Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
What Trump-Zelensky fallout means for Ukraine war
President Trump has said that he is not on the Ukrainian side. He's neutral, he's on the side of peace. He's a peacemaker. He just wants to end the war, and that does not mean supporting Ukraine going forward. In fact, because he felt offended by Zelensky, who was not adequately deferential to the American president or the vice president, he said, basically, I'm cutting off support. I am allowing you, by continuing to support you, I'm allowing you to believe you have leverage you don't have. You should accept peace on my terms, and so I'll cut you off and then we'll see how well you can fight.
This is obviously a disaster for Zelensky who was intemperate in my view, in his remarks, absolutely. If you are coming to the United States, and yes, he has expressed thanks to the Americans many, many times on many, many occasions, but he was not well prepared to handle President Trump's ego, which is enormous, which is fragile, and he expects that everyone has to know who's number two and has to stand down when he stands up. And Zelensky did not do that. They ended up talking over each other and Trump got angry, took it personally, and basically threw him out of the White House, canceled the press conference and said, "I'm not supporting you anymore."
I think this relationship is now inexorably broken. I think it's inconceivable that Zelensky will be able to sit down with Trump in the near-term and fix the relationship. Lindsey Graham, who is perhaps Trump's closest confidant among serious senators, said that Zelensky has to either resign or he has to have someone else running point with the United States. I think that's a good read of the situation. Not that I think that Zelensky should resign, but that if you want to engage with the Americans, he's not going to be able to do it himself. Of course, that also happens to be a core demand of Putin, that Zelensky is not the one that engages directly in conversations. Putin won't talk to him, considers him illegitimate. So that's now becoming a talking point that Trump can directly align with, and I suspect he will in the near-term, after already calling for elections in a second phase after a ceasefire. Again, a core Russia demand.
What's going to happen here? Well, first of all, the big question is what are the Europeans going to do? And I use that word intentionally. What are they going to do, not what are they going to say? We all know what they're going to say. They're going to say that they're incredibly supportive of Ukraine, and I saw that from the Poles, and the Germans, and I saw it from the Belgians, and the Dutch, and I saw it from the French, and the Spaniards, I even saw it from Luxembourg, and those expressions of support mean just about as much from Luxembourg as they do from the Germans, unless they stand up and provide far more willingness to give the Ukrainians more financial support for their military, and also provide boots on the ground that are not contingent on a direct American backstop. They have been unwilling to do that for three years, and I suspect they will still be unwilling to do that. And absent that European support and ability to get the Americans back to the table, I think is extremely low. If the Europeans were to take a leadership role and show that they could do it without the Americans or with nominal American participation, then I think it's much more plausible that Trump, irrespective of what just happened with Zelensky, says, "I'm the only one that can get you to the table. I was the only one that made the Europeans lead, and so now, yeah, I'm back, I'm back now because this is the right conditions for peace for the American taxpayers." But of course, what Trump wants to do is end the war, and he now has been given a bigger opportunity to end the war by being able to throw Zelensky under the bus.
And that's what Vance is doing. That's what Elon is doing. That's what all of Trump's supporters on social media are doing. They're saying, "This guy, he's corrupt, he's a dictator, he's a bad guy, he shows no respect to the American president, and why should we support him? Well, the reason you should support him is because he's not a bad guy. It's because he was democratically elected and for three years, he has courageously led his people to defend their country. That's all. To defend their country against an invading force. When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait illegally, the Americans stood up, slapped down Saddam Hussein directly, not indirectly, directly involved in that fighting, to stand for the principle of territorial integrity. And that wasn't even a democracy. That was just a country that yeah, had some oil, but that the United States did not want the rest of the world to think that it would just stand back and stand by while their own country was eaten to shreds by a neighboring more powerful country. That is not where the Americans are today.
