The West Pushed Ukraine Under the Russian Train—Then Called It a Bad Plan

For weeks, the new U.S. administration has been questioning Washington’s previous policies while setting conditions for Europe and probing Russia for possible concessions.

Photo: Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump

In Kyiv, those familiar with diplomatic history recall Henry Kissinger’s famous remark: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." Others remember reports that former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson allegedly persuaded Kyiv to abandon a peace deal with Moscow early in the war.

While Kissinger had varying views on alliances, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently denied Johnson’s involvement, insisting he made decisions independently.

(In)experienced Politicians

Zelensky, once a comedian, won the presidency promising peace, only to find himself at the heart of Europe's biggest geopolitical struggle. His lack of experience led him to trust one great power against the world’s largest nuclear state. Defending the more seasoned Johnson, he claimed sole responsibility for critical decisions—a statement that raises questions about his leadership.

His decision-making remains a topic for historians and analysts, but his approach—such as reshuffling Ukraine’s military leadership amid elite conflicts—raises eyebrows. Meanwhile, the world watches how the U.S. and NATO, without the right to strategic errors, handle the war that supposedly defends European democracy and security. What does Taiwan think now?

Biden’s departure marks the end of a strategic vision backed by hundreds of billions in military aid. While costly, it yielded successes. Trump's stance isn't surprising; he has repeatedly dismissed previous U.S. commitments. However, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent claim that Ukraine was never promised membership contradicts his earlier statements that Kyiv was closer than ever to joining.

Trump’s Approach and Zelensky’s Fate

With Trump’s return, Western leaders face a new reality. Trump openly declares that Ukraine must offer rare minerals and natural resources in exchange for U.S. support. His blunt rhetoric shatters the traditional Western narrative of "fighting for democracy and human rights," instead framing the war as a transaction. For Ukrainian soldiers, his words may sound like a call to abandon their fight.

Yet, Trump isn’t solely responsible. Biden’s late 2023 decision allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory limited Trump’s leverage, as it escalated tensions and removed a potential bargaining chip. Now, Trump must either continue Biden’s policy or strike a deal with Moscow—one likely to disadvantage Ukraine and Europe.

As Russian and U.S. representatives discuss Europe’s future, the continent must decide: Will it strengthen Trump’s negotiating power through further funding and arms purchases, or push for an independent European military strategy?

Zelensky sees Denmark’s direct investment in Ukraine’s defense industry as a model, urging Europe to follow suit—without Washington. But does he have the backing of Ukraine’s political and military elite?

For nearly two years, rumors have swirled that Zelensky is a burden for the West. Now, with Trump calling him a "dictator" and Putin questioning his legitimacy, his position is more fragile than ever. His vision of reclaiming all occupied territories seems increasingly distant—an idea no major Western leader considers realistic.

This article was originally published on nap.ba.

---