A disastrous Washington meeting exposed the deepening divide between Trump and Zelensky, leaving Europe scrambling as Western unity fractures. Is this a new global order in place?
Zelensky and Trump: A Relationship Gone Sour
The tensions between Zelensky and Trump date back to 2019 when Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine linked to Burisma Holdings. Zelensky’s refusal to comply with this request soured relations between the two. That controversy became central to Trump’s first impeachment trial, solidifying a deep mistrust between both leaders.
Beyond personal grievances, their strategic visions for Ukraine diverged significantly. Trump, during his first term, was skeptical of long-term U.S. commitments in Ukraine. The Maidan uprising (2013–2014) had the backing of U.S. officials, including then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. In his present term, Trump desires a quick peace settlement with Russia.
Zelensky, on the other hand, sought strong, unwavering Western support and security guarantees. When Trump returned to the White House in 2025, his stance on Ukraine had hardened. His foreign policy, rooted in an “America First” doctrine, left little room for accommodating Kyiv’s demands for continued military aid and security assurances.
The Washington Meeting: A Public Humiliation for Zelensky
The February 2025 meeting between Zelensky and Trump, arranged by France and Britain to have Ukraine at the negotiating table, contrary to Trump’s will, was expected to be tense but turned into a diplomatic disaster. Instead of reinforcing the U.S.-Ukraine alliance, Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance criticised Zelensky, pressuring him to negotiate directly with Russia. They accused him of ingratitude for past American aid, with Vance going as far as calling Zelensky’s public grievances about Russia’s unreliability “disrespectful” to the American government.
The meeting’s aftermath was even more shocking. The planned lunch, working meeting and joint press conference were abruptly canceled, and the minerals deal—meant to compensate the U.S. for military aid—was left unsigned. Zelensky was asked to leave and left the White House empty-handed, and his credibility weakened. Many European allies saw this as a deliberate setup by Trump to humiliate Ukraine’s leader, a move that played directly into Moscow’s hands.
Europe’s Reaction: Panic and Division
The fallout from the Washington debacle was immediate. European leaders quickly rallied behind Zelensky, reaffirming their commitment to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron, who had already clashed with Trump earlier in the week, warned that the U.S. should not abandon Ukraine, emphasizing that Russia remains the aggressor. Britain, Germany, and Baltic leaders issued similar statements of solidarity, and an urgent gathering was arranged in London two days later, including the right for Zelensky to have an audience with King Charles III of the United Kingdom.
Yet, despite public displays of support, Europe finds itself in a state of deep uncertainty—especially after Trump announced a temporary halt to all aid to Ukraine. Trump’s hostility toward NATO and the EU has raised fears that the U.S. may no longer be willing to defend Europe.
This crisis has exposed Europe’s strategic dependence on the U.S. While EU leaders stress unity, divisions persist over how to respond to Trump’s shifting policies. Some European countries, particularly those reliant on U.S. security guarantees, are now considering alternative strategies, including developing independent defense capabilities.
In this direction, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defense. She announced plans of an €800 billion rearmament 4-year package, which would be financed through the member states’ ability to issue debt outside the EU rules, alongside an expected average defense spending increase of 1.5% of GDP. An additional €150 billion would come from a common defense fund.
Why Does Trump Hold Europe in Contempt?
Trump’s “mépris” (contempt or despise) for Europe is not new. Since his first presidency, he has viewed NATO as an outdated burden, frequently questioning its relevance. His belief that European nations exploit U.S. military support while contributing little in return has shaped his foreign policy decisions. In addition, due to low defense spending, Trump resents the fact that European nations can afford to offer their citizens a high level of social welfare that many Americans lack.
Punishing Ukraine appears to be a broader strategy aimed at pressuring Europe. By pulling back American support, Trump forces European nations to bear the full weight of aiding Kyiv. This tactic weakens Ukraine’s position and increases political and financial strains on European governments. Trump’s ultimate goal may be to reduce U.S. global commitments and redefine transatlantic relations on his terms.
Europe is now facing an existential dilemma. If Trump withdraws U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO, European leaders must step up militarily. This is not just a question of defense spending—it challenges the very idea of Western unity.
The Bigger Picture: A Fracturing West
The Washington fiasco highlights a deeper crisis in the West. The conflict in Ukraine has long been framed as a struggle for democracy against authoritarianism. However, with Trump’s return to power, that narrative is being undermined. The U.S. is no longer leading the charge for democracy in Ukraine, and Europe lacks the cohesion to take its place.
This shift has profound implications. It raises questions about the long-term viability of Western alliances and the future of liberal democracy when the Western leader is no longer one. If the U.S. prioritizes self-interest over collective security, can Europe sustain the burden of defending liberal democratic values alone?
More broadly, this situation reflects a global realignment. As the U.S. steps back, other powers—Russia, China, and even regional players like Turkey and India—are eager to fill the void. The idea of a unified “West” is crumbling, and a multipolar world is emerging where traditional alliances are no longer guaranteed.
Winners and Losers in This Power Struggle
The immediate loser of this diplomatic crisis is Zelensky. His position has been weakened, and he has already accepted Trump’s terms in the hope for continued American support, which is also in jeopardy. Ukraine, already battered by years of war, faces an uncertain future without U.S. backing.
Europe, too, is struggling. The EU must now decide whether to strengthen its military capabilities or risk vulnerability. While European leaders have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine, internal divisions remain a major obstacle.
Trump, on the other hand, may see himself as a winner. His handling of the Zelensky meeting plays well with his domestic base, reinforcing his tough stance on foreign aid and “America First” policies. However, his actions risk alienating key allies and emboldening Russia.
The biggest beneficiary of this situation is Russia. The Trump-Zelensky fallout and subsequent Zelensky caving to Trump’s dictat weakens Ukraine’s negotiating position and increases the likelihood of a diplomatic settlement favorable to Moscow. Russia will have greater leverage in shaping the conflict’s resolution.
Beyond Ukraine, this crisis signals a weakening of Western influence. China and other emerging powers are watching closely, assessing how the U.S. handles its European alliances. If Trump continues to undermine NATO and Ukraine, it could embolden China to take similar actions in Taiwan.
Ultimately, the events surrounding the Trump-Zelensky meeting are not just about U.S.-Ukraine relations—they reflect a changing world order. The West, once united under American leadership, is fracturing. Europe must now decide whether it can adapt to this new reality or risk being left behind.
Conclusion
The widening rift between Zelensky and Trump is symptomatic of a broader crisis in the West. Europe, already struggling with economic and political instability, must now confront the possibility of a U.S. retreat from global leadership.
The idea of a strong, united West is under threat or simply does not exist anymore. If Europe cannot step up to fill the void left by an isolationist America, the balance of power will shift decisively toward non-liberal regimes. The events in Washington serve as a stark reminder that the post-Cold War order is unraveling—and the world must prepare for what comes next.
For this purpose, Europe needs visionary leaders. However, Macron is no De Gaulle, Starmer is no Churchill, Scholz is no Adenauer, and von der Leyen is no Schuman.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics
