The recent talks at the White House between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky raised questions about America’s ability to continue leading the free world. It appears that the breakdown of negotiations resulted from the Kremlin’s unwillingness to establish a ceasefire. According to sources in Russia, the defense sector and military are particularly resistant to peace, as it would lead to reduced budgetary funding, a drop in corruption-related income, and the potential for criminal prosecution.
To save face amid the deliberately downplayed complexity of negotiations with Russia and the inclusion of peace talks in President Trump’s reelection campaign, the White House shifted responsibility for the failed truce onto Ukraine. In this context, Trump’s surprise at Zelensky’s stance toward Putin seems strange, as such a position is natural for the leader of a nation facing armed aggression with numerous casualties and Russian war crimes. This further supports the hypothesis that the Trump administration had not reached a prior agreement with the Kremlin.
More on this story: Facts proving continued Russia-committed war crimes in Ukraine
More on this story: Russian military are up to their ears in war crimes in Ukraine
Trump’s frequent use of the term “deal” raised doubts about Washington’s understanding of the situation and the causes of the Russia-Ukraine war. This is not a conflict over resources but rather a clash of ideological concepts: chauvinistic imperialism and a distorted reality in which the Kremlin wages war against the U.S. on Ukrainian soil while Washington tries to avoid the conflict, hoping to end it through a business deal with the victim, not aggressor.
Amid this, statements from Russia’s allies, such as Hungary, which expressed territorial interests in Ukraine’s western regions during talks with Russia, highlight a dangerous trend. Pro-Russian forces worldwide seem to sense the vulnerability of democracy and international law, potentially resorting to the rule of force and sabotaging the existing security system (NATO) to advance their imperial ambitions.
The proposal for a rare-earth metals deal would make sense if the U.S. were prepared to provide Ukraine with security guarantees, such as deploying its troops. However, the White House showed reluctance to engage militarily. Other regions, like Africa, also noted this signal. For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) indicated interest in granting access to its natural resources to stabilize regions impacted by the M23 group. This points to the further erosion of international law and the commercialization of security. Countries with limited natural resources could lose the ability to defend their sovereignty, pushing the world back to pre-1939 conditions and marking the collapse of the global system that the U.S. upheld after World War II.
The risks are particularly significant for the Baltic states and Eastern Europe. Europe’s reaction to the negotiations reflects the collapse of its hopes for the U.S. as a fair and reliable defender, a role it played from the beginning of World War II through the end of the Cold War. It is likely that Washington’s actions could drive Europe to establish a new military bloc, an alternative to NATO.
In such a scenario, the U.S. risks losing its influence in Europe, potentially allowing China to fill the void.
