As the world looks to Iran, the US has sent a disturbing message to Ukraine [OPINIA]
Donald Trump's return to the White House was supposed to usher in a new era of American power in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the escalating conflict with Iran has destabilized the region. What will happen with the Strait of Hormuz is still unknown, and America's traditional allies are quietly considering what the Middle East might look like after the era of US dominance.
Moreover, the question is becoming more and more urgent: what to do with NATO when the traditional, reliable American military pillar is gone? The news of the week is not only Trump's defeat in the Middle East. It is also his administration's quiet actions towards Ukraine at a time when the world is focused on Iran.
The American vice president openly sided with Volodymyr Zelensky's greatest opponent in the EU and NATO. Standing alongside Orban, Vance called the Ukrainian authorities' criticism of the Hungarian prime minister “scandalous” and called it “one of the worst examples of foreign election interference I have ever seen.”
There is no need to read between the lines: Washington's patience with Ukraine's “disobedience” has run out.
Today, Zelensky is faced with a cruel irony that can no longer be hidden: a key guarantor of Ukraine's security, at the same time creates conditions that undermine its survivalactively supporting its opponents.
Even if the will to support Ukraine existed, the immediate consequences of the escalation of the conflict with Iran are serious and constantly deepening. U.S. military assets moving to the Persian Gulf have not been available to Ukraine, and the Trump administration is redirecting weapons to the Middle East theater.
The crisis in energy markets is raising costs in the struggling Ukrainian economy. Russia temporarily benefits from the chaos, supports Tehran, and Ukrainian matters fade into the background.
In Budapest, during talks about actual peace negotiations, Vance dismissed Ukrainian territorial demands as simply “haggling over a few square kilometers.”
“A few square meters”
But the strategic damage goes deeper. Ukraine finds itself between two predatory powers, each of which demands subordination as the price for survival — and now Washington is tightening the screw.
Moscow says directly: accept territorial concessions, give up aspirations to join NATO and become a neutral buffer state. The Kremlin calculates that an overloaded Washington will put pressure on Kiev to accept an agreement that will allow the US to shift resources elsewhere.
Washington is applying an equally destructive type of pressure, now openly demonstrated by Vance in Budapest.
The Trump administration views Kyiv only through a transactional prism. Support is becoming dependent on compliance with American priorities – which increasingly means accepting arrangements that serve Trump's political narrative for internal purposes and pay homage to his favorite autocrats.
When Zelensky criticizes Orban for blocking EU aid, Vance accuses him of electoral interference. As Orban strengthens relations with Moscow and Beijing, sabotaging support for Ukraine, Vance praises him for “defending Western civilization.” This double standard isn't subtle – it's outrageous.
Even more telling is that in Budapest, during talks about real peace negotiations, Vance dismissed Ukrainian territorial demands as simply “bargaining over a few square kilometers.” A few square kilometers!
This phrase reflects Washington's contempt for Ukrainian resistance. According to them, it is not a sovereign state defending its independence, but a stubborn, troublesome petitioner, nitpicking on details. And yet, in these “few kilometers” there are Ukrainian cities, villages, infrastructure, defense lines and people. Every meter donated is a permanent strategic gap.
The message was clear. As long as NATO does not join Trump's war on Iran and his other plans, and Europeans put their own security ahead of America's ambitions, US support for Ukraine's defense is conditionaltemporary, or perhaps it will not exist at all. Not to mention the threat of the United States withdrawing from NATO, which an angry Trump recently threatened.
Zelensky's diplomatic offensive
Ukraine is under pressure from Washington to accept territorial concessions, and at the same time it is told that it cannot count on American support. Refusing to capitulate and abandon, Zelensky is trying to stick to his position.
In recent weeks, as Washington focused on Tehran, the Ukrainian president launched a diplomatic offensive that did not receive the attention it deserved. His visits to the capitals of the Gulf countries – Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha – were a strategic turn: building relationships with countries with capital and influence and a reason to oppose the domination of Moscow or Washington.
By building relationships outside the traditional Western alliance, Zelensky gained space for Ukrainian subjectivity. He took advantage of the chaos that Trump's policy in the Middle East deepened.
Then Vance flew to Budapest.
Unprecedented, the US Vice President's open interference in the Hungarian elections revealed the risks in Zelensky's strategy and shocked with its open anti-Ukrainianism. Diversifying partnerships and strengthening ties with Gulf countries only makes sense if the main security guarantor tolerates such independence. The Trump administration has clearly shown that there is no such tolerance.
The question remains what strategy is able to save Ukrainian sovereignty if the main guarantor of security works against this goal.
When Zelensky tries to build an alternative relationship, when he criticizes leaders who block support for Ukraine, when he does not agree to the conditions imposed by Washington and Moscow – the answer is not a reluctant recognition of Ukrainian independence. The answer is punishment.
The Gulf states have oil, investment funds worth trillions and strategic locations that make them essential to global energy markets. Ukraine has courage, a just cause and a huge need. When Saudi Arabia defies American expectations, Washington at best expresses dissatisfaction, but accepts it. When Ukraine does the same, the vice president flies to Budapest to praise its opponents.
The crisis is not just about the U.S.-led order. The European Union is experiencing its own cohesion crisis – Brussels is no longer able to automatically force unanimity among member states regarding Ukraine. Ukraine's opponents take advantage of this division. Orban blocks aid, taking advantage of the split in the EU, and Vance uses it to explain Washington's cooperation with autocrats.
Ukraine faces an existential threat from Russia and needs Western support to survive. The question is: what strategy will preserve Ukrainian sovereignty if the main guarantor of security works against it.
Zelensky's maneuver — refusing to defer to Moscow or Washington, building alternative alliances, fighting for sovereignty through determination rather than waiting for it to be “granted” — was a test.
Now he faces a brutal choice. Concessions to Washington may help preserve what remains of American support, but they risk reducing Ukrainian sovereignty to an illusion and territorial integrity to a commodity for sale. Refusal to make concessions risks total abandonment. War with Iran is the perfect excuse.
The question is not whether Zelensky's strategy was the right one — it was. The real question is whether any strategy can succeed when Washington is actively working against you, when weapons are being transferred to other fronts, and when the vice president is agitating against your country.
The answer depends increasingly on how Ukraine's other allies in Europe and beyond respond to the shockingly chaotic, selfish and destructive actions of the American president.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has once again proven that it does not intend to simply capitulate to lawless strongmen drunk on power, but counts on those who still remain faithful to the values and ethics of the free world.
