its allies.
On Friday, the Oval Office staged the opening act of a campaign to discredit aid to Ukraine, casting it as a country that “doesn’t want peace.” This came on the heels of an ongoing smear campaign, from portraying Zelensky as a ‘dictator’ to using corruption as a pretext for cutting assistance and insisting that Ukraine’s victory is not an option. The most cynical part, however, was the abusive tone of the communication. It not only lacks any semblance of diplomacy but also paints the victim of aggression as ungrateful and at fault for refusing to comply with plans made for it—plans that could threaten its very survival.
Ukraine is, in effect, being forced to express gratitude for the absence of security guarantees—even in return for its own natural resources—to repay a debt that doesn’t exist and to stand by as a strategy unfolds to impose an unjust peace.
In other words, it is being pushed towards capitulation, told not to interfere in geopolitical manoeuvres where sacrificing a 33-year-old nation is deemed acceptable. Take, for instance, the pursuit of cooperation in the Arctic, where even greater reserves of natural resources await exploitation.
Facts to acknowledge
The United States is stepping back from its role as the world’s policeman—not in the name of restraint, but for control over even more resources. In this new world order, there is little space for humanistic values. Meanwhile, interests severed from any ethical foundation have always resulted in history’s darkest nightmares.. The previous profit-driven race—packaged in the myth of the “end of history” and the promise of globalisation as a pathway to prosperity and peace—has, in the end, made the US one of the chief architects of China’s rise.
Now, Washington is pinning its hopes on weakening the growing alignment between Russia and China—an ill-conceived strategy, given that such a partnership can only be derailed by outright Chinese aggression against Russia, echoing the old Germany–USSR dynamic. But it is Russia that stands to gain most from America’s short-sightedness, using the distraction to rebuild its economic base—and, by extension, its military strength. Western companies are already trickling back, or being quietly welcomed, into the Russian market.
Washington refuses to recognise a hard truth: every past attempt to “reset” relations with Russia has only bolstered its economy, fuelling both internal repression and external aggression. Decades of perceived omnipotence still shape America’s worldview, as if an ocean could insulate it from the aftershocks of a global geopolitical earthquake. Yet President Trump insists the US is finally on the right track—for the first time in 27 years.
For Washington, the choice between averting World War III and supporting a country on another continent is, in its eyes, a simple one. Ukrainians may joke about Russia’s nuclear threats, but their dark humour is little more than a coping mechanism.
If the US president’s animosity towards his Ukrainian counterpart eclipses what remains of common sense, only China may stand between the Kremlin and its final solution to the “Ukrainian question.”
Before meeting Zelensky, President Trump declared, “I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker.” Yet after the much-hyped reception in the Oval Office, his tone shifted: “I don’t want to get into a ten-year war… I’m looking for immediate peace. [Zelensky wants to keep fighting], we’re not going to do that—not for this country… We either end this war, or they keep fighting [without American support], and we’ll see what happens… Without us, he won’t win.”
Since Russia first attacked Ukraine in 2014, the US has done—and will continue to do—everything possible to avoid direct military confrontation with Moscow, no matter the cost to others. Washington has acknowledged Ukraine’s vision of victory in political rhetoric, but not in action.
NATO’s doors have remained either firmly shut to Ukraine or left just ajar enough to suggest a possibility that never materialised. The only realistic path forward is for Kyiv to invest in its own defence industry while pushing for a European Army or a Coalition of the Willing—countries prepared to back Ukraine outside the NATO framework. Its most reliable allies are clear: the Baltic states, Northern Europe, the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Canada, and a handful of others.
But is this enough, given that Europe’s efforts to rebuild its defence capabilities have progressed at a glacial pace since 2014? We may soon find out, especially if events take a turn for the worse. As the global order fractures, the number of good outcomes is far smaller than the bad ones—a reality starkly illustrated in Scenarios Ukraine-2032: Ten Years After the Full-Scale Invasion.
The US has few remaining levers to pressure Moscow beyond those it has already deployed over the past decade. There is no effective strategy to enforce peace, nor any appetite to send American troops to Ukraine. Instead, the current approach leans more on pressuring Ukraine than Russia—urging it to accept the “realities” shaped by years of short-term thinking and self-imposed constraints.
The desire to appear both a strong leader and a peacemaker—particularly in contrast to the previous US president—has created friction, and not with the leader of the aggressor state, but with the president of a country fighting for its survival. Zelensky cannot sign what would amount to a capitulation without security guarantees or at least some measure of justice.
Ukraine has little real leverage over the US. When Washington abandoned the language of values and strategic interests, Kyiv shifted its appeal to an economic argument—but to little effect. The issue is not simply how America responds to provocation, but its inability to ignore it. President Macron, by contrast, navigated the situation more deftly—largely because France does not pose as many political headaches for the current US administration as Ukraine does.
