After he was kicked out of the White House on Friday afternoon, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy went to London.
There, world leaders welcomed him much more warmly.
Over the weekend, leaders from over a dozen countries rallied to Ukraine's defense after a heated meeting in the Oval Office where President Trump berated Zelenskyy and accused him of being ungrateful for the support his country had received from the U.S.The change in tone in London was markedly different.
"Our starting point must be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position now, so they can negotiate from a position of strength. And we are doubling down in our support," said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a news conference Sunday.
Starmer said Europe must do the "heavy lifting" to secure a lasting peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, adding, "To support peace, and to succeed, this effort must have strong U.S. backing."
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to align itself more closely with Moscow.
In an interview with All Things Considered's Ari Shapiro, longtime diplomat Richard Haass said President Trump's foreign policy has effectively put the post-WWII world order "on life support." And now, American allies have lost "their special place."
Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, served three Republican presidents. He said, "Being an ally [to the U.S.] in many ways has become something of a liability."
Interview highlights
Ari Shapiro: Do you think the Europeans can figure out how to end this war without U.S. leadership?
Richard Haass: The Europeans can only do so much. They don't have the defense industries. But Ukraine can hold on. The problem is without the United States supporting Ukraine, and I think that's likely the way we're heading, it's quite probable that Vladimir Putin will not have the incentive to compromise, to accept a cease-fire except on terms that are quite draconian.
Shapiro: So you're saying Russia could make real advances in Ukraine if the U.S. pulls back and that would disincentivize any kind of peace talks?
Haass: Right. And that's what's missing. I don't understand about the president's approach. He says he wants to be a peacemaker here. Well, there's the old line saying, if you want peace, prepare for war. The best way to get peace is to persuade Vladimir Putin that the United States and the west will stand by Ukraine. So continued war by Russia will not lead Mr. Putin to anything that resembles success. We've done just the opposite. We have now essentially said we're going to shut down American support for Ukraine so Vladimir Putin sitting in the Kremlin going, why should I compromise? I'm going to get everything I need simply by continuing to do what I'm doing.
Shapiro: What about the argument that Trump is effectively saying the quiet part out loud that Ukraine cannot win this war even with U.S. support so it's time to just bring the conflict to an end?
Haass: If by "win this war," you mean recover all of its territory going back to 1991? You're right. That was actually a good strategic insight of this administration that militarily recovering all Ukraine had lost in 2014 and 2022 was not realistic. And the Biden administration refused to do that. But the other way to define success is you have a ceasefire, Ukraine keeps what it has now — which is 80 percent of its territory, the war stops and then you have the ability over years or decades to negotiate. And maybe you come up with a new relationship between Ukraine and a post-Vladimir Putin Russia. I think there are all sorts of possibilities. But again, success should not be defined either as Ukraine recovering all of its territory militarily that's a nonstarter, or giving Vladimir Putin everything he wants.
Shapiro: I'd like to get your take on what the big picture set of U.S. alliances right now looks like because since the end of WWII, the globe has been more or less defined by a certain set of expectations and those alliances seem very shaky right now. Trump last week said at his cabinet meeting that the European Union "was formed in order to screw the United States." To put it bluntly, is the post-war order done?
Haass: To put it bluntly, the post-war order is on life support. And it's a tragedy. I've never seen this before in history. I'm used to empires or orders crumbling. I'm used to them being overwhelmed. I've never seen the side, the country that created it and maintained it, dismantling it. And that is exactly what we are doing. And what's so tragic about it is the great strategic advantage of American foreign policy is we wake up every morning and we have this pool of partners, dozens in Europe and in Asia, that are willing to work with us militarily to deter conflict, to fight them if need be, willing to trade with us, invest with us and so forth, and we are undermining that — and for nothing that's necessarily good or even in any way comparable in return.
Shapiro: Well, what's the alternative? What comes after that?
Haass: Could be a world of much more disorder where adversaries see opportunities. Could be a world of spheres of influence, where China says, Oh, we're going to do with Taiwan and others what we want, where Russia controls big parts of Europe, where the United States can. Consistent with some of what the president has said, seems to play a more aggressive role in the Western Hemisphere. So that's possible, too. The problem is any one of those worlds has far more conflict to it, far less prosperity and far less freedom. So I just don't understand why we would trade in an approach to the world that has mostly worked for 80 years for something that's far more risky and potentially far more costly.
Shapiro: You watched the Trump campaign closely. You follow foreign affairs closely. Are you surprised by this? One month into the new administration?
Haass: In a word, I'm very surprised by what I'm seeing. I followed closely President Trump's first term, which while something of a departure, was still on the playing field. Trump 2.0 is qualitatively different. It's far more radical. I would never use the word conservative. It's the opposite of conservative because rather than conserving, it is disrupting. And we see all these alliance relationships being disrupted. We see in sometimes now an unconditional reaching out to adversaries like Russia. And what we don't see is what the president proposes to put in place of the existing order. It seems to be a world, if you will, without structure, without permanent relationships. And it's not something that was talked about during the campaign. And I think when people went to the polls, this is not what they voted for. It's not what they bargained for, but it is what they're getting.
Copyright 2025 NPR
