Trump vs Zelensky: Is Trump shifting alliances from Europe & Ukraine to Russia!
UKRAINE / Trump / Zelensky / White House
Trump vs Zelensky: Is Donald Trump shifting alliances from Europe and Ukraine to Russia?
KAKALI DAS
We’ve all witnessed the interaction between Trump and Zelensky at the White House by now. I’m sure it’s something you’ve seen multiple times. Rather than dissecting the diplomacy—or lack thereof—in that exchange, what I want to focus on in this article is a broader perspective. Let’s step back from the specifics and take a global view of the situation.
What are the global implications of this? Is Donald Trump shifting his stance on this issue and aligning with Russia? Are these the signals coming from him and his team? What does this mean for Europe? How will it impact the rest of the world? And what are the consequences for China and India?
Donald Trump has been in office for just five weeks, and if there’s one defining feature of this period, it’s chaos. Every day, he makes a new statement, leaving everyone scrambling to determine how seriously to take him and what the consequences would be if his words turned into action.
Take, for example, the AI-generated Gaza video he released not long ago—people were left questioning, Should we even take what he says seriously? Is he still the leader of the free world?
Although Trump repeatedly claims that all his actions are guided by an “America First” approach, many argue that some of his decisions do the opposite—potentially harming his own people rather than prioritizing their interests.
I want to focus specifically on Russia and Ukraine right now. Trump’s actions suggest that he is shifting the US’s stance toward Russia, marking a significant departure from the position the US has maintained over the past three years since the war erupted between Russia and Ukraine. Under former President Biden, the US remained firm in its stance on the issue and its support for Ukraine.
Remember, the US and Europe share an alliance that has lasted nearly 80 years. Is Trump reconsidering his stance on this longstanding partnership? Is he shifting closer to Russia?
The United States sided with Russia on two votes at the United Nations, a rare occurrence. Historically, the US has used its powerful veto at the UN to block resolutions critical of its allies. The veto is a constitutional right that allows the rejection of decisions or proposals made by a law-making body. Remember, the US has consistently supported Israel throughout the entire Gaza conflict, never once wavering from that stance.
When it comes to Russia, the US has typically supported resolutions condemning its actions, as seen during the Crimean War in 2014.
Under President Donald Trump, however, there has been a notable shift. In February 2025, a United Nations General Assembly resolution called for Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine. The US, instead of supporting it, vetoed the resolution.
The United Nations Security Council also saw a resolution, initially backed by the US and supported by Russia, calling for a swift end to the conflict. However, here’s the catch: the resolution that was brought forward did not label Russia as the aggressor, nor did it recognize Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The resolution called for the ‘conflict’ to end but did not specify that Russia should withdraw its troops from the land it has annexed from Ukraine. This has led many to question, What’s going on here? Why is the United States deviating from its long-standing policy and actually supporting Russia at the United Nations?
Moreover, on February 14th, at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance attended and was expected to address a possible end to the war in Ukraine. Instead, he used most of his speech to criticize European governments, including the UK, accusing them of abandoning their values and ignoring voter concerns about migration and free speech.
Reports suggest that his remarks were met with silence in the room. Later, the German Defence Minister condemned his comments as completely unacceptable.
The fact that he chose to criticize Europe instead of addressing Russia was striking. In his speech, he went even further, stating that the greatest threat to Europe doesn’t come from Russia or China but from within.
During his meeting with French President Macron last week, Trump refused to call Vladimir Putin a dictator. Instead, he labeled Ukraine’s President Zelensky a dictator. Once again, this left everyone pausing to ask—What is going on?
After calling Zelensky a dictator, Trump backtracked within 24 hours, saying, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that.” But the fact remains—he did say it, and it’s on camera.
Another crucial development occurred about two weeks ago in Saudi Arabia, where top US diplomats and Russian officials met to discuss a possible deal to end the war in Ukraine. The meeting, hosted by Saudi Arabia, notably excluded both Ukraine and any European representatives. This signalled that Donald Trump and his team believed they could negotiate directly with Russia, resolving the conflict without involving Ukraine at all.
Almost immediately after that meeting, Trump made a statement blaming Ukraine for the conflict, saying, “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal. You’ve let it go this far.” He has repeatedly argued that Ukraine’s leaders should have never allowed the war to begin, effectively suggesting that when Russia made territorial demands, Ukraine should have simply conceded. Once again, this stance has left the world struggling to make sense of his position.
