WHEN Volodymyr Zelenskyy penned his letter to Donald Trump, he wasn鈥檛 merely addressing to the president of the United States,听 he was appealing to a man who views international diplomacy as a high-stakes real estate negotiation, where leverage, not principle, dictates the terms. Zelenskyy鈥檚 softened tone is not just a nod to reality 鈥� it is an invitation for Trump to press his advantage, to validate his instincts that allies can be coerced, deals can be rewritten, and the global order can be reshaped in his image. Trump has long seen Ukraine as a costly liability, an endless drain on American resources with little strategic payoff. During his address to congress, he revelled in the moment when he could announce that Zelenskyy had sent him a letter signalling a willingness to negotiate with Russia. It was the vindication Trump had been waiting for 鈥� proof that relentless pressure and financial fatigue could bend even the most defiant allies. But it also sent an unmistakable message to America鈥檚 partners: if Ukraine, despite its existential stakes, could be strong-armed into talks with Moscow, what would stop Trump from pushing NATO, Europe, or even South Korea toward similar compromises?
Trump鈥檚 assertion that Russia had expressed 鈥榮trong signals鈥� of its own willingness for peace should alarm European leaders. Vladimir Putin thrives on perceived weakness, and any sign that Ukraine is prepared to concede gives the Kremlin an opportunity to dictate the terms of a settlement. This is not peace through mutual agreement 鈥� it is peace through exhaustion, a scenario where Ukraine is forced to accept Russia鈥檚 territorial gains without ironclad security guarantees. And for Europe, which has spent the last two years rallying behind Kyiv, it presents a dilemma: does it double down on its support or brace for a post-American security landscape?
The mineral deal that Zelenskyy had hoped to finalise in Washington before his awkward interaction with Trump is now back in play. On paper, it is a straightforward economic agreement 鈥� Ukraine grants the US access to its vast reserves of rare earth minerals, a key resource in countering China鈥檚 dominance in the sector. But in reality, it is a financial lifeline for Ukraine, a form of economic security that Kyiv desperately needs as military aid from the west becomes more uncertain. Trump, ever the dealmaker, has framed it as a form of 鈥榚qualisation鈥� 鈥斕� a way for America to justify the billions it has poured into Ukraine鈥檚 defence.
For Europe, however, this deal raises troubling questions. If the US becomes Ukraine鈥檚 primary economic patron, European leaders may find themselves increasingly sidelined in discussions about the country鈥檚 post-war future. More worrisome, if Trump sees economic entanglements as a substitute for military commitments, he may use this as an excuse to further disengage from NATO鈥檚 traditional security obligations. That would be a dream scenario for Putin 鈥� a divided west, uncertain of its own strategic footing, allowing Moscow to cement its territorial ambitions.
Trump鈥檚 past deference to Putin suggests that any settlement he brokers would tilt heavily in Moscow鈥檚 favour. Ukraine would be left with a fragile ceasefire, while Europe scrambles to reimagine its security architecture. French president Emmanuel Macron鈥檚 recent suggestion that European troops might be deployed to Ukraine is a direct response to this shifting reality. If Trump is unwilling to provide security guarantees, then Europe may feel compelled to step in. But the risks are immense. Russia has already warned that any deployment of European forces would be seen as an escalation. Instead of deterring further aggression, such a move could widen the war and deepen Europe鈥檚 military entanglement in a conflict it hoped to contain.
And then there鈥檚 China. Beijing is watching this unfold with careful calculation. If Trump is willing to push Ukraine toward a settlement that favours Russia, what is to stop him from applying the same logic to Taiwan? If economic investments are seen as a substitute for military deterrence, what prevents Trump from offering Beijing trade concessions in exchange for a reduced American presence in the Pacific? These are the questions that will shape the next phase of global geopolitics, as nations adjust to an America that no longer sees itself as the enforcer of the liberal order but as a transactional power looking to cut the best possible deal.
Zelenskyy鈥檚 letter, then, is more than just a plea for peace 鈥� it is a test case for Trump鈥檚 foreign policy doctrine in action. It reveals how he wields pressure, reshapes alliances and interprets the limits of American power. For Ukraine, it marks the beginning of an uneasy negotiation process where survival depends not on military might, but on the ability to navigate the whims of a leader who sees diplomacy as a zero-sum game. For Europe, it is a stark warning that the days of unquestioned American support are over. And for Putin, it is an opportunity 鈥斕� perhaps his best yet 鈥� to cement Russia鈥檚 influence and shape a world order where western unity is a relic of the past and transactional politics reign supreme.
听
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance contributor from Karachi.
