March, 2025, may become a significant milestone in the process of reaching a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine. The February 28 debacle between Trump and Zelensky at the White House pushed the US administration to take a tougher stance vis-à-vis the Kiev regime. Trump has a long list of opponents that must be punished, including, […][
Zelensky, an actor by trade, who is used to self-admiration and being pitied as a victim, could not deny himself the pleasure of challenging the President and Vice President of the United States.
Trump clearly stated his intention to reach a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine
The distinct change in Washington’s policy on the conflict in Ukraine could already be seen on February 12 during the telephone call between Trump and Putin.
Also, this radical change of the US vector (Trump has admitted that NATO expansion to the East and the Biden administration’s half-baked moves lie at the core of the conflict) has not been fully grasped by the Ukrainian authorities or European governments. Macron did, in fact, manage to convince Trump to receive Zelensky at the White House.
European government elites are used to following Washington, for which reason they were flabbergasted by Trump’s actions and statements. This shows the low level of thought capacity and strategic vision of many Western European heads of state. This has, for example, been expressed in the Figaro newspaper (02.02.2025) by one of the most famous French military analysts, Olivier Zajec, a professor of political science at the University of Lyon and head of the Institute of Strategic and Defence Studies (Institut d’études de strategie et de défense): “The unprecedented harshness at the meeting between Trump and Zelensky shows that we are currently living through something much bigger than a mere turning point. It is the end of an episode focused exclusively on striving for military superiority. Washington is sending unambiguous signals that it does not intend to continue playing the game and risking making new bets. Zelensky simply cannot understand this and, therefore, risks being left alone at the table when the game has been finished and the lights in the room have been turned off”.
The European leaders that gathered in London on March 2 could not, essentially, grasp the situation and attempted (though cautiously) to underline the importance of adhering to their previous vector, calling on Zelensky to mend relations with Trump. It seems the US President will also not forget this awkward European move; Vance and Musk have on multiple occasions pointed out that certain Western European leaders do not have the support of their populations and that replacing those leaders with more pragmatic ones is merely a question of time. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has admitted that Europe is fragile and that it will become even more vulnerable without its American ally.
Trump’s main goal is the restructuring of the US state apparatus, but opposition to his purges and reorganisation attempts is rising; a successful foreign policy is of particular importance to the US President.
Trump wants history to remember him as a peacemaker and receive a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. There is practically no opportunity for this in the Middle East any more, as 22 Arab states have refused Trump’s plan to displace 2 million Palestinians from the Gaza sector.
In such conditions it is important for him to mitigate the resistance of the head of the Kiev regime and get the Europeans on his side. Trump has not a single care for what fate awaits the Ukrainian state – a factor that we must consider.
US Vice President J. D. Vance has accused European leaders of hypocrisy in terms of support for Zelensky, saying that they make public promises to help, but in private conversations call on him to negotiate. In putting on their act, they are, in fact, admitting the necessity of peace negotiations behind closed doors.
On March 2 The Economist summed up the Europeans’ position as follows: “Europe promises to defend Ukraine, but prays for Trump’s assistance. The London summit on March 1 is accompanied by fear that America will leave”. Immediately after his quarrel with Zelensky, Trump halted military aid to Ukraine – at least until Kiev sincerely commits to peace talks. Zelensky agreed with this condition immediately and announced his readiness to sign the deal on rare earth metals with the US.
European leaders are in turmoil; they are not as strong as the US President to be able to declare a radical reconsideration of their position. That is why they are beginning to fidget and propose new settlement plans, one being worse than the next. First they want to deploy NATO troops to Ukraine, then they want a one-month ceasefire. Macron has even named Russia the number one threat to France and Europe.
The Zelensky regime is losing to Russia on the battlefield. As Al Jazeera noted on March 6, 2025, this has evoked a blame game, the objective of which is to pinpoint who is responsible for the catastrophe in Ukraine: “Trump, Zelensky and the Europeans are desperately trying to reveal the bitter truth to the public and wash their hands clean”.
European states are not at all worried about what is to become of the Ukrainian people; they are more interested in avoiding a fallout with Trump and participate, at least in some way or another, in the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. To this end, they want to reconcile relations between Trump and Zelensky.
Recently information has surfaced that Starmer and Macron would like to bring Zelensky to Washington to achieve this, though it is quite unlikely that Trump would receive them. He wants to achieve peace as soon as possible, meanwhile the Europeans press on for war.
Vladimir Mashin, political observer, Candidate of Historical Sciences