By Mazi Godson Azu
The inconclusive meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House has significant implications for U.S. foreign policy, global geopolitics, and transatlantic relations.
U.S. Foreign Policy: A Shift Towards Transactional Diplomacy
The public clash between Trump and Zelenskyy, marked by a heated Oval Office exchange, underscores a shift in U.S. diplomatic engagement. This shift signals a move toward a more transactional approach, potentially undermining traditional alliances and altering perceptions of U.S. commitment to supporting its allies in conflict situations.
Geopolitical Landscape: A Fragmented International Response
The discord between the U.S. and Ukraine reflects a fragmented international response to the ongoing war. With the U.S. engaging in direct talks with Russia—excluding Ukraine and European allies—there is a risk of legitimizing Russian territorial gains. This approach could set a precedent for resolving conflicts without involving the affected nations, potentially emboldening aggressive state actors worldwide.
Strained European Relations
European leaders have expressed deep concerns over being sidelined in critical negotiations affecting regional security. The EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, labeled recent U.S. moves as “appeasement,” condemning Europe’s exclusion from discussions with Russia. This may strain transatlantic relations, leading Europe to reconsider its reliance on U.S. leadership and prompting the EU to develop a more autonomous defense and foreign policy strategy.
Trump’s Realpolitik in Action
President Trump’s approach to the Ukraine war is a textbook example of realpolitik—a foreign policy driven by pragmatic power dynamics rather than moral considerations. His stance prioritizes U.S. interests, influence, and strategic control over the conflict, often at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and Europe’s security.
Understanding Realpolitik
Realpolitik in international relations is a pragmatic, power-driven approach that prioritizes national interests, strategic advantage, and the balance of power over ideological or ethical considerations. It is often associated with diplomacy based on realism rather than moral or legal principles.
Key Features of Realpolitik
- Power and National Interest Over Ideals – Decisions are based on what benefits a nation rather than abstract values like democracy or human rights.
- Pragmatism Over Principles – Alliances and policies shift based on practical outcomes rather than long-term commitments to ethics.
- Use of Force or Threats – Military strength, economic pressure, and political coercion are seen as valid tools to achieve objectives.
- Balance of Power – Nations act to prevent any one country from becoming too dominant, maintaining equilibrium in global affairs.
Historical Examples of Realpolitik
- Otto von Bismarck (19th Century Germany) – Unified Germany through strategic wars and alliances, prioritizing state power over ideology.
- Henry Kissinger (U.S. Foreign Policy, 1970s) – Engaged China diplomatically to counterbalance Soviet influence, despite ideological differences.
- The Cold War (U.S. and USSR) – Both superpowers supported authoritarian regimes when it served their geopolitical interests, despite advocating democracy or communism.
Modern Realpolitik in Action
- U.S.-Saudi Arabia Relations – Prioritizing oil and security over human rights concerns.
- Russia’s Foreign Policy – Using military power and political influence to secure strategic interests in Ukraine and Syria.
- China’s Belt and Road Initiative – Expanding economic influence globally without pushing ideological governance models.
Criticism of Realpolitik
- It can lead to short-term gains but long-term instability.
- Often ignores ethical concerns like human rights violations.
- Encourages aggressive policies and conflicts.
Trump’s Approach to Ukraine: Power, Control, and Leverage
1. Peace Through Leverage, Not Justice
- Trump’s ultimatum to Ukraine—“Make a deal or we are out”—suggests a transactional approach, where peace is pursued regardless of fairness or accountability.
- This could result in a ceasefire that solidifies Russian territorial gains rather than a just resolution that restores Ukraine’s borders.
2. “America First” and Ending “Endless Wars”
- Trump has long criticized U.S. involvement in foreign wars, arguing that America should not be the world’s policeman.
- His reluctance to provide open-ended military aid to Ukraine aligns with his broader push to reduce U.S. commitments abroad.
3. Pressuring Allies & Reshaping NATO
- Trump’s realpolitik extends to Europe, where he has pressured NATO allies to take on more responsibility for Ukraine’s defense.
- His administration has hinted that U.S. support should not be taken for granted, signaling a shift away from the traditional Western alliance model.
The Woes of Ukraine: A Costly Bargain in Realpolitik
1. Risk of a Bad Peace Deal
- If forced into negotiations under unfavorable terms, Ukraine may lose significant territory and face long-term security threats.
- Any deal that rewards Russian aggression could set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts worldwide.
2. Europe Left in the Cold?
- If Trump deprioritizes Ukraine, Europe may need to step up, potentially straining EU cohesion and defense capabilities.
- Some European leaders fear that a U.S. retreat would embolden Putin and weaken NATO’s deterrence.
3. Escalation or Stability?
- While Trump’s approach may reduce U.S. involvement, it could backfire if a weakened Ukraine leads to renewed Russian offensives.
- Alternatively, his direct diplomacy with Putin may bring an uneasy peace—but at what cost?
Trump’s Strategy: Power & Control vs. Equity & Justice
Trump’s handling of the Ukraine-Russia conflict appears to be driven more by a position of power, control, and an “America First” approach rather than a focus on equity and justice.
Power & Control
- Trump has suggested that Ukraine must negotiate directly with Russia, implying that if they don’t, the U.S. might step back.
- This approach gives America leverage over both Ukraine and Russia, making the U.S. the ultimate power broker in the conflict.
- However, it also risks pressuring Ukraine into an unfair settlement that favors Russian interests.
Responsibility vs. “America First”
- While some see Trump’s stance as a move to end the war and avoid further U.S. entanglement, critics argue that it prioritizes American interests over justice for Ukraine.
- The idea of “peace at all costs” may stabilize the situation in the short term but could embolden Russia and other authoritarian regimes in the long run.
Equity & Justice?
- If Trump were prioritizing justice, he would likely push for a peace deal that holds Russia accountable for its invasion, ensures Ukraine’s sovereignty, and includes long-term security guarantees.
- However, his rhetoric suggests a more transactional approach—where peace is valuable only if it aligns with U.S. strategic interests.
Conclusion
The inconclusive Trump-Zelenskyy meeting reflects a broader realignment in international relations, with potential long-term consequences for global power dynamics and the cohesion of Western alliances.
Trump’s handling of the Ukraine war reflects his broader philosophy: deal-making, power plays, and putting U.S. interests first. Whether this results in stability or further chaos depends on how much leverage he can exert and whether his pursuit of peace aligns with justice or simply rewards might over right.
Ultimately, Trump’s actions seem more aligned with realpolitik, favoring power, influence, and national interest, rather than a moral stance on justice and fairness.
Mazi Godson Azu is a UK-based International Relations and Global Affairs Expert, and Director of CandM Centre for Leadership and Good Governance UK.
