 "Trump-Zelenskyy implosion: Implications of US pulling the plug on Ukraine")
Rarely in recent times, where systems, norms, and interests dominate, has the fate of a nation been so dependent on a single relationship. When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy entered the Oval Office, he needed to repair a deep rift between him and American President Donald Trump, who in the previous week had called him a ‘dictator’. But Trump had softened his tone after recently meeting with the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the French President Emmanuel Macron, both of whom spoke about the need for an enduring peace agreement that would deter future Russian aggression. Hence, the meeting held the future of US support for Ukraine’s defence against Russia.
But on February 28, the world witnessed something that normally takes place behind closed doors. It was a meeting in the Oval Office that was meant to ease tensions but instead descended into a televised shouting match. By the end, Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington, Oksana Markarova, was visibly disappointed.
The press conference was cancelled, and a deal giving the US access to Ukraine’s critical minerals was not signed. As Zelenskyy drove back to his plane for an early departure, Trump delivered a terse message on social media accusing Zelenskyy of being ‘not ready for peace if America is involved’.
The fact is that Trump and Zelenskyy have fundamentally different visions for how Russia’s war in Ukraine should end. The breakdown in relations between them has now brought many questions to the fore.
What are the implications of the US pulling the plug as far as assistance to Ukraine goes? Will this result in a wedge within NATO? And finally, can peace talks continue with Ukraine unwilling to enter into any talks? There are, of course, other options that are also being spoken about, the first being a regime change in Kyiv with the new leadership willing to enter into negotiations.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsImplications of the US Pulling the Plug
Trump has engaged directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin while sidelining European allies while joining a handful of countries, which include Russia (of course), Iran, and North Korea, in voting against a UN resolution condemning Putin’s aggression. Yet despite this new geopolitical reality, and despite month after month of gruelling fighting that has Russian forces taking territory by the day, Ukrainians themselves remain deeply resistant to accepting an end to the war that would sacrifice their country’s territory and sovereignty.
Currently, the war is stalemated, but Russia has the initiative. Ukraine’s defences on the eastern front are bending but not breaking, and it retains an enclave in Russia’s Kursk region.
The fact is that Ukraine needs a steady flow of weapons, munitions, and supplies to continue its resistance, and to quote President Zelenskyy, has “a low chance to survive without the support of the United States”. While fresh funding is unlikely to be announced by the US, the main question is whether Trump will allow American equipment to flow to Ukraine from previously announced commitments.
Military aid funds have been committed, but the equipment is in different stages along the delivery pipeline. While the Europeans have committed around $40 billion of military aid, that has not yet been delivered.
Though discussion of military aid generally focuses on major weapons, the key is quantity, not particular systems. In addition to weapons, militaries in combat need ammunition of all sorts, from small arms to artillery to tanks and missiles, and supplies like vehicles, night vision devices, and spares. The key, therefore, is to maintain the flow for all weapon systems to ensure their serviceability.
Apart from this, there is other crucial support—training and intelligence data, for example—that the US provides. This is critical in building Ukraine’s military capabilities. Training encompasses not just the operation of donated Western equipment but also for individuals and units. Intelligence information has enabled Ukraine to understand the strategic picture better, what Russia is doing and intends to do, and the tactical level, where to fire its long-range munitions. Elimination of these can affect Ukraine’s military effort. Finally, there is the much-touted communications provided by Elon Musk’s Star Link. What if this is denied?
The Europeans might replace the lost support, but they are already supplying as much as they can, given the deteriorated state of their defence industry. But the truth is that the US has capabilities and scales that the Europeans lack. Hence, there is a sense of pessimism, which was clearly expressed by Vice President JD Vance when he stated that “Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages.”
It has therefore been assessed by some analysts that the effects of a US aid cutoff “would definitely result in far greater loss of life and could easily result in Ukraine losing the war”.
President Zelenskyy may have bought time as far as signing a peace deal is concerned, but will this result in better terms of a negotiated settlement? That is a moot question. Further, will it be enough to hold ground as Russia continues pressing its offensive?
Views from Europe
President Trump, in his meeting with Prime Minister Starmer of the UK, was unequivocal about America’s future role in European affairs: ‘I’m not going to make security guarantees… We’re going to have Europe do that.’ President Trump is clearly willing to force Europe’s hand and treat US commitments as subject to conditions rather than one bound by principles.
But the reality is that President Trump is threatening to annex Greenland, impose tariffs on trade, and is now abandoning Ukraine.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola all told Zelenskyy in a joint post: “Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace.”
The Bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, meanwhile, said it was clear that “the free world needs a new leader”. This is easier said than done, as the US has been the strongest supporter of Europe during World War II and thereafter, starting with the Marshall Plan.
For the first time, European leaders are uncertain whether the US remains committed to NATO and to the American leadership role in it. Will they therefore be able to step up their support in a meaningful way by providing Ukraine with long-term security guarantees and potentially be ready to put boots on the ground to help secure a lasting peace? Or will differences of opinion and bureaucracy among member states destroy its ability to play the leadership role it should be playing?
For Russia, the spat was a diplomatic triumph, as it has driven a wedge between Ukraine and the US and is more advantageous for Moscow, as it has also driven a wedge within NATO. It brings the Kremlin closer to what it wants most of all: Russia and the US negotiating about ‘Ukraine without the Ukrainians’,—a twenty-first-century version of the Yalta Agreement at the end of World War II. No wonder Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council, wrote on Telegram that Trump had given Ukraine a “strong slap on the wrist”.
The Views on President Zelenskyy
There are many views on President Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump. Of course, there are those that see him as a president standing up for the sacrifices of his people and to ensure that his territorial integrity remains intact. Someone brave who has the courage to stand up to both President Putin and President Trump.
Then there are those who feel that he was compelled to say what he did by his European backers to prevent a settlement engineered by the US, which would have entailed handing over Ukraine’s rare minerals to them.
Yet there are those who feel that Zelenskyy’s survival in office is dependent on the continuation of war. He is unpopular, and a ceasefire without any gains for Ukraine would see him being replaced once elections are held after the war. He is therefore fighting for his survival rather than for the interests of his country.
All three have an element of truth, but it seems to be that Ukraine today has been caught in the tectonic shift of US foreign policy under a new president and is paying the price for being a proxy.
Conclusion
In the fallout with Zelenskyy and the end of US support for the war effort, the Trump administration has not only shaken Ukraine but has also called into question some of the bedrock assumptions that have formed the basis of the transatlantic relationship since World War II.
The bottom line is that Ukraine wants its territory back and wants to be part of NATO or be given security guarantees, but it does not have the money or weapons to stand on its own. Russia feels Ukraine is historically a part of imperialist Russia and sees a red line in it being part of NATO.
Europe, led by liberal democracies, kept harping on a sense of entitlement as far as its comforts and views are concerned but was not willing to spend on its security requirements. The US, on the other hand, feels it needs to recover its investments in Ukraine by controlling its minerals. And in its quest to make Make America Great Again, it is unwilling to keep footing the security bill of Ukraine. Apart from that, it also needs to focus on the threat from China and continue its backing of Israel.
Marco Rubio, once a strong supporter of Ukraine, wrote, “Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before.” The fact is that Trump is viewing all this from a financial perspective. No wonder he gave Ukrainian President Zelenskyy an ultimatum: “You either make a deal, or we are out.”
Europe does need the US to end the war in Ukraine permanently. But the US also needs Europe to successfully accomplish that task. Amidst all these differences of interests, the world wants peace. The fact is that many players are finding it difficult to deal with blunt realities.
The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
