Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

European leaders can step into the vacuum left by Trump-Zelensky confrontation

Opinion

European leaders can step into the vacuum left by Trump-Zelensky confrontation
Volodymyr Zelensky & Donald Trump 02 | Trong Khiem Nguyen | Flickr

In one of the most dramatic White House confrontations in recent memory, President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky exposed a deepening rift between Kyiv and Washington.

Zelensky, seeking reassurances on U.S. support and a critical minerals deal, faced a blistering rebuke from Trump and his team instead. The spectacle underscored the mounting uncertainty surrounding America’s role in the Ukraine conflict and its long-term commitment to Kyiv. Zelensky’s visit was expected to reinforce economic ties and secure continued U.S. military aid. However, tensions flared when Trump accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful” and “not ready for peace.” Vice President J.D. Vance, a proponent of reduced aid to Ukraine, intensified the confrontation by questioning Kyiv’s gratitude.


As the exchange escalated, Zelensky pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin had repeatedly violated ceasefires, rendering diplomatic overtures futile. Vance countered that diplomacy was the only viable path to ending Ukraine’s destruction. The breaking point came when Trump bluntly told Zelensky, “You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.” The fallout was immediate. Zelensky’s planned joint press conference with Trump was abruptly canceled, and his security detail swiftly escorted him out of the White House grounds.

The friction between Trump and Zelensky is not new. Zelensky was an unwilling participant in Trump’s first impeachment saga in 2019 when Trump was accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for military aid. More recently, Trump has repeatedly questioned U.S. support for Kyiv, labeling Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and blaming Ukraine for the war—comments that have only widened the divide.

Zelensky has pushed back, accusing Trump of parroting Russian disinformation. His refusal to sign a critical minerals deal at the Munich Security Conference further irked the Trump camp, which had sought access to Ukraine’s vast rare-earth resources. The White House viewed this as yet another sign of Kyiv’s reluctance to align with U.S. economic interests.

Russia wasted no time in capitalizing on the rift. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev mockingly declared that Zelensky had finally received the “slap down” he deserved. Russian state media framed the episode as proof that U.S. support for Ukraine was waning, portraying Trump’s stance as a signal that Washington could no longer be relied upon as Kyiv’s steadfast ally.

The timing could not have been worse for Ukraine. Friday marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, a grim reminder that despite billions in Western aid, Kyiv remains locked in a war of attrition.

For Putin, the White House debacle was more than just a public relations win—it was a potential turning point in his long-term strategy to fracture Western unity.

While international reaction was mixed, Trump’s allies in the Republican Party backed him. Senator Lindsey Graham, once a vocal supporter of U.S. aid to Ukraine, defended Trump’s approach. “Most Americans watching today wouldn’t want Zelensky as a business partner,” Graham remarked on Fox News, reflecting a broader GOP shift away from unconditional support for Kyiv. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump’s stance, stating that he and Vance were “standing up for the American people.” Even Senator Marco Rubio, who reportedly sat stone-faced during the meeting, later praised Trump for displaying “the courage no president has shown before.”

European leaders were left unsettled. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had sought to reassure Trump of NATO’s commitment to countering Russian aggression. Macron flattered Trump’s negotiation skills, while Starmer extended an invitation from King Charles for a state visit. Their efforts now seem in vain, as Trump’s clash with Zelensky sent shockwaves through European capitals.

European nations, already anxious about Trump’s unpredictability, must now prepare for the possibility that Kyiv may need to fend for itself.

For Zelensky, the fallout presents a serious dilemma. With Trump signaling a potential U.S. pullback, Kyiv must reinforce its alliances elsewhere, particularly within the European Union.

Despite the tensions, Ukraine relies heavily on American military and economic aid, making it imperative to navigate Washington’s shifting political landscape cautiously.

For Trump, the Oval Office showdown was a calculated display of strength designed to appeal to his “America First” base while reinforcing his tough-on-allies stance. Whether this approach yields tangible diplomatic results remains to be seen. If anything, the meeting reinforced concerns that Trump’s foreign policy is driven more by personal grievances than strategic vision.

Meanwhile, Moscow is watching closely, waiting for the moment when Western unity fractures completely. If Friday’s Oval Office spectacle was any indication, that moment may not be far off.

In addition, Ukraine should explore diversifying its alliances beyond traditional Western partners. Strengthening ties with emerging powers such as India, Japan, and South Korea could provide Kyiv with alternative sources of support and investment. By fostering these relationships, Ukraine can reduce its dependency on any single ally and build a more resilient network of international partnerships. This approach enhances Ukraine's strategic position and signals to Moscow that Kyiv has a broad support base, making it more challenging for Russia to exploit divisions within the international community.

The path forward will hinge on whether European leaders can step into the vacuum left by the United States and whether Ukraine can withstand the mounting pressure from Moscow and Washington. If Macron and Starmer can forge a coherent European-led strategy, they may succeed in keeping Ukraine’s war effort viable. However, if Trump continues to undermine Zelensky while sending mixed signals to U.S. allies, the risk of a fractured Western response - and a weakened Ukraine - will only grow.

In the coming days, the world will be watching closely. Ukraine’s future hangs in the balance, and the choices made by Western leaders now will determine whether Kyiv can withstand this latest geopolitical storm or be forced into a settlement that undermines its sovereignty and security.

Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.

SUGGESTION: This is not how a global leader behaves


Read More

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less