By Peter Brown
Just before his high-profile Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump was talking tough. He warned Moscow of sanctions, floated the prospect of a ceasefire, and gave the impression he was ready to stand firm with Ukraine. For a moment, U.S. policy sounded almost traditional: Russia as aggressor, Ukraine as ally.
Two days later, the script had flipped. Trump emerged from the summit no longer pressing Russia, but demanding that Ukraine make concessions. The pivot was as swift as it was startling.
Ukraine’s Defiant Hope: Navigating Trump’s Policy Shift in Washington
Ukraine finds itself at a crossroads. Just days ago, Kyiv was cautiously optimistic about President Trump’s tough rhetoric, warning Russia of “very severe consequences” if it didn’t end its invasion. Now, stunned by Trump’s abrupt pivot to demanding Ukraine cede Crimea and other territories while ruling out NATO membership, the nation grapples with betrayal, defiance, and a desperate need to secure support at today’s high-stakes White House meeting.
A Rollercoaster of Trust and Betrayal
The past week has been an emotional whirlwind for Ukraine. Trump’s initial call for peace, coupled with his August 10 pledge to wield “levers and determination” against Russia, sparked hope in Kyiv. President Zelenskyy, speaking to ABC News on August 14, urged the U.S. to “force Russia to make peace,” seeing Trump as a potential ally in their fight for survival. Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko even suggested Trump had “changed” after his disappointment with Putin’s ongoing attacks post-Alaska summit.
But that hope shattered when Trump, via Truth Social, declared “No getting back Obama given Crimea” and banned Ukraine from NATO, aligning with Moscow’s demands for territorial concessions and permanent neutrality. For a nation that has lost 20% of its territory to Russia’s invasion – including Crimea, parts of Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson – this shift felt like a betrayal. Zelenskyy’s team, excluded from Trump’s Alaska talks with Putin, now fears their fate is being decided by superpowers, evoking grim echoes of the 1938 Munich Agreement, as Merezhko warned.
The sting is personal, too. Memories of February’s humiliating Oval Office meeting, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berated Zelenskyy, loom large. Yet Ukraine’s resolve remains unbroken. “Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupiers,” Zelenskyy declared, reflecting a public determined to defend every inch of their homeland, from the fortified Donbas to the war-torn east.
Strategic Calculations for Washington
As Zelenskyy pleads his case in Washington, joined by European leaders including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer, and Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Ukraine is strategising to navigate Trump’s volatility while safeguarding its sovereignty. The stakes couldn’t be higher: with Russia recently launching 472 drones and missiles in a single night and controlling key economic regions, Ukraine’s survival hinges on sustained Western support.
Kyiv’s approach is both pragmatic and principled. Facing Trump’s suggestion that they could “end the war almost immediately” by ceding territory, Ukraine treads carefully. Rejecting concessions outright risks losing U.S. military aid, as Trump has threatened to halt support unless Kyiv negotiates. Yet accepting territorial losses violates Ukraine’s constitution and Zelenskyy’s pledge to defend all land, potentially igniting domestic backlash. Polls show Ukrainians overwhelmingly back fighting for their territory, and ceding Donbas – a region Zelenskyy calls “our fortress belt” – could fracture national unity.
To counter Trump’s pressure, Ukraine will lean on European allies, who have insisted on “no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine” and reject redrawing borders by force. The presence of European leaders in Washington offers a lifeline, amplifying Kyiv’s call for NATO-style security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression. Zelenskyy’s recent “long and substantive” call with Trump, where he pushed for a trilateral U.S.-Ukraine-Russia framework, signals a diplomatic charm offensive – thanking Trump for his “efforts” while firmly defending Ukraine’s red lines.
Ukraine’s battlefield resilience bolsters their case. Recent drone strikes damaging Russian strategic bombers demonstrate Kyiv’s ability to hit back, despite manpower shortages and infrastructure devastation. By highlighting these successes, Zelenskyy aims to convince Trump and his allies that Ukraine is not a lost cause but a critical bulwark against Moscow’s ambitions.
