Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex
After the catastrophic press conference on February 28 between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and US president Donald Trump, it is clear that there has been a global realignment.
What the press conference revealed was that Trump’s position is a lot closer to Russian president Vladmir Putin than long-time US ally Ukraine, and also that other US allies cannot count on Washington to promote the global world order.
The extraordinary spectacle ended with Trump and vice-president J.D. Vance shouting at Zelensky, telling him he wasn’t thankful for US aid. Since then, the expected mineral deal between Ukraine and the US has been called off – at least for now.
There was already a wake-up call for European allies about how reliable the US might be during Trump’s first term when he launched his “American first” policy. This included chastising Nato member countries for not paying enough, and characterising Europe as free-riding on US security guarantees.
While this sparked alarm among some European leaders over how to ensure that the continent becomes less dependent on the US, Europeans are now scrambling to respond to Trump 2.0’s much more extreme version of America first. After the press conference, European Union foreign minister Kaja Kallas declared: “Today it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”
Trump’s relationship with Russia
To some extent Europe was caught off guard because it was hard to imagine that a US president would swing US support behind Russia, especially after Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But Trump has turned the page on challenging Russian aggression, and does not seem to see Putin’s ambitions as a threat to global security.
Instead in the press conference – as in previous statements – Trump has echoed some of Putin’s talking points, such as Ukraine not having any cards to play, being unwilling to do a peace deal, and having to give up land to Russia.
Trump also refused to say that Putin started the war, and even claimed that peace could have been possible early on in the war had Zelensky wanted peace. Trump even repeatedly opined that both Putin and Trump were brothers of sorts — victims of the same investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
The press conference also revealed that the security guarantees that Zelensky pushed Trump to confirm were secondary at best. Trump remained vague and offered no details, possibly because he has no intention of the US providing any security to Ukraine.
The aim may have been to goad Zelensky – just weeks ago on Fox News Trump stated that he did not know if Ukrainians would one day become Russian. Meanwhile, Trump’s claim that Ukraine did not have any cards to play is unhelpful to highlight if you are trying to negotiate a great deal for one of your allies.
What Trump seemed to forget is that Ukraine once had a lot of cards — holding the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 44 strategic bombers. Ukraine was coaxed into returning all of its nuclear warheads in exchange for security assurances from Russia and the west, in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.
But while this memorandum might mean little to the current US president, allies around the world can see how quickly a US leader can forget their country’s commitments. The message that Trump is sending now is that every country must fight for themselves. All interactions are transactional, and economic interests trump the genuine security needs of allies.
This plays perfectly into China’s hands. To China, Trump has signalled that he primarily cares about the tariff issue. In addition, he could implement higher tariffs on the US’s biggest trading partners (and allies), Canada, the EU and Mexico, than on China.
The symbolism of the unsigned mineral deal with Ukraine and the capitulation to Russia’s territorial interests in Ukraine should be music to the ears of China’s president, Xi Jinping.
What it means for China
China has inundated Taiwan with a propaganda campaign that says the self-governing island is part of China. Part of the campaign focuses on the notion that if China were to invade, the US would abandon Taiwan, citing the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 as evidence of this.
The US’s abrupt abandonment of Ukraine adds fuel to this fire. Xi could be emboldened to execute his plan of uniting Taiwan by 2049, if not earlier, which could have disastrous consequences for the global economy.
Taiwan produces 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors needed for artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and has a market share of 68%.
An invasion could lead to a block on global access to semiconductors, causing shortages of all sorts of tech, a possible stock market crash and a fall in trade between Taiwan and western economies. This could cost around US$10 trillion (£7.9 trillion), equal to 10% of global GDP.
Additionally, for countries such as South Korea and Japan that have been persuaded to not embark on nuclear programmes, the US U-turn sows doubt about its commitment to provide a nuclear shield to its Pacific allies. This could prompt these countries to reverse policies of nonproliferation.
What happens to Nato?
Nato has been traditionally led by a US general, but it’s not even clear that the US will remain in the alliance. In the past few weeks Europe has been forced to hold a series of emergency meetings to try to rise to the various global challenges – with or without the US as a key partner.
All of this makes the US more vulnerable as well. The US is more secure and prosperous when it is part of a long-term alliance, working in partnership with its allies to ensure security, stability, free trade and investment. If the US were to even reduce its security commitments to Nato by 50%, estimates suggest trade with members would fall by US$450 billion.
The alliance system has been a backbone of US security since 1949. The cost to Nato’s credibility and to defending its borders if Ukraine loses the war would be trillions, not billions, of dollars.
With Trump appearing desperate to do a deal on Putin’s terms with no concessions, Russia will become much stronger as a result. In spite of the fact that more than 95,000 Russians have died, it’s likely that Russia will act even more boldly, becoming a more attractive ally to US adversaries.
Trump’s support for Putin not only encourages a hostile nuclear power on the doorstep of the US’s top Nato allies, but also suggests that the US cannot be counted on in future.
Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. How Trump’s spat with Zelensky threatens the security of the world – including the US – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-spat-with-zelensky-threatens-the-security-of-the-world-including-the-us-251229