Foreign policy is often so carefully hedged and circumspect and subsumed by niceties, that it's hard to follow. But then suddenly, there is a moment which penetrates like an icy knife into the very heart of the matter.
In the words of the anonymous Fear and Loathing substack, "You can feel the tectonic plates of power shifting under your feet, the precise seconds when empires declare themselves rotten and ready to collapse. One of those moments took place on Saturday, February 28, 2025, when the world witnessed the Oval Office degradation and humiliation of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by President Donald Trump". (I should say I'm not convinced that it was he who was humiliated; the Financial Times ran a similar headline and in some 2295 comments (at the time of writing), many readers pointed out that rather Americans were humiliated by their own 'playground bully' President.)
Kevin Liptak, Jeff Zeleny, Kaitlan Collins, Kit Maher
Essentially, what happened is that the Western alliance shattered and the US handed the Ukraine to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin on the plate, or at least paved the way for that to transpire. The world now stands on the brink of 1939. It was, as Fear and Loathing pointed out, āa grotesque display of unchecked narcissism, geopolitical idiocy, and the full-throttle transformation of American foreign policy into a goddamn mafia shakedownā.
And now?
- Europe is on its own, without the US military and financial backstop; a position it is not particularly well-equipped, literally, to occupy. A dip of the thermometer into this new order gives us one example of an unexpected recalibration: consider the newly elected German Christian Democratic Union leader, Friedrich Merz, the most pro-US politician from the countryās most pro-US party. Merz, who ironically led an organisation called the āAtlantic Bridgeā, in his first speech as Chancellor-elect, spoke about the need for German āindependenceā from Washington.
- The chances are more likely Ukraine will lose the war as Putin gradually leans on Ukraine's diminishing resources, both human and military, to endure a long-term, gradual, wearing down of its more limited forces. Trump blamed Zelenskyy for not wanting a cease-fire but of course it is Putin who really doesn't want a cease-fire; he has recently demurred on the subject of a dĆ©tente, saying he wants to resolve the āroot causesā of the war first, which is code for a broader pullback of NATO across Eastern Europe.
- The United States' new unreliability and vacillating nature will result in it being perceived as an inconsistent ally and China will fill the vacuum. No, China is not a democracy, but at least it is consistent and broadly sensible - until precisely the moment it is not.
- Self-sufficiency will replace multi-lateralism as the default diplomatic position; all countries need to prepare for this new reality. I canāt imagine a worse time for any country, least of all South Africa, to be hosting a G-20 summit.
You have to ask: how the heck did this happen? It's like that moment in Mary Poppins when a child withdraws a penny from the bank account and all of a sudden, there is a rush of withdrawals and the bank collapses. The meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump was intended to achieve exactly the opposite of what transpired. Zelenskyy was in Washington to sign a deal handing over his countryās mineral resources to try and shore up its US support. Trump is transactional, everyone said. Go and see him, everyone said. Offer him a deal, everyone said. So he did. But what a desperate deal! Thank goodness that deal is off the table.
Just think about what was supposed to happen for a moment: As New York Times columnist Brett Stephens put it, āIf Roosevelt had told Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britainās coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky. Whatever one might say about how Zelensky played his cards poorly ā either by failing to behave with the degree of all-fours sycophancy that Trump demands or to maintain his composure in the face of JD Vanceās disingenuous provocations ā this was a day of American infamy.ā
Instead, deliberately or not, the Trump team wore down Zelenskyy until he couldnāt take it anymore. But behind the fussing over ārespectā, ādisrespectā, whether Zelenskyy owned a suit, etc., ad nauseam, there is a political calculus taking place that was very clearly on show in the meeting.
Trumpās repeated intervention was that Ukraine doesnāt have the cards, or the leverage. This is exactly how Trump sees the world. āYouāre, right now, not really in a very good position. Youāve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position,ā Trump told the Ukrainian president. āYou donāt have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.ā
āIām not playing cards,ā Zelenskyy responded sharply, oddly reflecting both his strength and weakness at the same time. If Zelenskyy had believed he was playing a game where the odds necessarily determine the outcome, he would have given up right from the start. To his enormous credit, he didn't.
