Opinion Piece
What has been happening with Trump and Ukraine over the past week?
In the fallout of a calamitous meeting with President Zelenskyy last Friday, Donald Trump has just announced – to thunderous applause both in the Fox News studio and the Kremlin – a suspension of US aid to Kyiv. The US is a key provider of military equipment and infrastructure, without which Ukraine will struggle to hold back a rapid Russian advance.
In explanation, a White House official commented: “The President has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well.” Other members of the administration have said that they are trying to force peace and bring Russia to the negotiating table.
This latest development comes after a dramatic falling-out between the leaders of the two countries on Friday, and threatening remarks made by Trump. “It should not be that hard a deal to make,” Trump said on Sunday. “It could be made very fast. Now maybe somebody doesn’t want to make a deal, and if somebody doesn’t want to make a deal, I think that person won’t be around very long.”
After labelling Zelenskyy a ‘dictator’ and cutting him out of America’s proposed peace talks with Russia, no one was expecting the encounter between the Ukrainian leader and President Trump on Friday to be convivial; but the disastrous and shocking episode that ensued, and its knock-on effects, have been beyond any worst-case scenario thought possible.
In another one of his erratic and destabilising manoeuvres, Trump veered wildly from a week of relatively tame meetings with French President Macron and UK Prime Minister Starmer to an outright verbal assault on what had only months ago been a key strategic US partner.
Before an assembled press, the two leaders along with Vice-President J.D. Vance clashed spectacularly, marking the latest sign that Trump seems more keen on gunning for US allies than its traditional adversaries. This twist of fate comes at a time when the difficult situation created by Trump’s desire to achieve a quick peace and his repeated criticisms of Ukraine was beginning to look up for Zelenskyy. Only days ago, Trump had backtracked on his ‘dictator’ comment and softened his demands to extort Ukraine of its minerals.
Having referred to the necessity of US security guarantees to prevent future aggression, and explaining that Putin’s diplomacy could not be trusted, Zelenskyy was cut-off by Vance, who chastised him for trying to “litigate this in front of the American media” and not “thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict.” Even so, Vance’s interjection couldn’t help but give the impression that it was him and his President who were playing to the media, not Zelenskyy.
Trump then proceeded to jump on the beration bandwagon, haranguing Zelenskyy: “you are in no position to dictate how we feel” and “you allowed yourself to be in a very bad position” – crass comments from a man who refused and condemned a country that was illegally invaded by a larger imperialist power.
“You don’t have the cards right now; with us you have the cards,” added Trump, to which Zelenskyy despaired: “We’re not playing cards!” This repeated use of ‘cards’, which came up again and again in the heated exchange, builds upon the President’s idea of diplomacy as a transactional game; to him, it’s an art of the deal, apprentice-like business (just earlier in the meeting, Trump said “I’m a businessman, I make deals”) in which he needs to bluff himself into the position of power broker, whether in his mind or in the perception of his MAGA base.
But the attacks did not stop there, with Trump speaking over Zelenskyy to say: “You’re gambling with millions of lives! You’re gambling with World War III! And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country – this country.”
This is when Vance, followed shortly by Trump, employed the argument that Zelenskyy was ungrateful, a repeated theme, with Vance questioning him why he hadn’t thanked the President during the meeting.
Trump later told Zelenskyy that “your country’s in big trouble”. In response, the flustered and frustrated Ukrainian leader replied: “I know!”. He was about to repeat this response with understandable exasperation when he was forced into silence once again by Trump’s declaration that: “You’re not winning this. You have a damned good chance of coming out OK because of us.”
After Trump repeated his blatantly false claim that the US sent Ukraine $350 billion in aid (the actual figure is closer to $120 billion) when arguing to Zelenskyy’s obvious concession that Ukraine would not have survived without US support, Vance concluded: “you know you’re wrong.” To this, Trump turned confidently to the camera, employing his bizarre hand gestures, and said: “Well, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. […] That’s why I kept this going so long”.
What does the freeze on aid mean?