A Global Fight for Sovereignty
Beyond their borders, Ukraine sees their struggle as a test for the world. Rewarding Russia’s aggression, as Trump’s plan risks doing, could unravel the rules-based international order, signaling to authoritarians that might makes right. Kyiv fears a domino effect: if Crimea and Donbas fall, Russia may target Moldova or the Baltics, while China could grow bolder in the Pacific. This concern resonates with Zelenskyy’s warning that a forced deal would be “another pause between Russian invasions,” not lasting peace.
As they prepare for Washington, Ukraine’s leaders carry the weight of a nation under siege and a world watching closely. They will frame their fight as essential to global stability, urging Trump and European allies to uphold accountability over appeasement. With European leaders backing “ironclad” security guarantees and rejecting territorial concessions, Kyiv hopes to shift the narrative, proving they are not pawns in a superpower game but agents of their own destiny.
A Nation’s Defiant Hope
Zelenskyy boarded the plane to Washington with a mix of defiance and cautious hope. Betrayed by Trump’s backflip, he remains resolute, buoyed by his military successes and European support. The White House meeting is a make-or-break moment to secure aid and guarantees without sacrificing his land or principles. For Zelenskyy and his people, this is not just about Ukraine’s survival – it’s about defending the idea that sovereignty, not force, must define the future.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
As Trump betrays Zelenskyy to Putin, it’s important to remember that President Z isn’t the popular heroic leader to some Ukrainians as he is to others. As for the so-called “rules-based-international-order”? Tell that to the Palestinians! https://kyivindependent.com/editorial-dark-hour-for-ukrainian-democracy/
I heard that too, Max, but this isn’t a popularity contest.
The Donald worships Putin and he acts tough and hard (snigger, snigger) with him, but, as we all know he bends the knee when it comes to backing up the action hero poses he puts on, hence TACO. Much easier to pick on Zelensky and make threats and blame him for the invasion. All in all it’s bullshit as usual.
And the orange bastard interrupted the EU leaders talks to ring Putin. Probably felt threatened by them and needed to get help from the dictator in Russia. Putin is his hero after all.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-interrupts-talks-with-european-leaders-call-putin-says-eu-diplomat-2025-08-18/
Max, good point about the farcical “rules-based-international-order”.
From the article — “Two days later, the script had flipped.”
That’s known as “realpolitik”.
I mentioned weeks ago that the term is rarely heard since the end of the Cold War. There was no need for those who declared themselves the winners of that war to take it into consideration anymore — they were, they assumed, in total control.
But the hubris that came to dominate Western political thinking had a profound weakness.
REALPOLITIK — “is the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following ideological, moral, or ethical premises…”
Not only did the West forget about moral or ethical premises, they fantasised about given circumstances and factors.
They dismissed Russia as “a petrol station with nukes”, as having “an economy smaller than California’s” and so on.
This lack of respect flowed into the sphere of morality and ethics where they did not consider Russia’s concerns about European security to be worthy of consideration.
As a result, when they expanded NATO influence contrary to Russia’s wishes, they expected no push-back from Russia. They assumed that Russia was too feeble to do anything other than complain.
So the Russian take-over of Crimea without a shot being fired was a total shock. It still rankles.
The Donbass rebellion was another shock, with the Ukraine army suffering serious setbacks.
The period after 2014 was a shambles for NATO/Ukraine, as was the initial stage of the Russian invasion.
Because they overlooked realpolitik.
Unfortunately for Ukraine and the world, it appears that the US has come to terms with the circumstances on the ground, but the European leaders have not.
Europe’s leaders are happy to watch Ukrainians die, merely to fulfill a fantasy.
Once again, like every media discussion about Ukraine, this article completely ignores the 8 years war that the Ukrainian government waged against the Donbass region, betraying its 2015 agreement to grant autonomy to this largely Russian-speaking population. Zelensky was enthusiastically elected on his campaign pledge to honour that agreement. But, once in power, Zelensky reneged, betrayed the Donbass, and showed himself as a vassal for the West’s campaign to weaken, and perhaps ultimately dismantle the Russian federation. Sure, Putin did end up waging an illegal war against Ukraine. But was he provoked into it, and are the Russian-speaking people of Crimea and the Donbass really so unhappy about the outcome, seeing that Zelensky has forbidden their language and punished Russian culture in Ukraine?