After the diplomatic eruption in the Oval Office, Trump took to Truth Social, declaring: “President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he believes our presence gives him a major advantage in negotiations. I don’t want an advantage—I want PEACE.”
A renewed push for elections in Ukraine now seems likely. While Ukrainian civil society organisations continue to set out why holding democratic elections during wartime is impossible, there may still be efforts to lower the bar in hopes of replacing ‘intransigent’ leadership. The chaos of an election campaign—amplified by Russian information warfare—offers a well-worn playbook for destabilisation, political manipulation, and foreign interference.
How bad is it?
In troubled times, telling the truth is no easy task. But as the German Lutheran pastor and anti-fascist Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.”
American diplomat Daniel Fried observed that the White House confrontation sent shockwaves through European capitals, sparking a surge of sympathy for Zelensky and derailing a peace process that had appeared to be gathering momentum.
European leaders were quick to respond to the diplomatic fallout, reaffirming their commitment to Ukraine. Statements of support poured in from France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Norway, Finland, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Belgium, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Ireland. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also joined the chorus, underscoring the breadth of international backing for Kyiv.
“Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people,” wrote European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on social media. “Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.”
French President Emmanuel Macron stated that support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia after its full-scale invasion three years ago were justified and called on America to stand by the Ukrainians, who, he said, “are fighting for their dignity, independence, children, and the security of Europe.”
Friedrich Merz, the likely next Chancellor of Germany, pledged his unwavering support for Ukraine, saying he would stand by the country “in both good times and difficult times.” He stressed, “We must never confuse the aggressor with the victim in this terrible war.”
The President of Hungary also weighed in, stating that strong leaders are those who advocate for peace. His stance echoed that of many Republicans, who argue that prioritising America is a hallmark of strong leadership.
In the US, reactions were split. The meeting angered Democrats, who were taken aback by the behaviour of Trump and Vice President Vance. Meanwhile, most Republicans who commented directed their ire at Zelensky. A number of Republicans chose to remain silent or voiced disappointment at the lack of substance in the meeting. Those who did criticise, however, did not hold back.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to apologise, suggesting that Zelensky “maybe doesn’t want a peace deal. He says he does, but maybe he doesn’t.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, as expected, backed the US president’s stance, emphasising that Trump is the one “who puts America first.” “Thank you, President Trump — the days when America was used and disrespected are over,” Johnson said. He also added that the “war provoked by Russia” must “immediately end,” and that only Trump “can bring these two countries to long-lasting peace,” a truth that Zelensky must recognise.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz took to X, stating: “President Trump is trying to achieve peace and this economic deal was part of it. Instead, President Zelensky chose to come into the Oval Office and downplay American contributions to defending Ukraine and disrespect our country. Too many people are dying to keep demanding more.”
“He must either fundamentally change or go,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, who has long supported Ukraine. “Zelensky has made it almost impossible to convince the American people that he is a good investment.”
Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro voiced support for Ukraine, writing, “The Oval Office should be a place where we advance American values – not where we retreat from them. When the President and Vice President attacked President Zelenskyy today, they served to undermine the safety and security of America and our national security interests. I support a diplomatic end to this war. Achieving this requires an honest reckoning of who started the war and who the aggressor is, and to that question, there is only one answer: Russia.”
Don Bacon, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the Republican Party, commented on the event: “A bad day for America’s foreign policy. Ukraine wants independence, free markets and rule of law. It wants to be part of the West. Russia hates us and our Western values. We should be clear that we stand for freedom.”
Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, expressed hope for the signing of the agreement. “I remain hopeful that we can still achieve a real and lasting peace in Ukraine that ensures Ukraine will be free from further Russian aggression. I also urge President Zelensky to sign the mineral deal immediately. It will create an economic partnership between the United States and Ukraine. It is in both of our interests to get this deal done.”
Such criticism forms part of a broader rebuke of the current White House Administration’s approach to Russia. However, the Democrats have similarly lacked a clear strategy to compel Putin into a sustainable peace, relying instead on the hope that he will eventually exhaust his resources and come to his senses—something that has never been characteristic of him.
Earlier, Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, a Democrat and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed concern that “The president is abandoning our support for Ukraine and seems not to understand what a murderous dictator Vladimir Putin is.”
John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to President Trump during his first term, commented on X: “The U.S. on one side with Russia and North Korea, while all our NATO allies are on the other side, is an embarrassment. Trump isn’t playing multidimensional chess here, he’s just getting it wrong.”
President Zelensky thanked European leaders and extended special gratitude to the U.S., writing, “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you POTUS, Congress, and the American people,” in response to accusations of ingratitude. “Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”
In the end, only time and Ukraine’s resilience will show the true consequences of just another round of unprecedented events.
