As Ukraine fights for survival in the face of Russian aggression, its leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, must navigate not just the perils of war but also the treacheries of geopolitics—where some allies seem as unreliable as adversaries are ruthless.
By Chudi Okoye
Poor Ukraine! A frazzled and beleaguered country trapped between two predatory forces—Russian neo-imperialists and Western profiteers.
Evidently, to Vladimir Putin—a former KGB operative, Russia’s dominant leader for the past 25 years, and a modern-day imperial conquistador—Ukraine is nothing but “a mere geographical expression.“ The phrase (rendered as une expression géographique in French, the lingua franca of 18th- and 19th-century diplomacy, and later translated as una espressione geografica in Italian) was famously used in 1847 by the German-Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859) to describe the then-fragmented states of the Italian peninsula. That description seems apt for how Putin perceives his western neighbor: a land lacking true sovereignty, open to his imperial conquest. Presumably, this view of Ukraine is shared by Donald Trump, returning president of the United States, and his fellow carpetbaggers, who salivate over the vast mineral wealth of that Eastern European country.
Metternich, a staunch conservative and opponent of rising nationalism in Europe, did not use the phrase to dismiss Italy’s historical or cultural significance. Rather, he observed—accurately—that the Italian mini-states lacked political unity and were vulnerable to foreign dominance. He was not the first to employ the phrase; earlier in 1818, the French historian and diplomat Abbé de Pradt had referred to Italy as “a mere geographical denomination.” But Metternich repurposed it to justify Austria’s role in maintaining the post-Napoleonic order established at the Congress of Vienna (1815). Within two decades, however, Italy defied the label, achieving unification under the Kingdom of Italy (1861) and proving the phrase historically short-lived.
Presumably to Putin, Trump, and their imperialist co-travelers, Ukraine is not a real nation but an unsovereign land—there for the taking. But history has a habit of humbling those who dismiss the will of a people. As Italy once did, Ukraine may yet defy its would-be conquerors. That is certainly my hope!
Imperial Ambitions
As Putin’s latest war on Ukraine rages into its fourth year, a new reality is emerging that further strains an already overwhelmed nation. The United States, once a steadfast ally in Ukraine’s resistance against Russian adventurism, now once again led by Trump, is not only withholding support but also seemingly harbors imperial designs on its ostensible ally. It is a double whammy for the war-weary country, with betrayal by a supposed ally possibly the greater threat and no doubt a deeper cut.
This well-founded concern perhaps explains President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s evident fretfulness during his White House visit on 28 February, presumably to sign a proposed deal to share Ukraine’s rare earth minerals with America, as condition for the latter’s continued support. It was sheer diplomatic rumpus, as Trump assailed his disobliging guest. The embattled Ukrainian leader faced virulent verbal attacks from the U.S. president and his voluble vice, James David Vance, for his ‘impudent’ refusal to sign the deal being pressed upon him—without further security guarantees from the superpower.
This nuance was likely lost on Trump’s Republican allies and right-wing media cheerleaders, who derided Zelenskyy’s supposed ‘impudence.’ Such critics believe Zelenskyy failed to show sufficient deference to Trump during the visit, even as he was being hideously harangued by his hosts. In their view, Zelenskyy should have meekly and gratefully signed the proposal being pushed on him—one that would effectively have handed over his country’s future to the shadowy private interests represented by Trump, with little in return. He was expected to sign away his nation’s resources without firm U.S. security guarantees, without any commitment to reclaim Ukrainian territories violently seized by Russia, and with no prospect of NATO membership: all, positions that would greatly favor Putin, if not directly dictated by him—as suspected by some who believe the Russian president wields a secret leverage over Donald Trump.
Pray, what was in such a deal for Ukraine? How could anyone imagine that Europe would continue to provide costly military and financial support while Trump and his profiteering posse plundered the country’s resources?
Signing such a deal would have shredded Zelenskyy’s reputation at home, likely earned him international ridicule, and undoubtedly finished him politically. Perhaps that was the intent!
After the debacle of Zelenskyy’s recent visit, some fuming flame-throwers felt he was “finished,” and said so openly. Not a few of them were gleeful at the prospect. But whether or not the Ukrainian leader faces a looming fall, he deserves credit, in my view, for rebuffing the Mafia-like shakedown by Trump, who held a rhetorical gun to his head, insisting he sign the minerals agreement or the U.S. would abandon his country to its fate. Zelenskyy did what any self-respecting leader should have done: push back against a bully and battle for his battered country.
Trump has whacked him for weeks on end, since returning to the presidency in January, clearly preparing America for a pivot away from the prevailing U.S. policy on Ukraine. In a scathing social media post, he mocked Zelenskyy as “a modestly successful comedian,” incredibly oblivious to his own far less illustrious TV career. He has wrongly branded Zelenskyy a “dictator” while defending an actual dictator, Putin. He has claimed the Ukrainian leader is not a legitimate president because his term was originally scheduled to end in May 2024, though he continues to govern under war-time necessity, as the ongoing Russian invasion has made a regularly scheduled election impossible. He has lied about Zelenskyy’s approval rating, falsely claiming it languishes at 4% when it actually stands at 57%, higher than Trump’s own. He has also misrepresented the measure of American support for Ukraine, claiming it exceeds $350 billion and outstrips Europe’s contributions—despite repeated corrections that the U.S. has actually spent around $119.7 billion, trailing Europe’s estimated $138.7 billion. In a striking act of projection, Trump even insinuates that Zelenskyy has siphoned off foreign aid for personal gain. Above all, Trump and his lieutenants have undermined Ukraine’s position even before any armistice with Russia, insisting that Ukraine must abandon its NATO aspirations and resign itself to conceding its eastern territories already seized by Russia.