Moreover, under Trump, the US has vehemently blocked Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. It’s important to note that Ukraine has never officially been a NATO member, nor has it been granted one in the past. However, the key difference now is that the US Secretary of Defence under Trump has explicitly stated that Ukraine joining NATO is unrealistic, signaling a firm shift in policy.
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established in April 1949 and is headquartered in Brussels. It consists of 31 member countries. At its core, NATO operates on a fundamental principle: an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, ensuring collective defence across all member territories. The organization was formed in the aftermath of World War II and in response to the Cold War, bringing together European nations, the USA, Canada, and Australia. Their commitment is to protect one another, fight together, and collectively strengthen their defence capabilities.
America plays a crucial role in NATO due to its nuclear capabilities and its ability to establish military bases across Europe. This presence not only strengthens NATO’s collective defence but also allows the US to position its forces strategically throughout the region. Additionally, it reinforces America’s influence as the so-called leader of the free world.
There is growing speculation that Donald Trump intends to pull America out of NATO entirely. This aligns with a broader pattern in which he appears increasingly reluctant to support NATO, Europe, or continue providing financial and military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
The deal that Donald Trump’s administration was pursuing with Ukraine is known as the Rare Minerals Deal, which was the primary reason Ukrainian President Zelensky visited the White House. Ukraine is rich in valuable minerals such as lithium and titanium—key resources for semiconductors, batteries, and defence systems. As Ukraine seeks funding to rebuild after the war, the US sees an opportunity to secure these resources, reducing its dependence on China for critical raw materials.
The deal aimed to establish a US-Ukraine Minerals Agreement, creating a joint investment fund to oversee the mining of these resources. Under the agreement, 50% of all revenues generated from these minerals would go into the fund, with the US holding a significant stake. Portions of the fund would then be allocated to rebuilding Ukraine. This deal was set to be finalized at the White House last night.
After that interaction, Zelensky left the White House early, cutting his visit short. Reports indicate that the deal was not signed.
For anyone who might have missed what happened—it essentially turned into a shouting match between Trump and Zelensky. The scene in the Oval Office could have easily been mistaken for a heated debate on an Indian TV news channel.
As journalists waited for a briefing and posed questions, the exchange between the three men quickly escalated into an abrasive shouting match. Vice President Vance told Zelensky that he should have struck a deal with Putin, accusing him of being disrespectful for coming to the Oval Office and insisting that he should be grateful.
Trump then cut in, saying that Zelensky had talked enough and that he was not winning. In response, Zelensky firmly stated, “I am not playing cards. I am a president in a war.” To this, Trump retorted, “You are gambling with World War 3.”
The exchange was undeniably acrimonious and far from the diplomatic tone we’re used to seeing. But perhaps this is Trump’s new approach to international dealings. If this is his way of conducting diplomacy, will the rest of the world also start adopting a similarly confrontational style?
The chaotic scene left many questioning Trump’s intentions—why turn what should have been a diplomatic meeting into a spectacle? Was this a calculated move, or did he simply let the situation spiral out of control?
An article by BBC’s international editor, Jamie Owen, suggests that there are growing suspicions that the public confrontation was a calculated political move—either to pressure Zelensky into doing America’s bidding or to set him up as the scapegoat for any future crisis, regardless of the outcome.
The ramifications of Trump’s actions are significant. If, for example, he is shifting America’s loyalties from Ukraine to Russia, this could also be seen as a broader shift in America’s allegiance—from Europe to Russia.
The most significant impact of this shift would be a major crisis for Europe and NATO. This isn’t just about Ukraine’s security—it’s about the security of all of Europe. Since Europe is a single landmass, if Russia believes it can take Ukraine without consequences, what would stop it from pushing further?
Unlike Europe, the US is separated by an ocean, offering a layer of protection. This is precisely what Zelensky was alluding to when he warned that while the US may feel safe now, that may not always be the case.
This raises questions about the US’s commitment to European security and whether Trump will continue to support NATO. Remember, it was President Harry Truman who, in 1949, made the pivotal decision to establish NATO and commit the US to the alliance, a stance that has been upheld ever since.
