Trump, Zelensky, and the Battle for Europe
What unfolded at the White House last Friday was, without question, a meticulously orchestrated spectacle designed to serve its host’s agenda. Volodymyr Zelensky was placed in a scenario crafted to absolve Donald Trump of any responsibility—whether through inability or unwillingness—for stopping Russia’s war in Ukraine. But the event had a deeper purpose: Trump’s effort to sideline the European Union and pressure Europe into submission. However, this was merely the appetizer to the main course Trump is preparing for his allies, beginning with the trade war he set in motion with Canada yesterday. The State of the Union address will give Trump the platform to lay out the finer details of his Master Plan.
A Media-Driven Spectacle
Recent U.S. negotiations with Russia, conducted at various levels, have largely taken place out of public view. In Riyadh, for example, journalists were barred entirely. The White House meeting, however, was an exception—48 minutes under relentless media scrutiny, with Zelensky questioned not just by Trump, but also by J.D. Vance and the press before any substantive talks could begin. In reality, those talks never happened, reinforcing the impression of a premeditated outcome.
The ‘press conference’ was an eye opener. Even trivial jabs at Zelensky’s attire underscored the White House press corps’ alignment with Trump’s script. The objective? To undermine Zelensky’s credibility and throw him off balance ahead of critical U.S.-Russia negotiations. Trump needed Zelensky weakened and his own promises of incentives to Putin —such as lifting sanctions, restarting Nord Stream 2, and supporting Russia’s military presence in Syria—to appear credible before engaging with Moscow. There has never been a Trump peace plan for Ukraine, only a vague notion of trade-offs that grant strategic gains to both Russia and the U.S. at the expense of third parties—Ukraine and Europe.
Faced with hostile questioning, Zelensky had no real options. Silence or appeasement diplomacy would have been seen as weakness. Unlike his critics, he leads a nation fighting for survival. His response mattered—not just for his political standing, but for the Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines and the families mourning their war dead.
Typically, journalists witness a brief photo-op before discussions move behind closed doors. Here, the entire event was staged for public consumption. Why? Because Trump knows that any real peace deal would require concessions from Vladimir Putin—concessions he is either unable or unwilling to secure. Instead, he sought to shift blame. The path to peace runs through Putin, whether by shifting his cost-benefit calculus or changing battlefield realities.
The Shifting U.S. Political Landscape
Understanding Trump’s moves abroad needs to start at his US base. There is a striking difference separates Trump’s second term from his first: he now has a blueprint to tame the so-called deep state at home, suppress resistance from allies, and push through his radical foreign and domestic agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. summed it up in classic Stalinist way – the inner enemy: “Our real enemy isn’t Russia or Ukraine. It’s not even China. It’s those who instigated and prolonged wars”—a veiled jab at Ukraine’s supporters.”
Support Independent Analysis
Help us keep delivering free, unbiased, and in-depth insights by supporting our work. Your donation ensures we stay independent, transparent, and accessible to all. Join us in preserving thoughtful analysis—donate today!
At home, Elon Musk’s DOGE disruption of government institutions has left agencies that have potentially resisted or failed to align with Trump’s excesses in his first term in disarray. The long-term impact on governance is unclear, but in the short term, people are fearful for their jobs and life hood and these institutions are paralyzed.
Consider the implications for U.S. power abroad:
- Musk’s CIA Influence: If reports are accurate, Musk’s control over critical infrastructure like Starlink and X could be a game-changer not only abroad but at home. His ability to shape narratives or public perceptions at odds with intelligence data —or even threaten officials—could alter power dynamics and weaken U.S. operations against Russia.
- Military Purge: The recent ousting of top military commanders appears designed to consolidate Trump’s control. Removing officers who might resist his agenda weakens institutional safeguards against radical policy shifts. The DoD has already ordered a halt in counter cyber operations against Russia?!
- Politicized Intelligence: The rumored appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence raises concerns about intelligence manipulation and sensitive information shared with allies. If national security data is selectively filtered before reaching decision-makers, it could distort U.S. strategy—potentially in Russia’s favor.
