U.S Oval Office Showdown      

By David E. Sanger (New York Times)- After five weeks in which President Trump made clear his determination to scrap America’s traditional sources of power — its alliances among like-minded democracies — and return the country to an era of great-power negotiations, he left one question hanging: How far would he go in sacrificing Ukraine to his vision?

The remarkable Oval Office shouting match yesterday provided the answer.

As Trump admonished President Volodymyr Zelensky and warned him that “you don’t have the cards” to deal with Vladimir Putin, and as Vice President JD Vance called the Ukrainian leader “disrespectful” and ungrateful, it was clear that the three-year wartime partnership between Washington and Kyiv was shattered.

Maybe it can be repaired, but it’s hard to imagine how. Still, the venomous exchanges made evident that Trump regards Ukraine as an obstacle to a far more vital project.

What Trump really wants, one European official told me as the administration had its first, ugly encounters with America’s allies this month, is to normalise the relationship with Russia. If that means rewriting the history of Moscow’s illegal invasion, if it means dropping investigations of Russian war crimes or refusing to offer security guarantees that would keep Putin from finishing the job in Ukraine later, then Trump, in this assessment of his intentions, is willing to make that deal.

Trump and Ukraine

Trump believes that the post-World War II system, created by Washington, ate away at American power. That system prized relationships with allies committed to democratic capitalism, even when those alliances came with a cost to American consumers. It sought to avoid power grabs by making the observance of international law, and a respect for established international boundaries, a goal unto itself.

To Trump, that system gave smaller and less powerful countries leverage over the United States, leaving Americans to pick up the tab for defending allies and promoting their prosperity.

While his predecessors — Democrats and Republicans — insisted that alliances kept the peace and allowed trade to flourish, Trump viewed them as a bleeding wound. In the 2016 presidential campaign, he repeatedly asked why America should defend countries that are running trade surpluses with the U.S.

But only in the past five weeks has Trump begun exercising a plan to destroy that system. It explains his demand that Denmark cede Greenland to the United States and that Panama return a canal Americans built. When asked how he could seize Gaza for redevelopment as a “Riviera of the Middle East,” when it was sovereign territory, he shot back: “Under the U.S. authority.”

Ukraine was always a more complicated case. Only 26 months ago Zelensky was feted in Washington as a warrior for democracy, invited to address a joint session of Congress, and applauded by Democrats and Republicans.

A vision for U.S. power

Trump and Vance had signaled for months that in their minds the American commitment to Ukraine’s independence was over. Three weeks ago Trump told an interviewer that Ukraine “may be Russian someday.”

Zelensky knew this but did not read the room. While the leaders of France and Britain preceded him to the Oval Office with plans to placate Trump, and explain how Europe was stepping up its defense spending, Zelensky became combative.

He reminded Trump that the oceans between America and Russia won’t protect it forever. Trump raised his voice and told the Ukrainian he would be lucky to just get a cease-fire, suggesting that any terms would be better than defeat. “I want to see guarantees,” Zelensky retorted. Minutes later, he stormed out of the White House, leaving the luncheon of rosemary roasted chicken and crème brûlée uneaten, a minerals deal unsigned and his country’s future ability to defend itself in doubt.

The Russians celebrated their good luck. Former President Dmitri Medvedev thanked Trump for “telling the truth” to Zelinsky’s face. He urged him to suspend remaining American aid.

Of course, it is easier to blow up an existing world order than to create a new one. For all its faults, the post-World War II system avoided great-power war and encouraged economic interdependence. Trump, instead, would use American power to strike deals — essentially an argument that peace is as simple as weaving together minerals agreements and trade pacts.

There is little precedent to suggest that approach alone works, especially with authoritarian leaders like Putin and President Xi Jinping of China. But judging by yesterday’s display in the Oval Office, Trump seems convinced that as long as he is at the helm, the world will order itself as he commands.