Russian Laughter: European Tears
Trump’s approach to Ukraine has disappointed expectations and Europe needs to take a collective stance
(William John Emmott , English journalist, author, and consultant, Best known as the editor-in-chief of
The Economist from 1993 to 2006.)
Since the U.S. presidential election in November, there has been a persistent hope among many that Donald Trump, once in office, would demonstrate a more statesmanlike, constructive, and coherent approach than the one he exhibited during the tumultuous election campaign.
This expectation seemed momentarily validated during his inauguration on January 20th, when he struck a conciliatory tone, declaring himself to be “a peacemaker and a unifier.”
However, the days and weeks that followed have starkly contradicted this optimistic outlook. Instead of embodying the unifying figure he professed to be, Trump’s actions and rhetoric have consistently undermined such hopes, revealing a leadership style that remains divisive, erratic, and often at odds with the principles of diplomacy and consensus-building.
Each passing day has further reinforced the view that the initial optimism surrounding his presidency was profoundly misplaced.
EXPECTATIONS DISAPPOINTED.
He has, in fact, proven to be even more divisive and detrimental than his campaign initially suggested. Rather than uniting the nation, he has emerged as a figure who deepens divisions. Domestically, his actions can only be described as an attempt to orchestrate a political coup, undermining democratic norms and institutions. Internationally, to borrow the words of his close ally Elon Musk, he is effectively putting American alliances and values “through the wood chipper.” This past week has been particularly alarming, especially for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and for those who still harboured hope that under Trump’s leadership, the United States might uphold its commitment to justice, democracy, and the defence of national sovereignty.
It was not entirely unexpected to learn from his recent U.S. -Russia discussions that Trump envisions a world dominated by a handful of powerful nations, rather than one upheld by rules-based systems, alliances of likeminded democracies, and shared political values. His first term made it clear that he felt more at ease engaging with authoritarian figures like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un than with leaders of democratic nations.
What was deeply unsettling, however, was his overt sympathy and apparent policy alignment with Russia’s authoritarian president—a leader notorious for orchestrating the assassination of political opponents and overseeing the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. Even before any meaningful peace negotiations had commenced, Trump appeared to lean towards Putin, rather than standing with Zelenskyy. The most disturbing moment came when he publicly accused Zelenskyy of being “a dictator without elections,” casting aspersions on his democratic legitimacy, while simultaneously excusing Putin’s aggression and invasion of Ukraine. This marked a troubling low point, revealing an alarming disregard for democratic principles and a readiness to rationalise authoritarian transgressions.
PLAYING WITH THE TRUTH.
During the press conference, he predictably resorted to falsehoods—a pattern that has become characteristic of his public statements. He falsely claimed that President Zelenskyy’s approval rating in Ukraine had plummeted to a mere 4%, when in fact, recent polling places Zelenskyy’s support at close to 60%.
He also exaggerated the extent of American assistance to Ukraine, asserting that the United States had contributed US$350 billion in military and financial aid since the onset of the Russian invasion. In reality, the actual figure is approximately one-third of that amount.
However, beyond the blatant lies, what was far more concerning was his assertion that Ukraine must conduct elections for its government to be regarded as democratic and legitimate. This statement was not only false but also echoed a key narrative of Russian propaganda.
The reality is that Ukraine’s parliament made a democratic decision last year to postpone the presidential elections initially scheduled for April 2024. This decision was based on the practical impossibility of holding elections amidst an ongoing war and under conditions of martial law. The postponement was not imposed by decree but was the result of a parliamentary vote supported by all major political parties—an act demonstrating Ukraine’s commitment to democratic processes even under extraordinary circumstances.
Moreover, the parliament agreed that elections would be conducted within six months following the conclusion of martial law, ensuring that the democratic process would resume as soon as it was safe and viable to do so. Ignoring this context and portraying the postponement as undemocratic serves only to reinforce disinformation narratives that undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic integrity.
ZELENSKYY’S ROLE.
Some readers may recall that on December 21st in these pages I wrote that Zelenskyy might need to make a “final heroic act” by declaring that he would not stand for re-election when a presidential election is finally held. This drew criticism from some eminent Italian commentators, who feared that this was playing into Putin’s hands.
Quite possibly, I did not explain this argument sufficiently clearly: what I was proposing was that Zelenskyy should announce his retirement at the end of peace talks, as a final gesture to bring them to a conclusion. I was not suggesting that this should be declared before negotiations have even begun, as Trump has done.
Trump’s attack on Zelenskyy’s legitimacy is now likely to rally more Ukrainian support around him, and makes his departure neither possible nor desirable, from a Ukrainian point of view.
Even the Russians are surprised at what Trump has said, and are not shy about showing it. Dimitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who is now deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, wrote on X that “If you’d told me just three months ago that these were the words of the US president, I would have laughed out loud.”
DECISIVE RALLYING.
Three conclusions are inescapable. The first is that European countries and all other allies need to rally to Ukraine’s side, not with vague plans but rapidly and decisively, so as to strengthen its hands when peace talks start. Ukraine is European, is fighting for Europe’s security, and must be protected and embraced by Europeans, to protect it now from the American and Russian monsters.
As Germany will not have a new government for several months after Sunday’s elections, the initiative for this will have to be taken by others—probably European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen; Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk; and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one expects Italy to step forward, though it would be a pleasant surprise if it did.
GANGSTER MENTALITY.
The second conclusion is that President Trump thinks not only like an old-fashioned great-power leader, from the era of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, but also like a gangster.
He attempted an extortion on Ukraine, proposing that it should sign over mineral rights worth US$500 billion in return for its past support, and then got angry when quite rightly Ukraine refused. There is a lesson here for all small and mid-sized countries that have to deal with this American gangster.
TAKING A COLLECTIVE STANCE
The third key conclusion is that international groupings in which the United States has historically played a central role—such as the G7, NATO, and the broader G20—must now begin to recalibrate their approach, effectively functioning as the G6, a non-US NATO, and the G19. This does not imply that these organisations should seek to exclude or sideline the United States. Rather, it suggests that the non-American members must initiate separate, internal discussions to strengthen their collective stance in the face of increasingly unpredictable and, at times, obstructive American behaviour.
Such a shift has become more pressing following recent developments. Last week, the Trump administration refused to endorse a draft G7 statement commemorating the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022.
The objection was solely due to the inclusion of the term “Russian aggression”—a stark refusal that undermines a unified international response to blatant violations of sovereignty and international law.
In light of this, the remaining six G7 members—France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, and Canada—must consider issuing their own separate statement, as they have done in previous instances. Such a move would ensure that the truth is clearly articulated, reaffirming their collective commitment to international norms and principles.
Failing to do so would not only embolden Russia but also risk diminishing the credibility of these alliances. It would offer Moscow further cause for mockery and leave the rest of the democratic world confronting the sombre reality of weakened resolve.
This is not merely a matter of diplomatic protocol but of moral clarity and strategic coherence. In moments when shared values are tested, silence or compromise risks eroding the very foundations of the alliances designed to uphold them.
