Since Friday, when US President Donald Trump, Vice President James David Vance and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy met in the Oval Office for a contentious exchange, the global geopolitical landscape has shifted markedly. The public spat between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskyy has exposed their differences and fuelled critics’ concerns about a confrontational American administration and the future of Ukraine.
By bashing Ukraine, Mr Trump extended an olive branch to Russia, which is consistent with his election promise of stopping American involvement in the war.
While noting the dispute as a potential demonstration of a conciliatory instinct on the part of the US president, many observers have also interpreted it as signalling the beginning of the unravelling of an imperial project shaped over eight decades by the CIA and its allies.
A closer analysis, however, reveals that the quarrel was driven not by Mr Trump’s genuine pursuit of peace but by sheer pragmatism.
A futile exercise
In the eyes of Mr Trump, Ukraine represents a costly investment for the US.
According to a detailed report by the US Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Washington has provided Ukraine with $65.9bn in military assistance since February 2022 – funding delivered via mechanisms such as the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and Foreign Military Financing.
Despite this substantial support, Ukraine has endured serious setbacks during the conflict.
Russian forces, it is claimed, have targeted units identified by Moscow as “neo-Nazi” battalions, and Ukraine has lost considerable territory while its much-discussed counter‑offensive has faltered.
Some analysts contend that Russia is prevailing on several fronts. Ukraine appears able only to delay defeat through further US and European aid – a prospect that has prompted many US policymakers to question the wisdom of additional investment. Former Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl has even claimed that “Russia has won” the Special Military Operations in Ukraine.
Mr Trump has questioned the logic behind funding Ukraine from the beginning.
Under former president Joe Biden, American support for Ukraine continued for geopolitical reasons rather than economic pragmatism, even as mounting fiscal concerns loomed large over the Federal Reserve’s budget.
Ultimately, Ukraine has been forced to negotiate terms with Moscow – a development in line with comments made by former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, who had claimed earlier that Mr Zelenskyy wouldn’t decide terms for an agreement but would sign wherever ordered.
For Mr Trump, further investment in Mr Zelenskyy’s military venture now seems futile, especially as Ukraine grapples with a massive conscription challenge.
Deal over peace
The exchange in Washington has been pointedly ironic. While Mr Trump and Mr Vance have emphasised Ukraine’s faltering military performance and asked the Ukrainian leader to agree to a ceasefire, Mr Zelenskyy continues to request funds from the US public exchequer.
This persistent plea leaves the White House perplexed.
At the heart of the matter, Mr Trump’s primary interest in Ukraine appears to be its rare earth minerals, crucial for the US semiconductor industry.
Mr Zelenskyy’s Oval Office visit was ostensibly arranged to finalise an agreement whereby Ukraine would transfer control of its mineral resources in return for funds received over the past three years.
Yet, Mr Zelenskyy insists additional funds are released by Washington—a deadlock that has stalled further progress. For Mr Trump, the rare earth mineral deal is more crucial than peace, and hence he has openly expressed his displeasure with Mr Zelenskyy’s obstinate position on continuing a war that he’s losing.
If Ukraine’s prospects for winning the war were brighter, the US aid might well have continued; instead, recent developments have left little room for additional support.
Impact of Trump-Zelenskyy’s spat
Nonetheless, the acrimonious exchange is unlikely to bring an immediate halt to US military aid to Ukraine, although western mainstream media has predicted so. Despite previous assurances – and even though such support may take a long time to fully materialise – the president’s executive order grants him the power to suspend assistance under the PDA at short notice.
Such a measure risks pushing Ukraine to the brink of collapse, even as European leaders in London’s Lancaster House summit have offered optimistic declarations.
It has been reported that the European leaders, during their London meeting, couldn’t unite on the topic of supporting Ukraine against Russia.
Except for Britain, France and Germany, no other country, including Italy, showed any major interest in supporting Ukraine’s cause.
Even after British, French and German leaders pledged their support for Ukraine in London, Mr Zelenskyy has been wary of the prospects of continuing a war without US support.
He has proposed peace with Russia through an X (formerly Twitter) post on Tuesday.
While he has placed the onus of initiating a ceasefire on Russia and extended an olive branch to Mr Trump, agreeing to his conditions on rare earth mineral supply, the reluctance to take the initiative for the ceasefire shows the Ukrainian leader is possibly gauging the scenario and waiting to see how all stakeholders react.
Why does Trump woo Russia?
Under Mr Trump, the White House has grown increasingly uneasy about the strengthening of China-Russia ties, the expansion of BRICS and discussions within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) about a collective security framework – all developments that have reshaped the geopolitics of the Global South in recent years.
Mr Trump’s stated objective is to contain China by disrupting its economic engine and undermining its diplomatic clout, thereby preserving US influence in the Global South.
This is particularly significant in the strategically vital Indo‑Pacific region, crucial to America’s semiconductor supply chain.
In Mr Trump’s view, Russia, in isolation, poses little economic or technological challenge to the United States; indeed, it may eventually be persuaded to sever its ties with China if offered the prospect of increased investment and enhanced US-Russia trade opportunities.
In this framework, it is not a commitment to peace but rather a determination to counter China’s technological ascent that underpins Mr Trump’s foreign policy, with Mr Zelenskyy cast as a minor impediment to larger strategic aims.
