World

Behind the Collision: Trump Jettisons Ukraine on His Way to a Larger Goal

Published

1 year ago

February 28, 2025

Behind the Collision: Trump Jettisons Ukraine on His Way to a Larger Goal

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 raw great-power negotiations, he left one question hanging: How far would he go in sacrificing Ukraine to his vision?

The remarkable shouting match that played out in front of the cameras early Friday afternoon from the Oval Office provided the answer.

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

Whether it can be repaired, and whether a deal to provide the United States revenue from Ukrainian minerals that was the ostensible reason for the visit can be pieced back together, remains to be seen.

But the larger truth is that the venomous exchanges — broadcast not only to an astounded audience of Americans and Europeans who had never seen such open attacks on each other, but to Mr. Putin and his Kremlin aides — made evident that Mr. Trump regards Ukraine as an obstacle to what he sees as a far more vital project.

What Mr. Trump really wants, one senior European official said this week before the blowup, is a normalization of the relationship with Russia. If that means rewriting the history of Moscow’s illegal invasion three years ago, dropping investigations of Russian war crimes or refusing to offer Ukraine long-lasting security guarantees, then Mr. Trump, in this assessment of his intentions, is willing to make that deal.

To anyone listening carefully, that goal was bubbling just beneath the surface as Mr. Zelensky headed to Washington for his disastrous visit.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio — once a defender of Ukraine and its territorial sovereignty, now a convert to the Trump power plays — made clear in an interview with Breitbart News that it was time to move beyond the war in the interest of establishing a triangular relationship between the United States, Russia and China.

“We’re going to have disagreements with the Russians, but we have to have a relationship with both,” Mr. Rubio said. He carefully avoided any wording that would suggest, as he often said as a senator, that Russia was the aggressor, or that there was risk that, if not punished for its attack on Ukraine, it might next target a NATO nation.

“These are big, powerful countries with nuclear stockpiles,” he said of Russia and China. “They can project power globally. I think we have lost the concept of maturity and sanity in diplomatic relations.”

Mr. Trump makes no secret of his view that the post-World War II system, created by Washington, ate away at American power.

Above all else, that system prized relationships with allies committed to democratic capitalism, even maintaining those alliances that came with a cost to American consumers. It was a system that sought to avoid power grabs by making the observance of international law, and respect for established international boundaries, a goal unto itself.

To Mr. Trump, such a system gave smaller and less powerful countries leverage over the United States, leaving Americans to pick up far too much of the tab for defending allies and promoting their prosperity.

While his predecessors — both Democrats and Republicans — insisted that alliances in Europe and Asia were America’s greatest force multiplier, keeping the peace and allowing trade to flourish, Mr. Trump viewed them as a bleeding wound. In the 2016 presidential campaign, he repeatedly asked why America should defend countries running trade surpluses with the United States.

In the five weeks since his second inauguration, Mr. Trump has begun exercising a plan to destroy that system. It explains his demand that Denmark cede control of Greenland to the United States, and that Panama return a canal that Americans built. When asked how he could seize sovereign territory in Gaza for redevelopment in his plan for a “Riviera of the Middle East,” he shot back, “Under the U.S. authority.”

But Ukraine was always a more complicated case. Only 26 months ago, Mr. Zelensky was feted in Washington as a warrior for democracy, invited to address a joint meeting of Congress and applauded by Democrats and Republicans alike for standing up to bald aggression by a murderous foe.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance had signaled for months that in their minds the American commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty was over. Three weeks ago, Mr. Trump told an interviewer that Ukraine, a former Soviet republic that had embraced its independence, built close ties to Western Europe and sought to join NATO, “may be Russian someday.”

To the shock of America’s allies, Mr. Vance traveled to the Munich Security Conference two weeks ago and said nothing about assuring that any armistice or cease-fire would come with security guarantees for Ukraine, or about Russia paying any price for its invasion.

Instead, Mr. Vance seemed to embrace the rising far-right party in Germany and its counterparts throughout Europe. Gone was the Biden-era talk about sticking with Ukraine “as long as it takes” to deter any temptation by Russia to carry the war farther West.