Europe is now grappling with a critical question: If the need arises, will Trump truly commit to defending Europe?
For 75 years, NATO has been the cornerstone of transatlantic security, with both Democratic and Republican presidents upholding its significance—until now. Trump, however, has repeatedly questioned NATO’s role, both during his first term and now, arguing that America’s allies place an unfair financial burden on the US for their defence.
Trump believes the US is shouldering a disproportionate share of NATO’s burden. Unlike his predecessors, he does not appear to see a stable and secure Europe as being in America’s best interest.
While past presidents viewed defending Europe as essential to maintaining US security and global stability, Trump seems unconvinced that America needs to protect Europe to safeguard its own position.
If Trump follows through on his threats—allowing negotiations to collapse and freezing military aid—Ukraine will be left to fight alone. The pressing question is: How long can it sustain the war without external support?
“In my country, Ukraine, horrific things are happening. A once peaceful and beautiful land was invaded by those who believe they have the right to kill and destroy simply because we refuse to live as they do. Because we choose freedom over submission. Because we want to live, work, and decide our own future.”– Olga Tolstykhina
Lacking both the financial resources and the necessary arms, Ukraine would struggle to continue its defence. This raises another critical concern: Will Europe be forced to step in and fill the gap? For European nations, this isn’t just about ideology or principles—it’s a direct threat to their own security.
Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency meeting with the leaders of Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, as well as the heads of the European Commission and NATO’s Secretary General. The discussion centred around Europe’s growing sense of vulnerability, as the US appears to be distancing itself from the long-standing assumption that the US and Europe would stand united.
At this point, many analysts argue that European countries are already operating under tight budgets and may struggle to quickly allocate funds or ramp up defence spending to support both Ukraine and their own security needs.
Let me also remind you that NATO’s nuclear capability primarily relies on the United States. If Trump were to withdraw that protective umbrella, the critical question remains: What happens to the members of the European alliance?
That is the looming concern for Europe.
What impact does it have on Russia? There are growing concerns that this situation isn’t just about Ukraine, but that Donald Trump is also aiming to rebuild a strong relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia, which could inevitably strengthen Russia’s position.
A CNN editorial from February 17th argued that Trump’s administration has effectively ended Putin’s international isolation, fractured Western unity on the conflict, and cast doubt on how far the US is willing to go in defending Europe.
Additionally, Trump’s aides have been making statements suggesting that the president would be open to agreeing to a deal, even if it’s unfavourable for Ukraine, as long as it leads to a resolution. This could potentially involve redrawing borders to Ukraine’s detriment, as long as a deal is achieved.
Trump has also called for Russia’s return to the G8 group of industrial nations, a group from which Russia was expelled after its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Given these developments, Vladimir Putin is likely to be pleased with what he’s hearing.
After the confrontation between Trump and Zelensky at the White House, KajaKallis, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, issued a statement saying, “Today, it has become clear that the free world needs a new leader. And it is up to us Europeans to take on this challenge.”
This marks a significant shift in the global order, raising important questions about the direction the world may take if we consider Trump’s actions and statements seriously. It’s hard not to, as he remains arguably one of the most powerful figures globally (though perhaps only second to Elon Musk).
So, the question remains: Should we take him seriously?
What does it mean for India? India currently maintains relationships with both Russia and the US, and it will be closely observing the evolving situation to assess its position and navigate these relationships in a nuanced manner.
A lot of global developments are unveiling, largely due to Donald Trump’s love for drama. His bold statements often position him as a schoolyard bully in his dealings with other countries, yet he continues to assert his influence.
The critical question Is: When will the international community collectively take a stand? The United States is undeniably a powerful nation—culturally, economically, and militarily. However, the power wielded by Trump is not solely his doing. It is the product of years of policy work by various administrations.
So, is it justifiable for Trump to leverage this power in ways that could erode the goodwill America has built over the years? How much longer will the global community tolerate this behaviour, and at what point will the line be crossed?
Related Posts
Climate Emergency: 2025 Declared International Year of Glaciers
"Join the global movement to save our glaciers! Climate Emergency: 2025 marks the International Year of Glaciers. Act now for...
Read moreDetails
Mahabahu: An International Journal Showcasing Premium Articles and Thought-Provoking Opinions on Global Challenges—From Climate Change and Gender Equality to Economic Upliftment.