Downfall

Trump’s Two Attempts to Blackmail Ukraine and the U.S. Decline on the World Stage

History has a way of repeating itself, but rarely with such glaring predictability. Twice now, Donald Trump has sought to use Ukraine as a bargaining chip for his own political and economic gain—first in 2019, when he attempted to blackmail President Volodymyr Zelensky into smearing Joe Biden, and again in 2025, when he attempted to strong-arm Ukraine into a resource deal while undermining its sovereignty. Both moments showcased Trump’s clear alignment with Russia, his disregard for U.S. commitments to democracy and global security, and his willingness to sacrifice allies for personal leverage. The damage done in 2019 weakened America’s global standing, emboldened Russia, and set the stage for Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The 2025 debacle only worsened an already fractured transatlantic alliance, proving that under Trump, the U.S. is no longer a reliable partner.

Phase 1: 2019 – A Blackmail Attempt That Shook the West

Zelensky’s Plea and Trump’s Contempt

In his first meeting with Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky wasn’t asking for favors—he was seeking the continued military and diplomatic support that Ukraine had come to expect from its American ally. Facing Russian aggression in Crimea and the Donbas, Ukraine needed a clear commitment from Washington.

Instead, Trump saw an opportunity for personal gain. In a now-infamous July 25 phone call, he conditioned military aid on Zelensky announcing an investigation into Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. This blatant quid pro quo was exposed by a whistleblower, leading to Trump’s first impeachment.

Rather than strengthening U.S. opposition to Russian expansionism, Trump used Ukraine as a pawn in his domestic political battles. His refusal to support Kyiv unconditionally emboldened Putin and rattled America’s European allies, many of whom began reevaluating their reliance on the U.S. for security.

Trump’s Russia Alignment: A Blatant Betrayal

This scandal was not an isolated incident. Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly demonstrated an affinity for Putin, whether by downplaying Russian election interference, attempting to roll back sanctions, or throwing U.S. intelligence agencies under the bus during the Helsinki summit.

By holding up the delivery of Javelin missiles, a critical component of Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, Trump did more than engage in corrupt politics—he actively undermined Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.

The EU’s Response: A Push for Independence

For European leaders, Trump’s actions signaled that the U.S. was no longer the steadfast partner it had been since World War II. If Washington was willing to use military aid as a bargaining chip, could NATO itself be next?

France and Germany responded by accelerating efforts for European defense autonomy. The European Defence Fund gained traction, military spending increased, and calls for strategic sovereignty grew louder. Even after Trump left office, the damage lingered, and America’s reliability as a global leader was permanently questioned.

Phase 2: 2025 – The Same Playbook, the Same Global Consequences

A Meeting Intended for Unity Turns Hostile

Six years after his first disastrous encounter with Zelensky, Trump—having returned to office—met with the Ukrainian president once again. The stakes were even higher. Ukraine was still fighting for its survival against Russian forces, relying on Western aid and unity.

Yet Trump once again sought to use Ukraine as leverage, this time to secure access to critical minerals. In a closed-door discussion, Trump accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III” and dismissed his concerns as “disrespectful to the United States.” Vice President JD Vance piled on, attacking Zelensky for discussing policy disagreements in public.

​During the meeting, an incident unfolded that many observers perceived as a deliberate attempt to undermine Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s credibility. Amidst the tense discussions, a reporter questioned Zelenskyy’s attire, pointedly asking, “Why don’t you wear a suit? Do you own a suit?” This query, seemingly trivial, diverted attention from the critical issues at hand and subjected Zelenskyy to public scrutiny over his appearance.

The atmosphere further deteriorated when Vice President JD Vance interjected, accusing Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and conducting a “propaganda tour.” These coordinated affronts created a hostile environment, casting doubts on the meeting’s sincerity and raising concerns about the U.S. administration’s commitment to genuine diplomatic engagement.