But in a sense, Trump is right to underline Zelenskyyās weak position on the battlefield, where Ukraine has been steadily losing ground for a year now. The long game suits Putin, and Trump is right to emphasise that point.
But what about Trumpās subsequent claim?: āIāve empowered you to be a tough guy,ā Trump said to the Ukrainian leader. āI donāt think youād be a tough guy without the United States.ā This is only half true.
The total amount spent varies quite widely. The Kiel Institute, a German-based think tank tracking support going into Ukraine, calculated that the US spent $119.7bn on aid between January 2022 and December 2024. The US Department of Defense has provided a figure of $182.8bn, the BBC reports, but that includes all spending on Operation Atlantic Resolve - a response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including US military training in Europe and the replenishment of US defence stocks. In either case, this is much less than the $350bn Trump claims (surprise!).
Even using Trumpās figure, this is minuscule compared to US spending in previous conflicts in 2024 dollars. And it constitutes less than 1% of the total Federal Budget.
But neither is it chicken feed, which is why this dispute is so critical; it's about 7% per year of the US defence budget. This is the amount Europeans are going to have to make up if the US drops out of the funding, which now seems likely. It will mean a lot of tradeoffs - hope they are ready for it.
There was another issue that inadvertently came up in the altercation: US Vice-President JD Vance told Zelenskyy that the war had to be ended through diplomacy. Sounds sensible, right? Zelenskyy responded by asking "What kind of diplomacy?" and then went on to remind Vance that the previous 2019 ceasefire deal, agreed upon three years before Russia's full-scale invasion when Moscow was supporting and arming separatist fighters in Ukraine's East, was appallingly broken by Putin. Zelenskyy was just saying that a cease-fire without security guarantees is meaningless when you are dealing with an autocrat; a fairly obvious point, I would have thought.
In the process, Zelenskyy said the US was not āfeeling itā now because of its physical distance from the front line, but would āfeel itā in the future. Trump got really annoyed at this point, saying repeatedly, āDonāt tell us what we are going to feel. Don't tell us what we are going to feel (jabs finger). We are trying to solve a problem,ā he said.
But Zelenskyy was absolutely on point. This is what history teaches us so obviously and emphatically that even someone so uninterested in history as Trump might even have noticed. Does it even need to be said? Accommodating authoritarian leaders is interpreted by them as an invitation to take more. And more. And more. And they will because of who they are and because of the political position they hold. Hello, Neville Chamberlain.
As the Fear and Loathing column also pointed out: āWhen Zelenskyy pushed backātrying to explain, like a rational human being, that diplomacy requires more than rolling over and exposing your belly to a psychotic autocrat like Vladimir PutināVance chimed in, whining that it was "disrespectful" to discuss such things in front of the American media. Disrespectful! As if the real problem here was the optics, not the grotesque moral betrayal unfolding in real timeā.
But Trump doesnāt want to think about this because it's inconvenient to his point of view, which is to be considered by his domestic audience as a āpeace-makerā (while simultaneously fancying himself a "strongman". Go figure.). He painted himself into a corner by promising peace "on day one". From his point of view, Putin holds all the ācardsā, so for him, āpeaceā is essentially caving in to Putinās demands so he fulfils his promise; the result has been the disconcerting, self-inflicted degradation of the āleader of the free worldā by a regional bully. But he doesn't see that.
Fear and Loathing once again: āTrump views everything through the lens of a cheap con artist running a rigged casino. Ukraine, in his mind, is a desperate gambler, and Trump is the pit boss deciding whether to extend another round of creditā.
