Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people are coming to realize the extent of American disloyalty, which can be described as their “Afghan Moment.” This mirrors America’s abandonment of the Northern Alliance in Kabul under Donald Trump in 2021, when the U.S., without consulting NATO allies, struck a deal with the Taliban, allowing them to attack the Northern Alliance with impunity. The U.S. also abandoned weapons stores, which inadvertently helped the Taliban complete their takeover. In this strategic withdrawal, aimed at halting the loss of significant resources and lives, America cast aside its commitments to democracy, human rights, and women’s rights, revealing that these were mere ideals when confronted with national self-interest.
Now, Ukraine faces a similar betrayal, as do the European NATO allies. America has bypassed them, holding direct talks with Russia in Riyadh and excluding them from negotiations. Much like in Afghanistan, the U.S. justified this move by emphasizing the need to focus on China. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin further highlighted this shift:
“We are here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland… We face a peer competitor in Communist China, with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the necessary trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail. Deterrence cannot fail, for all of our sakes” (U.S. Department of Defense, 12/02/25).
To Zelensky’s, Europe’s, and NATO’s shock, the U.S. laid all its cards on the table, siding with Russia’s demands. These include the withdrawal of NATO and U.S. forces from the conflict, preventing Ukraine’s NATO membership, and making territorial concessions. The unilateral actions of the U.S. indicate that any “security” and resolution would not follow European terms. One of Russia’s key demands—the removal of Zelensky’s regime—appears to be accommodated, which is why neither Zelensky nor European leaders were included in the negotiations. Before the meeting in Riyadh, U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz remarked:
“The practical reality is that there’s going to be some discussion of territory and there’s going to be discussion of security guarantees; those are just fundamental basics” (18/02/2025).
These talks also addressed sanctions and rare earth metals. Trump has made it clear that the U.S. seeks to secure these resources in Ukraine, intending to “lay the groundwork for future cooperation on matters of mutual geopolitical interest and historic economic and investment opportunities” following the end of the war (FT, 18/02/25).
Zelensky’s realization that his days are numbered became evident when Trump began talking directly to Russia, excluding him from the conversation. This was reaffirmed after the meeting in Riyadh when, visibly upset, Zelensky stated:
“We want everything to be fair and so that nobody decides anything behind our back…You cannot make decisions without Ukraine on how to end the war in Ukraine” (BBC, 19/02/25).
The situation became even clearer after the Riyadh meeting when Trump launched a blistering attack on Zelensky’s repeated warnings about Ukraine’s absence from the negotiations. Trump remarked, “They had a seat at the table for three years,” adding that the Ukrainian government could have settled its conflict with Russia long ago. “When they are worried about not being seated, they could have made a deal long ago” (Axios, 19/02/2025). Trump also criticized Zelensky personally on his Truth Social account, stating:
“Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 billion to go into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a war that he, without the U.S. and ‘TRUMP,’ will never be able to settle. Zelensky had better move fast to secure peace, or he is not going to have a country left.”
Trump also raised concerns about Zelensky’s legitimacy by questioning Ukraine’s democratic process: “They want a seat at the table, but… wouldn’t the people of Ukraine have a say? It’s been a long time since we’ve had an election” (BBC, 19/02/25).
The implication that Zelensky is a “dictator” was not an offhand remark, but a deliberate attempt to undermine his legitimacy, aligning with Russia’s narrative.
For Europe, the U.S. withdrawal of support has left its security in jeopardy. The sense of betrayal and abandonment is palpable in statements from European leaders, warning of a “dirty agreement” and the potential collapse of the post-WWII Euro-Atlantic security alliance. Without U.S. support, Ukraine and other former Soviet states are vulnerable to Russian expansion. Europe lacks the unity, defense capabilities, and financial resources to replace NATO and U.S. protection, as shown by the emergency meeting France called on Ukraine in response to the U.S. stance on European security.
Though European leaders agreed to increase defense spending, there was little consensus on creating a European peacekeeping force. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasized:
“It is completely premature and completely the wrong time to have this discussion now… I want to say that quite frankly, people are talking over Ukraine’s head, about the outcome of peace talks that have not taken place and to which Ukraine has not said yes…” (Reuters, 17/02/2025).
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, ahead of the meeting, published an article in the UK Daily Telegraph urging Europe to step up and remain relevant to the U.S., despite Trump’s threats to the “special relationship.” Starmer agreed to commit British troops to Ukraine, but with a U.S. “backstop.” He reaffirmed this during the meeting:
“We’re at the very early stage of the process. Europe must play its role, and I’m prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others if there is a lasting peace agreement. But there must be a U.S. backstop, because a U.S. security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again” (Reuters, 17/02/25).
However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected any such suggestions, reiterating Russia’s stance against Western boots on the ground in Ukraine, even under a different flag. He stated: “The deployment of NATO member troops in Ukraine, even if they were operating there under a different flag, is unacceptable” (Guardian, 19/02/25).
This is indeed Ukraine and Europe’s “Afghan moment,” where America is strategically withdrawing from its commitments in Europe to focus on its “America First” policy, especially regarding China. Without American financial and military cover, Europe is poised to experience the reality of a divided, weak, and dangerous continent. Trump has capitalized on this to maneuver Europe into a security quagmire at the mercy of Putin, whose vision is to expand Russia’s influence. Ukraine has become a key battleground in Russia’s defense against Western Europe. While the U.S. provoked Russia by interfering in Ukraine and expanding NATO, with shifting priorities, it is now ready to change the situation to serve its own interests—playing on Europe’s divisions and anxieties, including the rise of far-right movements, German militarism, French arrogance, and Britain’s willingness to act as a U.S. proxy in Europe.
Trump’s actions have exposed the fragility and hollowness of the Western alliance when strategic interests come into play.
Be the first to comment on "Ukraine’s Afghan Moment"