Mr. Zelensky saw all this, of course — he was at Munich, too — but clearly he did not read the room the way his European supporters did. While President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain preceded him to the Oval Office with elaborate plans to placate Mr. Trump, and explain how Europe was stepping up its own military spending, Mr. Zelensky took the bait, especially when Mr. Vance began mocking Ukraine’s efforts to recruit troops.

He got combative, telling Mr. Trump that the oceans between America and Russia would not protect it forever. Mr. Trump raised his voice, and told the Ukrainian that he would be lucky just to get a cease-fire, suggesting that any terms — or no terms — would be better than his inevitable defeat.

“I want to see guarantees,” Mr. Zelensky retorted. And minutes later, he left the White House, his luncheon of rosemary roasted chicken and creme brulee uneaten, the minerals deal unsigned and his country’s future ability to fend off a renewed Russian push to topple Kyiv in doubt.

Almost immediately, the world retreated to its familiar corners.

Mr. Macron, siding with the Ukrainian leader, urged that the West thank the Ukrainians for being the forward defense of freedom. He was joined by the nervous Eastern Europeans, led by Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. But in private, several European diplomats said they thought the damage might be irreparable.

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

Mr. Rubio was among the first to congratulate the president for putting in his place a man the secretary of state used to applaud as a modern-day Churchill in a T-shirt.

“Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before,” Mr. Rubio wrote on social media. “Thank you for putting America First.”

Of course, it is far easier to repeat Mr. Trump’s favorite slogan, and to blow up an existing world order, than to create a new one. It took decades to assemble the post-World War II rules of global engagement, and for all its faults, the system succeeded at its primary objectives: avoiding great power war and encouraging economic interdependence.

Mr. Trump has never articulated at any length what he would replace those rules with, other than that he would use America’s military and economic power to strike deals — essentially an argument that keeping the peace is as simple as weaving together minerals agreements and trade pacts, maybe with a few real estate transactions thrown in.

There is little precedent to suggest that approach alone works, especially in dealing with authoritarian leaders like Mr. Putin and President Xi Jinping of China, who take a long view in dealing with democracies that they view as lacking the sustained will necessary to achieve difficult objectives.

But judging by Friday’s display in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump seems convinced that as long as he is at the helm, the world will order itself as he commands.

Related Topics:Donald J Featured J D trump United States International Relations United States Politics and Government vance Volodymyr zelensky

Click to comment

World

A look at some of the contenders to be Iran’s supreme leader after the killing of Khamenei

Published

1 minute ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

A look at some of the contenders to be Iran’s supreme leader after the killing of Khamenei

Iran’s leaders are scrambling to replace Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ruled the country for 37 years before he was killed in the surprise U.S. and Israeli bombardment.

It’s only the second time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that a new supreme leader is being chosen. Potential candidates range from hard-liners committed to confrontation with the West to reformists who seek diplomatic engagement.

The supreme leader has the final say on all major decisions, including war, peace and the country’s disputed nuclear program.

In the meantime, a provisional governing council composed of President Masoud Pezeshkian, hard-line judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei and senior Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali Reza Arafi is guiding the country through its biggest crisis in decades. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that a new supreme leader would be chosen early this week.

The supreme leader is appointed by an 88-member panel called the Assembly of Experts, who by law are supposed to quickly name a successor. The panel consists of Shiite clerics who are popularly elected after their candidacies are approved by the Guardian Council, Iran’s constitutional watchdog.

Khamenei had major influence over both clerical bodies, making it unlikely the next leader will mark a radical departure.

Here are the top contenders.

Mojtaba Khamenei

The son of Khamenei, a mid-level Shiite cleric, is widely considered a potential successor. He has strong ties to Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard but has never held office. His selection could prove awkward, as the Islamic Republic has long criticized hereditary rule and cast itself as a more just alternative.

Ayatollah Ali Reza Arafi

Arafi is a member of the provisional government council. The senior Shiite cleric was handpicked by Khamenei to be a member of the Guardian Council in 2019, and three years later he was elected to the Assembly of Experts. He leads a network of seminaries.