Today the Americans are supporting a UN resolution with the Russians, the North Koreans, Belarus, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Israel, and a few micro states against democracies of the world, saying that territorial integrity is not what's critical. What's critical is just ending the war no matter what. That principle is being thrown out. And the Europeans fundamentally disagree with this. The Europeans feel like there is a gun to their head from the east with the Russians as a direct national security threat, and now a gun to the head from the west, a country that does not support core values of collective security, of rule of law, and of territorial integrity. And that means that the Europeans have to now get their act together immediately or else.
Zelensky is someone who, when the Americans offered to get him out of the country, because he was going to be overrun by the invading Russians, he said, "No, I'm not leaving my country," in a way that the Afghan leadership fled immediately, "No, I'm staying and I'm going to defend my country with my fellow Ukrainians." And that was an extraordinary moment and he has been facing down a much more powerful force, at a threat to his life and his family's lives. He's been on the front lines many, many times. He's not getting much sleep. He's under incredible pressure. And does it all take away from the fact that he talked back to the American president? No, obviously, no. You have to be better capable of representing your country by knowing who you're dealing with when you're coming in to see the US president. But I want to be clear that Zelensky has absolutely nothing to apologize for because the fact is that he is an example of the kind of humanity we need to help ensure that we have peace and stability around the world, someone that will stand up to injustice. And that, from an American president who because he was born of wealth and privilege, faked an injury to avoid military service, I think speaks volumes about what has happened to the United States.
The values that the Americans stand for presently on the global stage are values of power. They are the most powerful, get to write their rules, get to determine the outcomes. And that is true for Putin, it's true for Israel, it's true for the United States, and it's not true for the Ukrainians. It's not true for the Palestinians. It's not true for the Danes, or the Panamanians, or the Mexicans, or the Canadians. And what the Europeans have to now figure out is, are they prepared to be courageous? Are they prepared to step up, even though they're not in the most powerful position? Are they willing to do after three years, after frankly, 11 years since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the first time they've stood back, they've stood by, they haven't stood up for their fellow Europeans. They've allowed the Americans to do the heavy lifting, and now they have a president that is not willing to do that and frankly doesn't agree with them anymore, doesn't agree with their values, doesn't care about shared values, only cares about power.
And so, this is not a question for the Ukrainians. We know where the Ukrainians stand. They stand up. This is not a question for the Americans. We know where the Americans stand. They stand for themselves. This is a question for the Europeans. Are the Europeans willing to stand up for themselves, for their principles, for their values, and for fellow Europeans? And I fear the answer is no. I fear the answer is no. Analytically everything we've seen for the last three years is that they're going to talk a really good game and they're not going to do very much. But we shall see and we shall see very soon because this is the future of the West, this is the future of democracy, and it sure as hell is the future of the Ukrainians.
So that's it for me. I hope you all well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- NATO and Ukraine prep for Trump ›
- Will Trump reverse Biden’s move on long-range missiles for Ukraine? ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- “Make a Deal or We're Out”: Inside the explosive Trump-Zelensky confrontation ›
- Ukraine and European security in the Trump era: Insights from Sen. Elissa Slotkin ›
A Baltic warning: What Ukraine war means for Europe—and the Russian perspective
The conversation then shifts to Moscow, where Bremmer speaks with former Russian colonel and ex-Carnegie Moscow Center director Dmitri Trenin. Once considered a pro-Western voice, Trenin’s views now align closely with the Kremlin. He argues that the fate of Ukraine should be decided primarily by Russia and the United States—not Ukraine or Europe.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Make America … Alone?
Is the free world lost without America, or is America lost without the free world? We are looking for your answers today.
It’s a question no one thought about when Donald Trump assumed office just 38 days ago.
Though he promised to be a transformative, “drain the swamp,” America First leader, Trump 2.0 is exponentially more radical and less restrained than his first term as the 45th president.
In less than five weeks, Trump has upended the postwar world order, forcing America’s longtime allies to redraw their maps, literally in the case of the Gulf of Mexico/America and strategically in every other way. It is a new world.
