The same logic applies to Zelensky’s continued survival. In a world where political assassinations and “accidents” often befall leaders who stand in opposition to authoritarian regimes, Zelensky has managed to remain unscathed despite his global prominence
As history looks back on the third anniversary of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, it may well be recognized as the moment where the conflict’s endgame began to take shape. The dramatic and widely publicized Oval Office confrontation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump, a meeting that has since been scrutinized, analyzed, and parodied across the world, marks a critical juncture. The chaotic nature of their exchange, where Trump—along with Vice President J.D. Vance—continuously dismissed and interrupted Zelensky, has left many questioning whether Ukraine can sustain its war efforts at their current level. While European allies are scrambling to reinforce their support for Kyiv, the harsh reality is that no amount of European assistance can truly compensate for the scale of American military aid and strategic backing that has shaped Ukraine’s war efforts over the past three years.
Western media, for the most part, have presented the event as a humiliation for Zelensky and an ominous indicator of U.S. policy shifting away from its previous staunch support. Satirical portrayals of the meeting—exaggerated or not—are being treated as fact by a broad audience, particularly among those who have opposed Trump since his first administration. However, beyond the headlines and late-night comedy sketches, there is a more nuanced geopolitical calculation at play. The Oval Office debacle is not simply a matter of Trump aligning with Putin, nor is it irrefutable evidence that America has been compromised by Russian influence. Instead, it reveals a broader realignment in Washington’s strategic calculus—one that suggests a significant shift in how the United States views the war’s trajectory and its interests within it.
Since the Maidan Revolution over a decade ago, the United States has maintained a consistent approach to Russian-Ukrainian relations, which makes the abrupt shift in tone under Trump’s new administration all the more striking. The American defense industry and national security establishment have reaped significant benefits from the conflict, but Trump’s longstanding stance against prolonged foreign wars may ultimately override these interests. While Trump has never advocated for diminishing the defense sector’s influence in the U.S. economy, his ideological opposition to “pointless” foreign entanglements suggests that he sees diminishing returns in Ukraine’s prolonged resistance. His perspective is that America has already extracted maximum strategic advantage from the war, and that it is now time to scale back involvement.
For three years, the war has served as an unparalleled boon for the U.S. military-industrial complex. Billions of dollars in military aid have flowed to Ukraine, effectively subsidizing the American arms industry, which has simultaneously been able to replenish its stockpiles under the guise of national security readiness. From Washington’s perspective, the war has offered a rare opportunity: Ukraine has been armed, trained, and equipped to fight Russian forces without any direct American military casualties or overt political fallout. Russian soldiers have died in staggering numbers, Russian military assets have been obliterated, and Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions have been curbed—all while Washington avoids direct engagement.
Crucially, Russian President Vladimir Putin has refrained from responding to this indirect intervention with escalation beyond Ukrainian borders. Despite the immense losses inflicted upon Russian forces, the Kremlin has neither expanded the conflict into NATO territory nor resorted to more extreme measures, such as the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. This calculated restraint has been largely overlooked in Western analysis, but within American defense circles, there is an unspoken acknowledgment that this war has been a strategic windfall: the U.S. has successfully weakened Russia without suffering any tangible consequences itself.
Yet, Trump’s rejection of continued support for Ukraine stems from a broader ideological principle. He has repeatedly signaled that Washington should not remain entangled in conflicts that serve no clear strategic purpose, and he sees Ukraine as a prime example. Trump does not view Ukraine as capable of achieving outright victory, at least not in a way that aligns with his vision of global power dynamics. From his perspective, Ukraine should consider itself fortunate to retain sovereignty and control over most of its territory, even if it means relinquishing the eastern regions with large ethnic Russian populations.
Zelensky’s miscalculation in his meeting with Trump appears to have stemmed from an overestimation of the Western world’s commitment to his cause. Having spent years being hailed as a hero across Europe and beyond, he may have believed that the United States would continue to prioritize Ukraine’s war effort regardless of who occupied the White House. Trump, however, is driven by a different set of considerations. Unlike previous American presidents who have sought to preserve an image of unwavering Western unity, Trump is transactional in his approach to foreign policy. His refusal to indulge Zelensky in the Oval Office was not an act of deference to Putin, but rather a reflection of his own calculus: he does not see Ukraine as a “winner” in this war, and Trump only backs those he perceives as such.