Hassan Rouhani

Rouhani, a relative moderate, was president of Iran from 2013 to 2021 and reached the landmark nuclear agreement with the Obama administration that U.S. President Donald Trump scrapped during his first term. Rouhani served on the Assembly of Experts until 2024, when he said he was disqualified from running for reelection. Rouhani criticized it as an infringement on Iranians’ political participation.

Hassan Khomeini

Khomeini is the most prominent grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He is also seen as a relative moderate, but has never held government office. He currently works at his grandfather’s mausoleum in Tehran.

Ayatollah Mohammed Mehdi Mirbagheri

Mirbagheri is a senior cleric popular with hard-liners who serves on the Assembly of Experts.

He was close to the late Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, a fellow hard-liner who wrote that Iran should not deprive itself of the right to produce “special weapons,” a veiled reference to nuclear arms.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mirbagheri denounced the closure of schools as a “conspiracy.”

He is currently the head of the Islamic Cultural Center in Qom, the main center for Islamic teaching in Iran.

World

US cleared to use British bases for limited strikes on Iranian missile capabilities

Published

1 hour ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

US cleared to use British bases for limited strikes on Iranian missile capabilities

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. has been cleared to use British bases for limited strikes on Iran’s missile capabilities after Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed off on the plan, and while U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey stated on Sunday Britain had “stepped up alongside the Americans.”

“The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source, in their storage depots or the launchers which are used to fire the missiles,” Starmer confirmed in a recorded statement to the nation.

“The U.S. has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose,” he said. “We have taken the decision to accept this request.”

The decision came amid escalation across the Middle East in the wake of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory missile and drone attacks, raising fears of a broader regional conflict.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed off on a plan to use British bases for limited strikes on Iranian missile capabilities. (Kin Cheung / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

On Feb. 28, in the wake of Operation Epic Fury, Starmer confirmed British planes “are in the sky today” across the Middle East “as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests and our allies.”

Healey went on to disclose Sunday that two Iranian missiles were fired in the direction of Cyprus, where Britain maintains key sovereign base areas.

The Royal Air Force confirmed that Typhoon jets operating from Qatar as part of the joint U.K.-Qatar Typhoon Squadron successfully intercepted an Iranian drone heading toward Qatar.

About 300 British personnel are stationed at a naval facility in Bahrain, where Iranian missiles and drones struck nearby areas.

“We’re taking down the drones that are menacing either our bases, our people or our allies,” Healey told “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips” on Sky. “We’ve stepped up alongside the Americans. We’ve stepped up our defensive forces in the Middle East. We’re flying those sorties.”

ISRAEL’S LARGEST EVER MILITARY FLYOVER HAMMERS IRANIAN MILITARY TARGETS

British Defense Secretary John Healey stressed that the U.K. had “no part” in the American-Israeli strikes on Iran. (Peter Nicholls/Pool via Reuters)

Healey also made sure to stress that the U.K. had “no part” in the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and insisted all British actions were defensive. “All our actions are about defending U.K. interests and defending U.K. allies,” he said.

When asked if the U.K. would join the U.S. in offensive action, Healey said, “I’m not going to speculate,” according to Sky News.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Downing Street also confirmed Feb. 28 that Starmer and President Donald Trump had spoken by phone about the “situation in the Middle East,” the BBC reported.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Downing Street for comment.

Emma Bussey is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital. Before joining Fox, she worked at The Telegraph with the U.S. overnight team, across desks including foreign, politics, news, sport and culture.

World

Pakistan calls troops, orders 3-day curfew as 24 killed in pro-Iran rallies

Published

2 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Pakistan calls troops, orders 3-day curfew as 24 killed in pro-Iran rallies

Army deployed and some areas in northern Gilgit-Baltistan region put under curfew after deadly violence over Khamenei’s killing.

By AFP, Anadolu and The Associated Press

Published On 2 Mar 2026

Pakistan has called in the military and imposed a three-day curfew in some areas following deadly protests over the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint United States-Israeli attack on Saturday.

At least 24 people were killed and dozens injured in clashes between protesters and security forces across the country on Sunday, prompting authorities to tighten security around the US embassy and consulates.