At the end of February, Donald Trump and Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, had a public falling out during a White House meeting to discuss a mineral access deal with the US. Jim Rice comments that the public spat is representative of how Trump’s new presidential administration has all but abandoned Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. With Trump now looking more closely aligned with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, he writes that other Western countries must act to preserve a future where democracy, freedom and the rule of law prevail.

On February 28, 2025, at a press spray in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump effectively ended the Western alliance, an essential network of relationships that had been a deterrent against war and aggression since 1945. In an event where the president of Ukraine was meant to sign an agreement ceding control of rare earth minerals in Ukraine to US commercial interests, Trump and Vice President JD Vance took turns attacking Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, accusing him of being “ungrateful” to America.

The reason for this chaotic exchange of words was that Zelensky had attempted to point out to his American hosts that the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, could not be trusted to honor his agreements. As the exchange further dissolved into chaos, Brian Glenn, a reporter for the far rightwing media platform One America News (OAN) asked Zelensky as to “why he wasn’t wearing a suit.” For his part, outnumbered and speaking in what was not his first language, Zelensky mounted a good defense, even addressing the snarky comments as to his attire. His reply was that as he is in the midst of a war, he had decided (as UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill had during World War II) to wear military-style fatigues.

Why did Trump abandon Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression?

The entire world witnessed this public humiliation, which has been replayed countless times on television rebroadcasts and on social media. Zelensky was asked to leave the White House and no agreement between the two nations was signed. So, why would an American president seek to end support for an ally that has been fighting under desperate conditions for over three years, in favor of the Russian Federation, an authoritarian state that was unquestionably the aggressor in this bloody conflict? And what can the remnants of the western alliance do to salvage the situation?

Following the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20^th, the American government’s support for Ukraine and the wider western alliance has repeatedly been called into question. It was widely known that Trump had long been critical of an independent Ukraine. This became evident following the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky in April 2019, during a phone conversation where Trump threatened to block funds that had been earmarked by the US Congress unless Zelensky “found dirt” on Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Following his electoral defeat in 2020, Trump repeatedly pressed Republicans in Congress to block or delay military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

During his third presidential campaign, two of Trump’s signature lines were that he would “end the Ukraine war in a day” and that intended to bring “retribution” against his enemies. Indeed, despite his failure to end the war in a day, Trump’s actions in the early days of his second term tend to indicate exactly what he meant at that time regarding his plans for revenge. The theme that Trump has repeatedly invoked for the Ukraine conflict has been the need for “peace” and an immediate end to the war. One of the difficulties with this assertion has been that Trump and his Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have at the outset indicated that Ukraine would not be allowed to join the NATO alliance and Russia would be able to keep the territory that they illegally seized from 2014 until the present. In fact, it is not clear that Russia would be required to make any concessions at all.

“President Trump hosts President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy – February 28, 2025” by The White House is United States government work

The Russian leadership has expressed no interest in peace talks, let alone making concessions. On February 19, Trump officials met with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Saudi Arabia without a Ukrainian delegation at the table. In response to questions over the lack of representation at a meeting in which the victim of aggression had not been included, Trump sarcastically blamed the Ukrainians, “Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you been there for three years. You should have ended it three years” ago. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.” 

Trump shifts US policy on Ukraine

Just weeks into his second term, Trump rolled out a dramatic shift in American foreign policy which occurred in a rapid sequence of events following February 20^th when Trump falsely accused President Zelensky of being both a “dictator” and responsible for starting the war. Neither statements are, of course, true. Trump’s accusations were followed on February 24 by a vote in the UN General Assembly in which the US voted along with Russia, North Korea and Belarus opposed a nonbinding resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Then came the February 28 notorious Oval Office meeting to which Zelensky had been invited to attend regarding a deal to allow US access to mineral resources in Ukraine as “payment” for previous US aid. For his part, Zelensky had been pressing for US security guarantees if Russia would not honor any peace agreement with Ukraine. To provide some context here, it’s important to recall that the US, the UK and Russia promised to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity in December 1994 under an agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum. Zelensky and all Ukrainians would not have overlooked the fact that the West has not so far honored that treaty in the face of Russian aggression since 2014.

Only three days later, on March 3, the Trump administration abruptly froze all military aid to Ukraine. It must be pointed out that those funds had been approved by both houses of Congress and signed by President Biden. Trump’s actions were illegal and in violation of the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, on March 6, Trump cut off intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This sudden decision will have not only an impact on the battlefield Ukrainian soldiers (as well as civilians) will die as a result. As if this decision was not enough, on March 8, Trump ordered that Ukraine’s access to satellite imagery, which had previously been sent to that country, be suspended.

That same night, Russian forces launched dozens of attacks on the people of Ukraine, killing and wounding dozens of civilians. At the same time, Trump stepped up his rhetorical attacks on Zelensky and Ukraine. Within hours, Trump said Vladimir Putin was acting as anyone else would, stating, “I think he’s hitting them [Ukraine] harder than he’s been hitting them. And I think probably anyone in that position would be doing that right now.” Trump added, “I want to know they [Ukraine] want to settle and I don’t know they want to settle.”

What Trump now means for the world

In his actions towards Ukraine, President Trump has placed the United States, Ukraine and the West in a position of great peril. Trump’s words and deeds both prior to and while in office indicate a strong affiliation toward Russia and Vladimir Putin.

The more urgent question is this: now that Trump has aligned American foreign policy with that of Russia, what can the nations of the “free world” do to preserve a future in which democracy, freedom and the rule of law prevail? As Trump’s America retreats, the democratic countries in the European Union (EU) must stand up as a matter of urgency. Defense allocation across the EU must be significantly increased and intelligence sharing with the United States must be reassessed. Another practical measure that must be taken to provide Ukraine with the means that it needs to defend itself is the seizure of frozen Russian assets that are within the jurisdiction of the EU. 

Recently, Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University (together with Andrew Kosenko of Marist University) wrote about the urgency of seizing of frozen Russian assets held in Europe as a means to continue to give Ukraine the means necessary to defend itself. Stiglitz and Kosenko it in stark terms:

Europeans are coming to terms with these harsh realities. The most immediate tasks are to create a self-sufficient defence force and to decide what to do with the $220bn (£170bn) in Russian sovereign assets (out of the $300bn-$350bn immobilised in 2022) now held in European jurisdictions.

Seizing Russian assets and making them available to the defense of Ukraine is a necessary first step to a European foreign policy that is not tied to the whims of authoritarian rulers in either Moscow or Washington.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting.
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.