Did Trump and Vance ambush Zelensky?

 

Neither Trump nor Vance sought to humiliate President Zelensky. They were calm and avoided confrontational remarks at the beginning of the press conference.

Surprisingly, Trump maintained a reserved posture throughout the proceedings. In response to inquiries regarding the potential mineral agreement, he consistently stated, “We will see,” while reiterating his commitment to continuing military aid to Ukraine.

- Zelensky was anxious during the conference. Whenever Trump suggested the necessity of concluding the war, he interrupted assertively, emphasizing that Russia must face accountability as the aggressor in the conflict.

- The debate escalated when Trump said that any potential deal would be untenable if Zelensky continued to express negative, harsh comments about Putin.
Vance clarified Trump’s position, underscoring the importance of diplomacy and critiquing the previous President, Biden’s comments on Putin.

Interestingly, Zelensky started questioning Vance, which led to the heated exchange we saw.

Conclusion:

- The Trump administration dislikes Zelensky for his involvement in supporting Harris’ campaign in October, a point underscored by Vance during the heated exchange.
- Zelensky is not ready for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war.
- His European allies have encouraged him to confront Trump in peace negotiations and the deal with Russia.
- The Europeans are not able to secure Ukraine’s interests or achieve victory in the ongoing conflict without US military support.

- Zelensky would have achieved a good deal behind closed doors, yet his anxiety was apparent. Ukraine is not in a good position, and this exchange was not fruitful.

Zelensky’s provocative approach in the Oval Office and the support he received from European leaders following his contentious appearance at the White House exacerbated Ukraine’s crisis and yielded little benefit for the Ukrainians.

The collective West is in trouble. European bureaucrats' declaration that the “free world” must identify a new leader only adds more complexity to an already challenging situation, ultimately undermining both European and Ukrainian interests.

In conclusion, the United States remains the ultimate Global power within the collective West and globally. European leaders would be misguided to assume they can navigate dealings with Trump as they did during his first term.

US Defense Budget: Signs of a Changing Global Order?

 

- Unexpectedly, the US Secretary of Defense has unveiled plans to gradually reduce the defense budget, aiming for an 8% annual cut over the coming years.
- Aiming for budget reduction, President Trump has reiterated his desire to reinitiate nuclear arms control talks with Russia and China—envisioning a future where all three nations agree to halve their massive defense expenditures.
- This contrasts sharply with his first term, when the National Security Strategy was centered on rebuilding military strength in response to global strategic threats, particularly from adversaries like Russia and China.
- As Trump undertakes his new term, he is shifting away from the relentless arms race that has long defined international relations.

What does this mean for the global competition?

Beyond budget cutting, this shift carries profound international implications:
1- A Change in the US Threat Perceptions, particularly with Russia and China.
2- Potential for Reduced Tensions globally.

Will this strategy succeed?
Success hinges on two key factors:
1- Internally: His ability to contain the deep-state factions that favor wars and military interventions.
2- Globally: Balancing Global Security Demands: It will be essential to achieve a credible "security for all" that satisfies not only US interests but also addresses the strategic concerns of Russia and China.

Ukraine is in a Precarious Position

As promised during his campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump remains steadfast in his commitment to ending the war in Ukraine.
- In February 2025, his rhetoric toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became increasingly harsh.
- Trump has labeled Zelensky a "dictator without elections" and claimed that his approval rating in Ukraine is only 4%.

In a defiant response, Zelensky accused Trump of "living in a world of disinformation."
- U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has warned that Zelensky will “pay a price” for his criticisms of Trump.

On another Level:

Trump has proposed a deal that would grant the U.S. rights to extract Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for the financial support it provided to Ukraine.
Zelensky rejected this offer, stressing that discussions about profit distribution would only be considered once clear security guarantees were established.

The Bottom Line:
Zelensky understands that Trump does not tolerate being challenged. Nonetheless, fully aware that his time in office is short, he aims to depart the political stage as a "hero."

