From Savior to Scapegoat: Ukraine caught in crossfire

By Elnur Enveroglu

Following the scandalous situation that erupted in the White House, the meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump became the center of media attention. The spectacle didn’t just stir Trump, but also his close allies, including Vice President James David Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio, in particular, demanded that Zelensky apologize to the U.S. President, labeling him ungrateful and blaming him for Ukraine’s current predicament.

Looking back, it’s clear that Western support for Ukraine in its war with Russia was, for the most part, shaped by U.S. intervention. The West rallied behind Ukraine in the early days, but now, it’s evident that the same country that once pushed hardest for Ukraine’s victory is also delivering an unseen slap in the face to its leadership. Today, Trump has demanded that Ukraine not "bargain" with its future, reflecting his contradictory stance on the matter. In doing so, he not only risks Ukraine’s sovereignty but also potentially shifts the course of history for the nation, marking the U.S. as both a savior and a betrayer in Ukrainian eyes.

Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine not be bargained with in Trump’s high-risk negotiations contrasts sharply with the reality of the situation. While Ukraine is de facto under Russia’s occupation, the fact that its president is being publicly criticized by the U.S. President in the Oval Office raises serious questions. Can Ukraine afford to remain silent while Trump places its fate in the hands of Moscow in exchange for what his supporters would label a “negotiated peace?” While Trump's loyal followers cheer him on, the Ukrainian people may, for generations, remember this moment as a painful betrayal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s criticisms of Zelensky suggest that he believes Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia and adjusted its position according to the volatile and shifting stance of the U.S. government. U.S. foreign policy often changes with each administration, and Rubio seems to imply that Zelensky should have adapted accordingly. But how exactly was Zelensky supposed to adjust? Should he have greeted Russian President Vladimir Putin with open arms in exchange for ceding 25% of his country’s territory?

This is not just about Ukraine’s sovereignty—it’s about protecting the integrity of Europe. Ukraine’s fight is, in many ways, a defense of Europe’s honor. If Ukraine is crushed, the first step would be the invasion of Eastern Europe, eventually leading to a more significant crisis in Western Europe. All of this is a scenario that could be orchestrated by business-minded individuals like Donald Trump, who sees international relations through the lens of deals and profits.

Trump has long been known as a brash and arrogant figure, yet one who somehow managed to maintain his popularity. His loud and controversial meeting with Zelensky was not a mistake—it was entirely by design. Trump’s goal was twofold: to assert U.S. power on the global stage and to deliver a blow to his Democratic rivals, particularly President Biden, whom he frequently derides as weak and foolish. In doing so, Trump has effectively cast the Democrats as unfit to lead, positioning himself as the strongman the nation needs.

Trump is a master of theater, and he has used his acting skills throughout his political career to craft a narrative that aligns with his personal brand. Yet, as his meeting with Zelensky showed, the line between reality and performance often blurs in his world. While his fans cheer him on, the real-life consequences of his actions could soon become painfully apparent—not just for Ukraine, but for the future of global diplomacy.