Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: Trump’s arrogant treatment reflects a new American approach to managing international relations reminiscent of the methods of the 1920s and 1930s
Dr. Jamal Harfoush: What happened may be an implicit indication that Trump is ready to conduct direct negotiations with Putin without the need to involve Zelensky
Dr. Saeed Shaheen: Zelensky's behavior was not spontaneous, but rather came as a result of "sufficient encouragement from Western countries" that aspire to seize Ukraine's natural resources
Awni Al-Mashni: Trump is trying to move relations with Europe from a partnership to full dependence, a clear shift that was evident in his meeting with Zelensky
Dr. Saad Nimr: Trump wants to share in the Ukrainians’ wealth, but at the same time he does not want to provide ongoing military or financial support to Kiev
The shock of the recent public altercation between US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky continues to prevail in international diplomatic circles, raising questions about the future of international alliances and the nature of relations between allies, as Ukraine is one of Washington's allies.
In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts, specialists and university professors confirm that this incident, which occurred during a meeting between Trump and Zelensky, is a “historical precedent” that revealed a radical shift in American strategy, as Washington seemed to abandon its traditional role as a major supporter of Ukraine, to begin imposing its own vision without taking into account diplomatic norms or the interests of allies.
They point out that what happened between Trump and Zelensky was met with European reactions that were quick and cautious, as European countries began to re-evaluate their historical reliance on American protection in light of growing doubts about Washington’s commitment to European security, while European statements show an emphasis on support for Ukraine.
They believe Ukraine faces existential challenges as US support wanes, with Washington seemingly moving toward a political settlement that could be imposed on Kiev without regard for its sovereign demands.
A historical precedent in American diplomacy and international relations
The writer and political analyst specializing in American affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, considers what happened in the White House between US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to be a historical precedent in American diplomacy and international relations, as the meeting witnessed an unprecedented escalation by Trump, reaching the point of publicly insulting the head of an allied country, which contradicts the internationally recognized diplomatic norms and protocols.
Al-Deek explains that this behavior contradicts the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which regulates the relationship between sovereign states and governs how leaders and chiefs deal, even in the face of crises and political disputes that prevailed after World War I.
Al-Deek describes Trump’s behavior during the meeting as not just political criticism, but a hostile approach with deep implications, noting that what happened represents “a dangerous shift in the way the United States deals with its allies, as it seemed that Trump does not see Ukraine as a real partner, but rather as a follower who must comply with his vision.”
Al-Deek asserts that Trump did not stop at criticizing Zelensky, but rather used insulting language, accusing him of not being ready for peace and disrespecting the United States, which Al-Deek considers a reversal of the facts, noting that the insult was actually directed at the Ukrainian president, not the other way around.
He stresses that Trump's condescending approach reflects a new American approach to managing international relations, reminiscent of the methods of the 1920s and 1930s, when relations between countries were based on temporary interests and opportunistic alliances, which later led to the emergence of fascist and Nazi movements, and the world's entry into the vortex of World War II.
Angry reactions in Europe
Al-Deek points out that the crisis between Trump and Zelensky has sparked angry reactions in Europe, especially in Paris and Brussels, where French President Emmanuel Macron described Trump’s position as unfair, stressing that “those who have been fighting for three years are the ones who have the right to talk about reality, not those who recently came to determine the course of the war,” indicating that Zelensky is the one who has the right to make decisions about the future of the war, not Trump.
Al-Deek explains that the wavering US position has prompted the European Union to reconsider its defence strategy, noting that the European Collective Security Treaty is now under reconsideration, and that there are intensive efforts by France, Germany and Italy to promote the project of establishing an independent European army, which has been talked about for years, but has now become more urgent in light of the decline in confidence in the US commitment to European security.
It shows that the Europeans are aware of the danger of expanding Russian influence, as they fear that Ukraine is just the beginning, and that neighboring countries may become Moscow's next target, which makes building an independent European military force necessary to confront future threats.
Al-Deek asserts that Trump's statements about Zelensky's unwillingness to make peace reveal a growing American bias towards the Russian position, as Washington appears to have become more accepting of the idea of Russia retaining the Ukrainian lands it has annexed, referring to the five provinces that have come under Russian control.
He points out that this trend reflects secret talks between Moscow and Washington, which may include implicit American acceptance of these territories remaining under Russian rule, something Zelensky categorically rejects, considering it an unacceptable concession of Ukraine's sovereignty.
