The recent verbal altercation between US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the one side and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the other will linger in the minds of world leaders visiting Washington in the near future.
Some might worry that a public humiliation awaits them if they either don’t toe the US administration’s line on a particular issue or fail to lavish praise, gratitude and admiration on its leadership, or both. Indeed, to some observers Mr Zelenskyy paid the price for refusing to flatter Mr Trump or agree to his plan to end the war in Eastern Europe, with the Ukrainian President getting scolded in front of the media before being expelled from the White House.
Reports suggest that Mr Trump’s team had advised Mr Zelenskyy against wearing military fatigues to the meeting on Friday, which was supposed to conclude with both leaders signing a rare earth minerals deal. But he did so anyway. Further, the Ukrainian President insisted that the war wouldn’t end as long as Kyiv didn’t receive sufficient security guarantees against Russia.
Regardless of his missteps, however, the verbal blowback from Mr Trump and Mr Vance was seen in many quarters to be an undiplomatic response. It could even undermine America’s own interests.
First, in the eyes of several European leaders, Mr Trump appeared to be deliberately weakening Ukraine’s position in its resistance against Moscow. This prompted many of them to swiftly reaffirm their support for Kyiv, further straining relations within Nato.
Second, Mr Trump’s stance on Ukraine, along with his threats to impose tariffs on the EU, could push European nations towards leveraging their ties with China to assert their independence from an increasingly antagonistic Washington.
Third, the indefinite suspension of the rare earth minerals agreement – until Mr Zelenskyy submits to US demands and its peace plan – means that the Trump administration has effectively shot itself in the foot.
The deal was seen to be beneficial to both countries, and if it collapses, the EU could step in as an alternative partner to Ukraine. Further, the deal was strategically advantageous for Mr Trump’s policy towards China, as it gave American companies access to critical minerals needed in Washington's economic competition with Beijing.
For what it’s worth, Mr Zelenskyy walked into the embrace of unified domestic support and global, particularly European, acclaim after he seemingly endured provocation and humiliation without backing down. As a result, he has solidified his own political position, making him more likely to win elections whenever they are held.
Meanwhile, any delay in ending the war, which has just entered its fourth year, will also add to the enormous pressure on Russia’s economy. The leadership in Moscow knows that merely improving relations with Washington won’t stop the drain on its resources. As for Ukraine, it will almost certainly withstand possible cutbacks in US aid, if European nations compensate any shortfall.
Still, the Europeans are keeping their options open.
Despite his warm interaction with Mr Trump at the White House last week, French President Emmanuel Macron called on fellow EU leaders to resist being subservient to Washington. Speaking in Portugal, he stressed the need to keep Washington “on our side” but also warned against any divisions on the continent amid a period of global uncertainty.
Mr Macron’s remarks on the necessity of defending Europe’s interests, as well as upholding its principles and history with determination and decisiveness, were striking. He attempted to walk a fine line in his dealings with Mr Trump, ensuring that Europe’s response to the American President’s provocative policies was calculated rather than arbitrary.
Given all this, one cannot rule out the possibility of Mr Trump de-escalating tensions with America’s western partners in the interest of suing for peace in Ukraine. He may also reassess the potential loss of the rare earth minerals deal with Kyiv and rethink his approach. After all, he is first and foremost a dealmaker.
This is exactly why it doesn’t seem as if the world is witnessing the unravelling of Nato or a fateful rupture in relations among its member states. At least not yet. Rather than a dramatic upheaval that will permanently redefine transatlantic ties, what is at play here is a temporary realignment.
But there is a larger point to contend with here.
Mr Trump’s political arsenal includes tools of reprimand, humiliation and disdain – even towards America’s allies and partners – highlighting the ruthlessness of certain methods now synonymous with “Trumpism”. Thus, the US President’s emergence as an indispensable figure in both American and global decision-making has left its mark on policymaking in capitals worldwide.
Like Mr Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was careful not to provoke or offend Mr Trump. Yet both European leaders appeared uneasy as they struggled to engage with him in a manner that accounted for his mercurial nature.
This means that foreign policy is no longer shaped solely by traditional state-to-state relations. It has, instead, morphed to the tune of one man who deliberately cultivates his unpredictability. Ultimately, Mr Trump seeks to be perceived as larger than the American presidency, as the one who shapes it rather than the other way around. That is why the world is unsettled by his improvisations.