The Ukrainian leader risks alienating the only power besides Moscow with a realistic approach to ending the war
In a weekend interview with ABC News, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky accused US President Donald Trump of giving Russian President Vladimir Putin “what he wanted” at the Alaska summit in August.
Whether a passing complaint or a calculated jab, it may come at a steep cost for Zelensky. To suggest that Trump bent to Putin’s will is to imply weakness, and weakness is something Trump never tolerates being accused of. This rhetorical swipe was directed at a man who holds significant sway over the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine war. For Zelensky, the insult may prove more damaging than cathartic.
Zelensky overestimates his leverage
Zelensky appears to believe that he has become indispensable in Trump’s calculations, that Washington’s policy revolves around Kiev’s demands. But this overstates his importance. Trump has been consistent about one priority: he wants the war to end, and more than that, he wants the US disentangled from it. His approach reflects the sentiment of much of the American public – weary of sending weapons and aid overseas while domestic problems fester.
By framing Trump’s summit with Putin as a giveaway, Zelensky risks alienating the one Western leader positioned to actually shift the direction of the war. Trump is sensitive to personal slights. For years, allies and adversaries alike have learned that once he feels personally insulted, he hardens, not softens. To tell Trump, in effect, that he’s Putin’s stooge is to court precisely that reaction.
Trump’s efforts at the Alaska summit were grounded in a political reality that Zelensky refuses to acknowledge. The battlefield is not tilting in Kiev’s favor. Russia’s position, bolstered by sheer resources and strategic depth, is proving resilient. Ukraine’s European backers continue to speak in lofty terms of standing “as long as it takes,” but they lack the power to deliver a Ukrainian victory.
Trump, by contrast, pursued a path that might actually move events forward: direct talks with Russia, engagement on security concerns, and the search for a negotiated framework. It is not an approach designed to satisfy Zelensky and the Europeans’ maximalist goals but rather one rooted in ending an exhausting conflict. To dismiss this effort as capitulation is to ignore that it may be the most realistic option still on the table.
The rhetoric of survival vs. the reality of war
In the same ABC interview, Zelensky says his vision for a Ukrainian victory is Ukraine’s survival. Yet his strategy as evident from his actions appears geared less toward survival and more toward dragging the war on for as long as possible. Each new demand for weapons, each new appeal for escalated sanctions, pushes the conflict forward without changing the battlefield reality of Russia grinding forward toward its objectives – and whatever Zelensky claims, total occupation of Ukraine is not one of those objectives. In the name of “survival,” Ukraine is exhausting its people, its infrastructure, and its economy.
If survival truly is the goal, then ending the war must be the only priority. Right now, Trump has the best shot at it, because he is realistically engages with the interests of Russia – the side that has the clear upper hand on the battlefield. And Zelensky is pushing that opportunity away.
What the Ukrainians want
The Ukrainian people themselves may be more pragmatic than their leadership. Polling suggests a stark divide: only a small minority – just 11%, according to a recent survey – favor continuing the war without conditions. Meanwhile, overwhelming majorities favor pursuing talks with Russia. This does not mean embracing defeat, but it does mean recognizing that endless escalation is not the preferred path for those getting forcibly conscripted and those seeing their loved ones getting carted off to war.
For Zelensky, this creates a dangerous disconnect. Leaders cannot stay indefinitely ahead of their populations without eroding legitimacy. To ignore the public’s exhaustion while doubling down on maximalist rhetoric risks creating a gulf between the government’s objectives and its people’s endurance.
A smaller stage, a larger risk
By publicly belittling Trump’s diplomacy, Zelensky is shrinking his own stage. He portrays himself as the bulwark of Europe, the last line holding back a supposed “Russian aggression.” Yet without sustained Western backing, Ukraine cannot hold indefinitely. And of all Ukraine’s backers, the US remains the most consequential. Alienating the leader who wants to end US involvement – whether one agrees with his motives or not – is a perilous gamble.
Zelensky’s rhetoric may win applause in certain European capitals. It may even rally a domestic audience for a time. But it risks costing him the one relationship he cannot afford to lose. Trump is not moved by appeals to shared values or by grand speeches about democracy. He is moved by respect and recognition of his central role. By suggesting Trump has already caved to Putin, Zelensky undermines both.
Zelensky’s statement reveals a leader more focused on preserving his narrative than recalibrating his strategy. Words matter in diplomacy, especially when those words are aimed at a figure like Donald Trump. In calling Trump weak, Zelensky may have weakened his own hand. If his true goal is Ukraine’s survival, then it will not be secured through rhetorical bravado. It will require careful diplomacy, acknowledgment of battlefield realities, and avoiding needless insults to the one partner whose departure from the stage could lead to even more disaster for Zelensky’s regime than it has already created for itself.