The US is essentially now transparently endorsing the idea of a Russian land grab in exchange for peace. That just might be, in the mind of a property magnate, the realistic solution. But if it were, then Trumpās job was to try and get Zelenskyy to accept, kicking and screaming, that this sad, debasing, shameful outcome was the best that could be hoped for in the circumstances.
In that job, he failed on all counts. His bias toward Putin, whom he openly admires; his failure to call him out for starting the invasion; his harping on old disagreements; his Chamberlain-like naivety of Putinās intentions; all made this goal nearly impossible from the start - and thus it has been demonstrated. Instead, what he has done is expose US weakness by offering its fealty to an autocrat.
Itās worth pointing out how unpopular Putin is among Republicans. In a commentary article in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Balson points out that while Trump remains exceedingly popular among Republicans (they are split on Zelensky), 83% view the Russian President unfavourably. "They were asked which proposition they agreed with more: that Putin launched an unprovoked war to subjugate Ukraine, or that NATO expansion and Ukrainian belligerence sparked the war. By 70% to 15%, they chose the former".
āThe people who elected Trump and the Republican congressional majority understand the difference between the defenders on the wall and the marauders at the gate. Republican voters back many of the policies the White House is pursuing, but they didnāt vote to surrender Ukraine to Putinās ravenous ambitions," he writes.
Just one other thing bears mention: "Have you ever said thank you once?" Vance asked Zelenskyy. A CNN fact check (along with most of outraged twitter/x) came back with the answer: actually, yes, Zelensky has thanked the US and US leaders 33 times in the recent past.
Daniel Dale
What on earth would make Vance think that Zelenskyy is not thankful; does he really think Zelenskyy doesnāt know what is at stake? It was an astounding assumption that says much, much more about Vance than it does about Zelenskyy.
Vance has seemingly convinced himself that the problem is that Zelenskyy is not grateful enough and that if only Zelenskyy would genuflect to lick Trumpās feet, as he, Vance, does, it would all work out just fine. The whole issue is one of appearances, in his mind. This constitutes a massive miss-reading of an impressive man who, come what may, deserves our respect. He may not have the cards, but so far, he has held the line, as have his countrymen. In blood people, in blood.
Vance and Trump raised the issue during the altication with Zelenskyy of his siding with the Democrats, referring to his September 22, 2024 visit to the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Pennsylvania to express gratitude to American workers producing munitions for Ukraine. (See "thank you" issue above). He was accompanied by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Senator Bob Casey, both Democrats.
But this is too rich. Vance has just explicitly intervened, unsuccessfully as it happens, in the German election, visiting the far-right AfD leader Alice Weidel during a trip to Munich a little more than a week before the election at which he gave a speech warning Germany against erecting political āfirewalls.ā This, according to Wall Street Journal columnist Joseph Sternberg, is a direct jab at mainstream German politiciansā refusal to contemplate coalitions with the AfD, because the AfD refuses to purge apparent Nazi sympathizers from its leadership ranks. The incident made Vance look exactly what he is: ignorant. And to that, he has now added something else: hypocrisy.
This is a catastrophic end to a week, particularly for French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who both visited the US in hopes of paving the way to a security agreement with Ukraine. World leaders rallied to his side.
Nadeem Badshah
But, you know, wheels within wheels. If these changes in the tectonic forces of history and diplomacy cause Europe to become more self-reliant, so much the better. It may be time for European institutions in general to pick up the mantle, as dilapidated and decrepit as they are. And it's time for countries which have not been part of the āgreat gameā so far, like India, Brazil, Poland and Turkey - all important nations - to step up to the plate.
Even that blip on the international radar, South Africa, could do more. š„
From the department of the new world: the US is now allied with the great nations of North Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Nicaragua and the Marshal Islands.
From the department of dressing down. Very down.
Tim Cohen
Thanks for reading the post - sorry its so depressing, but problems don't go away if you ignore them. Please do share, its the best way to keep these coming. And please take the survey, it takes less the a minute. Till next time. š„
Join the conversation