The initial response to the disastrous Oval Office encounter between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump and his vice president was that the resulting confrontation became a horrendously shameful moment for our country.
The sentiment expressed by many was that the objective of the U.S. team was to ambush the Ukrainian leader to be lectured to and humiliated on the world stage, either on behalf of or for the benefit of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The massive reaction by a vast majority of world leaders and pundits should have been anticipated, but may have been unexpected.
Washington Post Journalist Jonathan Capehart saw the staged event as “a travesty, horrendous, despicable.” Republican columnist David Brooks reported that he was “nauseated, just nauseated.” Republican Nebraska congressman Don Bacon suggested that what transpired was “a bad day for America’s foreign policy. Trump might stand with Putin and his brutal invasion, but real Americans stand with Ukraine and its brave leader and valiant people.”
Prime ministers and presidents from all over, including the E.U., Great Britain, Canada and Australia, posted on social media in support of Zelensky and Ukraine. French President Emanuel Macron made clear that “There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a people under attack: Ukraine.” Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed support for Ukraine as well. He posted, “This is the struggle of a democratic nation versus an authoritarian regime led by Vladimir Putin who clearly has imperialistic designs, not just in Ukraine, but throughout that region.
Polish Cold War hero Lech Walesa, leader of the “Solidarity” movement during the 1980s, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and Polish president from 1990-1995, who fought USSR power, in a well planned, detailed response, voiced his horror at Trump’s scolding of Zelensky.
His open letter to Donald Trump, which was co-signed by 39 former Polish political prisoners, is well worth reading in its entirety. Some excerpts: “We watched the report of your conversation with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, with fear and distaste.” “Gratitude is owed to the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world.” “We do not understand how the leader of a country that symbolizes the free world cannot recognize this.” “The atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation reminded us of the interrogations we endured at the hands of the security services and the debates in Communist courts.”
On the Sunday following the shouting match in the Oval Office, leaders from the E.U., Great Britain and Canada met in an emergency meeting in London. Absent were the U.S. and Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban, a long-time Putin ally and Trump supporter, who was not invited. This meeting was followed by an emergency session of the E.U. in Brussels on March 6, during which all but one of the attendees (Orban) voted to provide Ukraine with an additional $30 billion in support for military equipment, and a plan for $800 billion in a rearmament fund for Europe to defend Ukraine and itself.
In the mean time, Donald Trump showed his colors by placing further U.S. military aid for Ukraine on hold, and cancelling intelligence sharing with Zelensky’s military forces. In addition, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stop all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions. The Trump administration made clear that it no longer sees Russia as a cyber security threat.
Shortly before these manipulations were executed, the U.N. passed a resolution calling for de-escalation, an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It included a demand for Russia’s “complete and unconditional withdrawal” from Ukraine territory. Contrary to historical precedent, the U.S. voted against the resolution, joined by 17 others, including Russia, Israel, North Korea, Sudan, Belarus, Hungary and Iran. Every one of these, except for Israel, has an authoritarian system of government.
Trump’s maneuverings have raised concerns, not just in Europe, but also in the capitals of allies around the world. For about 80 years U.S. foreign policy has been based on a network of alliances and institutions that allowed the country “to project power, to create zones of prosperity, to enjoy trade with like-minded partners.” This extended mainly to Europe. Trump is effectively signifying that he is no longer interested in hearing from European allies, and that he is aligning with a power that is a daily threat to Europe. He is also considering a major change to U.S. participation in NATO, especially relative to U.S. adherence to Article 5 of the alliance, which stipulates that an attack on any member is considered to be an attack on all and will prompt a total NATO response. Trump has pointedly stated that he would only send U.S. military to defend NATO allies that contribute what he deems to be a fair share of their national GDPs to their defense budgets. He has actually encouraged Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country that does not pay enough.
European leaders are scrambling about how to respond to these attacks on an alliance that has successfully endured for this long. They need to consider what they can do to help Ukraine stave off continued military attacks by Russia and political attacks by Trump. Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister, leader of the, fascist leaning, “Brothers of Italy,” and a Trump supporter, is pushing for a summit meeting to help clarify positions and develop options. The continent is reorganizing, but hoping that eventually America will come back.
A lot can happen during the next four years.
