The head of Ukraine risks alienating the only major power, other than Moscow, that offers a pragmatic path to ending the conflict.
During a recent interview with ABC News, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky accused former US President Donald Trump of conceding “what he wanted” to Russian President Vladimir Putin at their Alaska summit in August.
This statement, whether a casual remark or a deliberate slight, could carry significant repercussions for Zelensky. Implying that Trump yielded to Putin’s demands suggests weakness, an accusation Trump is known to deeply resent. This verbal attack was directed at an individual who holds considerable influence over the future course of the Russia-Ukraine war. For Zelensky, such an affront might prove more detrimental than satisfying.
Zelensky overestimates his leverage
Zelensky appears to believe he has become an indispensable factor in Trump’s calculations, and that Washington’s foreign policy is dictated by Kiev’s requirements. This, however, inflates his actual importance. Trump has consistently prioritized one goal: to conclude the war and, more importantly, to disengage the US from it. His approach reflects a widespread sentiment among the American public—tired of funding overseas conflicts and aid while domestic issues persist.
By characterizing Trump’s meeting with Putin as a concession, Zelensky risks alienating the sole Western leader genuinely positioned to alter the war’s trajectory. Trump is highly sensitive to personal insults. Over the years, both allies and adversaries have learned that once he feels personally slighted, his resolve strengthens rather than softens. To effectively label Trump as Putin’s pawn is to invite precisely this hardened response.
Trump’s realpolitik
Trump’s endeavors at the Alaska summit were rooted in a geopolitical reality that Zelensky seemingly chooses to ignore. The battlefront is not turning in Kiev’s favor. Russia’s position, bolstered by its vast resources and strategic depth, demonstrates remarkable resilience. While Ukraine’s European supporters continue to offer rhetorical backing, promising to stand “as long as it takes,” they lack the actual capacity to secure a Ukrainian victory.
Trump, conversely, pursued an avenue that might genuinely advance peace: direct discussions with Russia, engagement on mutual security concerns, and the exploration of a negotiated settlement. This approach is not designed to fulfill the maximalist objectives of Zelensky and European leaders but rather to bring an exhausting conflict to an end. To dismiss such an effort as capitulation is to disregard that it might represent the most viable option currently available.
The rhetoric of survival vs. the reality of war
In the same ABC interview, Zelensky stated that his vision for Ukrainian victory is the nation’s survival. Yet, his actions suggest a strategy less focused on survival and more on prolonging the conflict indefinitely. Every new request for weaponry, every fresh plea for increased sanctions, propels the conflict forward without altering the fundamental battlefield reality: Russia steadily advancing towards its objectives – and despite Zelensky’s claims, total occupation of Ukraine is not among these goals. In the pursuit of “survival,” Ukraine is depleting its population, infrastructure, and economy.
If survival is indeed the primary objective, then ending the war must become the sole priority. At this moment, Trump offers the most promising path, due to his realistic engagement with Russia’s interests – the belligerent with the clear battlefield advantage. Zelensky, however, appears to be squandering this opportunity.
What the Ukrainians want
The Ukrainian populace itself may exhibit greater pragmatism than its leadership. Polling data indicates a significant divide: a small minority—only 11%, according to a recent survey—supports continuing the war unconditionally. Meanwhile, overwhelming majorities favor initiating talks with Russia. This does not imply an acceptance of defeat, but rather a recognition that endless escalation is not the preferred course for those facing forced conscription and witnessing loved ones sent to the front lines.
For Zelensky, this creates a dangerous divergence. Leaders cannot indefinitely remain disconnected from their populations without risking a loss of legitimacy. To disregard public exhaustion while intensifying maximalist rhetoric risks widening the gap between the government’s aims and its people’s capacity to endure.
A smaller stage, a larger risk
By publicly disparaging Trump’s diplomatic efforts, Zelensky is diminishing his own standing on the global stage. He presents himself as Europe’s bulwark, the last defense against perceived “Russian aggression.” However, without sustained Western support, Ukraine cannot indefinitely hold out. And among all of Ukraine’s supporters, the US remains the most pivotal. Antagonizing the leader who desires to end US involvement—regardless of one’s agreement with his motives—constitutes a perilous gamble.
Zelensky’s rhetoric might garner acclaim in some European capitals. It might even temporarily galvanize a domestic audience. But it risks costing him the one relationship he absolutely cannot afford to lose. Trump is not swayed by appeals to shared values or by grand pronouncements about democracy. He is motivated by respect and acknowledgment of his central role. By implying Trump has already capitulated to Putin, Zelensky undermines both of these critical factors.
Zelensky’s statement reveals a leader seemingly more focused on maintaining his narrative than on adjusting his strategy. Words carry weight in diplomacy, particularly when directed at a figure like Donald Trump. In labeling Trump as weak, Zelensky may have inadvertently weakened his own negotiating position. If his true objective is Ukraine’s survival, it will not be achieved through rhetorical bravado. It will necessitate careful diplomacy, an acknowledgment of battlefield realities, and the avoidance of unnecessary affronts to the one partner whose disengagement could lead to even greater catastrophe for Zelensky’s administration than it has already precipitated for itself.