Ditched?

As if the broiling global tensions were not enough, the recent verbal spat between the US president Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky has added another layer of complexity to the ongoing aggression. It is no mystery that Putin, the Russian president, has been the prime aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war. The nonchalant stance of the despot has imperilled the security and sovereignty of Ukraine while creating a humanitarian crisis by killing countless people, injuring more, and razing buildings to the ground—all for the sake of his unfounded claims on Ukrainian territory. Against this background, it won’t be wrong to say that Russia and Ukraine are not just two landmasses at war; they represent two starkly different ideas. The Russia-Ukraine war is also a war between neo-imperialism and expansionism on one hand, and democracy and sovereignty on the other.

Zelensky, who has spent years rallying Western allies to maintain their military and economic assistance, is now forced to navigate a scenario where Trump, the US president, is openly denying America’s assistance in Ukraine’s defence. This move has some real consequences. For Kyiv, losing the US backing all of a sudden, after prolonged fighting for years, could signal a moral and diplomatic defeat. It is true that peace is the need of the day, and Ukraine must strive and make justified concessions for the same. However, it will be crucial to note what are the factors triggering the concessions, and how huge is the price of peace. More importantly, should Ukraine bear all the price burden of peace, despite being at the receiving end? The factors responsible for the peace bargain should be internal, and not external. Unfortunately, US authorities have even gone to suggest regime change in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of the globally cherished idea of sovereignty. Trump’s statements about negotiating a quick peace with Russia may resonate with his political base, but they ignore the brutal realities on the ground. Russia’s invasion is a war marked by immense human suffering, destruction, and displacement. Any peace deal that does not recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and security would be nothing more than a forced surrender.

For Zelensky, the challenge is twofold. He must continue securing military aid and financial support from current US leadership while preparing a ground for security guarantees in case of truce. This uncertainty has also, to a significant extent, upset the whole of Europe’s security calculations. Countries like Poland, Germany, and France have ramped up their defence spending, fearing a future where America steps back from its traditional leadership role in NATO.

Meanwhile, Russia is watching closely. If Trump’s remarks signal a potential weakening of US commitment, Vladimir Putin may see it as an opportunity to press forward with his military ambitions. The Kremlin has long relied on Western divisions to advance its objectives, and any sign of hesitation from Washington could embolden Moscow. If Ukraine falls, it will send a dangerous message to authoritarian regimes worldwide that military aggression pays off. If the US turns inward and withdraws from its global responsibilities, it could reshape the entire world order. This is why Zelensky’s fight is not just about Ukraine—it is about the future of international stability. At the heart of this issue is a fundamental question: Should democracies stand together against aggression, or will political calculations dictate foreign policy? Zelensky’s leadership has been defined by resilience, but no amount of courage can replace the need for material support. The world is watching, and history will judge whether the free nations of the world chose to stand by Ukraine or allowed uncertainty and political shifts to dictate the fate of a nation fighting for its survival.