Zelensky in Limbo
Zelensky in Limbo
Ukraine Changes Stance
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 since they’ve captured a large amount 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 occurring.
The American President called Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator and a weak comedian who refuses to hold elections. His approval rating in the 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 came not only from Trump but from others as well. Elon Musk wrote on his profile in response to 47 accounts linked to the White House that Zelensky cannot claim to represent the will of the Ukrainian people unless he restores press freedom and refrains from canceling elections.
The post states: 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 lecture the American President, he should hold elections himself.
Anglo-French Plan for Kyiv
In addition to Trump’s remarks provoking a strong reaction from Zelensky, Trump lives in a bubble of Russian misinformation. These statements have also increased European frustration.
The Economist writes that last week was the darkest week for the ancient continent since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine has been sold out, Russia has been rebuilt, and during Donald Trump’s era, one can no longer rely on America 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 still need to be understood and digested, as there are reports of creating a European force to ensure Ukraine’s security by Britain and France, which they will present to Trump in Washington during next week’s visit.
Citing Western officials, The Guardian reports that a force comprising fewer than 30,000 troops will be formed with minimal presence in the battlefield, far from the front lines 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 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 if a lasting peace agreement is to be achieved, Europe must play its part but must be supported by the United States because U.S. security guarantees are the only way to effectively prevent Russia from re-attacking Ukraine.
His statements acknowledge a reality: the United States cannot be indifferent to Ukraine’s future without jeopardizing Europe’s security as well.
However, the damage will only be partially repairable. NATO’s deterrence is actually based on the certainty of Article 5, which stipulates that if one member is attacked, others will come to its aid.
The doubt instilled by both Trump and his Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has actually dangerously exposed Europe to threats.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, reflecting these concerns, 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 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 capabilities to defend themselves.
Particularly, Hegseth stated that the U.S. military presence in Europe will not continue forever 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 numbers speak for themselves: the European Union spends about 330 billion euros annually on defense, a significant figure but distributed across 27 national armies, each with its own commands, weapons systems, and methods.
In practice, this means gaps, task duplication, interoperability issues, dependence on external sources, and inefficient costs.
A change of direction 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 third place 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 parts of the supply chain. This is one of many examples where the European Union performs less effectively than the sum of its parts.
And finally, the question is: the specific lines of a potential ceasefire that the Americans and Russians have started in Riyadh, three years after the beginning of the second Russian invasion, will also be very important from this aspect. Will this be just 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 regarding the future security structure in Europe, worryingly resembling a new Yalta where decisions are made over Europeans and Ukrainians?
The will of those left out of the negotiation table, not just from the list, is completely justified, but it may still be useful to examine from now what options exist for greater European commitment in the face of reduced U.S. commitments to protect Ukraine’s security after the ceasefire, perhaps also by facilitating the holding of new elections that Trump seems to be demanding, and 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.