To Trump supporters, he is simply fulfilling his campaign promise of delivering deep change to the “deep state.” After all, with a clean sweep of the presidency, Congress, and the popular vote, he has a genuine mandate — one that is strengthened by a right-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Cue Elon Musk’s DOGE chain saw.
But let’s pause for a moment and ask what exactly was included in the promise to make America great again:
- Tax cuts? Those are coming as he just won a big victory in the House of Representatives on that.
- Cutting the size of government? Sure. Finding inefficiencies matters.
- Border security and cutting down on illegal immigration? That has already started, and he has support on that too from a wide array of voters.
- Ending the war in Ukraine? Yes. Who would be against that in principle?
But the details of these things matter. You can treat a broken foot by amputating the whole leg with a chain saw, but then you can’t walk. In less than 40 days of mass policy amputations, you might start getting the sense that the treatment is already worse than the disease.
For example, do Republican voters, who wanted a more isolationist foreign policy, really want the US to take over the Gaza Strip? What part of the MAGA agenda saw that one coming?
Do they want to take over Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal too? Imperial land grabs were never part of Trump’s campaign promises.
What about threatening to destroy Canada’s economy in a trade war? Was that part of the promise? Because that’s a lot different from negotiating better trade deals with friends.
Trump is threatening to slap a 25% tariff on all EU goods because he argues, wrongly, that the EU was created in order to “screw the United States.” It was not. The EU was formed out of a desire for stability on a continent that had bled through two world wars. Do Trump supporters really think Russia is a better ally than the European Union?
What about the war in Afghanistan? Do MAGA supporters genuinely want US troops to go back to Afghanistan and take over the Bagram Air Base as the president promised on Wednesday? “We are going to keep Bagram,” he announced. “We are going to keep a small force on Bagram.” A small force? How small? Trump believes Bagram has strategic importance as a forward operating base near China and its nuclear weapons. He also wants to take back the over $7 billion worth of military equipment that the Biden administration left there in 2021. How will he do all this? With another invasion of Afghanistan?
Maybe Republican voters believed Trump would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, but did that include siding with Russia, blaming Ukraine for starting the conflict, and calling President Volodymyr Zelensky, not Vladimir Putin, a dictator?
This past week at the UN, the US sided with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea against a resolution to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. “This war is far more important to Europe than it is to us,” Trump said as he moved the US further away from its longtime allies. “We have a big, beautiful ocean as separation.”
Separation. That is the watchword of the moment. The Trump revolution that is meant to Make America Great Again is making America Alone and for the very first time.
The costs of reversing 80 years of US foreign and domestic policy are still being calculated, but here is one measure: A recent Leger poll found that more than a quarter of Canadians, 27%, now regard the US as the “enemy.” The enemy. Meanwhile, 56% of Americans view Canada as an ally, while only 30% of Canadians see the US as an ally.
These are remarkable pieces of data, especially for countries that fought side by side in Afghanistan, Korea, and two world wars and worked together on countless peacekeeping missions.
To its closest allies, the US is giving away its reputation as the “indispensable nation” and risks becoming an indefensible nation.
Yesterday, Trump announced his new “gold card” idea targeted at “wealthy people” around the world. “We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship," he said. Would he welcome Russian oligarchs to the program? There was no hesitation. “Yeah, possibly,” he said with a smile. “Hey, I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”
If you can afford the $5 million gold card, you are nice enough for America these days, even if you are a Russian thug.
Russia and China are cheering on this new alignment because it comes at a cheap price. Both are poised to test the limits of a world without US guardrails, a world where there is no global cop on the beat to enforce the rule of law. Watch to see how China moves to expand its influence in the South China Sea, around Japan and the Philippines, and, of course, Taiwan. Russia is already clamoring to digest 20% of Ukraine, with Trump’s blessing. Does anyone think that’s enough to satisfy Putin’s imperialist appetite?
What will this mean for global trade, where US enforcement of secure shipping lanes has been the foundational insurance policy of globalization? It is why you can buy such cheap goods from around the world at places like Costco. That backstopping of sea-lane security is now as up for grabs as the Panama Canal. As Ian Bremmer says, this is now the law of the jungle.