Meanwhile, almost all BRICS members – excluding India – have reportedly agreed to consider trading in local currencies rather than relying on the US dollar for bilateral transactions.
This development could undermine American financial hegemony, which remains anchored in dollar dominance even as Washington increases its money printing to address chronic deficits.
Such shifts in monetary policy and trade practices are seen by many as a fatal blow to the prevailing system of American financial primacy.
There is also growing concern that the increasingly close ties between Russia and China may further alter the balance of power.
Under Mr Trump, the US has sought to isolate China by reinforcing alliances in the Global South, but the strengthening of Sino-Russian relations poses a direct challenge to these efforts. High-level meetings – such as the recent one between Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu and Chinese President Xi Jinping – underscore that Moscow is determined to retain strategic autonomy.
Whether Russian President Vladimir Putin ultimately aligns with America’s objective of containing China or opts for a more multilateral strategy remains a pivotal question for the future of US foreign policy and Mr Trump’s legacy.
Hollow legacy
Mr Trump’s peace rhetoric now appears increasingly hollow when set against the backdrop of his administration’s unequivocal support for Israeli military operations in occupied Palestine. Since the beginning of Israel’s large-scale attacks on Gaza, from October 2023 onwards, Mr Trump, like other American politicians, has stood unequivocally in support of Tel Aviv.
The US president’s love for Israel is not a new phenomenon.
During his previous tenure, Mr Trump relocated the US embassy to Jerusalem, effectively recognising it as Israel’s capital – a move that many critics argue undermines the prospect of a two‑state solution, which envisages an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Moreover, his administration’s unwavering military backing for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies has been widely criticised for facilitating occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Such actions have led to accusations that Mr Trump employs divisive rhetoric and that his policies serve to deepen American imperial influence.
Critics also point out that Mr Trump’s approach towards the Middle East is marked by a stark inconsistency.
His administration continues to provide military aid to Israel even as it proclaims a desire for peace. Indeed, while Israel’s actions have left many in the region questioning the prospects for a two‑state solution, Mr Trump’s government shows no sign of curtailing its support for what some describe as an aggressive, expansionist agenda. The administration’s strategy appears designed to maintain American influence, even if that means endorsing military interventions and deepening strategic entanglements.
For instance, as Mr Trump’s government positions itself to counter rival Iran—and even contemplates occupying Gaza and turning it into an American neo-colony—it simultaneously supports a broader plan to secure critical economic corridors such as the India‑Middle East‑Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
In this way, US policy in the region remains driven as much by strategic imperatives as by any declared commitment to peace.
The US-led coalition has conducted frequent operations in Yemen since December 2023, and preparations for a regime change in Iran have been gathering pace, as evidenced by mobilisations among exiled Iranian pro‑monarchy forces.
Meanwhile, should the US succeed in distancing Russia from China, it may be in a position to persuade Moscow to abandon Tehran – thereby effecting a radical political shift in the Islamic Republic.
Such a development, some experts argue, could weaken the capacity of forces in Yemen to disrupt trade in the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aden.
In this complex board game, the deep state—which Mr Trump has long decried—appears poised to remain a decisive factor in shaping the future of Middle Eastern affairs.
Strategic paradigm
Despite the harsh words exchanged between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskyy—during which Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Maria Zakharova noted that the US president had exercised “restraint” by not physically confronting the Ukrainian leader—the strategic relationship between Washington and Kiev is unlikely to be severed.
Mr Trump has accused Mr Zelenskyy of showing little interest in peace, even labelling him a dictator for remaining in power beyond his term.
Yet, paradoxically, Mr Trump continues to require Ukraine’s rare earth minerals to secure a safe and reliable supply chain.
In effect, stability in Ukraine remains essential to American strategic interests. By favouring a ceasefire rather than a comprehensive peace treaty, the US preserves the option to renew hostilities if Moscow fails to align with its long-term objectives—notably, the isolation of China.
Moreover, by keeping Ukraine within the orbit of the West-led bloc, the US may be able to pressure European leaders into accepting territorial changes that effectively confirm Russia’s annexations.
As these strategic calculations unfold, high-level meetings continue to underscore the shifting alliances in the region. For instance, during a recent meeting with Mr Xi in Beijing, Mr Shoigu emphasised that Russia values its friendship with China and that their bilateral ties remain independent of Russia’s relations with other countries.
Such pronouncements serve as a reminder that Moscow, under Mr Putin’s leadership, is determined to keep its options open.
Whether Russia will eventually join the American effort to contain China or persist in a multilateral strategy to safeguard its own interests will ultimately determine the course of US foreign policy—and, by extension, Mr Trump’s standing on the world stage.
In sum, the recent exchange between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskyy is not so much an isolated incident as it is a symptom of deeper strategic shifts.
Behind the apparent polemic lies a complex calculus of economic pragmatism, geopolitical rivalry and a persistent drive to secure American influence amid a rapidly changing international order.
For Mr Trump, the contentious meeting in the Oval Office was less about a genuine pursuit of peace and more about realigning US interests – even if that means sacrificing long-held commitments in favour of a new if equally controversial, strategic paradigm.