Rather uncharitably, Trump even mocked the war-dazed Ukrainian leader for his less-than-dapper style, since Zelenskyy often appears in an approximation of combat gear rather than designer suits. Trump, however, seems to forget that his own favored adviser, Elon Musk—head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which sounds like one of those notorious ministries in Nazi Germany or revolutionary Russia—stomps around the White House and cabinet meetings looking for all the world like an unkempt street hustler.
If Zelenskyy had accepted (or eventually accepts) Trump’s extortionist proposal without any U.S. security guarantees, he would be finished anyway, in my opinion. Ukraine deserves better. Under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed in December 1994, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia provided security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for their renunciation of nuclear weapons and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Strictly speaking, these security assurances were not legally binding instruments akin to NATO’s Article 5; nor did they include any enforcement mechanism. However, they affirmed a commitment to the UN Charter and OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) principles, prohibiting the major signatories from using or threatening military force or economic coercion against the smaller powers, “except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” France and China later issued separate statements offering somewhat weaker assurances but still adhering to the same UN principles. As a result of these agreements, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan relinquished their nuclear weapons between 1993 and 1996.
Yet, in clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum, Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in 2014. Not content, it followed up with the full-scale invasion of eastern Ukraine in February 2022. The smaller powers, whatever the compulsions they faced at the time, may have unwisely accepted these protocols, but they likely did so with the understanding that, whatever its precise legal status, the Budapest Memorandum was at minimum morally and politically binding. They would have expected that none of the signatories could violate it with impunity and that, if such a breach occurred, the other signatories would be obliged—if not strictly obligated—to respond.
In light of the Budapest Memorandum, it seems to me that the U.S. has a moral duty to back Ukraine against this Russian breach, as the other signatories, the U.K. and France, have been doing; or at the very least, not to complicate life for the embattled country. Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, provided staunch support for Ukraine, presumably with this undertaking in mind. But Trump is now seemingly undermining the agreement, demanding that Zelenskyy offer him and his shadowy associates rights to Ukraine’s natural resources as quid pro quo for previous U.S. assistance—bizarrely, without any firm U.S. security guarantees.
What manner of agreement would that be? So, while Putin retains the Ukrainian territories he has usurped and likely makes further incursions, Trump and his private-sector associates would plunder Ukraine’s precious minerals. What fate awaits poor Ukrainians under that scenario—pummeled by Putin on the one end and extorted by Trump and his gang of carpetbaggers on the other?
New World Disorder
Beyond a banal profit motive—the primary incentive of an unrestrained president looking to cash in on U.S. diplomacy, there may be strategic reasons why Trump appears to be retreating from unconditional support for Ukraine. Some have wondered if this betokens the birth of a new world order. That may be so. But I myself do not yet see that: only the contours, or even less glimmers of it. A ‘new world order’ may be on the horizon, heralding a definitive transition to a theorized multipolar world. For now, though, we may be witnessing more a decomposition of the post-WWII international order, one once so dominated by the United States of America—especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union—that it was a de facto unipolar world.
To comprehend the moment, recall some of what caused the collapse of ancient Rome and Pax Romana: political turmoil, internal power struggles, economic instability, military overextension, barbarian invasions, and, some scholars suggest, demographic decline. Some even point to the rise of Christianity as a factor, though that remains debated. As in ancient Rome, so in many ways contemporary America.
Without question, internal stresses are multiplying and manifesting in the United States, though the country remains very strong and, at present, probably peerless. Washington is often gripped by gridlock, caused by a clash of contending factions and ideological forces. Progressive ascendancy and the surge of liberal-internationalism, both arguably a mark of an increasingly enlightened society, have long confronted a conservative strain in American politics which is now, under Trump, resurgent. This conservative risorgimento is rooted in divergent and conflicting impulses: primordial nativism, Christian nationalism and traditional conservatism. Atop these tendencies in the Trump era perches—for now at least—a highly assertive plutocratic class represented by the likes of Elon Musk and others in the tech-right, foisting a form of tech autocracy on the country—one that, for now, appears appealing to the spoils-spurred ruling faction ostensibly headed by Trump. These internal fissures, marked by dueling factions and shifting allegiances, mean that we may be witnessing turmoil and something of a political decay in America.
Partly because of these internal dynamics and also due to the gradual rise of other powers, America can no longer impose its wishes at will on the world. Though the American hegemon seems wobbly in its current posture, other world powers are not yet highly assertive in the global arena. Not the weakened democracies of the West. Not the emergent powers of the East. And certainly not the disparate countries of the Global South, which remain lower in the pecking order. It seems premature, therefore, to speak definitively of a ‘multipolar world,’ even as mighty America appears to falter. For the moment, the global system is marked more by flux and instability, as America resets and other powers gradually consolidate.
The foregoing, then, is the reality facing Ukraine, and the reason Zelenskyy was visibly roiled as he was raked over the coals during his recent White House visit. Who can blame him? Only the most unsympathetic observer would have been unmoved. On the evening of his disastrous visit, I heard some Washington wag joking on TV that Zelenskyy might have fared better had he fawned over Trump and festooned him with flattery, as the U.S. president is notoriously fond of brown-nosers and apple-polishers. I get it: play on the president’s weakness. But that is a joke made in the comfort of a TV studio, far from the theater of war in Ukraine, by someone unburdened by his grim reality.
In my view, Volodymyr Zelenskyy acquitted himself very well in his recent Washington outing. He effectively telegraphed his frustration to the broader world, even if his intransigent hosts and their insufferable allies failed to notice. We’ll wait to see if his traumatized country reaps a deserved dividend from his distress.