​During the meeting several statements were made by the U.S. leaders that have been identified as misleading or false:​

1. Misrepresentation of European Support: President Trump claimed that European nations have provided minimal assistance to Ukraine, suggesting that the U.S. has shouldered the majority of support. In reality, European countries have collectively contributed substantial military and financial aid to Ukraine since the onset of the conflict. For instance, as of early 2025, the European Union and its member states have provided billions in aid packages to support Ukraine’s defense and humanitarian needs. ​
2. Inaccurate U.S. Aid Figures: President Trump exaggerated the amount of aid the U.S. has provided to Ukraine, inflating the figures beyond documented levels. While the U.S. has been a significant contributor, official records indicate that the total aid is less than what was claimed during the meeting.
3. Distortion of the Battle of Kyiv: President Trump suggested that the U.S. played a decisive role in the Battle of Kyiv, implying direct military involvement that led to Ukraine’s success. However, the defense of Kyiv in the early stages of the war was primarily conducted by Ukrainian forces, with international support largely in the form of equipment and intelligence rather than direct combat involvement. ​
4. Denial of Russian War Crimes: Vice President JD Vance downplayed reports of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, casting doubt on well-documented incidents. Numerous international investigations and reports have confirmed instances of war crimes committed by Russian forces, including attacks on civilian infrastructure and unlawful detentions. ​

These misrepresentations not only strained the diplomatic engagement during the meeting but also raised concerns about the accuracy of information being presented by U.S. leadership regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

What should have been a moment to reaffirm U.S. support instead turned into an embarrassing diplomatic rupture. Ukraine walked away from the deal, canceling a planned signing ceremony. For the second time, Trump had pushed Ukraine into a corner—prioritizing his own interests over those of democracy.

European Allies Rally to Ukraine’s Side

The fallout was immediate. European leaders, who had been cautiously optimistic that Trump’s second term might bring pragmatism, were instead faced with a déjà vu of reckless diplomacy.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas asserted that the “free world needs a new leader,” reflecting concerns over U.S. leadership.

Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other European leaders, including those from Spain and Poland, voiced solidarity with Zelenskyy, emphasizing unity against Russian aggression.

French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed their full backing of Ukraine, while NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that Trump’s behavior was undermining Western unity.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer convened an emergency summit in London to coordinate additional support for Kyiv, a move that reinforced Europe’s increasing willingness to act independently of Washington.

Conversely, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán sided with Trump, highlighting divisions within Europe regarding the appropriate response to the conflict.

Calls for New Global Leadership

The backlash was swift. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stated that the “free world needs a new leader,” openly challenging U.S. global dominance. The sentiment was clear: the world could no longer count on Washington under Trump’s leadership.

The incident cemented a broader trend—the decline of America’s moral authority. Where past U.S. presidents had built alliances on trust and mutual commitment, Trump had turned diplomacy into a transactional, self-serving endeavor.

The Implications for U.S.-EU Relations and Global Stability

The echoes of 2019 reverberated throughout the 2025 debacle. Once again, Trump had sought to manipulate Ukraine for his own gain. Once again, Europe was forced to step in where America had failed. And once again, the world saw that the U.S. could not be trusted under Trump.

This time, however, the repercussions may be even more severe. With European allies distancing themselves further from Washington, a new era of global power dynamics is emerging—one where the U.S. is no longer the undisputed leader of the free world.

As of early 2025, the United States maintains approximately 65,000 permanently stationed troops across Europe, with additional forces deployed on a rotational basis, bringing the total to around 100,000 personnel.

These forces are distributed across more than 38 military bases in various European countries. The largest contingent is in Germany, hosting approximately 35,068 active-duty personnel. Other significant deployments include Italy and the United Kingdom.

A withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe would have profound strategic, political, and economic consequences. Militarily, it would weaken NATO’s deterrence capabilities, leaving European allies more vulnerable to Russian aggression, particularly in Eastern Europe, where countries like Poland and the Baltic states rely heavily on U.S. presence.

Politically, it would signal a major retreat from global leadership, damaging U.S. credibility and emboldening adversaries like Russia and China. Economically, it could strain transatlantic defense industries and disrupt local economies in host countries, where U.S. bases support thousands of jobs.

Additionally, the logistical challenge of relocating personnel and equipment would be costly and complex, likely diminishing U.S. rapid response capabilities in future crises.

Ultimately, such a move would accelerate Europe’s push for strategic autonomy while diminishing Washington’s influence over European security affairs.

As history repeats itself, one question grows more urgent: How much longer will America’s allies wait for U.S. leadership to recover before forging their own path?