The Fate of the Defeated and Their Vassals

"A great television moment," predicted Donald Trump, an expert in the field, after his astonishing reception of his Ukrainian counterpart, Zelensky, in the Oval Office on Friday, February 28, 2025. It was more than that: it was a historic moment, this violent, public humiliation, broadcast worldwide, inflicted on the loser, Zelensky, by his former protector, the President of the United States. A live abandonment, "obscene," said François Hollande, but one that has the great merit of clarifying the prospects for ending the war in Ukraine and, beyond that, those of the entire European continent. These prospects are anything but encouraging.​

Setting aside the incredible brutality displayed by Trump and Vance, the content of the "conversation," if one dares to call it that, is not new. The main points have been known for months, as I had the opportunity to recall in my book Engrenages:​

1. The Ukrainians cannot militarily regain the lost territories of Donbass and Crimea. This has been established since early 2023.​
2. The continuation of the war of attrition, due to the demographic gap (30 million versus 145 million), is not in their favor. It would, in any case, only be possible if the Americans continued to supply weapons. A "master" card, as Trump says, that the Ukrainians do not have and that Trump intends to make them pay dearly for: minerals and a ceasefire.​
3. The ceasefire, precisely, is something Zelensky does not want. What he wants is a real peace treaty accompanied by credible security guarantees. And these guarantees are primarily Ukraine's entry into NATO (enshrined in the Ukrainian constitution) or, failing that, a European army of 200,000 men.​
4. Problem: Trump does not want to hear about (like his predecessor Biden, and before him, Obama) the integration of Ukraine into NATO—ironically, the direct cause of this war! For a simple reason: there is no question of risking "a third world war" with Russia.​
5. The "European army" of 200,000 men does not exist. What might exist eventually is a small expeditionary force of 30,000 to 40,000 men, composed mainly of French and British soldiers. But it will be a "non-combatant" force, says Macron, very insufficient to deter a possible Russian aggression on a 1,000 km front line, and moreover deprived of the necessary logistical and air support. Hence the request expressed, still in the same Oval Office last week, by Macron and Starmer, for an American guarantee "above," so to speak, the European guarantee. Again, a negative response from the Americans: such a guarantee would mean nothing other than the de facto expansion of NATO to Ukraine. For the same reasons, the Russians are also against it: for them, it would be NATO in all but name.​

So what to do?​

Having ignored the Ukrainian question for 30 years, while massively disarming, the Europeans are now in a panic. The American protectorate is ending: worse, the protector is now seen as just as dangerous as the adversary. Europe knew one demon; it now discovers two! The West, said Ms. Kallas, the "EU Foreign Minister," needs a new leader. But who? And above all, with what means?​

The rupture, in any case, is definitively consummated regarding the nature of the problem.​

Dressed in his usual warrior attire, Zelensky thought he could present to Trump his usual arguments, the ones he has relentlessly used for three years and which have worked perfectly so far with the Europeans (excluding Hungary) and the Biden administration: "Ukraine is your first line of defense. Ukrainian blood is being shed for you; the Russians are at your doorstep. You are next on the list: pay up!" A hefty dose of historical reminder (Munich 1938), another of Western guilt complex for all this blood shed for us, "the slackers," the formula declined before all parliaments, all conferences, and other artistic events by the chief communicator president, had so far been remarkably effective. 150 billion euros paid by the Europeans, a press almost unanimously supportive: all this was supposed to last "as long as necessary," according to the mantra repeated endlessly by Western chancelleries, with "Kiev alone" deciding when to negotiate... Wasn't Ukraine fighting for "Good against Evil" (Biden), protecting us from Russia, "the existential threat against Europe" (Macron)?​

Except that with Biden gone, the argument no longer holds, not at all with Trump. The latter, who owes Zelensky his first impeachment procedure in 2018, considers the Ukrainian a super-salesman, an expert in scamming the American taxpayer: "Every time he comes here, he leaves with billions." As for JD Vance, he remembers perfectly that Zelensky had the bad idea to campaign with Kamala Harris, visiting an arms factory in Pennsylvania with her.​

As a result, when Zelensky began to say that, despite this "beautiful Atlantic Ocean that protects her," America too would one day have a problem with Russia, it was at this precise moment that Trump literally exploded, advising his interlocutor to take care of his own problems, for which he had "no cards" in his hand, while Vice President Vance demanded "thanks" from Zelensky... We know the rest.​

The important thing in this scene is not only its brutality, nor even the American turnaround. America knows perfectly well how to turn its back on its former allies: in 1918, during the non-ratification of the Treaty of Versailles; in Saigon or Kabul; not to mention friendly heads of state abandoned without further ado, from the Shah of Iran to Egypt's Mubarak. For Trump, the Ukrainian question is no longer an issue: he "trusts Putin's word."

What matters here is that America is abandoning Ukraine, while Europeans—rightly or wrongly—continue to believe in Kyiv’s warning: after Ukraine, it will be the Baltics, Poland, and perhaps even Berlin or Paris.

If this is the case, Europe must shift from being a passive supporter, comfortably seated on the sidelines, to an active participant—at least in managing the situation on the ground. A risky endeavor in a war-torn, politically unstable, and heavily militarized country, where a large part of the population will never accept the amputation of its territory to the benefit of the “Russian pigs.”

As emergency war councils multiply at a dizzying pace—Paris, Kyiv, and London in just eight days—the same questions remain: Who will go? France and the UK, but apparently not Germany, Poland, or Italy. With what forces? And with what financing?

The new German chancellor has just suggested expanding France’s and/or Britain’s nuclear deterrence. But whose finger will be on the button?

Still caught in the same vicious cycle…

Pierre Lellouche
Figaro Vox, February 28, 2025