These developments suggest a two-pronged strategy:
- Crushing Internal Resistance: By dismantling institutional safeguards, Trump can push through extreme agenda—including rapprochement with Russia—while minimizing opposition at home. Suffice it to watch the reactions after the Zelensky-Trump shouting match.
- Centralizing Power: By stifling dissent and controlling key agencies, Trump is moving toward a more autocratic governing style, bypassing traditional checks and balances. It is only a matter of time before he sets his sights on the Constitution.
If this trajectory holds, U.S. democracy itself is at risk. What is framed as political realignment and security restructuring may, in reality, be an erosion of democratic norms—one that threatens both American leadership on the world stage and the broader international order.
The Elusive Peace in Ukraine
President Trump has offered no substantive peace plan, no security guarantees, and shows no intent to change this stance. He has repositioned the U.S. from Ukraine’s ally (under Biden) to an intermediary, ostensibly acting as an honest broker. However, even this façade was short-lived. With U.S. aid to Ukraine frozen and military support halted, Trump has effectively aligned himself with Russia.
Yet his ambitions go beyond Ukraine’s demise. While echoing Russian talking points and gauging Zelensky’s reactions, Trump invokes fears of World War III—mirroring Kremlin rhetoric—to reinforce Putin’s narrative that a nuclear power like Russia “cannot lose.” In reality, Moscow has already lost half the territory it initially captured in Ukraine, including parts of its own land, and nuclear escalation has proven an ineffective lever in conventional warfare.
The Nuclear Bluff
As Biden’s presidency neared its end, U.S. intelligence, the State Department, and the Department of Defense remained skeptical that Russia would resort to nuclear escalation if it faced defeat in Ukraine. Even more so – the Kremlin failed to react after the incursion of the Ukrainian armed forces into the Kursk region, where they are still holding their ground. The World War III that President Trump is parroting is therefore a Kremlin political ploy, if not outright disinformation.
Trump’s MAGA Strategy: A Grand Design without Anchors in Reality
This political theater extends far beyond Ukraine and Europe. Trump envisions a strategic ‘tango’ with Putin: rescuing Russia from war-induced economic collapse (where nuclear capabilities are irrelevant), and weakening the EU’s independent role in global affairs.
Additionally, he is prepared to offer Putin concessions in Syria (in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu) and economic incentives (including lifting sanctions and restarting the Nord Stream 2) in exchange for Moscow playing a role elsewhere—primarily in counterbalancing China. However unrealistic this may seem, Trump is actively implementing his vision for a global order in which Russia plays a central role.
The Budapest Memorandum Betrayal
Trump’s attack on Zelensky, including claims of “missing gratitude,” ignores the fundamental moral and legal reality of this war. The United States has already failed to uphold its commitments under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Had Ukraine not relinquished the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, this war would never have occurred. Whatever one makes of transactional diplomacy, it is the U.S.—not Ukraine—that has defaulted on its obligations. Moreover, the bulk of U.S. military aid was the work of the Biden administration and the previous Congress, not Trump.
A Calculated Snub to Europe
A glaring example of the anti-EU shift is Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s last-minute cancellation of a scheduled meeting with EU High Representative Kaja Kallas. Officially attributed to “scheduling conflicts,” the move was widely perceived as a deliberate snub, signaling Washington’s preference for bilateral dealings with individual European nations rather than engaging the EU as a unified entity.
This aligns with Trump’s longstanding hostility toward the EU, which he sees as an economic rival rather than a strategic ally. His rhetoric reinforces this view: “Let’s be honest, the European Union was formed to screw the United States. That’s the purpose of it, and they’ve done a good job of it. But now I’m president.” Russian disinformation is perhaps the only contender for this chef-d’œuvre of Trump’s diplomatic finesse.
Europe Sidelined
The timing of this shift—just days after Trump’s meeting with Emmanuel Macron—has intensified European fears of exclusion from critical discussions, particularly on Ukraine. As Trump sidelines Ukraine in his talks with Putin, the EU faces a similar fate. Despite the European Commission’s insistence that “no agreement without the EU will work,” Washington appears intent on engaging Moscow without European involvement.
