Last week, Ukrainian President Zelensky visited the White House to discuss a minerals deal. What ensued was a now-infamous shouting match between the two leaders during which President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance accused Zelensky of “gambling with WWIII,” all but declared Ukraine to be in Russia’s hands, and then ordered his visitors to leave the premises. This confrontation follows four years of strong allyship between the two countries, in which the U.S., along with the majority of the West, has supported Ukraine in its fight against its Russian invaders. Last week’s meeting was one in a long series of events that begs the question: why is Trump so adamant against protecting Ukrainian interests?
Trump has historically differentiated himself from other American politicians by rejecting the consensus that the U.S. should keep Russia at a distance; a sentiment which has grown particularly strong following Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014. Instead, he has claimed that a closer relationship with Russia would benefit the U.S.
Trump has taken huge strides in this direction in his second term in office: his increasingly close relationship with Russian President Putin has been dominating headlines for weeks. But, what specifically draws Trump towards Putin over Zelensky? It’s certainly not sympathy for Putin’s “cause.”
One important reason is that the two presidents’ foreign policy objectives are more aligned now than ever before. In his war against Ukraine, Putin has always had a strong incentive to discredit Western international organizations: if the “Russophobic” West is, in fact, fueling Nazism and plotting to destroy all Russians via Ukraine, Putin’s “special military operation” would be justified to his domestic constituency as national defense.
Trump benefits from this anti-Western organization rationale as well: he has pulled out of or at least diminished American participation in multiple international organizations. More concerning are his proposals for an American-occupied Gaza and Greenland as well as his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. These actions go beyond rejecting the values of respect and sovereignty on which the post-WWII international order was built; they are a mockery.
But, there is a caveat. Trump, too, needs to justify this behavior to the public more so than Putin, because Trump’s ability to lead the country is still contingent on general popular and congressional support. If Trump, like Putin, successfully discredits Western international organizations, he will have justified both an end to American involvement in these organizations and his aggressive foreign policy in one blow. After all, if current international organizations cannot handle crises, then Trump not only has the right, but the duty to rebel against their demands for the sake of his democracy-loving constituency. What better way for him to make this case than to parrot that an aggressive international West bullied an innocent Russian population into a disastrously bloody war?
This intention may have guided Trump’s meeting with Zelensky: his attacks on the Ukrainian president also serve to implicate Western international organizations in supporting an aggressive and irresponsible country. What’s more, the meeting was televised: that is, Trump knew he was performing before a massive audience which meant Americans could be expected to watch and lose trust in a system that, according to Trump, has no place regulating his foreign policy.
The implications this has on the future of international affairs is frightening, and not just for Ukrainians. The functioning of international law and affairs, fragile as they already are, is contingent on respecting the same values President Trump seems to have no problem discarding.
The Zelensky-Trump confrontation reminds us that what happens in the political sphere is not necessarily driven by ideology per se, nor by a genuine benevolence for the constituency. Sometimes it may be motivated by the egoistic desire to impose nothing less than a subjective “ideal” vision of the world without considering the costs such a process may entail. Trump is rapidly and loudly rising in the ranks of leaders epitomizing this very trend.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