All these are deeply polarizing questions, and coming at such a pace that people may take refuge in the certainty of partisanship to avoid the hard work of answering them.
So I want to ask you for your thoughts. Do you think the US is still a trusted ally to its longtime friends in democracies around the world? Do you consider the US an ally to its fellow NATO members, an enemy, or just neutral?
We would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please email us here.
Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal changed
What is this going to matter? What changes here? Well, a couple of points. First of all is it's a win, and we shouldn't be surprised. Back at the beginning of January, in our top risks, one of the things that we suggested was that Trump was going to get a lot more wins than a lot of his opponents believed, because he is the most powerful leader in the world. He's in a very strong position and he's willing to use that power against both adversaries and nominal friends. And a lot of people are scared of him, and so they give him what he wants. And that is what we are seeing here, especially for the Ukrainians who are in as weak a position as pretty much anyone that Trump is pushing around right now. So, he gets to say, "Look at this deal. Biden was giving away all of this American aid, and now I'm going and getting money back."
Now, that's not a great look in the sense that other countries around the world look at the United States and say, "We can't trust you guys because you change your mind every administration." So, if one president says that this is going to happen, and the next can just rip it up, and that's every four years or less, then why should we engage in a deal with you? Whether it's the Paris Climate Accord, or the World Health Organization, or the Iranian nuclear deal, the JCPOA, or it is aid to Ukraine that suddenly is not aid to Ukraine anymore. Now, Trump was saying that the United States has given $500 billion in aid to Ukraine, which is vastly more than the Europeans, and all of the European money is loans. That is of course wildly exaggerated, meaning not true, but there is a kernel of truth in it. So it's worth unpacking.
The Americans have provided a little over $110 billion, mostly in aid, 90% of that has been directly aid to the Ukrainians so far. Though, that money doesn't go directly to Ukraine. It goes primarily to American corporations, contractors, who get the money, who do the job, who make profit on it, and who service Ukraine. So, it's not as if there's a lot of corruption in Ukraine on the back of American aid because the money isn't going directly to Ukraine. The Europeans have given more money, more like €135 billion as opposed to the $110 that the US has given. The EU has a larger population, so per capita, it's not all that different. A lot of that European money, about 60% is not aid, it's actually loans in some form, though loans on exceptionally favorable terms to the Ukrainians. So, the fact that there is more aid that is going to Ukraine from Europe that has to be repaid is actually true.
And when Macron pushed back against Trump on that, he pushed back in a favorable way to Macron, shocking, but didn't also tell the full story. Part of the reason why nobody believes anything that politicians say these days, and one of the reasons I don't want to be a politician. Okay, leave that aside. So, Zelensky comes to the US, he does a deal, is he doing a colonial deal? No, another exaggeration. Trump was saying that Zelensky and the Ukrainians have no leverage, they have no cards. That's why he doesn't need to talk to him anymore. Well, if that's the case, then why is it the United States significantly altered the terms of the deal from a week ago, when Zelensky said no, to yesterday when Zelensky said yes? Before the $500 billion was all supposed to pay for previous aid, that term is out of this general agreement.
Also, the idea the Americans would've full control of the investment vehicle, that full control is no longer in these terms of the agreement. So, the terms have been substantially altered, and the reason for that is because Zelensky, of course, does have leverage. Most Republicans in Congress, House and Senate, support Zelensky a lot more than they support Putin, and they've not been happy about the idea that Trump has been flipping to a Russia relationship as opposed to support for Ukraine. Most Americans, including Republican voters, trust Zelensky more than they trust Putin, and they aren't, it's not the thing they're voting on, but they're not super happy about that. And of course, the Europeans themselves very upset about the idea that the Americans would suddenly break from that alliance. Does this matter to Trump? It doesn't matter immensely, but it isn't zero, because if it was zero, then he wouldn't have changed his deal one iota.
