Volodymyr Zelensky’s Failed Quest For Security
Ukraine now has two options: fall into line behind Trump to make a deal with Russia or go it alone without U.S. support.
There is a surreal quality to living in the second Trump administration. Every few days a shock occurs that inverts widely cherished values or upturns established narratives. This was again on show with the historic televised bust-up between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump. Zelensky was once welcomed to America as an almost messianic figure, feted and praised as a new Churchill. His visit on February 28 was an entirely different affair. This time Zelensky was symbolically defrocked by the new administration; his status as modern-day saint dramatically cancelled.
Much of the fallout from the Trump-Zelensky meltdown in the Oval Office has been predictable. The pro-Ukraine, Democrat side has denounced it. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) called it a premeditated “ambush” showing Trump to be Putin’s “lapdog.” Republican senators rounded on Zelensky for his disrespectful behavior and praised Trump for “putting America first.” Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of Zelensky’s most prominent supporters, did not hesitate to tell Zelensky either to come to heel or resign from office.
It is easy to get caught up in the histrionics and miss the primary reason for Zelensky’s combustion in the Oval Office. He was in Washington to sign an economic agreement with America as a prelude to opening talks to end the war. Instead of this, a calamitous meeting exposed the serious divergences among the key players on how to end the war. Russia wants to secure a major deal first before agreeing to a ceasefire. America wants a ceasefire before doing a major deal with Russia. But Ukraine wants an ironclad security guarantee from the West before participating in any negotiations. Meanwhile, Europe has released a four-part plan for ending the war. Reading their statement closely, it is clear Europe is willing to step up in Ukraine only with a U.S. security guarantee behind them.
Ukraine and Europe need a U.S. backstop to proceed. Paying 66 percent of NATO’s combined defense bill, America is the key power supporting Ukraine against Russia, including satellite imagery and intelligence. French president Emmanuel Macron and UK prime minister Keir Starmer’s recent trips indicated they accept the reality of this hierarchy within the Western alliance. Why then, instead of signing the agreement and showing Trump deference, did Zelensky step out of line?
The answer lies in Zelensky’s long and fruitless diplomatic quest to secure a solid American security guarantee. After Putin launched the “Special Military Operation” in 2022, Zelensky could feel he had the full support of the West to defeat the invaders. He did not really need to engage in diplomacy as, in each state visit, he was welcomed with open arms and promised endless and unconditional support. Victory against Russia appeared feasible and it would be followed by the ultimate security guarantee: NATO membership. When in 2024, the war began to turn against Ukraine and the flow of U.S. weapons and money was delayed in Congress, Zelensky realized a new diplomatic approach was needed.
His solution was the so-called “Victory Plan.” Although the full details are not public, it is known that Kyiv first floated the Ukrainian rare earth minerals deal as part of this plan. This would give America an economic incentive to remove all restrictions on the weapons Ukraine could use on Russian territory and provide Ukraine with NATO membership. Ultimately, Zelensky failed with this diplomacy in 2024. The outgoing Biden administration rejected Zelensky’s victory plan; they only greenlit the limited use of ATACAMs on Russian territory. Beyond platitudes and rhetoric, the Biden White House did not deliver any concrete U.S. security guarantee for Kyiv.
Kyiv looked to compensate for this by signing twenty-eight bilateral security agreements with NATO countries plus Japan and the EU. However, none of these agreements provided security guarantees to Ukraine; they merely formalised promises of military and economic support. With the inauguration of Trump, Zelensky renewed his diplomatic quest for a security guarantee from Washington. Somehow, Zelensky thought he could come to Washington and extract a U.S. security guarantee in exchange for the minerals deal. He even made a fanciful offer to trade his resignation as president for Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Notwithstanding Zelensky’s increasingly erratic statements, the Trump team took Zelensky’s decision to come to the White House as a positive signal that Ukraine would follow the U.S. lead in negotiations with Russia. Yet, despite recent statements on America’s unwillingness to expand NATO to Ukraine or even extend Article 5 to NATO troops in Ukraine, Zelensky still held out for some kind of formal military alliance. In lobbying Trump for something both Obama and Biden refused, Zelensky seems to be detached from reality. Directly challenging Trump in the Oval Office would never induce him to change his approach to deal making. Indeed, instead of sympathizing with Zelensky, Trump blasted back that Zelensky is “gambling with millions of lives” and risking “World War III.”
Trump accused Zelensky, with his maximalist demands and attacks on Putin, of blocking the opening of talks. He added that if Ukraine did not want to fall into line for peace talks, they could fight without the United States and accept the consequences. Zelensky made a serious mistake in exposing Ukraine’s dependence and squandering goodwill. He has a track record of highly questionable decisions. In April 2022 he withdrew from the Istanbul talks with Russia without securing formal U.S. security commitments to Ukraine. As a responsible statesman, Zelensky should have forced Biden and Blinken to either give this guarantee or threatened to negotiate a settlement with Russia.
Zelensky has again come up short as a negotiator. Trump’s response shows the new administration is sticking to its guns. Ukraine now has two options: fall into line behind Trump to make a deal with Russia or go it alone without U.S. support. It is clear the Europeans do not have the stomach or the muscle to replace America in this war. Rubio has called for Ukraine to show “maturity” and “pragmatism.” Zelensky is on his last warning. He needs America to secure the best deal possible for his country. In place of the unavailable US NATO-style security deal, a new solution is needed that takes into account Russia’s concerns, European weakness and the new orientation of America under Trump.
Matthew Blackburn is a Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs’ Research Group on Russia, Asia, and International Trade. He is also an affiliated researcher at the Institute of Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University. His research mainly focuses on the politics of contemporary Russia and Eurasia, including both domestic political systems and interstate relations. He is engaged in research on Iran-Russia-China cooperation for the Norwegian Geopolitics Centre and is a research coordinator for The Civilizationalism Project based at Stanford University.
Image: Review News / Shutterstock.com.