Introduction: The Perils of Overzealousness—Zelensky’s Miscalculation and Trump’s Realist Doctrine

The Oval Office, long a stage for global diplomacy, became an unexpected battlefield. As the doors swung open for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, the weight of war followed him—his shoulders squared, his tone defiant. He expected unwavering solidarity, a reaffirmation of the blank check that had defined U.S. support since Russia’s invasion. But this was not the Biden administration’s White House. This was Trump’s domain, where America’s interests came first, not ideological crusades.

What unfolded next was a dramatic, almost cinematic confrontation—a moment that should never have happened in a world governed by sober diplomacy rather than political theater. Zelensky, emboldened by years of unquestioned Western backing, found himself facing a cold, hard truth: America does not owe Ukraine an endless war. Trump and Senator J.D. Vance, armed not with the usual scripted pleasantries but with hard questions, pressed Zelensky in a way no Western leader had dared to before.

Zelensky, accustomed to being the heroic face of resistance, failed to read the room. He responded not with humility or strategic caution, but with defiance—painting Trump’s reluctance to sign a blank check as siding with Putin. It was a fatal miscalculation. The Ukrainian leader had forgotten that his nation’s survival was tethered not to moral grandstanding but to geopolitical realities. His framing of the war as an existential struggle for democracy was losing traction in a world where America itself was questioning the price of its foreign entanglements.

The fallout was immediate. European leaders scrambled to issue statements of solidarity, an avalanche of empty assurances that did little to change the grim reality: without U.S. funding, Ukraine was in peril. The spectacle of Western leaders declaring their allegiance to Zelensky was meant to isolate Trump, but it only underscored a fundamental hypocrisy—while they spoke of standing with Ukraine, it was America that had footed the bill.

This moment should never have happened. Diplomacy should never have been reduced to a public spectacle where a foreign leader attempted to pressure an American president into a war that did not serve U.S. interests. Zelensky should never have allowed himself to believe that America was obligated to fight a proxy war indefinitely. The global order should never have reached a point where dialogue with a nuclear-armed adversary like Russia was treated as treason rather than strategic necessity.

And yet, here we are. Trump, standing alone, refusing to be pulled into an endless conflict. Zelensky, embattled yet unyielding, failing to see that his survival depends not on shaming America into action, but on understanding its shifting priorities. The war that began as a Ukrainian fight for sovereignty has now become something far more dangerous—a reckless gamble that risks turning a regional war into a global one.

This is the story of a leader who pushed too hard, a president who stood his ground, and a world teetering on the edge of a confrontation that should have never escalated this far.

This analysis touches on a crucial geopolitical reality—one that often goes unspoken in mainstream narratives. The situation between Russia and Ukraine is far more complex than a simple "good vs. evil" battle, and Trump's stance, while controversial, aligns with a realist perspective that prioritizes American national interests over ideological entanglements. Let’s dissect this intelligently.

Zelensky’s Overzealousness and the American Umbrella

President Zelensky, in his unwavering zeal, seems to have forgotten that Ukraine's military and economic survival has been almost entirely dependent on Western—specifically American—aid. Yet, rather than maneuvering with diplomatic finesse, he has positioned the conflict as an existential battle not just for Ukraine but for the entire West. This framing has made Ukraine a proxy in a much larger geopolitical chess game, essentially escalating tensions between two nuclear superpowers—Russia and the United States—who, as you put it, are “enemies with benefits.”

Historically, the U.S. and Russia have had strategic confrontations, but they have also engaged in cooperation when it suited their interests (arms control treaties, space programs, counterterrorism efforts, etc.). By amplifying the conflict as an irreversible confrontation, Zelensky has pushed America into a corner where diplomacy with Russia is seen as betrayal, rather than a strategic necessity.

Trump’s Realist Approach vs. Biden’s Ideological War

Trump’s foreign policy has always been guided by pragmatism rather than ideological fervor. His America First stance, criticized by many, is rooted in a realist school of thought that recognizes wars of attrition are not in America's best interests—especially when they risk escalating into direct conflict with Russia. Unlike the Biden administration, which has doubled down on an indefinite commitment to Ukraine, Trump understands that:

1. The War is Unwinnable for Ukraine Without Total U.S. Commitment

The sheer disparity in manpower, resources, and endurance between Russia and Ukraine makes a long-term Ukrainian victory unlikely without continued Western intervention. This means that, despite all the pledges from European leaders, Ukraine's survival still hinges on America’s willingness to sustain the fight indefinitely.

2. Europe is Performing Virtue Signaling Without Bearing the Cost

European leaders issuing statements of solidarity—while commendable—do not change the fundamental reality that the United States is the primary financial and military backer of Ukraine. The EU nations are providing aid, but nothing remotely comparable to the U.S. commitment. Trump sees this as a burden America should not carry alone, especially when European economies benefit from America's security umbrella while not contributing proportionally.

3. A Negotiated Settlement is the Only Path Forward

No amount of external support will erase Russia’s geographical and historical stake in Ukraine. A prolonged war only deepens global instability, fuels inflation, and risks an unintended escalation. Trump’s inclination toward negotiations—even if it means concessions—is not appeasement but strategic de-escalation.

The Ukrainian Miscalculation: Turning an American Proxy War into an American War

Zelensky has, in effect, tried to turn the Ukraine-Russia war into a full-scale U.S.-Russia confrontation, expecting unwavering U.S. support. But this is a dangerous gamble. Wars are not fought on moral narratives alone; they require sustained resources, strategic objectives, and exit strategies—none of which Ukraine currently has without total U.S. involvement.

His recent rebuke of Trump and insistence that the U.S. should have no say in negotiations only isolates Ukraine from a potential future Republican administration. If Trump wins, Zelensky may find himself dealing with a president who has no interest in financing an indefinite conflict.