It's not because he's getting soft, it's because he recognizes that the other party has leverage. Now, what are the Europeans going to do? French president came to the United States yesterday, it was a reasonably productive conversation, but it didn't lead to any commitment of the US for security guarantees to Ukraine. Neither does the deal that the Ukrainians are signing ensure security guarantees. It does buy a little time. It does show that the US is going to continue to engage with Ukraine, and have some equities on the ground, and maybe continue to provide some weapons, some armaments going forward, some of the so-called strategic enablers, like help with targeting and intelligence, while the Americans are engaging with the Russians, directly and bilaterally, to try to structure a engagement, a re-engagement, of those two countries. I think that Trump is maintaining a lot of optionality for himself here.
If it turns out that the Europeans are going to spend a lot more on defense over the coming weeks and make those commitments, a lot more to the Ukrainians and make those commitments, and be willing to stand troops on the ground, a lot of them on the ground in Ukraine in a post-ceasefire environment, then Trump can pivot, say, "Look at all the things the Europeans are doing that Biden could never have gotten them to do, and now I'm willing to engage because the Europeans are actually picking up their fair share. Because the Ukrainians are going to give the Americans their fair share for doing all this work, it's not on the back of the American taxpayers.”
But if they don't, and frankly, I think it's more likely than not that the Europeans aren't able to get their act together in such a dramatic way in such a short period of time, then Trump hasn't really lost anything. He's engaging in this deal with the Russians, the Ukrainians have a deal with the US, the US doesn't have to put any money into if they don't feel like it, and this re-engagement with Russia precedes a pace that Trump wants. So, that is I think where we are heading right now. I'm not expecting much from the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer's visit to the US, he has a much more difficult and let's say distant and cool relationship with the US president than Macron does, and he doesn't have an awful lot to offer directly, though, they're going to step up their defense spending to maybe get to 2.5% over the coming years. Still nowhere close to what Trump wants or demands.
Final thing I would mention is that all of these conversations are happening in the context of the United States that has spent enormous amounts and wasted enormous amounts on national security and on wars over the past decades. I think it is worth asking, in an alternative history, if after Soviet collapsed, what would the world have looked like if the US had decided to disband NATO, didn't need it anymore because it was the end of history? What would've happened if the United States had gone down to 2%, or 2.5% of defense spend of GDP, and spent that money primarily on focus on Asia, together with American allies in Asia, like Japan, like Australia, like South Korea? What would've happened if the United States had not engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spent trillions of dollars as a consequence?
Would the world be better off without NATO? Would the world be better off without those wars? And I think the answer is at least worth considering, and while I am not at all comfortable with the United States continually going back on its commitments to allies, continuing ripping up its commitments, because I think that undermines US power, and I'm not comfortable with throwing the allies under the bus, who have fought with the United States side by side, shoulder by shoulder in Afghanistan, and then telling them you're basically on your own in Ukraine.
I'm not comfortable with any of that because I think the alliances matter, but I understand that a lot of Americans are very happy to rip up these arrangements because for the last three plus decades, the US has made huge mistakes by over-supporting and over-funding national security and defense. And as a consequence of that, I think this is a discussion that is way overdue, and a lot of things are going to be broken because we didn't have those conversations in a more rational, civilized, and engaged manner. So, it's worth talking about that too. Look, that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- US-Ukraine policy under Trump would be similar to Biden's ›
- How Trump won – and what it means for the world ›
- Ukraine and European security in the Trump era: Insights from Sen. Elissa Slotkin ›
- Trump embraces Russia, attacks Ukraine ›
- Trump's dealmaking with Putin leaves Ukraine and Europe with nowhere to turn ›
U.S. President Donald Trump hosts his first cabinet meeting with Elon Musk in attendance, in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Feb. 26, 2025.
“No more tunnels, no more fear, Trump Gaza is finally here.”
