IF there’s one thing certain about Donald Trump’s take on the world, it’s that money matters. The US president has long maintained that his greatest love is “the deal” – especially the kind where its outcome fills his own or America’s coffers.
His Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, clearly aware of Trump’s predilection, went to Washington these past few days in the hope that by feeding the US leader’s craving for cash, he might buy his country time and perhaps even procure those security guarantees that will enable Ukraine to fight on in its war against the Russian invaders that threaten the country’s very existence.
Just these past weeks, Zelenskyy, in a media interview, reiterated his long-held view that “security guarantees without America are not really security guarantees”.
“There are voices which say that Europe could offer security guarantees without the Americans, and I always say no,” the Ukrainian president insisted during an interview in Kyiv a few weeks ago before travelling to the Munich Security Conference.
READ MORE: Westminster can't be trusted with Scotland’s renewables
But then came Friday’s face-to-face encounter with Trump and vice-president JD Vance, a man known to be less than well disposed towards Kyiv and Ukraine’s cause.
It was also Zelenskyy’s first meeting with Trump since the US president’s false claim that Ukraine had “started” the war with Russia and that the Ukrainian leader was nothing more than “a dictator”.
In other words, things were already far from cordial. But even allowing for this, few could have anticipated the Oval Office meltdown that ensued in full view of the world’s media.
Long before arriving at the White House, Zelenskyy doubtless was well aware of the diplomatic tightrope walk he was about to embark upon.
It would be hard to overstate also the importance assigned to the meeting given that at stake was the very US support that Zelenskyy puts so much store by.
No doubt he took some comfort from the guard-rail deal supposedly safeguarding him from falling into the diplomatic abyss. This, after all, was billed as a historic signing of an agreement on mineral extraction, cementing US interest in Ukraine’s economy for decades to come and hopefully, from Zelenskyy’s perspective, some security guarantees to go with it.
Depending on who you listen to, there are two contrasting interpretations of what brought about the minerals agreement.
One interpretation has it that Zelenskyy was forced into it after Trump’s inauguration and the newly elected US president immediately started talking directly to Russian president Vladimir Putin about peace talks while ignoring Ukraine.
The other is that after Trump first floated the idea of acquiring natural resources, Kyiv saw the opportunity to placate the new US administration and put itself firmly back in the frame for continued US support.
What’s not in doubt is that these vast natural resources make for a serious bargaining chip. Ukraine has Europe’s largest supply of uranium, second-largest supply of natural gas and substantial reserves of lithium and other rare-earth minerals.
These resources are valued at about $1 trillion, which is music to the ears of the likes of Trump, even if about a third are in Russian-occupied territory in eastern Ukraine.
But all that is by the way for now after the meeting descended into a fiery argument that some observers felt was tantamount to an on-camera political “ambush” of Zelenskyy by Trump and Vance.
Across the world, Ukraine’s allies looked on in horror at the diplomatic collision taking place before their eyes.
In Europe especially, where many countries have been forced to a reckoning over their continued military support for Ukraine, there was particular anxiety over the likelihood that Washington will now jettison its own backing of Kyiv.
Even before Friday’s calamitous encounter, the French journalist and former Le Monde Moscow correspondent Sylvie Kauffmann, writing in the Financial Times (FT), warned about the profound implications of a US pivot on support.
“Supporting Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes’ – the allies’ mantra for almost three years – does lose credibility when the major partner leaves the chorus,” observed Kauffmann.
So, after Friday’s White House slanging match, where does this leave US support – and should it now evaporate, could Ukraine survive a war without Washington?
Right now, the simple unpalatable fact is that should the Trump administration cut off military and financial aid, it will be doing so at a time when Russia retains the initiative on the battlefield.
For that reason, many observers saw the spat as a gift to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Certainly, there was no shortage of Russian officials quick to welcome the potential downfall of the Ukraine-US partnership.
Dmitry Medvedev – the former Russian prime minister and president and deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council – took to social media to express his own “pleasure” at events in the White House.
“The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office,” Medvedev wrote on Twitter/X. “And @realDonald Trump is right: The Kyiv regime is gambling with WWIII.”
Kirill Dmitriev, chief of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and a lead negotiator in US-Russian talks that took place earlier this month in Saudi Arabia, also commented, albeit using more restrained language.
“Historic,” Dmitriev tweeted after the diplomatic scandal, sharing a video of the heated exchange. A short time later, he also retweeted Elon Musk’s post with the same footage and the message: “Watch this carefully. Very important.”
Sensing a diplomatic pile-on aimed at Zelenskyy, European leaders lined up to show solidarity with the Ukrainian president.
While stopping short of directly criticising Trump and Vance, their comments made clear they stood by Kyiv, again highlighting a major rift between traditional allies, the US and Europe, over the war since Trump returned to office.
“There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a people who are under attack: Ukraine,” French president Emmanuel Macron, who visited Trump last week, posted on Twitter/X.