Noel, pre-emptive defence is recognised by international law.
The Responsibility to Protect is recognised by international law.
The Russian invasion was not illegal.
Thank you, Steve Davis. I still think that this is a grey area. International law does allow a limited intervention such as Russia’s Special Military Operation, to protect an area that is being attacked by the national government. But it did turn out to be a wholesale invasion of Ukraine, something much bigger. (Of course to the joy and delight of the Western war-mongers and their new pet and celebrity hero, Zelensky)
What war against the Donbass region and who was fighting whom?
Seems that conservatives feel compelled to run protection for both Putin and Trump vs Zelenskyy, Ukraine, NATO and EU, by cherry picking granular bits of or imaginary history, time lines or sentiments to white ant Ukraine, on behalf of whom or what?
Joining the likes of Sheridan who now complains….. that Putin is a bully, while mute on Trump; fear of authoritarians or losing favour?
Could you clarify this?
‘But it did turn out to be a wholesale invasion of Ukraine, something much bigger. (Of course to the joy and delight of the Western war-mongers and their new pet and celebrity hero, Zelensky)’
Suggests that anyone who supports Ukraine a victim of Putin’s Russia, is a warmonger and Putin a victim; Orwellian double speak popular with the right and Trump?
Further it’s lazy denigration of anyone who supports Ukraine and coincidentally matches MAGA white Christian nationalist messaging for Putin, like Abbott’s Hungarian chums do?
Even NewsCorp’s Sheridan*, from what one can filter, called Putin a bully, but couldn’t bring himself to call Trump both a bully and TACO vs Zelensky?
Opinion projection of Trump and Putin as victims vs Europe popular with the Anglo far right and faux anti-imperialist tankies of the ageing left…..classic conservative gambit, whinge, moan and play the victim, for authoritarian power….
When Russia invades Alaska will Trump be happy to just hand it over?? Russia gives nothing, while Ukraine hands over Donbass and permanently concedes Crimea. A crap deal. Ukraine is better if sticking with the EU.
It is interesting that we have an assertion that the invasion (and therefrom the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure) is legal in international law.
I’m not aware of any credible international law authority that states this.
The contrary is the case.
In any event it is from the guy that says economic data and information is irrelevant to a discussion about economics, and who falsely claims Putin has always opposed Ukraine joining NATO (or NATO expansion)
So this assertion can be treated accordingly
Pre-emptive defence is recognised by international law.
The Responsibility to Protect is recognised by international law.
I’ve looked around for authoritative international law experts that support your claim in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. I can’t find them, the fact is that I can see plenty with a contrary position.
So just list a handful of the authoritative international law experts that endorse your position
I think this claim has as much credibility as your claim that Putin has opposed Ukraine joining NATO “from the beginning ”
Would you care to explain what you believe “from the beginning” means?
Because from what I can see it doesn’t mean -“since he changed his mind and decided to adopt the completely opposite position”
“I think this claim has as much credibility as your claim that Putin has opposed Ukraine joining NATO “from the beginning ”
I want the quote for that thank you.
“I can’t find them…”
I’m not responsible for the ignorance of others.
Particularly when the information has previously been provided.
I’m happy to correct my post, because it basically means the same thing.
You said – “Putin had said all along that Russia would not tolerate another militarized NATO member on its’ borders”
So I’ll ask – Would you care to explain what you believe “all along” means?
Because from what I can see it doesn’t mean -“since he changed his mind and decided to adopt the completely opposite position”
And I knew you wouldn’t have even a handful of authoritative international law experts to support your claim.
“because it basically means the same thing.”
It does not.
AC has a comprehension problem.
A word of caution to other readers.
Never accept an assertion from AC at face value.
“And I knew you wouldn’t have even a handful of authoritative international law experts to support your claim.”
It’s been explained before.
I have no intention of indulging AC’s pretence at ignorance.
I have no intention of helping others to cope with their realisation that they were conned.
Before I challenged your claim- Putin had said all along that Russia would not tolerate another militarized NATO member on its’ borders, I had a look at the contemporary usage of all along, to make sure there wasn’t some obscure or unusual definition that would cause your usage to be correct.