Now that Trump’s fantasy $350 billion has become a rounded 0, everyone is asking two main questions: what does this mean for Ukraine, and will it lead to peace and lasting security like the President asserts?
While the US may not provide the majority of aid or military equipment to Ukraine as Trump seems to suggest, the material that it does send is disproportionately vital to the Ukrainian war effort. For one, the US provides Ukraine with advanced missile defence and long-range missile technology which has been central to giving it the capacity to withstand Russian assaults while exercising retaliatory capabilities.
Additionally, the centrality of US aid packages to Ukraine was made clear when Congress stalled one of Biden’s tranches in the Summer of 2023, which placed Ukraine in a dangerous and desperate position against the Russian onslaught in Kharkiv.
However, perhaps most critically, Ukraine’s innovative war tactics have relied on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite serviced for advanced coordination with the frontlines and to direct its highly effective fleet of cheap drones. Given the US Department of Defense was essentially footing this bill, and Elon Musk is very unlikely to take up the mantle as evidenced by his closeness to the administration and his open criticisms of Zelenskyy, there are serious doubts about Ukraine’s long-term access to this infrastructure.
But Trump has not initiated this cut because he thinks that Zelenskyy can operate alone, or that the Europeans will step-up fully to support him; rather, according to the administration, the move is part of a broader diplomatic push to force both Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table. The trouble is that while Ukraine will inevitably struggle without such a huge proportion of Western aid, Russia has no axe hanging over its head. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that it would concede any peace deal that wouldn’t constitute an outright victory of aggressive and illegal expansionism over the rules-based international order.
In fact, according to the Institute for the Study of War, “Russia would leverage the cessation of US aid to Ukraine to seize more territory in Ukraine and attempt to exhaust European support — the approach Putin has outlined in his theory of victory.” (FT)
Similarly, Kelly Magsamen, who was chief of staff to Lloyd Austin when he was US defence secretary, responded to reports of a cessation of aid to Ukraine by commenting: “This could cripple Ukraine within weeks . . . We would basically be handing Ukraine to Putin.” (FT)
Is US economic involvement in Ukraine an effective security guarantee?
As mentioned several times by Vance in the meeting with Zelenskyy, the White House believes that the only effective long-term security guarantee will be a strong US economic presence in the country. Accordingly, Trump has repeatedly refused to include American security guarantees as part of any peace deal; instead, the only offer he has proffered is a deal for joint US-Ukraining exploitation of the country’s mineral wealth.
Nevertheless, as Zelenskyy aptly pointed out, there was significant presence of US companies and workers in 2014 when Putin invaded Crimea. After this incursion, Europeans and Americans alike tried to mollify Putin with economic ties, while drawing a harder line on Ukraine, indicating that it was a nation free to align itself with them. But again, in 2022, Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine. So, this begs the question: how is this time any different?
What is to stop Putin from seeking another blow against Western power and investment with a third invasion, especially if it involves undermining a heightened US economic presence? Putin has hardly shown himself to trustworthy with even the smallest of agreements, and his temporary benevolence and bonhomie in the eyes of Trump cannot ever be more than an instrument by which he plays the new administration to his cynical advantage.
Is Zelenskyy not thankful enough?
Attacking Zelenskyy for such a petty matter as gratitude from the comfortable armchairs of the Oval Office while 20% of the Ukrainian leader’s country is occupied by a foreign power was a rather low blow, all things considered. But is there any validity to this line of attack?
Well firstly, attempting to suggest Zelenskyy has not offered his thanks for US support would be false: CNN has found at least 33 counts him thanking the nation, several of which directly referred to President Trump and the work of his administration.
Additionally, the suggestion that Zelenskyy’s wearing of military attire at the formal meeting with the US President was disrespectfull is a rather shallow criticism. Zelenskyy stands first and foremost, as to be expected, in solidarity with his own soldiers; he stayed in Kyiv, when Russian forces were closing in and the city was under bombardment, and he continues to wear his military drab in a show of support. With all Trump’s words about representing the everyday people and fighting a detached elite, there seems to be very little substance and a great deal of hypocrisy behind this argument.
1 Comment