What Trump’s Spat with Zelenskyy Means About U.S. Global Alliances
A verbal altercation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a February 28 Oval Office meeting on the Russo-Ukrainian War. Source: Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2022, former President Biden was quick to provide support to the aggressed nation, with his administration offering over $119.7 billion in aid to Ukraine over the next three years. In Biden’s mind, this wasn’t born out of some sentimental affinity for Ukraine but rather a strategic calculation on the President’s part, one that the vast majority of elected officials in the post-World War II era had shared—American aid to countries in crisis would win our nation favor throughout the world, allowing us to spread our influence and further solidify the United States as a geoeconomic and geopolitical hegemon.
President Trump has taken a different approach. In an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28, President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance lambasted the Ukrainian leader for “gambling with World War III.” They suggested that Zelenskyy didn’t “have the cards right now” to withstand Russian aggression and should therefore accept a ceasefire deal with Russia (who, as Zelenskyy noted in the meeting, has violated numerous previous ceasefire deals with Ukraine in the past). This rhetoric could reflect an unprecedented departure from the post-World War II consensus in Washington, putting the United States on never-before-treaded terrain in geopolitics. Our country could forsake old alliances and seek out new partners for trade, military agreements, and the like. So, how might Trump’s spat with Zelenskyy reshuffle U.S. global alliances?
Most pressing is the growing divide between the U.S. and its current geopolitical allies. For the past several decades, the United States’ most steadfast ally on the world stage has been Western Europe, with the United States acting as the European Union’s largest trading partner in 2022. Furthermore, our membership in NATO has offered us greater security as a resurgence in imperialism and land wars has occurred throughout the world. However, the divide over Ukraine relations could constitute an existential rift in the bond between these allies. Earlier this week, European leaders, joined by Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, met in London to signal solidarity with Ukraine, an event from which the U.S. was conspicuously absent. This suggests a concrete withdrawal of support for Ukraine in the U.S. government, even as European leaders have maintained their support.
But where will the U.S. go if it drifts away from Europe? One possible answer is Russia. Just this week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Trump’s emergent foreign policy “largely coincides” with Russia’s geopolitical goals, which suggests Russian amiability towards the U.S. Of course, it is far too early to know whether the growing U.S.-Europe divide will last or whether the Trump administration will pursue Russia as an ally in Europe’s stead. However, if it does, we could see the United States try to lessen its trade with Europe and foster a warmer trade relationship with Russia. This is a terrible idea, since Russia’s economy is built largely around natural resources like oil and gas, meaning it could hardly replace Europe’s diverse economy that specializes in advanced manufacturing, technology, and financial services.
Beyond that, the U.S. growing closer to Russia would likely further entangle it with Russia’s allies, such as China and North Korea. However, Trump has steadfastly criticized China as the primary geopolitical enemy of the United States. Even so, with the influence of China sympathizers such as Elon Musk in the administration, combined with growing polarization among leading administration officials against Europe, China and other friends of Russia could become more compelling prospective partners for the United States in the future.
The effects of such a bond between the United States and China would be uncertain. Could the liberal democratic regime of the United States influence authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, and North Korea? Or would the proximity to authoritarian leaders embolden the more autocracy-sympathizing members of the Trump administration to pursue the de-liberalization of America’s political system? The former is doubtful, given how entrenched the regimes of Russia and its allies truly are. For instance, Ward and Silberstein find that Kim Jong Un has only further consolidated power through repression and similar means since he took his position as North Korea’s supreme leader, making regime change unlikely any time soon. Conversely, given that Trump has already expressed more outwardly authoritarian tendencies than ever before since his second inauguration, being in the political orbit of foreign dictators could give him the boost he needs to pursue authoritarian policies domestically, whether or not such efforts would be successful.
This highlights just how important the previous international order was; historically, United States allies, such as the European Union, have continuously supported and aided the U.S. economically and politically. However, this dynamic has begun to shift. As Trump’s conflict with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy continues to create tensions, there is concern that it could lead to a decline in America's economic dominance and political stability, potentially ending the prosperity it has enjoyed since World War II.