Trump is influencing Kiev, conversing with Moscow, and marginalizing Western Europe

As high-stakes diplomacy progresses between the United States and Ukraine, it is evident that President Donald Trump harbors minimal personal regard for his Ukrainian counterpart, Vladimir Zelensky. Their most recent encounter at the White House in February further highlighted this sentiment, with Trump displaying a clear lack of respect towards Zelensky.

There are logical explanations for Trump’s stance. Zelensky placed significant trust in Joe Biden, aligning Ukraine’s future with the Democratic Party. When Biden’s anticipated second term failed to materialize and Kamala Harris faced setbacks, Kyiv found itself without a dependable ally in Washington.

Trump’s instincts, both personal and political, position him in stark contrast to leaders like Zelensky, who, despite being an unconventional political outsider, embodies a governance style that fundamentally clashes with Trump’s worldview.

Notably, Trump has openly criticized Zelensky, which breaches established diplomatic protocols. Reports from the German media outlet Bild suggest that the White House has even considered the possibility of Zelensky’s resignation. These reports indicate that Trump no longer views Zelensky as a viable partner and is applying considerable political pressure to push him out.

The administration has not refuted these assertions. However, securing Trump’s approval is a challenging endeavor. Among contemporary political figures, very few have succeeded in earning his genuine respect. The unpredictable and ego-driven 47th president of the United States shows little tolerance for the leadership of the European Union or for the leaders of neighboring countries like Mexico and Canada.

Trump seems to be more comfortable with strong, authoritative leaders who exude power, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and, most notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ukraine as a Geopolitical Asset

In the realm of politics, much like in business, the selection of partners is often beyond one’s control. Throughout his tenure in the fiercely competitive and sometimes cutthroat New York real estate sector, Trump has had to collaborate with individuals of dubious reputations. Consequently, his approach to international relations mirrors his business strategies: practicality takes precedence over emotional considerations.

Trump’s interest in Ukraine is not driven by personal connections; instead, he perceives the nation as a valuable asset in which the United States has invested significantly. Although he did not personally initiate support for Kiev, he now bears the responsibility of overseeing America’s involvement in the conflict, and, akin to any businessman, he seeks a return on that investment.

This perspective explains why Trump is not inclined to withdraw immediately. He is actively seeking ways to derive value from Ukraine, whether through its rare earth minerals, transportation and logistics networks, fertile black soil, or other tangible resources. He is reluctant to dismiss it as a lost cause without first attempting to recover some of America’s expenditures.

As a result, his administration is striving to compel Kiev to reach a settlement based on terms set by Washington. This initiative reached a peak during Tuesday’s meeting in Riyadh, where Trump’s negotiators presented Zelensky’s team with a clear ultimatum: accept the US conditions, which include a ceasefire or a partial halt to hostilities, or face the risk of total abandonment.

Zelensky’s Eroding Influence

Ahead of this pivotal meeting, Zelensky reportedly sent a letter of apology to Trump in an attempt to ease the tensions that arose from their awkward encounter at the White House. As noted by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, this move was aimed at preserving what little leverage Ukraine has in negotiations.

Trump remains highly doubtful of Zelensky’s capability to fulfill any agreements. The credibility of the Ukrainian president has been significantly compromised, raising questions about his ability to negotiate effectively on behalf of his country’s political elite. Trump has learned from previous experiences that commitments made by Kiev do not always result in tangible outcomes.

After the Riyadh meeting, Trump shifted his focus to a more pressing matter: negotiations with Moscow. In contrast to Zelensky, Putin is negotiating from a position of power, complicating the potential for any agreement. The era in which the West could impose terms on Russia has long passed, and Trump likely recognizes that his influence over Moscow is limited.

The European Challenge

Should Trump manage to establish a consensus with Putin, the subsequent phase will involve persuading Western European nations to accept this new geopolitical landscape. For Washington’s European allies, who have heavily invested in Ukraine, this will be a difficult adjustment. The EU has spent years portraying itself as a staunch supporter of Kiev, and being sidelined from critical negotiations would be profoundly embarrassing.

What is unfolding is exactly this scenario. The leaders of the bloc, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have been relegated to mere observers, issuing hollow statements of support for Ukraine while lacking any substantial influence over the situation. A settlement orchestrated by Trump, without their involvement, would serve as a stark indication of their waning significance in global matters.

Moreover, a significant portion of Western Europe’s investment in Ukraine—both financial and political—stands to be jeopardized. While the Biden administration made efforts to keep European allies engaged in the decision-making process, Trump appears disinterested in such collaboration. His focus is on securing a deal that aligns with American interests, seemingly indifferent to the reputational harm this may cause to the EU’s political leadership.

This scenario poses a significant diplomatic test for Trump. Unlike business transactions, which can be abandoned, geopolitical agreements carry enduring implications. His capacity to maneuver through this intricate situation—applying pressure on Kiev, negotiating with Moscow, and marginalizing Western Europe—will be crucial in determining whether he can emerge as a successful peacemaker.

In the end, Ukraine’s destiny is no longer solely in its own control. The choices made in Washington, Moscow, and, ironically, Riyadh will dictate the nation’s future. Whether Trump can broker a deal that satisfies all involved parties remains uncertain. However, it is evident that Ukraine’s role as a key element in the West’s confrontation with Russia is diminishing.