Meanwhile, Ukraine finds itself in a dire situation—having suffered the loss of an entire generation, significant territorial concessions, and a declining economy.
Placing faith in Europe to change the tide of the war, whether through military might or diplomatic efforts, is a perilous illusion; from the outset, the U.S. has dictated the course of this conflict and holds the power to end it whenever it chooses.
Note: The upcoming German elections could significantly alter Germany's stance on Ukraine, introducing new dynamics into this ongoing crisis.

Prospects for a New Agreement between the US and Iran

 

1. Reports from last month highlighted that American and Iranian officials engaged in discussions in the Sultanate of Oman, which is emerging as a key location for dialogue between the two. 2. On February 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reinstate maximum pressure on Iran. Yet, he simultaneously conveyed a willingness to negotiate a new agreement, with a firm demand that Iran must not be allowed to attain nuclear weapon capabilities. 3. Inside Iran, perspectives on these negotiations remain divided. President Pezeshikian has reiterated Iran's openness to dialogue, with some officials referencing a "fatwa" that forbids the development of nuclear weapons. In contrast, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has dismissed negotiations with the United States as "not smart, wise, or honorable," highlighting the internal complexities surrounding this issue. 4. The recent visit of the Emir of Qatar to Tehran signals a renewed diplomatic effort. Official statements during this visit did not clarify whether Qatar would assume a new mediating role between the US and Iran. Qatar has successfully mediated between the two historically. Qatar's relations with Iran improved during the Gulf crisis from 2017 to 2021. Given these dynamics, does the opportunity for a renewed agreement have better chances?

- Recent regional developments, particularly the weakening of the "axis of resistance," suggest a potential opening for diplomatic engagement. However, reaching an agreement will require navigating challenging negotiations, which will be heavily influenced by the demands of both parties and the necessity of reconciling divergent positions.

If Tehran insists that any final agreement be ratified by a vote in the US Congress, Trump can secure such authorization, especially if he frames the agreement as a diplomatic victory for the US.

Israel's position is a significant complicating factor. Nevertheless, if the United States is committed to pursuing a diplomatic resolution, there are no insurmountable obstacles to reaching an accord. The broad regional rejection of the JCPOA in 2015 did not prevent its eventual conclusion. If the chances of a renewed agreement increase, Saudi Arabia can serve as a viable mediator in the ongoing U.S.-Iran dialogue.

The "Cohabitation Theory" in International Relations

 

The Cohabitation Theory was introduced by Leila Nicolas in her book "Global and Regional Strategies in the Middle East: In Pursuit of Hegemony," published by Routledge in August 2024.

In Chapter 11 of the book, the theory and its components are explained and tested in the contexts of Lebanon and Iraq, where the US and Iran cohabitate as major powers in weak states. Their cohabitation involves elements of cooperation, competition, and conflict.

The "cohabitation theory" is a new idea, explaining how a Great Power and a Regional Power interact to gain influence in a weaker state. Cohabitation occurs when a global power exerts influence in a region outside its immediate geographical sphere, while a regional power has a natural influence in a weaker or smaller country through religion, culture, language, and history.

Cohabitation is typically a de-facto situation, often without an explicit agreement or settlement. It involves accepting a reality that cannot be changed or avoiding a battle that is difficult to win.

A global power like the US may coexist with the de facto influence of a regional power (Iran) in a weak state, but it does not tolerate coexistence with a competing global power like China or Russia. Rivalry between global powers in a weak state can turn it into a shatterbelt or proxy war zone rather than a form of cohabitation.

Entering a "cohabitation situation" does not lead to permanent stability or peace in the weak state. Peace is fragile and often disrupted when one party changes the balance of power in its favor, or when the interests of competing rivals clash in the region or weak state.

Check Chapter 11 here in this Book:

Nicolas, L. (2024). Global and Regional Strategies in the Middle East: In Pursuit of Hegemony (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003460152