Washington, D.C. — A New Challenge for Volodymyr Zelensky
Follow that, Volodymyr Zelensky! With the echoes of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s diplomatic charm offensive still resonating in the corridors of Donald Trump’s West Wing, the spotlight now shifts to the Ukrainian leader. He faces the daunting task of captivating and persuading the American President, or at least making some headway in securing vital support for Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia.
Just a week after Trump labeled Zelensky a “dictator,” the U.S. leader seemed to conveniently forget his previous remarks during a press conference on Thursday. Despite the apparent warmth displayed at the White House during Starmer’s visit, one unsettling reality persists: Trump remains hesitant to extend meaningful security guarantees to Ukraine, instead repeatedly urging Zelensky to pursue peace negotiations with Russia. Unlike countries with royal families, Ukraine lacks the ceremonial advantage of inviting Trump and the First Lady to Kyiv with the flourish of a surprise letter.
Trump’s reluctance to offer robust security guarantees stands as the Achilles’ heel of his vision for ending the war in Ukraine. “We must make a deal first,” he asserted to reporters at the White House, emphasizing that discussions about security guarantees can only occur after a ceasefire is established. Zelensky and many of his European allies contend that any peace negotiations must inherently include security guarantees for Ukraine, to ensure that Kyiv can confidently face any continued aggression from Russia.
During their press conference, Trump and Starmer engaged in a polite yet pointed exchange regarding the U.S. military “backstop” that the Prime Minister insists is essential before British forces can be deployed to maintain peace between the warring nations. Trump confidently claimed that the UK’s military capabilities are sufficient on their own, asking Starmer, “Do you really think you could take on Russia by yourselves?”
Starmer cautioned against the potential for “Putin coming back for more” Ukrainian territory if U.S. security guarantees are not put in place. He subtly suggested that Trump may not fully grasp the nature of a conflict initiated by the Kremlin, rather than by Ukraine, as the U.S. leader had previously claimed. “We must win the peace,” Starmer remarked during their joint press conference. “A peace that rewards the aggressor only emboldens regimes like Iran… history must favor the peacemaker, not the invader.”
Despite Starmer’s careful arguments, there is little evidence that Trump is swayed by such reasoning. He reiterated multiple times during the week that he would strive to help Ukraine regain some of its territory but also emphasized that NATO membership for Kyiv “is not going to happen.” In his meeting with Macron earlier, he succinctly stated, “NATO? You can forget about that.”
After bidding farewell to the President, Starmer took his carefully crafted message to Trump’s favored cable news channel. In an interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, the Prime Minister further advocated for a U.S. military commitment to support future European peacekeeping operations in Ukraine. In language designed to resonate with the U.S. audience, he praised any agreement that brings an end to the war as an “incredible achievement by President Trump.” However, he cautioned, “We need to defend the line and protect the deal, and therefore we’ve got to have a discussion about what that looks like.”
As Trump’s focus shifts to a crucial meeting with Zelensky scheduled for Friday morning, the U.S. side anticipates the signing of a controversial minerals deal—often labeled “extortion” by critics. Unlike Macron, Starmer refrained from publicly challenging Trump’s inaccurate claims regarding the volume of aid the U.S. has provided to Ukraine or the conditions tied to that support. Now, Zelensky must advocate for Ukraine’s interests on his own, hoping that Trump’s lighthearted demeanor following several hours of English-accented flattery will carry over into their impending discussions.
