United States President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance clashed openly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in the Oval Office last week. Mr. Zelenskiy insisted that Russia would not honor any agreement – an obvious point – in a bid to secure concrete security commitments from Washington. President Trump lost patience, the exchange grew heated and the meeting ended prematurely without results. Interpretations of its cause, style and consequences may vary, but are unlikely to hold real relevance in the long run.
What is relevant is the broader geopolitical reality. Washington is now convinced that Kyiv has no path to retaking occupied territories and that the war must therefore end. Unfortunately, Ukraine is set to lose land and, worse still, will not receive the American security guarantees it hoped for.
Ukraine’s historical handicap
From the outset of its post-Soviet independence, Ukraine faced steep challenges. It was forced to hand over its nuclear arsenal to Russia, in line with the broader push to centralize all Soviet-era nuclear weapons within the Russian Federation. In 1994, under what became known as the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine delivered its nuclear warheads in exchange for security assurances from both Washington and Moscow.
In 2013, the European Union offered an association agreement to Ukraine. Then-President Viktor Yanukovych, under pressure from Moscow, refused to sign. His decision triggered the Maidan protests, culminating in his flight to Russia. Around the same time, Victoria Nuland – then serving as U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs – clumsily tried to install a Kyiv government more to Washington’s liking. It was not her first miscalculation in dealing with Russia and Ukraine. Soon after came the occupation of Crimea and part of the Donbas. This moment signaled the West’s abandonment of Kyiv’s interests.
Diplomacy demands two fundamental supports: a robust economy and abundant ‘gunpowder.’
Some time later, then-U.S. President Barack Obama irritated Moscow by calling Russia just “a regional power” – followed by assurances of support for Ukraine that excluded any military aid, in effect giving the Kremlin free rein. The West responded with sanctions that proved toothless, while Germany and France dithered, resulting in the Minsk Agreements, which nobody upheld. A low-intensity conflict persisted until February 2022, when Russia undertook its full-scale invasion. The war has now raged for more than three years.
Ukraine fought back efficiently and bravely, achieving remarkable gains. Still, Russia occupies some 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. European countries first offered little or no assistance and then provided only limited help, always hesitantly. Both Europe and the U.S. withheld the offensive arms that would have made a Ukrainian defense more effective, all while piously declaring that nothing short of Ukrainian success would suffice. By last year, the Biden administration had already begun to lose resolve, delaying weapons deliveries as Washington’s mood shifted to retrenchment.
Concrete realities
Tragically for Ukraine, there is no realistic chance of retaking all lost territories. Consequently, the U.S. is engaging with Moscow. Here, the realpolitik of big powers removes autonomy from Kyiv. Whether it seems fair or not, if a war cannot be won, it usually must be ended on painful terms. Often, it takes more courage and responsibility for politicians to seek peace than to fight on in vain. If real success is out of reach, continued bloodshed is senseless.
To maintain a European security architecture, countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom will need to step up at last by placing troops in Ukraine to deter further aggression. This may finally prompt European capitals to recognize the urgent need for greater defense collaboration and much stronger military capabilities. It could become an important European mission – although it should have occurred far sooner.
Washington’s stance has another global dimension: U.S. competition with China. The Trump administration hopes to improve ties with Moscow to neutralize Russia in the broader U.S.-China rivalry. President Vladimir Putin understands that this is a powerful card, and it is vital to Washington. Europeans who fault the U.S. must remember that Ukraine’s plight stems primarily from the old continent’s negligence. The responsibility is first and foremost Europe’s.
At present, Ukraine stands as a bargaining chip, with European governments largely irrelevant. One can only hope the White House will look after Ukrainian interests to some degree. However difficult it may seem, President Zelenskiy should recognize the need to mend ties with Washington in the best interest of his country – and to find the resolve for a painful end to this war.
On the European side, many decry the demise of a rule-based order and the disappearance of diplomacy. Yet Europe fails to note that diplomacy demands two fundamental supports: a robust economy and abundant “gunpowder.” Last Sunday’s summit in London showed a newfound resolve to defend Ukraine’s and Europe’s eastern frontiers with greater military commitments. Still, time is required to remedy years of inattention, and Europe’s feeble economic and fiscal policies will make rearmament a heavy burden. Rebuilding Ukraine’s economy will also be a major undertaking. Perhaps the rude scene in Washington will prove to be the catalyst that finally awakens Europe from its expediency and reminds it that security depends on economic strength – and plenty of gunpowder.