What happens when you ask artificial intelligence to create a video of gilded Trump statues (straight out ofTurkmenistan) and new Trump Hotels (straight out of Atlantic City) featuring an up-tempo, pro-Trump track (straight from the J6 Prison Choir’s club remix album)? You get the US president’s Truth Social post advertising his postwar Gaza proposal, of course.
While Donald Trump’s rhetoric on redeveloping Gaza has been absent from headlines recently, this AI music video troll serves as a win-win-win for him: It reinvigorates his base, enrages his opposition, and leaves his true intentions up for debate.
What isn’t up for debate? The included belly dancers with female bodies and bearded male heads wouldn’t appreciate his slew of executive orders on the strict gender binary. Don’t forget to always double-check your AI outputs …
The White House announces significant changes to the White House press pool on Feb. 25, 2025.
White House seizes control of press pool: Should President Trump be allowed to handpick his press?
The White House said Tuesday that it will take control of choosing the journalists allowed to participate in the White House press pool – a rotating group of journalists given access to briefings and the ability to ask the president questions — tightening the administration’s control over the press.
The decision was made without the consultation of the White House Correspondent Association, a 111-year-old organization that represents journalists covering the administration and maintains independent authority over selecting the rotation of reporters for the daily pool. WHCA President Eugene Daniels said “This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”
While the Trump administration says the decision was made to “give power back to the people,” the WHCA fears it gives the US president more power to control people’s access to information.
Defending the move as a way to “give power back to the people,” the White House said it wants to increase access for news outlets outside the mainstream media – like podcasts and emerging news sites (shoutout GZERO) – but that mainstream news outlets would still be granted access.
Trump’s move comes after the Associated Press, which provides information to thousands of news outlets around the globe, was barred access to the White House and Air Force for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico by its new Trump-given name, the Gulf of America.
What do you think, GZERO readers? Is this an abuse of presidential power, or will it increase the power of the people? Let us know your thoughts here.
Is President Trump's Russia pivot a win for China?
Is the Trump administration’s rapid shift in diplomatic relations with Russia and push for a ceasefire deal in Ukraine a win for China? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer asked US Senator Elissa Slotkin for her reaction to the 90-minute phone call between President Trump and Vladimir Putin, a move that upended three years of US-led efforts to isolate Russia from the West diplomatically. Slotkin, a former CIA officer, and Pentagon official warned that China is closely watching how the US handles Ukraine, viewing it as a test of America’s resolve that could have major implications for Taiwan and global stability. The Trump administration has made it clear it doesn’t want to play global peacemaker and that Europe needs to step up to maintain its own defenses. With global power dynamics quickly shifting, will America maintain its leadership role or leave a leadership vacuum for China to fill?
“This is a bigger issue than just Russia-Ukraine. The Chinese are watching everything that’s going on here,” Slotkin says, “They’re watching American staying power. They’re trying to understand if America cares about democracies getting invaded or if they’ll roll over eventually.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Trump's Ukraine peace plan confuses Europe leaders
What is the European reaction to what President Trump is trying to achieve in terms of peace?
Well, confusion. A lot of people, and there are quite a number of European leaders here, today, don't really understand what President Trump is up to. He wants peace, that's fine. But peace can be, well, that could be the complete capitulation of Ukraine, that is the Putin definition of peace. Or it can be the victory of Ukraine, that's another definition of peace. So exactly how President Trump intends to pursue this? And without Europe, obviously, neither Putin nor Trump wants Europe around the table.
But how do you do it without Ukraine on the table? Because a lot of the things that are going to be necessary to agree with are things that have to be agreed with Ukraine, with President Zelensky. So a lot of question marks. The desire for peace is clearly here, no question about that. This war has to come to end. But the peace has to be just, it has to be stable. It has to be something that is not just a pause for Russia to recalibrate and restart the war.
So a lot of things to discuss between the European leaders and between the European leaders and President Zelensky, is happening in Kyiv here today. But also eventually, across the Atlantic, President Macron is in Washington today, Prime Minister Starmer is heading into Washington on Thursday.