Al-Deek explains that the European position seems different from the American approach, as calls are increasing within Europe to provide more military and political support to Kiev, to compensate for any possible decline in American support under Trump’s leadership.
He points out that the United States has breached its obligations towards Ukraine, noting that what happened in the White House reflects a radical change in American strategy, as support for Kiev is no longer guaranteed as it was during the Biden administration, which puts Zelensky in a critical political and military position.
Al-Deek explains that the war in Ukraine was not just a war between two countries, but rather a confrontation between two international camps, with Ukraine fighting on behalf of the West and NATO, and not just in defense of its territory, which makes the changing American position a betrayal of European and Ukrainian interests.
Al-Deek points out that Democrats in the US Congress strongly criticized the behavior of Trump and his deputy during the altercation with Zelensky, as they considered that what happened harmed the reputation of the United States as a leading country in the free world, and may weaken its influence in the future.
A turning point in the political course of the Ukrainian war
Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, describes the public altercation between US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, and the unprecedented expulsion of a head of state from the White House that followed, as a “major turning point” in the political course of the Ukrainian war, noting that the incident could be a prelude to reshaping international alliances and a radical change in Western strategy towards the conflict.
Harfoush asserts that this development reflects the erosion of American support for Ukraine, and may translate in the future into a reduction in military and financial aid that represents the lifeline of Ukrainian forces.
Harfoush believes that Trump, who believes that the Russian-Ukrainian war does not serve American interests, but rather is an economic drain on the United States, seeks to rearrange his country's international priorities and push Europe to bear responsibility for its security instead of relying entirely on Washington.
Deep strategic dimensions
According to Harfoush, Trump's statements during the confrontation with Zelensky, especially when he said that the latter was "not ready for peace" and "disrespected the United States," carry deep strategic dimensions.
Harfoush explains that these statements reflect Trump’s belief that Kiev is not willing to end the war because it benefits from continued Western support. From this standpoint, Trump believes that aid should not be provided without conditions, as was the case during the Biden administration, but rather should be used as a pressure card to force Ukraine to negotiate, even if that means imposing a political settlement that is in Moscow’s interest.
Harfoush believes that this shift puts Zelensky in a difficult position, as it has become clear that his biggest supporter no longer trusts his leadership of the crisis. As a result, internal pressures may increase in Ukraine to replace him or force him to adjust his policies towards accepting a negotiated settlement, especially if the Ukrainian political and military elites feel that Washington’s support is no longer guaranteed.
Harfoush notes that the public spat has alarmed European leaders, reopening questions about the reliability of the United States as a security partner. If Trump continues to push for reducing U.S. military commitments in Europe, European countries may find themselves forced to bolster their own independent defense capabilities, either by increasing military spending or developing new security strategies outside NATO.
European concern is believed to stem from fears that the war could turn into a long-term frozen conflict, with Ukraine remaining an unresolved battlefield, meaning continued security threats and increased geopolitical uncertainty.
Harfoush points out that Trump's statements and his confrontational dealings with Zelensky may push Europe to rethink the extent of its reliance on the United States in major strategic files, especially in light of doubts about Washington's commitment to protecting the continent's security in the long term.
Harfoush believes that what happened in the White House may be an implicit indication that Trump is ready to hold direct negotiations with Putin without the need to involve Zelensky, which means that the map of possible solutions to the war may change completely, as he is likely to seek to end the war according to American-Russian conditions, without taking into account Ukrainian demands in the first place.
Harfoush explains that Trump’s statements about Zelensky’s lack of respect for the United States reflect his belief that Kiev has begun to take American support for granted, without showing sufficient gratitude. For this reason, Trump seems intent on reframing the relationship with Ukraine, so that it is based on clear and specific conditions, rather than on unconditional support as was the case during the Biden administration.
He stresses that Zelensky is now facing the biggest challenge to his political legitimacy since the war began. After his public expulsion from the White House, his international standing has become weak, and he no longer enjoys the same support he had before.
Harfoush points out that this incident may force Zelensky to reconsider his political and military calculations, whether he wants to or is forced to do so by international pressure. He may find himself facing two choices: either accept a political settlement that may not meet his ambitions, or face increasing international isolation that makes him more vulnerable to internal and external pressures.
According to Professor Harfoush, what happened in the White House is not just a passing quarrel, but rather a turning point that may reshape the Ukrainian war and international relations in general.