For the EU, Marco Rubio’s snub of Kaja Kallas further undermines its diplomatic standing. Trump’s preference for bilateral dealings with individual European leaders empowers Euroskeptics like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, exacerbating divisions within the bloc. However, this strategy has its limits. The “coalition of the willing” approach—while viable—depends on U.S. participation or, at the very least, its security assurances. If Trump pursues a strategic rapprochement with Putin, European reluctance to act independently could send conflicting signals to Moscow, reinforcing perceptions of a fractured and hesitant West.
A widening U.S.-EU rift emboldens pro-Russian, anti-NATO, and anti-EU factions across Europe. Yet neither Trump nor Putin offers these countries a viable political or economic alternative. Their strategies are driven by personal and national self-interest—not genuine cooperation, security, or shared
The Reality of Trump-Putin Negotiations
An EU-led peace initiative could buy Ukraine and Europe valuable time to regroup and move towards strategic autonomy. However, Moscow is unlikely to accept it, nor the US will —especially given Putin’s leverage over Trump. The recent White House shouting match laid bare the irreconcilable differences in how the U.S. and Europe perceive the path forward, making a unified approach increasingly difficult.
Trump’s credibility in U.S.-Russia ‘Yalta-type talks depends on his ability to deliver on Putin’s demands: lifting sanctions, making strategic concessions in Syria, and reviving key economic projects like Nord Stream 2. His envoy, Richard Grenell, is already engaged in secret talks in Switzerland with Russian representatives, but the final decisions will rest with Berlin. No matter what sanctions the U.S. lifts, Russia’s economic recovery hinges on European cooperation.
Ultimately, the idea that Washington can broker a meaningful peace deal for Ukraine without Europe’s involvement is nothing more than political theater. Trump cannot unilaterally dictate the future of U.S.-Russia relations to France, Germany, Britain, or the broader EU.
Europe’s Path Forward
If the EU leads peace talks in Ukraine, it could avert a total collapse of U.S.-EU relations. Yet this alone won’t halt the broader decline. Europe must swiftly achieve military, political, and financial independence in security matters—its strategic autonomy. The critical first step is bolstering military aid to Ukraine, a vital condition for a lasting, just peace and the cornerstone of Europe’s future security framework.
What we’re witnessing is a strategic shift with far-reaching consequences, many of which extend beyond Trump’s direct control. His approach is a precarious mix of “gains and losses,” as he simultaneously alienates longstanding allies while struggling to secure new ones. In his bid to redefine transatlantic relations—by undermining multilateral institutions and propping up Euroskeptic figures like Orbán and Fico—he overlooks a crucial reality: Europe’s policy identity is not shaped by these Putin-aligned autocrats, regardless of support from figures like Elon Musk or J.D. Vance.
A Transactional Future for U.S.-EU Relations
The latest sequence of sobering developments highlights a decisive shift toward a transactional U.S. foreign policy, where economic and strategic interests take precedence over multilateral commitments. In response, Europe must develop its own transactional alternatives—strengthening ties with China, India, and Latin America—to offset potential transatlantic instability.
While the EU and the U.S. may still find areas of cooperation—particularly in crafting a peace framework for Ukraine that Kyiv can accept—such an outcome remains uncertain. French President Macron and UK Prime Minister Starmer are already working on their own peace roadmaps, seeking to present Washington with a solution aligned with European and Ukrainian interests.
If Trump refuses to recognize Europe as an ally, he risks transforming it into a competitor—an unintended consequence of his approach. His exploitation of Europe’s military vulnerabilities to destabilize and weaken the continent is not solely his doing; it is an opportunity he is capitalizing on. This reckoning was bound to come, with or without a second Trump term.
Europe now stands at a crossroads. Trump is determined to pursue his Russia-as-an-ally agenda, regardless of European concerns. He is even willing to put NATO on the chopping block to achieve this goal.
Europe must decide—will it take control of its own destiny in global affairs, or remain vulnerable to the shifting priorities of a transactional U.S. administration?
The time for hesitation is over.
Ilian Vassilev
