The Escalation of the Ukraine-Russia Conflict: Assessing Trump and Zelensky’s Strategic Decisions and Their Global Implications

Introduction

The protracted conflict between Ukraine and Russia, now entering its fourth year, has reached a critical juncture following the explosive February 2025 Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The confrontation exposed deepening fissures in U.S.-Ukraine relations, renewed debates over leadership missteps, and shifting dynamics within the international community.

FAF analyzes whether Trump or Zelensky bears greater responsibility for the war’s continuation, evaluates strategic decisions through an unbiased lens, and examines global perceptions of Zelensky’s choices.

Structural Factors in the Conflict’s Prolongation

Historical Context of NATO Expansion and Russian Insecurity

The roots of the conflict trace back to post-Cold War tensions, particularly NATO’s eastward expansion and Russia’s perception of encroachment on its sphere of influence.

Classical realist analysis emphasizes how systemic pressures—such as Russia’s security dilemma—create conditions for conflict.

While NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit declaration (promising eventual Ukrainian membership) exacerbated Russian fears, Ukraine’s strategic orientation under Zelensky intensified these tensions. His administration’s pursuit of Western integration, including NATO aspirations and curtailing Russian cultural influence, alienated Moscow and Ukrainian Russian-speaking communities.

These policies and Zelensky’s rejection of the 2022 Istanbul peace talks (which proposed Ukrainian neutrality in exchange for security guarantees) are cited as critical junctures where diplomacy faltered.

The Role of U.S. Policy Shifts Under Trump

Trump’s “America First” approach has radically altered U.S. engagement. His administration’s skepticism of NATO, admiration for Putin, and transactional view of foreign aid have eroded trust in U.S. commitments.

During the Oval Office meeting, Trump falsely accused Ukraine of initiating the war, demanded gratitude for past aid, and threatened to withdraw support unless Zelensky accepted a ceasefire favorable to Russia.

These actions reflect a broader strategy to disentangle Ukraine, prioritizing direct negotiations with Russia over Kyiv’s sovereignty concerns.

While Trump frames this as pragmatic conflict resolution, critics argue it emboldens Russian aggression and undermines international norms.

Assessing Leadership Missteps: Trump vs. Zelensky

Trump’s Diplomatic Failures

Misinformation and Alienation

Trump’s repeated false claims—such as labeling Zelensky a “dictator” and asserting Ukraine started the war—have damaged bilateral relations. By parroting Russian talking points, he has legitimized Moscow’s narrative and undermined Ukraine’s moral standing.

Undermining Transatlantic Unity

The public berating of Zelensky and threats to abandon Ukraine have strained NATO cohesion. While reaffirming support for Kyiv, European leaders now question U.S. reliability, accelerating efforts to build independent defense frameworks.

Empowering Russian Propaganda

Kremlin officials praised Trump’s “common sense” approach, viewing the U.S.-Ukraine rift as a strategic victory.

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gloated that Zelensky received a “proper slap down,” highlighting how Trump’s rhetoric aligns with Russian objectives.

Zelensky’s Strategic Miscalculations

Overestimating Western Commitment

Zelensky’s belief in unwavering U.S. and EU support led to risky decisions, such as rejecting the 2022 peace deal. This optimism ignored realist warnings that Western aid is contingent on shifting domestic politics.

Domestic Polarization

Policies marginalizing the Russian language and culture alienated Eastern populations, fueling internal discord exploited by Russia. Critics argue these measures prioritized nationalist sentiment over conflict de-escalation.

Diplomatic Inflexibility

Zelensky’s insistence on recovering all occupied territories before negotiations—a position reinforced by Western hardliners—has prolonged fighting despite dwindling workforce and resources.

His refusal to acknowledge Trump’s red lines during the Oval Office meeting further antagonized a crucial ally.

International Perceptions of Zelensky’s Leadership

European Solidarity and Skepticism

European leaders have condemned Russia’s invasion universally but express mixed views on Zelensky’s strategies.

While figures like French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz commend his resilience, others privately question his capacity to compromise.

The EU’s emergency summit in March 2025 underscored this duality: public pledges of unwavering support contrasted with behind-the-scenes efforts to draft alternative peace plans acceptable to Trump.

Eastern European nations, particularly Poland and the Baltics remain staunch advocates for military aid, whereas Western states like Germany emphasize diplomatic outreach.

U.S. Political Divide

The U.S. response is bifurcated along partisan lines. Trump allies, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, accuse Zelensky of ingratitude and warmongering, framing U.S. disengagement as necessary to avoid “World War III.”

Conversely, bipartisan critics like Senator Lisa Murkowski condemn the administration’s pro-Russia tilt, warning it abandons democratic values. Notably, Trump’s base applauds his tough stance, viewing Ukraine as a corrupt money pit, while foreign policy elites decry the erosion of U.S. global leadership.

Global South and Neutral States

Many non-aligned nations, particularly in Africa and Asia, perceive the conflict through a neo-colonial lens, criticizing Western hypocrisy in condemning Russia while ignoring similar actions by allies like Israel. This bloc advocates for UN-mediated talks but remains skeptical of Zelensky’s ability to negotiate independently of Western diktats.

Pathways to Resolution and Lingering Challenges

European Mediation Efforts

Europe has proposed a “coalition of the willing” to broker peace in response to U.S. disengagement. Key elements include:

Security Guarantees

A NATO-backed peacekeeping force to monitor ceasefires.

Economic Incentives

EU nations need access to Ukraine’s critical minerals in exchange for reconstruction aid.

Diplomatic Channels

Reviving the Normandy Format talks with French-German mediation.

However, these initiatives face hurdles, notably Russia’s insistence on recognizing annexed territories and Trump’s reluctance to endorse European-led solutions.

The Trump-Zelensky Stalemate

Trump’s ultimatum—peace on Moscow’s terms or abandonment—leaves Zelensky with untenable choices:

Capitulation: Accepting territorial losses and neutrality risks domestic backlash and legitimizing Russian aggression.

Prolonged War: Due to Ukraine's depleted arsenal and workforce, continuing hostilities without U.S. aid could lead to collapse.

Zelensky’s post-meeting pragmatism—publicly thanking Trump while securing European backing—suggests a strategy to buy time.

However, his dwindling approval (4% according to contested polls) and allegations of corruption undermine his leverage.

Conclusion: A Convergence of Leadership Failures

The Ukraine war’s prolongation stems not from a single miscalculation but a confluence of structural pressures and leadership flaws.

Trump’s transactional diplomacy, reliance on Russian disinformation, and alienation of allies have weakened Ukraine’s position and fractured Western unity.

Conversely, Zelensky’s overestimation of Western solidarity, inflexibility in negotiations, and polarizing domestic policies have limited diplomatic off-ramps.

The international community largely views Zelensky as a courageous but flawed leader navigating an impossible geopolitical landscape.

While Europe’s unified response offers a lifeline, the ultimate resolution requires U.S. reengagement—a prospect uncertain under Trump’s “America First” doctrine. As realist scholars caution, the war’s human and strategic costs will only escalate without compromise grounded in power realities.

FAF analysis synthesizes perspectives from 17 sources, including international media, governmental statements, and expert commentaries, to comprehensively assess the Ukraine conflict’s current trajectory.