The Zelenskyy Oval Office brawl marks a turning point
In September 1938 the leaders of Germany, Britain, France and Italy signed the Munich Agreement, allowing Adolf Hitler to annex an area of Czechoslovakia largely inhabited by Germans, the Sudetenland Region. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain praised the pact for delivering “peace for our time.”
Of course, we all know the rest. By March of the following year, Nazi forces overran the whole country and, by that fall, the globe was aflame.
So much for appeasing a dictator. But, now, will a similar fate soon unfold for Ukraine, as U.S. President Donald J. Trump seeks to placate — even reward — Vladimir Putin? Will Trump’s disastrous Oval Office meeting on Feb. 28 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy prove to be a steppingstone toward a Munich-like unraveling?
If the Russian despot first carves up and then, in time, sweeps through Ukraine, will his appetite for other nearby lands — Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — merely be whetted? And will NATO — with or without the United States — roll over, now and going forward, as leaders strive to avoid a wider war?
Such questions may seem premature. After all, European leaders vow to stand by Ukraine, perhaps even if Trump abandons the country. As the BBC reported, Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz wrote that “no one wants peace more than the citizens of Ukraine,” for instance, with his replacement-in-waiting Friedrich Merz adding that “we stand with Ukraine” and “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.” A bevy of other world leaders similarly offered support.
Still, almost half of the military backing for Ukraine comes from the United States. Even Zelenskyy admits that American backing is vital, saying in an X post: “It’s crucial for us to have President Trump’s support. He wants to end the war, but no one wants peace more than we do.”
But peace at what price? Will Trump force Ukraine to yield parts of the country Russia now holds? Will Putin demand and get still more, perhaps enough to help him run through the whole vast country?
Already — without negotiations — the Trump Administration is making Sudetenland-like concessions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for instance, told European leaders that it’s “unrealistic” for Ukraine to seek a return of lands Russia took over in 2014, including Crimea. He similarly shot down hopes for the country to join NATO, even as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted that Ukraine was on an “irreversible path to NATO”— which would make for a breach with the U.S.
Trump, moreover, has refused Ukraine security guarantees designed to prevent a wholesale Russian takeover. “We’re going to have Europe do that,” Trump said in advance of his on-camera brawl with Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian had sought such guarantees as part of a deal to give the U.S. access to vital minerals in his country — a deal that fell apart in the meeting’s wake.
After years of U.S. and global support, though, it’s difficult to understand Trump’s willingness to sell out Ukraine.
Yes, the ever-vengeful Trump has likely has nursed a deep grudge since his first term, when a phone call between him and Zelenskyy led to his first impeachment. Recall that before the 2020 U.S. election Trump demanded that the president investigate alleged Ukrainian election interference and supposed corruption by then-candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Trump went so far as to condition U.S. weapons deliveries on Hunter’s fate, prompting the House to impeach the president.
The House Intelligence Committee in 2019 reported that “President Trump … solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. …President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian president…of politically-motivated investigations, including one into Joe Biden, one of Trump’s domestic political opponents.”
And, yes, Trump’s relationship with Russia and particularly with Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, has long been a mystery. Some have even speculated that Trump may have been compromised by Russian intelligence in a 1987 visit, though no hard evidence of a “honey trap” or a bribery snare has emerged.
Others have pointed to how Putin, a brilliant manipulator, knows all too well how to flatter and win over Trump, who has long been prey to such indulgences.
“He thinks he and Putin are friends,” former Trump national security adviser John Bolton told The Wall Street Journal. “He has no clue that Putin is exploiting him.”
Trump has admired Putin because he is “strong” and has total control over his country, a former senior administration official told the newspaper. The ex-official added that Trump likes authoritarian leaders better than others because they are “tough” and don’t face criticism and strictures from Congress and the courts.
But Trump’s global vision — if he has one — may go beyond all that. As the WSJ noted, in post-inauguration policy statements “Trump seemed to agree with Putin’s broader worldview—that big powers have the right to spheres of influence in their own neighborhood, including the right to invade or annex their neighbors.”
Recall Trump’s designs on Canada, Greenland and Panama. Are they all that different from Putin’s ambitions to reconstruct the Soviet empire, perhaps beginning with Ukraine?
“Putin sees Trump’s language of extraterritorial ambitions as justifying his own claims,” Gabrielius Landsbergis, who served until recently as Lithuania’s foreign minister, told the WSJ. “They both see a world redivided and borders drawn anew. A scary new imperial reality is being born.”
Many have suggested that Trump is determined to remake the world order that has stood since at least the end of World War II.
“We are in a new era where, by and large, international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions,” Alex Younger, a former chief of Britain’s foreign intelligence service MI6, said recently on “Newsnight” on the BBC. “They’re going to be determined by strongmen and deals … That’s Donald Trump’s mindset, certainly [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s mindset. It’s [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’s mindset.”
Stewart Patrick, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued that Trump’s “ambition is to replace the international rule of law with the law of the jungle. Rather than a global order that constrains great power privilege, he envisions a regionalized one in which powerful nations pursue spheres of influence and throw their weight around, browbeating lesser actors (like Denmark and Panama, say)… [E]very interaction is an opportunity for one-sided bargaining to improve America’s relative position against all others.”
If he’s right, Ukraine’s demise — should that happen — would just be one unpleasant step on a broad road Trump seems to want to follow. Certainly, fraying America’s longstanding global partnerships would add a few strides.
“America’s alliances are now in danger, and should be: Trump is openly, and gleefully, betraying everything America has tried to defend since the defeat of the Axis 80 years ago,” argued Tom Nichols in The Atlantic. “The entire international order of peace and security is now in danger, as Russian autocrats, after slaughtering innocent people for three years, look forward to enjoying the spoils of their invasion instead of standing trial for their crimes.”
Some Trump critics have called on the president to pull back from dumping Ukraine, arguing it is vital for both Trump and the U.S. to continue to stand up to Putin.
“The U.S. interest in Ukraine is shutting down Mr. Putin’s imperial project of reassembling a lost Soviet empire without U.S. soldiers ever having to fire a shot,” Wall Street Journal editorialists contended. “Turning Ukraine over to Mr. Putin would be catastrophic for that country and Europe, but it would be a political calamity for Mr. Trump too. The U.S. President can’t simply walk away from that conflict, much as he would like to.”
But does Trump see things that way? If not, the ugly meeting in the White House may go down in history in much the same way as sessions leading to the Munich Agreement have. It could prove to be a prelude to disaster.