There was nothing like that, “all along” is synonymous with from the beginning, from the start.
It most certainly doesn’t mean a position that is the complete opposite of a previously held position
So get over it, but as I’ve said before you apply the CS Lewis/Humpty Dumpty standard to English language usage-
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean…”
And your inability to justify your claim that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is supported by international law is hilarious!
I will not be indulging AC’s pretended ignorance, but if any serious readers would like more info on this, I’m happy to oblige.
Keitha Granville, “Russia gives nothing, while Ukraine hands over Donbass and permanently concedes Crimea. A crap deal.”
Russia gives the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass and Crimea recognition and protection of their Universal Human Right to self-determination, the right to speak their own language and practice their own culture and religion, all without being persecuted and murdered by nazified Ukrainians who are still hell bent on ethnically cleansing Ukraine of its Russian people and culture, with the full support of not just the Ukrainian, but also the US and most of the Western Governments, which have all, to their enduring shame, sought to derive advantage from provoking a war with Russia.
If you consider that a crap deal then clearly you have not considered the feelings of the people of the Donbas. They spoke before Russia invaded and they spoke after, but thanks to the western media, you are unlikely to have heard them. They do not wish to be ruled by the Kiev Regime especially now that it has evolved into a totalitarian, military dictatorship that kidnaps men off the streets to be sent to certain death just to prolong Western funding for an already lost war. Would you want to be ruled by people who regard you as sub-human? Would you deny them the sanctuary Russia has given them? Do you really think that a Ukraine dominated by neo-nazis and their callous sponsors has been hard done by Russia’s demands for a meaningful peace that recognises and addresses the root causes of this conflict?
Russia has its problems, mainly its vast geographical sweep in the far north, from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific; a region no-one else could or would be able to manage.
For hundreds of years Russia has sought to commune with Europe for help modernizing, and to gain year-round access to trade with Club Med & the global south. But Europe has remained treacherously deceptive, and ultimately time & again blocked Russia’s joining in for such benefits. Russia has variously had to deal with the reach of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire, the German Empire (nee Holy Roman Empire), and latterly, the general ‘West’ and its take-over hegemon America.
Like in the push-back against the Ottomans, Russia needed help, but Europe deceived again, and instead attacked the Russians in Crimea and elsewhere to the north. On and on it goes.
Even after Russia saved Europe’s bacon in their fight against Hitler, America egged-on the isolation of Russia, and with the formation of NATO, progressively built a militarized siege against Russia. Russia (Stalin) initiated Russia’s nuclear weapons program after eyeing the American ‘Manhattan Project’ and similar quest by Germany, and after America’s bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, it accelerated competing with America & the ‘West’ through the 1950s into the ‘Cold War’.
Thereafter there were innumerable treaties formed to deweaponize, each of which America resiled from.
After the USSR was dissolved by Russia, Europe & America resumed their isolation and commercial/political hostilities towards Russia, in their typical imperialist fashion.
Putin is completely aware of this history at a granular level, and determined Russia would no longer fall prey to the guile, divisiveness and opportunism of the ‘West’, in particular now, America, and the using of Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn.
To blame Russia, solely for the war in Ukraine is absurd, when the guile, deception and opportunism of the ‘West’ and America remains a strong and continuing cause. Russia strongly signaled its advance, and the ‘West’ knew what Russia wanted. It could have been resolved by negotiation within months, but the ‘West’ and America demurred, seeking in the alternative, to maintain its hegemon.
If the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “legal pre-emptive defence” so is Israel’s action in Gaza.
B Sullivan ‘Russia gives the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass and Crimea recognition and protection of their Universal Human Right to self-determination, the right to speak their own language and practice their own culture and religion, all without being persecuted and murdered by nazified Ukrainians who are still hell bent on ethnically cleansing Ukraine of its Russian people and culture…’
Logical fallacy as most if not all Ukraine citizens can speak Russian? Though they prefer Ukrainian and don’t like thousands of Ukraine children being evacuated and immersed in Russian culture; social engineering?
As others have said, Ireland and NI had no right of independence from the UK because they speak English too?