Enemies with Benefits: The Reality of U.S.-Russia Relations

For all the moral outrage directed at Trump for seeking dialogue with Putin, history shows that superpowers engage with their adversaries when mutual interests align. The Cold War was marked by fierce rivalry but also by arms control agreements, diplomacy, and crisis management to prevent catastrophic escalation. The Biden administration’s rigid posture, which paints any attempt at dialogue as betrayal, ignores this historical precedent.

Russia is not just an enemy—it is a strategic player with leverage over global energy, security, and military dynamics. Trump understands that isolating Russia entirely is neither feasible nor in America’s best interests. Unlike Zelensky, who sees this war as a zero-sum game, Trump sees the broader picture: an America that needs to recalibrate its strategic priorities.

The Trump Doctrine is the Smarter Move

Trump's approach may not be politically correct, but it is strategically sound. While his critics frame his reluctance to back Ukraine unconditionally as siding with Putin, it is actually a calculated effort to:

Avoid direct military confrontation with Russia

Prioritize American economic and security interests

Push for a negotiated settlement rather than endless war

Zelensky’s failure to recognize the limits of American patience and his insistence on unconditional support may ultimately backfire. If Trump returns to office, Ukraine will have to rethink its strategy, because American support will not be indefinite, and diplomacy—not endless warfare—will be the only realistic path forward.

Who Stands to Lose More: America or Ukraine?

At first glance, it may seem like America has more to lose if it withdraws support from Ukraine. France, the UK, and other European nations continue to back Ukraine rhetorically, giving the impression of a unified Western front. However, when we look beyond the diplomatic soundbites, it becomes clear that Ukraine is in a far more precarious position than the United States. The balance of loss heavily tilts toward Ukraine, not America, and here’s why.

1. Ukraine’s Absolute Dependence on Western Support

Ukraine has no independent means of sustaining this war. Its economy is shattered, its military relies almost entirely on Western weaponry, and its government is propped up by foreign aid. Unlike America, which can afford to disengage if it chooses, Ukraine’s very existence as a sovereign entity is at stake.

Even though countries like France and the UK continue to pledge support, their capacity to sustain Ukraine at the scale the U.S. has is questionable. The U.S. alone has provided over $75 billion in military and financial aid—no European nation comes close to matching that. If America pulls back, Ukraine will face severe logistical and financial shortfalls, regardless of European solidarity.

2. America Can Afford to Lose Interest—Ukraine Cannot Afford to Lose the War

For America, the Ukraine war is a geopolitical maneuver, not an existential struggle. Yes, the Biden administration has positioned Ukraine as a battleground for democracy, but this is not a war for American survival. If Trump (or any future administration) decides to cut losses and shift priorities, the U.S. will move on. The same cannot be said for Ukraine.

If Western aid dries up, Ukraine risks territorial losses that could permanently alter its borders. While Europe may continue supporting Ukraine symbolically, no European power is willing to send troops to fight on Ukrainian soil. That means Ukraine’s position weakens the moment the U.S. pulls back, regardless of what France or the UK says.

3. Europe’s Support is More Symbolic Than Substantial

European countries, particularly France and the UK, have been vocal in their support, but their contributions are nowhere near America's. Let’s break this down:

France under Macron has taken a more hawkish stance recently, even suggesting the possibility of sending troops. But this is more rhetoric than reality—France does not have the military capability or political backing to replace U.S. support.

The UK has been a strong supporter of Ukraine, but its financial and military contributions are still a fraction of what the U.S. has provided.

Germany, the largest economy in Europe, has been reluctant to take on the primary financial burden, showing that even within Europe, commitment levels vary significantly.

Eastern European countries (Poland, Lithuania, Estonia) have been the most vocal in their support for Ukraine, but they lack the military-industrial base to sustain Ukraine in a prolonged conflict.

The reality is that Europe alone cannot replace American support. If the U.S. withdraws or even scales back its involvement, Ukraine’s survival will be at serious risk.

4. Russia’s Strategic Advantage in a Prolonged War

Russia, despite economic sanctions and Western condemnation, has managed to stabilize its war effort. It has adapted to sanctions, redirected its economy toward wartime production, and secured new geopolitical allies (China, Iran, North Korea). Unlike Ukraine, Russia is not reliant on external aid—it produces its own weapons, has a deep pool of manpower, and is prepared for a long-term conflict.

If the war drags on, Ukraine—not America—will suffer the most. While the U.S. can eventually shift its attention elsewhere (as it has in Afghanistan and Iraq), Ukraine does not have that luxury.

5. America’s Political Reality: War Fatigue and Domestic Priorities

American public opinion on the Ukraine war is shifting. With upcoming elections, economic concerns, and rising domestic issues, support for endless aid to Ukraine is declining. Trump and a significant faction of the Republican Party argue that America should not be financing a war that is not directly tied to U.S. security.

If the political tide turns in the U.S., Europe will be left holding the burden, and given their track record, it’s unlikely they will sustain Ukraine at the level required to keep the war effort going.

Ukraine Stands to Lose the Most

While America has invested heavily in Ukraine, it can afford to step back if necessary. Ukraine, on the other hand, faces potential collapse without sustained Western support. European countries like France and the UK may continue backing Ukraine rhetorically, but they do not have the military and financial capacity to replace America’s role.

In the end, Ukraine is in a far more vulnerable position than the U.S. If Washington withdraws, Europe will not be able to fill the gap, and Russia will gain the upper hand. While America can afford to pivot away, Ukraine cannot afford to lose.

By Isaac Christopher Lubogo

President of Optimistic International Uganda Chapter, CEO of Suigeneris Legal Legacy Incorporated with LLB, LLM, and LLD fellow.

# Suigeneris