In a tumultuous display in the Oval Office, President Trump signaled a shift away from America’s traditional alliances, particularly regarding Ukraine. He admonished President Zelensky, stating he lacked leverage over Putin, while Vice President Vance criticized Zelensky’s approach. This marked a dramatic departure from the prior U.S.-Ukraine partnership, as Trump appears willing to negotiate with Russia, potentially sacrificing Ukraine’s sovereignty for a broader geopolitical realignment. Secretary of State Rubio echoed this sentiment, advocating for U.S. relations with both Russia and China. This confrontation may irreparably damage Western support for Ukraine, to the benefit of Russia, which celebrated Trump’s remarks.
In the past five weeks, President Trump has demonstrated a clear intent to dismantle America’s long-standing alliances with like-minded democracies, opting instead for a strategy focused on unfiltered power negotiations. This shift raises a crucial question: To what extent would he compromise Ukraine in pursuit of this vision?
The dramatic confrontation in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon made that answer apparent.
As Mr. Trump criticized President Volodymyr Zelensky, stating that “you don’t have the cards” to negotiate with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and as Vice President JD Vance chastised the Ukrainian leader for being “disrespectful” and ungrateful, it became evident that the three-year partnership between Washington and Kyiv had been fractured.
The possibility of mending this relationship or re-establishing a deal for the U.S. to profit from Ukrainian minerals, which was ostensibly the purpose of Zelensky’s visit, remains uncertain.
However, the more significant reality is that the hostile exchanges — transmitted to an astonished viewership of Americans and Europeans who were unaccustomed to such overt hostilities, and to Mr. Putin and his aides — clarified that Mr. Trump perceives Ukraine as a hurdle to what he deems a far more essential undertaking.
According to a senior European official who spoke before the altercation, what Mr. Trump truly desires is a normalization of relations with Russia. If this necessitates reinterpreting the narrative of Moscow’s unlawful invasion from three years ago, halting investigations into Russian war crimes, or neglecting to provide Ukraine with enduring security guarantees, Mr. Trump seems prepared to make those concessions.
To anyone paying close attention, this objective was simmering just below the surface as Mr. Zelensky made his way to Washington for his ill-fated visit.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio — once a staunch supporter of Ukraine and its sovereignty, now an ally of Trump’s administration — stated in an interview with Breitbart News that it was time to move beyond war, aiming for a triangular relationship involving the U.S., Russia, and China.
“We’re going to have disagreements with the Russians, but we have to have a relationship with both,” Mr. Rubio commented. He notably refrained from using language suggesting, as he often did in his senatorial days, that Russia was the aggressor, or that failing to penalize its invasion of Ukraine could lead to future threats against NATO nations.
“These are major, powerful nations with nuclear arsenals,” he remarked about Russia and China. “They can exert influence globally. I believe we’ve lost a sense of maturity and rationality in diplomatic relations.”
Mr. Trump has been vocal about his belief that the post-World War II framework, established by the U.S., has eroded American power.
Primarily, this structure valued partnerships with allies committed to democratic capitalism, even when those alliances came at a cost to American consumers. It aimed to prevent power seizures by promoting adherence to international laws and respect for established borders.
In Mr. Trump’s view, such a system allowed smaller and weaker nations to hold leverage over the United States, resulting in Americans shouldering an excessive financial burden to defend allies and enhance their prosperity.
While both Democratic and Republican predecessors underscored that alliances in Europe and Asia represented America’s greatest strategic advantage, fostering peace and facilitating trade, Mr. Trump regarded them as a source of ongoing vulnerability. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he repeatedly questioned why America should extend protection to countries with trade surpluses with the U.S.
Since his second inauguration five weeks ago, Mr. Trump has begun implementing a plan to dismantle that system. This approach is evident in his demands that Denmark relinquish control of Greenland to the U.S., and that Panama restore control of a canal developed by Americans. When questioned about how he planned to commandeer sovereign territory in Gaza for what he termed a “Riviera of the Middle East,” he boldly responded, “Under U.S. authority.”
However, Ukraine represented a more intricate situation. Just 26 months prior, Mr. Zelensky was celebrated in Washington as a champion of democracy, invited to speak before a joint congressional session, and applauded by members from both parties for resisting blatant aggression from a ruthless adversary.
Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance had indicated for months that they believed the American commitment to accepting Ukraine’s sovereignty had waned. Three weeks ago, Mr. Trump remarked in an interview that Ukraine, a former Soviet republic that had embraced autonomy, forged close ties with Western Europe, and aspired to join NATO, “may be Russian someday.”
In a surprising move, Mr. Vance attended the Munich Security Conference two weeks ago and failed to address the need for any armistice or cease-fire to be accompanied by security guarantees for Ukraine or for Russia to face any consequences for its invasion.
Instead, Mr. Vance appeared to endorse far-right parties in Germany and their affiliates across Europe. The rhetoric from the Biden administration about remaining committed to Ukraine “as long as it takes” to deter Russia from extending its offensive further westward was notably absent.
Mr. Zelensky observed all these dynamics — he was present in Munich as well — yet it was evident that he did not perceive the atmosphere as his European allies did. While French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived at the Oval Office with elaborate plans to appease Mr. Trump and illustrate how Europe was increasing its military expenditures, Mr. Zelensky fell for the bait, particularly when Mr. Vance began ridiculing Ukraine’s recruitment efforts.
He became confrontational, asserting to Mr. Trump that the oceans between America and Russia wouldn’t provide eternal safety. Mr. Trump raised his voice, insisting that the Ukrainian leader would be fortunate to secure a cease-fire, suggesting that any terms—or lack thereof—would be preferable to an inescapable defeat.
“I want to see guarantees,” Mr. Zelensky replied. Moments later, he exited the White House, leaving his lunch of rosemary roasted chicken and crème brûlée untouched, the minerals deal unexecuted, and the future of Ukraine’s ability to withstand a renewed Russian assault on Kyiv uncertain.
Almost immediately, global factions reverted to their established positions.
Mr. Macron, aligning himself with the Ukrainian leader, emphasized the need for the West to express gratitude to Ukrainians for their role as the frontline defense of freedom. He was joined by anxious Eastern European allies, led by Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. Nevertheless, several European diplomats privately expressed concerns that the damage inflicted might be irreversible.
Meanwhile, the Russians relished their fortunate circumstances. Former President Dmitri A. Medvedev thanked Mr. Trump for “speaking the truth” to Mr. Zelensky, urging him to halt remaining American aid.
Mr. Rubio was among the first to commend the president for putting Mr. Zelensky in his place, someone the secretary of state had previously lauded as a modern-day Churchill.
“Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before,” Mr. Rubio expressed on social media. “Thank you for putting America First.”
Of course, it is considerably easier to echo Mr. Trump’s favored slogan and dismantle an existing world order than to construct a new one. It took decades to establish the post-World War II regulations of global interaction, and despite its flaws, the system succeeded in its primary goals: preventing great power conflicts and nurturing economic interdependence.
Mr. Trump has yet to articulate what he plans to substitute for these rules, other than suggesting that he would wield America’s military and economic clout to forge agreements — essentially proposing that maintaining peace is as simple as aligning minerals contracts, trade agreements, and perhaps including a few real estate deals.
There is little history to support the idea that this approach alone is effective, particularly with authoritarian leaders like Mr. Putin and President Xi Jinping of China, who adopt a long-term perspective towards democracies they perceive as lacking the sustained resolve necessary to attain challenging goals.
However, based on Friday’s events in the Oval Office, it seems Mr. Trump is convinced that as long as he is in charge, the world will organize itself according to his dictates.