“Respect to those who, since the beginning, have been fighting. Because they are fighting for their dignity, their independence, for their children and for the security of Europe,” Macron added.
Some leaders went much further, however, among them, European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, a former prime minister of Estonia. Her blunt assessment concluded that Washington could no longer lead the free world.
“Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge,” Kallas said.
“We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor.”
Her words echoed those of Friedrich Merz, the conservative candidate who will be Germany’s next chancellor, who recently declared he wanted Europe to gain full “independence” from the US on defence.
Stepping up that support is likely to dominate the discussion of more than a dozen European leaders, including Zelenskyy, invited by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to a hastily convened summit on Ukraine and security today in London.
Nato chief Mark Rutte and EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa are also expected to join.
“The Prime Minister will use the summit to drive forward European action on Ukraine – signalling our collective unwavering support to securing a just and enduring peace, and a lasting deal, that ensures Ukraine’s future sovereignty and security,” a statement issued by Starmer’s office said.
But as Ukraine’s European and other allies race to show diplomatic and military support, the stark reality of supplying military aid and weapons without the heft of US provision is being thrown into sharp focus.
In a recent interview with Politico magazine, former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba made clear the gravity of the situation and the extent to which time is of the essence should the Trump administration cut supplies.
“The most powerful leverage Trump has on Ukraine is to threaten non-delivery of weapons. We have, in my view, six months before we would really start to feel the lack of weapons on the frontline,” warned Kuleba.
That six-month window for Europe to substitute any US drawdown in weapons supplies is a view shared by many analysts.
According to Ben Barry, senior fellow for land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), cited by Politico, US withdrawal would not only cost Ukraine about half its arms – it would also deprive the country of many of its “most effective” ones.
Analysts say some US systems – such as Abrams tanks – can be switched for European ones, like Leopards. Meanwhile, the F-16s are all supplied by European countries, not the US, while there are competitors for Patriot air defence system like the SAMP/T, Germany’s IRIS-T and Norway’s NASAMS.
Many military experts agree that replacing a US shortfall is doable, but where questions arise is over the political will to carry it through. Some also point to how shifts in the nature of the war on the ground might also work to Ukraine’s advantage.
Oleksandr Khomiak is the founder of Drone Space Labs and, speaking recently with the Financial Times, explained how the war is increasingly fought using drones and because of advances Ukraine is making with drone technology, it is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in the making of the weapons.
“I think Ukraine now produces more than a million drones a year. And in terms of FPV drones, first-person-view drones, that number is even higher,” said Khomiak.
“And basically, they are very easy to produce because a person who is trained for maybe three to four weeks can already assemble FPV drones. And we have a lot of civic initiatives to teach people to produce drones,” Khomiak added.
He points also to other “great initiatives”, some led by the UK Government, like the Drone Capability Coalition, which helps Ukraine to build capacity in terms of drones, but which also helps the Western governments to produce the drones which are effective in Ukraine. Earlier this month, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine’s domestic arms production is growing strongly, with the country now making 30 % of what the country needs – largely drones, electronic warfare systems and artillery – but acknowledged it’s still not enough.
That deficit is sure to play heavily on Zelenskyy’s mind this weekend after his White House wrangle with Trump and remarks the US leader made in its aftermath.
“Either we’re going to end it or let him fight it out, and if he fights it out, it’s not going to be pretty because, without us, he doesn’t win,” Trump insisted, speaking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before departing to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
With America’s threat to pull the plug on support, all eyes now will be on whether Ukraine’s European and other allies can step up to the challenge.
While ever more European countries are collaborating with Kyiv to increase its domestic weapons capacity, the process will take years, and time is something Zelenskyy does not have right now.
The breakdown in relations between Zelenskyy and Trump has blown away any lingering hopes of convincing the US president to rethink his approach to a rapid peace deal and piled pressure on senior European leaders as they meet today in London for the arranged summit hosted by Starmer.
Around the table, they will be seeking to co-ordinate their positions on a potential military deployment to Ukraine after any ceasefire, and how to pay for higher defence spending.
Currently, Europe provides the majority of aid – 60% to America’s 40% – according to one estimate, but should Trump pull Washington’s provision, Ukraine will feel the impact in terms of missing American air-defence interceptors, as well as the flow of intelligence and spare parts for American weaponry on which it depends.
It’s worth bearing in mind that when Congress refused to approve more aid for Kyiv more than a year ago, the Ukrainian military suffered artillery ammunition and air defence shortages that allowed Russia to press its advantage along the frontlines. This too comes before the serious shortage of personnel that Ukraine faces.
For now, short of a conciliatory sit down between Zelenskyy and Trump, the road ahead for Ukraine is unclear but strewn with fresh challenges and danger.
Few doubt that even if Washington does abandon Kyiv, Ukraine will keep fighting. Both Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people know all too well what the dire alternative to continuing that fight would be.
Share