The meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky showed more than just a tough exchange between the two leaders. The Ukrainian president’s stance, his insistence on taking a hard line and his choice to appear in military attire turned what could have been a moment of dialogue into a missed opportunity. While Trump has made it clear that he intends to find a solution that could end the conflict, Zelensky has shown no inclination to seek a diplomatic way forward. Moreover, his behaviour has raised a number of questions about his real intentions, reinforcing the sense that the war, rather than being a tragedy that needs to be stopped, has become a necessary condition for him and his entourage to maintain power in the country and Ukraine’s economic existence.
The meeting with Trump that some European figures so desired turned out to be a boomerang for Zelensky and the EU. Those who expected revelations from the Ukrainian leader were disappointed. From the first moment, it was clear that Zelensky did not arrive in Washington ready to listen to Trump.
In the Oval Office, the American press also asked Zelensky why he was dressed like that, and he took the opportunity to further emphasise Ukraine’s plight by replying, ‘I will wear a suit when the war is over.’
If Trump wanted to understand how willing Zelensky was to negotiate, the Ukrainian president gave the clearest possible answer: the war must continue. The problem is that this position is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain for those, like Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, who have spent time and energy trying to maintain Western support for Ukraine.
Emmanuel Macron, in particular, was heavily involved in persuading the Trump team to work to keep the channel of communication with Kiev open. The idea was to ensure that Zelensky could avoid a sharp decline in Western and especially American support.
But the result was the opposite. The Ukrainian president’s intransigence led to a diplomatic incident, putting Macron in the uncomfortable position of having to justify his support for a leader who, instead of seeking a political solution, even seems to want to drag the West into a much larger conflict.
The same argument applies to Keir Starmer. The British prime minister, who inherited the Johnson government’s position of unlimited support for Kiev, now finds himself in a quandary. He, too, had helped build a dialogue between Trump and Zelensky, counting on them to have a common path. The failure of the meeting now risks backfiring on him.
If the US is likely to reconsider, even completely, its military and financial aid to Ukraine, the pressure on London and Paris will increase significantly. London, Paris and the EU government as a whole are in an uncomfortable position at these hours, unable to withdraw support for Ukraine, given that for the past three years Brussels’ entire foreign policy has been based on full support for Kiev and sanctions against Moscow. In addition, the European Parliament has declared Russia a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’, which must now be abandoned in order to normalise relations.
What is clear from this story is that support for Ukraine, once taken for granted, is now controversial even among loyal allies. Europe needs to think carefully about which direction to take, while also considering its own economic and political options. Is Europe really ready to engage in open confrontation with Russia? Can it bear the economic and social costs of continuing to support Ukraine, with the sole purpose of prolonging the war? So far, these questions remain unanswered.
