Zelensky in Limbo
Zelensky in Limbo
Ukraine Changes Position
A fierce conflict has erupted between Zelensky and Trump, who calls him a dictator refusing to hold elections, while Europe is contemplating a plan for defense. I think the Russians want to see the end of the war, and it seems they have the necessary cards because they have captured a lot of territory. These statements were made by the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in an interview with the BBC inside Air Force One while flying from Florida to Washington at a time when the final confrontation between the White House and Kyiv was taking place.
The U.S. President called Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator and a weak comedian who refuses to hold elections. His approval rating in polls is 4, and the only thing he has succeeded in is playing Biden like a violin.
He criticized Zelensky’s absence from the Riyadh negotiations and even blamed him for the war, saying you should never have started it; you could have made a deal.
An all-out attack on the Ukrainian President was launched not only by Trump but by others as well. Elon Musk, in his profile, in response to 47 accounts linked to the White House, wrote that Zelensky cannot claim to represent the will of the Ukrainian people unless he restores freedom of the press and stops canceling elections.
The post states that in America, we hold presidential elections every four years, even during wartime.
We held elections during the Civil War. We held elections during World War II. Before President Zelensky decides to preach to the U.S. President, he should hold elections himself.
Anglo-French Plan for Kyiv
In addition to Trump’s words provoking a strong reaction from Zelensky, Trump lives in a bubble of Russian misinformation. These statements have also increased the frustration of Europeans.
The Economist writes that last week was the darkest for the old continent since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine has been sold out, Russia has been rebuilt, and during Donald Trump’s era, America can no longer be relied upon to help Europe in times of war.
The consequences of the current government’s statements and actions for the security of this continent are very serious, but they still need to be understood and digested, as there are reports of the creation of a European force to ensure Ukraine’s security by Britain and France, and this plan will be presented to Trump during a visit to Washington next week.
Citing Western officials, The Guardian reports that a force consisting of fewer than 30,000 soldiers will be formed, with minimal presence on the battlefield away from the front line in the east of the country.
The purpose of this force is to prevent Russian attacks on cities, ports, and Ukraine’s infrastructure, as well as to ensure the safe reopening of airspace for commercial flights while securing maritime trade in the Black Sea, which is essential for the country’s food and grain exports.
NATO’s Dark Week
However, as has been stated several times in the past, such a plan can only be effective if it includes air and logistical coverage, which only NATO and especially the United States can provide.
Starmer said that if a lasting peace agreement is to be reached, Europe must play its role, but it must be supported by the United States because the U.S. security guarantee is the only way to effectively prevent Russia from attacking Ukraine again.
His statements acknowledge a reality: the United States cannot remain indifferent to Ukraine’s future without endangering Europe’s security as well.
However, the damage done will only be partially reparable. NATO’s deterrence is actually based on the certainty of Article 5, which stipulates that in case of an attack on one member, others will come to its aid.
Doubt and skepticism instilled by both Trump and his Defense Secretary, Pete Hechst, have actually dangerously exposed Europe to threats.
Reflecting these concerns, Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, stated that everyone knows that transatlantic relations, NATO’s alliance, and our friendship with the United States have entered a new phase. We all see it.
Should Europe Defend Itself?
The 180-degree shift that Trump has imposed on U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine, along with his and his officials’ statements, has forced the European Union and NATO member countries to reflect on their ability to defend themselves.
Notably, Hechst stated that the U.S. military presence in Europe will not continue indefinitely and hinted at a gradual return of about 90,000 American troops stationed on the continent.
The main problem Europeans face is a fragmented defense industry, an inefficient and underfunded divided military apparatus.
The figures speak for themselves: the European Union spends about 330 billion euros a year on defense, a significant amount but distributed among 27 national armies, each with its own commands, weapon systems, and methods.
In practice, this means gaps, duplication of tasks, interoperability issues, dependency on external sources, and inefficient costs.
Change is not only desirable but necessary.
Mario Draghi emphasized this in his speech at the European Parliament during the European Parliamentary Week 2025.
The former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Central Bank warned that if recent statements outline our future, we can expect to be largely left to our own devices to ensure security in Ukraine and Europe itself, adding that although collectively we are in the third position globally in terms of defense spending, we will not be able to increase it through our production capacity.
Our national defense systems have problems not only in terms of interoperability but also in terms of standardization in some key supply chain sectors. This is one of the many examples where the European Union operates less effectively than the sum of its parts.
And in the end, the question is whether the potential ceasefire lines that Americans and Russians have started in Riyadh, three years after the start of the second Russian invasion, will be very important from this aspect as well. Will it just be a simple temporary ceasefire like those negotiated in the Middle East, allowing Donald Trump to keep his election promise, and perhaps be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, or will it be a deeper agreement between Washington and Moscow on the future security structure in Europe, worryingly resembling a new Yalta where decisions are made over the heads of Europeans and Ukrainians?
The will of those left out of the table, not just from the list, is entirely justified but it may still be useful to consider now what options exist for greater European commitment in response to reduced U.S. commitments to protect Ukraine’s security after the ceasefire, perhaps also facilitating the holding of new elections that Trump seems to desire, indirectly even ensuring the security of his own elections.
A collective proposal from Europeans in this direction could help them secure an appropriate role in defining a credible and sustainable agreement on Ukraine’s future.
