One reaction to the shouting match involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House last week was that the showdown was a set-up. Experts and pundits punting this viewpoint may or may not be correct, but either way the observation doesn’t help anyone much.
Europe is broadly outraged, not just among the experts, but also at the street level where the televised scenes cut through to the cafes and buses. Ukraine’s fight for survival has changed, but it has not been ended by the events of last week. Mr Zelenskyy has so far not shown much sign of wanting to accommodate to that change.
US President Donald Trump is determined to adjust the American position on Ukraine from unwavering supporter to one that makes Washington the broker of a deal that ends the conflict. What that means for Mr Zelenskyy is not that the US withdraws military and financial backing immediately. But it could lead to that point, which would be a breach in the relationship with very serious consequences for Kyiv.
It must be recognised that Mr Trump is not invested in the decisions of previous American administrations. Indeed, he defines himself as a businessman who not only thrives on making deals but also one who will not keep reinforcing bad positions. In the trade arena, this means that Washington wants a rebalancing of its trade position with its partners. It is shorn of any of the diplomatic niceties around the longstanding alliances or treaty undertakings.
The publication of a minerals map of Ukraine and subsequent negotiation of a deal through the US Treasury on sharing Ukraine’s resources offered Mr Trump a means of dealing with the war in Europe on his terms. After the angry scenes in the Oval Office, that deal is now in abeyance. The White House said that Mr Zelenskyy could come back when he has decided he can join the push for peace that Mr Trump is pursuing.
Time is ticking on this offer and as the minutes lapse, questions are growing for the Ukrainian President.
A former British spy chief John Sawers said on Monday that Mr Zelenskyy was “unwise” to rise to the bait of the “set-up” in the White House. According to Mr Sawers, the truth remains that US is the most powerful country in the world and “we have to find a way to work with them”.
If the US cannot work with Mr Zelenskyy, questions must be asked as to how to get over this hurdle. Those questions include if there is another Ukrainian figure, perhaps the general-turned-ambassador to London, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who can communicate Kyiv’s accommodation with this new era.
Over the weekend, I noticed fresh Ukraine flags and the country’s trident symbol newly erected in the windows of many London houses. Solidarity with Ukraine is admirably strong after more than three years of war, and it will serve Kyiv well as it prepares for the tough outcomes of any negotiation between Mr Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But just because there is a new phase coming down the line, it does not mean that all is lost. It is important, therefore, that the Europeans are committed to backing the besieged population of Ukraine.
A statement from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer after Sunday’s meeting of Kyiv’s allies in London said that the Eastern European country’s security could be achieved only by “peace through strength”, which is a second-term Trump slogan. The statement also advanced Mr Starmer’s offer of European troops on the ground to shore up a ceasefire. “Many of us expressed readiness to contribute to Ukraine’s security, including through a force consisting of European and other partners,” the statement said.
This is talking a language of robust self-defence that Mr Trump has invited Europe to urgently embrace (of course, through his prism of an ocean of security that lies between the US and the Europeans).
Twenty years ago, an unnamed US official told the journalist Ron Suskind that the so-called “reality-based community” – consisting of experts and critics who believe that solutions emerge from a judicious study of discernible reality – was missing an essential truth. “When we act, we create our own reality,” the official said.
Today, as the world changes, it is incumbent upon these experts, journalists and the commentariat to study and sort out the meaning of the new reality.
Despite the setbacks that the US has encountered across a series of foreign policy domains, or maybe because of it, the new administration is doubling down on this sentiment. Indeed, the “America First” project is dedicated to this end. As even Europe’s own leaders acknowledge, there was a delusion on the continent that the peace dividend that followed the end of the Cold War was a precious asset.
Of course, Europeans benefited from reduced defence spending in subsequent decades, as this allowed them to build up their social security and healthcare programmes. Now it is obviously difficult for policymakers to rebalance those pressures.
Over the past three years, Ukraine has no doubt shown that ingenuity and innovation are a vital part of defence. But the other way to look at the issue is that Europe’s post-Cold War withdrawal from the security domain has contributed to the continent’s deindustrialisation. And so, whatever the true motives of the Trump presidency in driving this crisis with Ukraine, Washington is setting the Europeans a test to assert their self-interest in having stronger defences.
This is an incredibly dangerous time for Ukraine. As Mr Zelenskyy returns to Kyiv, he must surely know that fresh answers are needed from his country and its closest allies.