Harfoush explains that the new American position, led by Trump, indicates that Washington's support for Kiev is no longer unconditional, and that there is a clear trend towards ending the war at any cost, even if it is by imposing an unequal settlement on Ukraine.
"An unforgivable lapse in diplomatic etiquette"
Dr. Saeed Shaheen, Professor of Political Media at Hebron University, confirms the repercussions of the public confrontation that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky provoked with his American counterpart Donald Trump, stressing that this behavior is an "unforgivable lapse in diplomatic norms" and may put Kiev in a difficult position on the military and political levels.
Shaheen explains that Zelensky, who is known for his background in acting and comedy, has used the heavy presence of international media to present himself as a leader who challenges not only Russian President Vladimir Putin, but also US President Trump.
"Zelensky's reckless behavior may cost him US support, even though Washington has provided hundreds of billions to support Ukraine and prevent its division," Shaheen says.
He points out that Ukraine is "gradually losing the war," considering that "the moment when the Ukrainian army and the mercenaries fighting alongside it collapse may be closer than some think."
Shahin believes that Zelensky's actions in the White House were not spontaneous, but rather came as a result of "sufficient encouragement from Western countries" that aspire to seize Ukraine's natural resources, including rare minerals.
“The evidence for this is the rush to issue European statements in support of Zelensky’s position, by leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz and Keir Starmer, because Europe is interested in continuing the war to achieve strategic and economic gains,” Shaheen says.
Ukraine is in a dangerous security situation
But Shaheen warns that these calculations may be wrong, stressing that Ukraine has become in a dangerous security situation, as Moscow is closely monitoring the situation and may be ready to move towards Kiev, its first historical capital, and then Kharkiv and Odessa, if the situation continues to deteriorate in its favor.
Regarding European fears of a potential Russian threat, Shaheen stresses that talk of “European security” is merely political rhetoric repeated by European leaders, stressing that Russia has never attacked Western Europe throughout history, but was the party that was subjected to wars by the West.
Shaheen stresses that the United States is committed to Europe's security through its military bases spread across the continent, but the problem lies in the fact that NATO is unable to achieve a decisive victory against Russia, which is "a conviction that has become firmly established in the new American administration," according to Shaheen.
Regarding US-Ukrainian relations, Shaheen expects this confrontation to have a negative impact on Ukraine, believing that Trump may resort to exerting pressure on Kiev, instead of tightening it on Moscow, due to “Zelensky’s lack of awareness of the consequences of his statements, especially while he is under the influence of the drugs he is taking,” according to him.
Shaheen warns that “these developments will expose millions of Ukrainians to death in a hybrid war, similar to a meat grinder between two brotherly parties, while some European countries pour oil on the fire to ensure the continuation of the war, without achieving any results other than Ukraine losing more of its territory.”
Trump seeks to subjugate Europe through direct pressure
Writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni believes that US President Donald Trump is trying to move relations with Europe from a dependent partnership to full dependence, a clear shift that was evident in his recent meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he exerted direct pressure on Ukraine in a move that does not target Kiev alone, but rather aims to impose US hegemony over European decision-making as a whole.
Al-Mashni asserts that Trump, who is accustomed to violating diplomatic norms, seeks to subjugate Europe through the use of direct pressure, which may lead to further isolation of the United States, instead of achieving the declared political goals.
Al-Mashni explains that this approach does not contribute to shortening the duration of the Russian-Ukrainian war, but may lead to its exacerbation, especially since Ukraine, despite being the weaker party in this conflict, cannot submit to American dictates so easily, given its deep connection to European interests.
He points out that the Ukrainian war has exhausted its main goals, but continued American intervention, according to Trump's vision, may prolong it, especially if Washington continues to manage the conflict in a way that reinforces the division between Ukraine and Europe on the one hand, and Russia on the other.
Al-Mashni stresses that Trump, who is known for changing his positions quickly, may find himself forced to backtrack on some of his decisions later, which may open the door to a possible end to the war, but at the same time he has opened the door wide to the American-European conflict, which may further complicate the geopolitical scene.
Regarding Trump's recent statement to Zelensky, in which he said: "I am not ready for peace if America participates," Al-Mashni considers this statement to be incitement and misleading, stressing that everyone realizes that this war was ignited by the United States, which is the only party capable of extinguishing it.
