The United States could inadvertently become the key to a Russian victory over Ukraine, warn academics worldwide, as the conflict approaches its three-year mark. Recent days have seen Trump describe Zelenskyy as a “dictator,” sparking outrage in Kyiv and among European allies. This statement came after Zelenskyy criticized Trump’s negotiations with Russia to end the war without including Ukraine. In response, Trump accused Zelenskyy of operating under a “misinformation bubble” and claimed that Ukraine could have avoided war if it had negotiated an agreement with Russia from the beginning.
European leaders, such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, rejected Trump’s words, calling them “wrong and dangerous” for questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also expressed support for Zelenskyy, noting that it’s “perfectly reasonable” to postpone elections during wartime. Both Germany and the United Kingdom have been steadfast defenders of Ukraine, with Berlin solidifying its position as the second-largest supplier of arms to Kyiv, after the United States.
Meanwhile, Russia has taken advantage of the situation to reinforce its narrative against Zelenskyy. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov stated that “Zelenskyy’s statements and many representatives of the Kyiv regime leave much to be desired.” These statements reinforce the Kremlin’s strategy of discrediting the Ukrainian government while positioning itself as a key actor in resolving the conflict. The request by Putin and Trump for Ukraine to hold elections has only increased uncertainty. It’s unclear whether the American leader understands that martial law does not permit elections during wartime. Analysts agree that even if the constitutional factor were ignored and Zelenskyy called elections, there are no technical or logistical conditions to carry them out, and the impossibility of holding elections in occupied areas could mean recognizing the Kremlin’s victory.
Trump has been insisting for months that he can resolve the war “very quickly,” although he has not detailed how he plans to do it beyond pressuring Ukrainians. The truth is that since 2019, his relationship with Zelenskyy has been marked by moments of cooperation and disagreements. In September 2024, during his electoral campaign, Trump accused his counterpart of launching “small unpleasant slander” against him. Later, in November, after his re-election, Zelenskyy was one of the first leaders to congratulate him, expressing his hope for US support, which has yet to materialize.
The US attitude stems from a simple internal factor: Ukraine is not interested in Trump’s ideology. The Republican has made it clear that “too much” has been allocated to a war in which the US “has nothing to do.” In fact, in one of his recent criticisms of Zelenskyy, Trump questioned the $350 billion allocated, a figure far from the $200 billion defended by the Ukrainian president, which both Washington and Brussels have delivered.
The other aspect is the idea of “rapid execution” that Trump’s White House is using these days. The Republican needs to show that he can fulfill his promise of “ending the war” now that he’s in office, and he seems willing to give Putin more concessions regarding Ukraine than those that Ukrainians themselves are willing to give. However, experts in defense also point out that it’s early to interpret whether, perhaps, behind those conversations, there is a much more global agreement with the Kremlin that sacrifices Ukraine’s wishes for some concession from Putin regarding Iran or China, which the US sees as natural enemies.
In the midst of this landscape, Europe is lagging behind. The European Union, given the possible change in American foreign policy, has begun to evaluate an increase in defense investment to counteract uncertainty at a time when a potential surrender of Ukraine to Putin could define the future of global security and rewrite the concert of allies in geopolitical chess.