The recent meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has put an extra strain on the diplomatic relations between the United States. and Ukraine and has exposed a troubling shift in U.S. foreign policy under President Donald trump which weakens democratic values, damages Western unity, and embraces authoritarian regimes like Russia. President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance publicly humiliated President Zelenskyy at a tense Oval Office meeting on February 28, 2025, for his ungratefulness to the United States. for the massive military assistance presented to Ukraine. They also pressured him into agreeing to a peace deal which was discussed with Russia in Riyadh on 18th February 2025 between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio without the involvement of Ukraine and Europe in the negotiations, which compromises European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty by its eastern territory to Russia and rare minerals to the United States. This public humiliation of Zelenskyy not only embarrassed Ukraine but also revealed the new face of the United States foreign policy. which once used to stand up for threatened democracies is now compromising on its own values.
According to the United States President Donald Trump, Ukraine started the war, and he labeled President Zelenskyy a “dictator” who does not seek peace for his country. Trump argued that by making Ukraine sign this deal, the United States would recover its financial aid through Ukraine’s rare minerals. However, Kyiv has strongly rejected this idea, stating that Ukraine is not for sale, further increasing the gap in United states-Ukraine relations. The growing partnership between the United States. and Russia became undeniable when, in the UN General Assembly, a Ukrainian and Europe backed resolution titled “Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” labeled as ES-11/7 was introduced which named Russia as the aggressor was introduced yet the United states., Russia, Sudan Hungary, Israel, Belarus and North Korea stood together in opposition and voted against the resolution. This shift in the United states position was even clearer in the Security Council, where the United States put forward a rival resolution L.11 named as “The path to peace” which proposed the solutions to the Ukrainian conflict without labelling Russia as the aggressor. In a striking move, Russia, China, and the United States voted in favor, while the UK and France abstained from voting as their attempts to introduce amendments in L.11 as L.3 L.4 and L.5 which labeled Russia a s aggressor was vetoed. This unexpected shift shows a major turn within the United Nations Security Council, where the United States and Russia, once rivals that used to veto and oppose each other’s resolutions are now backing each other.
Since the Russian invasion in 2022, the United States has been a key ally for Ukraine and has committed more than $75 billion, from which $44.2 was consist of military aid. This support has been very important in developing Ukraine’s defensive capabilities along with supplying modern weapons such as the Javelin anti-tank missiles, Patriot air defense systems, and Abrams main battle tanks. However, on 4th March 2025 United States halted its military aid to Ukraine which I believe was very predicable after the recent statements from President Donald trump moreover the most important question is ? will Ukraine be able to defend itself against Russia without the United States support? Because withdrawal of this much needed crucial military aid poses a serious threat to Ukraine’s self-defense ability against Russian aggression.
The rift has created consequences that goes far beyond Ukraine. European leaders are now scrambling, all too aware of the implications of that vacuum left by the United States, and to defend Ukraine. The United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, committed £1.6 billion in export finance for Ukraine which covers 5000 air defense missiles as part of a wider $3.2 billion military package. Furthermore, European Union leaders have reached an agreement together with allies such as Canada and Turkey in a recent summit held in London without the participation of United states, on a complete package for backing Ukraine, stressing the necessity of a strong defense amidst the United States. potential pullback from its current level of commitment. However European leaders must also acknowledge the reality that despite such plans and commitments, Europe cannot fully replace the united states.as it has supplied about 20 percent of the military equipment’s of Ukraine, including vital systems such as air defense and long-range missiles to fight against Russian invasion and To provide an equivalent value of arms at approximately $33.2 billion from the United States , European states would need to significantly increase their military budgets however that may not be feasible within a short time.
To make things worse, President Trump’s recent statement “I’m not sure we should be spending anything, but we should certainly be helping them” or “U.S. is protecting NATO members, but they are “not protecting United states” further Worsens concerns about the United States commitment to collective defense of its European allies. Such statements could strengthen rival states and lead to further collapsing an alliance’s deterrence and defense capabilities as the United States provides more than 860 billion, which is approximately 68% of the total budget of NATO. And in case of the United States withdrawal from NATO it will likely result in damaging all the security stability that NATO has achieved since World War II. The divide is already being seen between Washington and European capitals, with leaders in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels starting to discuss alternative defense and economic plans as President trump have accused “European union on being anti United states’ and imposed 25% tariffs on European union and Canada, to counter this European states must find an alternative which do not solely rely on the United States such as strengthening Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) to boost European economic and military cooperation.
This divide within Western bloc is playing directly into President Putin’s hands. A NATO that is seen as divided gives Russia an opportunity to increase its interference with Eastern European, sowing doubt among countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania, which relies heavily on NATO for its own security. These nations are now faced with a troubling reality that the strongest member of the alliance may not stand and protect them anymore from any aggression in the future. This growing fear has led some European leaders to start thinking of strengthening their nuclear deterrent capabilities, with Macron openly proposing a nuclear shield led by Europe because of declining reliability in U.S. security guarantee.
Trump’s Willingness to have this so called “peace plan for Ukraine” a deal with Russia comes from a belief that by engaging diplomatically with Putin it can produce a favorable outcome for the United states national interest But historically it’s the opposite because majority of the Past negotiations with Putin on an equal basis have only fueled Russian aggression rather than de-escalation. Crimean annexation in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 became possible due to the very Western hesitation and willingness to appease. In other words, by pressuring Ukraine into this deal, Trump risks repeating history and, in the process, further Justifying Russian territorial expansionist goals. This change in U.S. foreign policy also Weakens Washington’s credibility. Trust and consistency which are the fundamental pillars of international relations. With Trump giving up on his key allies repeatedly, other states will start to look for new strategic alliances for their security for example states like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea might feel that their security agreements such Taiwan Relations Act (1979) & Six Assurances (1982), U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty (1953) and U.S.-Japan Security Treaty (1960) with the U.S. have become too unreliable, they might begin looking for other options and I am convinced that, China will definitely use this opportunity to further increase its regional influence either by establishing security agreements with island nations or through further increasing its hard power in South China sea.
The Trump-Zelenskyy confrontation has exposed deep gaps in international alliances and raised critical questions about the United States’ commitment to defending democratic nations. If this gap between the U.S. and Europe continues to grow, NATO’s deterrence and defense capabilities will weaken, and Russia will continue to exploit the cracks to expand its influence further east. The consequences of this shift would not only be severe for Ukraine but for the entire balance of power in Europe.
President Trump’s approach to diplomacy, where alliances are treated as mere financial burdens rather than strategically important assets, threatens to reverse decades of transatlantic unity between the United States and Europe. As the international balance of power shifts. I believe it has become important for the United States and European states to reaffirm their alliances, counter authoritarian aggression, and ensure that Western security remains unified. And if the United States continue down this path of isolationism and betrayal of its alliances, history may look back at this moment as the beginning of NATO’s decline and the resurgence of Russian influence in eastern and western Europe. Another important aspect of this gap is the growing divide which has exposed the collapse of the liberalisation values that the West once championed. The United States, once the strongest advocate of collective security and shared democratic principles, is now shifting toward a more realist approach prioritizing its own interests over the idea of collective values. The same Western powers that historically influenced other nations into conflicts among themselves now face the consequences of their changing foreign policy, but this raises a question that will Europe ever be able to replace the United States?
The Author, Basim Dilshad is a Social Sciences student specializing in International Relations at Bahria University, driven by a passion for global affairs. He aims to make a positive impact on international issues through his studies and insights.
Add a Comment