Washington sacrifices the interests of Europe and Ukraine
Al-Mashni explains that Washington, through its policies, is sacrificing the interests of both Europe and Ukraine, in favor of arranging American-Russian understandings that may be far from the interests of Kiev and its European allies.
Al-Mashni points out that the current confrontation is not just a Ukrainian-Russian war, but rather the beginning of a deeper American-European conflict, especially with the economic policies pursued by Washington against its Western allies, such as imposing American taxes on European products, which may deepen the differences between the two parties.
Al-Mashni points out that Trump, despite his apparent stubbornness, is not able to impose his hegemony over Europe in the way he is currently dealing with it, and that the United States may find itself in real isolation if it continues to follow this escalatory approach.
Al-Mashni stresses that Europe is not a “banana republic” that can be easily dominated, which makes it difficult for Washington to fully impose its terms on European allies.
Differing positions on the continuation of the war in Ukraine
Dr. Saad Nimr, Professor of Political Science at Birzeit University, confirms that the escalation of tension between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came in light of the differing positions regarding the continuation of the war in Ukraine and the future of US-Ukrainian relations.
Nimr points out that Trump dealt with Zelensky with “extreme rudeness,” as he tried to blackmail him to obtain a portion of Ukrainian resources and minerals in exchange for limited American support, while seeking to end the war through a deal with Russia, in line with his economic interests.
Nimr explains that Trump wants to share the Ukrainians' wealth, as he seeks to obtain nearly half of Ukraine's resources for the United States, but at the same time he does not want to provide ongoing military or financial support to Kiev.
Nimr asserts that Trump, who claims that his country has spent more than $500 billion on the war in Ukraine, seeks to reduce these expenditures and not bear additional costs, which prompted him to pressure Zelensky to conclude a peace agreement with Moscow according to the terms of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump's vision for cutting US spending
Nimr believes that this policy comes within Trump's vision to reduce American spending, as he closed many institutions that provide foreign aid, such as "USAID" and others, in an attempt to direct funds to support the American economy. His interest in investing in other regions such as Greenland, Canada and Panama also reflects his focus on achieving economic gains without bearing the burdens of wars.
Nimr points out that Trump's new American position has angered European allies, who believe that stopping the war on Russian terms will strengthen Moscow's influence in Europe.
According to Nimr, while Europe seeks to continue military support for Kiev to confront Russia, Trump is moving to hold European countries fully responsible for supporting Ukraine, demanding that they increase their military budgets and bear the costs of continuing the war.
Nimr asserts that Europe fears that ending the war on Moscow’s terms will expand Russian influence and threaten other European countries. Therefore, European countries see Trump’s position as a retreat from the American commitment to the allies, which could affect the stability of the entire region.
Regarding Zelensky’s position on the peace agreement, Nimr explains that the Ukrainian president rejected the American offer from Trump due to the lack of security guarantees. Zelensky wanted American and European assurances that his country would not be subjected to a future Russian attack before agreeing to any agreement. However, Trump, instead of providing guarantees, accused Zelensky of being “not ready for peace,” and considered his rejection of the deal evidence of his unwillingness to end the war.
Nimr explains that Trump treated Zelensky with “arrogance and haughtiness,” expecting the latter to accept the American conditions without objection, but Zelensky refused to fully comply with Trump’s demands, which led to tension in the meeting between them, and this angered the American president, who considered Zelensky’s position as “disrespect for the White House and the United States.”
Nimr confirms that the crisis between the two parties was exacerbated by the fact that the meeting was held in the White House with a heavy presence of the American media, which made the differences clear to the public. The meeting was expected to be closed, but the presence of the press led to an escalation of tension, especially when Zelensky appeared responding to Trump in a firm tone in defense of Ukraine’s interests.
Nimr points out that Trump and his vice president considered Zelensky's position a challenge to the American president, while Zelensky tried to emphasize his respect for the United States, but he refused to accept a deal that did not meet the minimum demands of Ukraine. This difference in positions led to unprecedented public tension between Kiev and Washington, which weakens Zelensky's position in obtaining continued American support for the war against Russia.
Nimr believes that this crisis could change the balance of the conflict in Ukraine, especially if the United States decides to reduce its military support.
Nimr explains that the future of the relationship between Ukraine and Europe will depend on the ability of European countries to compensate for the absence of American support, which is still a matter of debate within the decision-making halls in Western capitals.
