By Qamar Bashir
Donald Trump has redefined diplomatic norms by shifting high-level discussions from
closed-door negotiations to public confrontations. His treatment of Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House—inviting him as a guest only to dismiss him
gracelessly—was a stark departure from traditional diplomacy.
Diplomacy thrives on negotiation, compromise, and conflict resolution, with
disagreements handled professionally and follow-up discussions scheduled if needed.
However, in an unprecedented public spectacle, diplomacy was replaced with an open
display of hostility, where accusations and counter-accusations were aired before the
global audience, undermining the dignity of both leaders and their respective nations.
Trump’s conduct toward Zelensky was less about diplomacy and more about coercion.
While he and his Vice President claimed to advocate for diplomatic solutions, their
actions contradicted diplomatic norms by humiliating a sovereign leader.
Trump’s demand that Ukraine cede control of its natural resources and accept Russia’s
terms to end the war—without addressing Ukraine’s security concerns or considering
Europe’s stakes—was not a negotiation but an ultimatum.
This approach disregarded the fact that the U.S. itself played a key role in Ukraine’s
resistance by providing military, economic, and diplomatic support to counter Russian
aggression. It also ignored the reality that the Russia-Ukraine war was largely influenced
by NATO’s expansion with the USA in charge, which Moscow viewed as a direct threat
to its security.
This pattern of shifting U.S. foreign policy is not new. Successive American
administrations have started wars, supported allies, and then reversed their positions
based on changing political priorities.
Pakistan experienced this firsthand when the U.S. backed it during the Cold War, only to
abandon it during critical conflicts with India. The same happened after Pakistan played a
frontline role in pushing back the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in the 1980s, only to be
left in economic and political turmoil once U.S. interests were fulfilled. A similar pattern
unfolded after 9/11, where Pakistan faced the consequences of America’s shifting
counterterrorism strategy. Many other countries have also suffered due to the
transactional nature of U.S. foreign policy, which prioritizes immediate strategic gains
over long-term commitments.
Ukraine has now become the latest example of this shifting U.S. approach. Under the
banner of "America First," Washington’s demands for access to Ukraine’s rare earth
resources and its sudden disengagement from Kyiv reflect a self-serving agenda.
The public humiliation of Zelensky was not just an insult to Ukraine but to Europe as a
whole. European leaders now find themselves in an awkward position, having invested
years in shaping a pro-Ukraine narrative with U.S. backing, only for the new American
administration to discard it overnight.
This has left Europe feeling exposed, powerless, and forced to reassess its dependency on
U.S. security assurances. By undermining Zelensky in such a public manner, Trump has
effectively diminished the collective influence of European powers, reducing their
strategic clout in the ongoing conflict.
Europe’s core narrative on the Russia-Ukraine war revolves around defending Ukraine’s
sovereignty, upholding international law, and ensuring European security. The war is
seen as an unprovoked act of aggression by Russia, violating Ukraine’s territorial
integrity and challenging the post-World War II order that forbids changing borders by
force.
European leaders argue that if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it could embolden further
territorial expansion, particularly toward NATO’s eastern members like the Baltic states
and Poland.
The conflict is framed as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, with Ukraine
representing European values of self-determination, democracy, and human rights.
As a result, Europe has provided military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine
while imposing severe sanctions on Russia to weaken its war efforts. The invasion has
also forced Europe to rethink its energy security, accelerating efforts to reduce reliance
on Russian oil and gas and diversify energy sources.
At the same time, European leaders recognize the risks of escalation and have been
cautious about direct military involvement to prevent a broader NATO-Russia war. While
countries like Poland and the Baltic states advocate for maximum support to Ukraine,
others like Germany and France have pushed for a balance between military aid and
diplomatic efforts to seek an eventual resolution.
The war has also prompted major geopolitical shifts, with Sweden and Finland
abandoning neutrality to join NATO and European nations increasing their defense
budgets. Europe views its support for Ukraine as not only a necessity for regional
stability but also a test of its strategic autonomy and long-term security framework.
However, as U.S. priorities shift under new leadership, European leaders now face the
challenge of maintaining a unified stance without guaranteed American backing, raising
concerns about the continent’s future security landscape.
There are three likely outcomes for Europe in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The first is to
yield to U.S. pressure and abandon its efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO, withdraw
from Ukraine’s internal affairs, allow Zelensky to step down, and accept Russian-
installed leadership in Kyiv.
This would also require Europe to stop pushing the narrative that Russia poses a direct
threat to other Eastern European states. In return for its past support of Ukraine, the U.S.
would gain control over Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources.
This approach would effectively acknowledge Russia’s dominance over Ukraine, reshape
the geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe, and shift the focus of Western nations away
from prolonged conflict. However, this would come at the cost of Ukraine’s sovereignty
and European credibility, as it would signal that Western security commitments are
conditional and subject to political convenience.
The second option for Europe is to break away from U.S. influence and adopt an
independent and unified stance on the Russia-Ukraine war. This would require European
nations to fill the strategic gap left by U.S. disengagement, significantly increase defense
spending, and enforce even harsher sanctions on Russia.
To maintain Ukraine’s resistance, Europe would have to consider direct military
involvement, ramping up arms production, and converting civilian industries to support
the war effort, effectively committing to a long-term military confrontation. However,
such a course of action would be financially and politically costly, leading to economic
decline, inflation, and potential social unrest across European nations.
Another alternative would be to persuade Trump to modify his stance and work toward
ending the war in a way that secures Ukraine’s sovereignty and ensures Europe’s
security. Yet, given Trump's "America First" policy, convincing him to re-engage without
tangible benefits for the U.S. would be a difficult challenge.
