‘Free World’ on the brink of collapse

The tense confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office sent shockwaves through global diplomacy. During the heated exchange, Trump accused Zelenskyy of “gambling with World War III” and escalating tensions between the United States and Europe over Ukraine’s future.

Trump has been pressuring Ukraine to make concessions to Russia, pausing military aid, and warning that continued US economic support depends on such an agreement.

These actions have left European leaders at a critical juncture. The situation raises urgent questions: should Europe continue to stand firmly behind Zelenskyy? Can Trump and Zelenskyy mend their relationship? If not, will Europe take the lead as Trump pulls back?

Trump’s approach to Ukraine, centred on pushing for negotiations with Russia, is a sharp break from the unwavering support given by the Biden regime. His public criticism of Zelenskyy, combined with the abrupt decision to send the Ukrainian leader away from the White House without finalising a crucial minerals deal, has dramatically changed the US–Ukraine relationship.

Trump’s demand that Zelenskyy accept a peace deal — one that Europe sees as favouring Moscow — reflects a realpolitik strategy but also raises serious concerns about the West’s commitments. To many European leaders, this does not look like an attempt to secure peace but rather an abandonment of Ukraine’s right to self-determination.

Trump’s complaints about Zelenskyy’s lack of gratitude and his suggestion that Ukraine might need a new leader who is easier to work with have only deepened the divide between Kyiv and its European allies.

The fallout from the meeting was European leaders have rallied around Zelenskyy. German Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz emphasised the need to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim in the conflict. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has positioned himself as a bridge between the US and Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed that Ukraine must not be forced into an agreement that merely sets the stage for future Russian aggression. EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas summed up the European sentiment, stating, “Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take up this challenge.”

Her bold declaration highlights the stark reality: if Trump follows through on his threats to cut US support for Ukraine — he has already begun by pausing military aid — Europe will have to assume a leadership role in defending ‘democracy’ against ‘authoritarian aggression’.

Despite this diplomatic crisis, Zelenskyy remains hopeful about the possibility of restoring ties with Trump. In a post-meeting interview, he said, “The relations are more than just two presidents... it is about the strong relations between our two people.” However, as this did little to mend the situation, he later tweeted his regret over the dispute with Trump and vice-president J.D. Vance, promising to work with the US for peace.

In another conciliatory tweet on 4 March, Zelenskyy says: ‘My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s ‘strong leadership’ to get a peace that lasts. “We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky — ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure — and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same. Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal’ (emphases added).

This suggests that while Kyiv continues to seek American support, Zelenskyy is still holding out for some prior assurances from the Trump administration.

Reconciliation may be difficult, though, with other key figures in Trump’s administration, including national security advisor Mike Waltz and vice-president Vance, echoing Trump’s tough stance. Trump’s political allies, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, have even suggested that Zelenskyy might need to step down to facilitate a peace deal.

Such remarks bolster Russian narratives and weaken Ukraine’s position, making any potential reconciliation fraught with challenges. If Trump’s America steps back from its traditional leadership role, Europe must be prepared to fill the gap. The continent has already begun exploring ways to provide greater military and financial aid to Ukraine, recognising that its own security is tied to Kyiv’s survival. A proposed ‘coalition of the willing’, led by Britain and France, could see European troops stationed in Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire and deter further Russian aggression.

However, Europe’s ability to take on this role is uncertain. Years of military underinvestment have left European forces unprepared for such a challenge without American support. Additionally, European economies, already struggling with energy crises and inflation, may find it difficult to sustain long-term financial aid to Ukraine without help from the US.

The dramatic confrontation in the White House sent a clear signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin: Trump’s America is willing to push Ukraine into making concessions, potentially leaving Kyiv more vulnerable to Russian pressure.

The Kremlin has already seized the opportunity, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov calling for international pressure to “make Zelenskyy want peace”. The breakdown in Trump–Zelenskyy relations is more than just a diplomatic disagreement — it is a turning point for the Western alliance. If Trump follows through on his threats to cut support for Ukraine, Europe will have to take the lead in defending sovereignty, democracy and resistance to aggression.

This is a daunting task, and European leaders find themselves on a path with no clear destination. As the transatlantic alliance faces one of its biggest tests in recent history, the decisions made in the coming months will shape the global order for years to come. The West must decide whether to stay united or fracture under the weight of internal divisions. The stakes could not be higher.

Ashok Swain is professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writings are available here