A New Chapter in Global Diplomacy

The Communication: What Does It Tell Us?

The public discourse of the American administration with Zelenskyy was a demonstration of realpolitik. Trump’s aggressive and condescending tone, combined with Vance’s insistence that Ukraine should express gratitude, sent a clear message: under Trump, the U.S. seeks a swift end to the war—preferably through a ceasefire and an agreement requiring Ukraine to make concessions.

Russia’s reactions have been marked by ecstatic satisfaction with the way the meeting unfolded. Comments from Russian officials like Kirill Dmitriev and Maria Zakharova were not only mocking but also triumphant. This confirms the perception that U.S. support for Ukraine is weakening and that Russia now holds a strategic advantage. Dmitry Medvedev’s words about a "brutal undressing" of Zelenskyy underline the Kremlin’s belief that Trump’s leadership is a geopolitical gift that can pressure Ukraine into a settlement on Russia’s terms.

Why Is This a Hard Blow for the U.S.?

Trump’s statements reveal a paradigm shift in American foreign policy, where the U.S. is no longer perceived as the unconditional protector of democracies against autocracies. The trust that allies had in the U.S. as a stable and reliable partner has now been severely undermined. Historically, the U.S. has had strategic interests in protecting weaker allies to maintain a world order that serves its interests. When Trump communicates that Ukraine “does not hold the cards” and that the U.S. “might be out,” it sends a clear signal: U.S. guarantees are no longer assured.

The Consequences of Broken Trust: Where Does This Leave the U.S.?

When trust in the U.S. as a stabilizing force weakens, it leaves behind a geopolitical power vacuum. NATO allies such as Poland, the Baltic states, and Germany may seek alternative security arrangements. The European Union could be forced to intensify its military autonomy, while nations in Asia and the Middle East may look more towards China or regional powers.

Moreover, it becomes evident that the U.S.’s ability to negotiate from a position of strength has been diminished. When an American president openly declares that a smaller ally can no longer rely on unconditional support, it will affect not only Ukraine but also Taiwan’s position against China and other allies who view the U.S. as a security guarantor.

The Cost of American Isolationism

Trump and Vance’s approach to global diplomacy does not merely reshape alliances—it commodifies them. The U.S. is no longer a steadfast partner but a transactional power, demanding tangible returns for its support. This shift transforms the global order from one of collective security to a marketplace where loyalty is auctioned off, and weaker nations must pay for protection they once took for granted. The ultimate cost? A fractured Western alliance, emboldened adversaries, and a world where trust in American leadership is replaced by uncertainty and opportunism.

Zelenskyy’s Prediction: The U.S. Will Feel the Consequences

Zelenskyy’s statement that the U.S. will come to feel the consequences is not merely an emotional reaction but a real analysis of potential geopolitical fallout. His point is that if the U.S. withdraws its support for Ukraine, it will impact not only Eastern Europe but also America’s global position.

First, a weakened Ukraine could grant Russia a significant strategic advantage in the region, creating a domino effect where other Eastern NATO countries feel increasingly vulnerable. If the U.S. is no longer seen as a stable security guarantor, European allies may reconsider their reliance on American military protection and invest in independent defense initiatives—potentially at the expense of transatlantic ties.

Second, Trump’s more isolationist stance could have economic repercussions. Increased European independence and a weakened NATO could lead to reduced American influence over global trade agreements, military strategies, and diplomatic decisions. At the same time, a potential Russian victory or strengthening could encourage China to pursue more aggressive territorial ambitions, particularly in Taiwan, forcing the U.S. to prioritize another geopolitical hotspot.

Finally, withdrawing from Ukraine risks diminishing the U.S.’s position as the world’s leading defender of democracy. When authoritarian powers see that the U.S. no longer stands firmly on its principles, it could lead to increased destabilization of international norms, where military aggressions are met with less deterrence.

What Is the Cost of Broken Trust?

Trust is one of the most valuable yet fragile resources in international relations. It takes time to build and is based on reliability, respect, recognition, and empathy. It is a prerequisite for loyalty and motivation, both among allies and in diplomatic cooperation. Once broken, trust can never be fully restored to its previous level.

Can broken trust even be quantified? While there is no concrete economic metric for lost trust, the consequences manifest in geopolitical costs, declining investments, strategic instability, and lost trade opportunities. If U.S. alliances weaken, former close partners may seek alternative strategic collaborations—leading to billions in lost dollars from defense agreements, trade, and investments.