The tragedy of Trump v Zelensky

Last week, I questioned how seriously we should take the initial direction of Mr. Trump’s attempt to end the war in Ukraine—an approach that involves openly conceding to Russia’s demand for territorial annexation and a binding commitment to block Ukraine from NATO membership. This was followed by a bizarre attack on Zelensky on X, where the U.S. president accused his Ukrainian counterpart of being a dictator and of instigating the war. On Friday, scenes at the White House made it abundantly clear: we should take it very seriously indeed. On first glance, Noah Smith and Niall Ferguson were right, and I was wrong. The fates of the key players in this drama are deeply intertwined and will converge soon enough, but it’s worth examining them separately.

Ukraine’s situation is growing increasingly dire. Zelensky and his inner circle would have been naïve not to anticipate that a Trump administration would pressure them to end the war under terms difficult to accept. However, even in their worst nightmares, I doubt they foresaw the current debacle. Ukraine now faces not only the near-certain loss of U.S. support for its war effort at a critical moment but also the collapse of any hope for a strong Western security guarantee after a negotiated ceasefire. Such a guarantee is only viable with explicit U.S. backing, and without it, Ukraine must turn to its European neighbors—who, despite accelerating efforts to fill the void, are in no position to offer the same level of protection. Zelensky and his people have demonstrated extraordinary courage, taking their resistance further than many expected. But in the crucial early stages of peace negotiations, diplomacy needed to deliver as well, and on Friday evening, it failed spectacularly. Successful negotiations are not just about substance—they also require engagement with the individuals across the table. On that front, Zelensky fell short, and the consequences could be severe for his country.

Much has been made of the lack of chemistry between Mr. Trump and Zelensky. In the corridors of European and Ukrainian foreign policy offices, the most cynical diplomats are likely already contemplating whether Zelensky’s time as president and wartime leader is nearing its end. That would be an unfair and deeply unjust conclusion to his presidency, yet he must bear some responsibility for the deterioration of relations with the U.S., particularly given his precarious bargaining position. This is true despite the fact that the treatment he and his country endured on Friday was an unnecessary and grossly unjust humiliation at the hands of a White House bully intent on dismantling six decades of U.S. foreign policy doctrine—one interview and one X-post at a time.

For Europe, two stark realities have now crystallized. First, the U.S. appears poised to impose a settlement with Russia without Ukraine or any major EU powers at the table. This will be a Potemkin agreement—one that Putin can discard at his convenience—leaving Europe to deal with the economic, political, and military fallout. Second, the once-reliable U.S. security guarantee, primarily through NATO, is now either defunct or so severely undermined as to be practically meaningless. It is essential to distinguish between two narratives here. On the one hand, it is reasonable for the U.S. to ask its European NATO allies to bolster their domestic defenses—both to fairly share the burden of protecting Europe’s eastern flank and to enable the U.S. to refocus its military posture toward Asia, where China is emerging as a key adversary. On the other hand, it is an entirely different matter for the U.S. to explicitly endorse Russian territorial expansion while simultaneously questioning whether it would intervene to defend its European allies in a conflict with Putin. Increasingly, European capitals are coming to the grim conclusion that the U.S. is heading down the latter path. In other words, Europe must now reckon with not only being abandoned by the U.S. but also with a White House actively working against its interests—seemingly out of sheer spite.

This has sent Europe into a state of panic, and history has shown that moments of existential crisis are when the continent’s red lines and taboos tend to break. In the current context, this means a rapid and dramatic increase in defense spending—accelerating an effort that was already underway before Trump’s second term began. Pick a number, and make it a high one. Europe must now launch a coordinated military investment and industrial mobilization effort that will dwarf the post-COVID recovery funds. This will cost trillions—though spread over time—but given the dire starting position and the urgency of the moment, front-loading is inevitable. Joint EU debt issuance now seems unavoidable; the only question is how big the financial commitment will be. This will pose immense political and economic challenges, requiring sacrifices and provoking fierce debate. Yet Europe has no choice. It must demonstrate both the will and the capability to stand on its own in a world increasingly governed by brute force. At the same time, it must keep the door open for a potential reconciliation with Washington—if that remains possible—while also preparing for negotiations with Putin, which will ultimately be necessary to end the war. Europe must be ready to deliver to Ukraine the same hard message that the U.S. has inelegantly broadcast in recent weeks: full NATO membership is off the table, and territorial concessions to Russia may be unavoidable. Only a dramatic shift in the U.S. position could change this reality—and that seems highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin is following Napoleon’s dictum: never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake. I won’t pretend to know Russia’s precise strategic calculus in light of recent events, but it’s worth considering the choices now before the Kremlin. Compared to continuing a costly military campaign that has yielded little territorial progress over the past six to twelve months—despite Russia’s nominal battlefield advantage—Moscow now has an unparalleled opportunity to divide and weaken the Western alliance in ways that were previously unavailable. The question is: how will it seize this moment? I don’t know the answer, but I am certain that it will—sooner rather than later. Russia now has the option of extricating itself from a botched war of conquest while walking away with a substantial prize: most of eastern Ukraine, along with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. Alternatively, it could exploit the fractures in Western unity to launch a final push toward Kyiv. My guess is that Putin will pursue the former, though I am in no position to judge the relative military strengths at play, let alone Russia’s willingness to escalate further at this stage. Additionally, Moscow now has an unprecedented opportunity to destabilize the European Union and NATO, particularly given that the U.S. president has openly expressed disdain for both institutions. Recognizing this, Europe must now adopt a strategy of divide and conquer—turning the tables on Putin and Trump. The so-called "bromance" between these two egos is not a stable equilibrium. Europe must seek ways to lure Russia into defying Washington or overstepping its bounds.

Finally, in Washington, the underlying truth behind Friday’s events is that Ukraine will have to make compromises—an outcome that both the U.S. and Europe must help Kyiv come to terms with. Yet the White House’s foreign policy is riddled with contradictions. How can it claim to pursue “peace through strength” when it refuses to show strength itself or support those who do? What is the strategic purpose of humiliating Ukraine at a moment of weakness when doing so serves Moscow’s interests—the very regime it claims to be negotiating with next? What is the point of teaching Europe and Ukraine a lesson in power politics if the ultimate consequence is to destabilize a continent in which the U.S. has enormous political and economic capital invested? What does Trump think he can achieve with Putin that he couldn’t accomplish through a united front with Ukraine and Europe? No one in the White House knows the answers to these questions—least of all the president himself. One thing, however, is clear: Trump is determined to secure a swift end to the war, regardless of the long-term consequences. He will broker a disastrous deal for Ukraine and Europe, and when it inevitably collapses, he will blame them both for its failure. A reckless foreign policy blunder of historic proportions—and a tragedy.