This worldview aligns closely with that of Putin himself. While American analysts often dismiss Trump as incapable of deep geopolitical thought, they underestimate the striking similarities between his and Putin’s philosophies on power. Both men adhere to a classical realist school of thought—one in which power is defined by capability rather than by international norms or moral considerations. While modern diplomatic discourse places great emphasis on concepts like national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and human rights, Trump and Putin operate under a different framework. They believe that states act in their own interests based on their ability to project power, and that smaller nations—such as Ukraine—must ultimately yield to the will of stronger neighbors.
This perspective is not exclusive to Russia. The United States has long behaved similarly within its own sphere of influence. Trump’s rhetoric regarding Mexico and Canada reflects the same mindset: North America is an American-dominated region, and Washington dictates the terms of engagement. The hypocrisy of Western outrage over Russia’s actions in Ukraine is not lost on Trump, who sees a double standard in the way power dynamics are treated across different regions of the world. He recognizes that smaller nations are routinely subjected to the dominance of stronger states—whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia. The United States has long justified its interventions and strategic manipulations as being in the interest of global stability, but Putin rejects this pretense outright, arguing that if the U.S. can impose its will upon weaker nations, then Russia has the same right to do so within its own sphere of influence. One of the most glaring aspects of Western analysis is the failure to acknowledge Russia’s restraint in this war. Despite three years of combat, Ukraine’s capital remains largely untouched compared to other war zones across the world. A simple comparison between images of Kyiv and those of Gaza, for instance, reveals a stark contrast: while many conflict zones suffer near-total devastation, Kyiv remains intact, its historic architecture and cultural landmarks preserved. Whether due to logistical limitations or a deliberate choice, the fact remains that Putin has refrained from reducing Kyiv to rubble. Trump sees this as an undeniable demonstration of restraint—an acknowledgment that the Russian leader does not wish to utterly destroy Ukraine, but rather to maintain it within Russia’s orbit.
The same logic applies to Zelensky’s continued survival. In a world where political assassinations and “accidents” often befall leaders who stand in opposition to authoritarian regimes, Zelensky has managed to remain unscathed despite his global prominence. His frequent international travel presents ample opportunities for potential threats, yet he continues to move freely, unencumbered by the specter of assassination. For Trump, this is further evidence of Putin’s restraint, reinforcing his belief that Russia is not pursuing an all-out war of annihilation against Ukraine.
Trump’s belief that Russia has exercised restraint throughout the conflict is a particularly contentious viewpoint, but it remains a critical factor in his calculations. While many in the West view Russia’s invasion as an unprovoked act of aggression, Trump sees an alternate reality—one in which Putin has deliberately avoided more extreme measures that could have escalated the war into a direct confrontation with the U.S. and its allies.
Three key elements support Trump’s argument:
1. Russia has not expanded the war beyond Ukraine’s borders. Unlike conflicts where major powers have retaliated against backers of their adversaries, Russia has refrained from targeting American or NATO assets directly, despite U.S. involvement in arming and training Ukrainian forces.
2. Moscow has abstained from using tactical nuclear weapons. Despite growing desperation on the battlefield, Russia has not resorted to weapons of mass destruction—a move that, if taken, would have fundamentally altered the West’s strategic approach.
3. Kyiv remains intact. Unlike the total destruction seen in places like Gaza or Aleppo, Ukraine’s capital remains largely unscathed. To Trump, this indicates a level of restraint that Western analysts refuse to acknowledge.
Moreover, the continued survival of Zelensky himself reinforces this notion. Given Russia’s history of eliminating adversaries—such as Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin—it is remarkable that Zelensky has remained untouched despite being Moscow’s principal enemy. In Trump’s view, this further suggests that Putin has exercised far greater caution than his Western counterparts are willing to admit.
Ultimately, the Oval Office confrontation between Trump and Zelensky may be remembered as the moment that signaled the beginning of the end of the war. Whether through diplomatic negotiations or sheer attrition, the reality is that Ukraine’s ability to sustain the conflict at its current level is rapidly diminishing. Trump’s refusal to continue America’s open-ended support may mark the definitive turning point—one that forces Kyiv to confront the limitations of its position. While the historical verdict remains unwritten, the likelihood is that future analysts will look back on this episode as the crucial moment when the war’s outcome became inevitable. And if Trump’s instincts prove correct, this meeting may be the moment where Ukraine was quietly told: the game is over.
Mohammad Waliu... |
