Ukraine, NATO, and the USA: Evolving Strategies

Russia’s nuclear policy is a fundamental aspect of its military strategy. In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made significant amendments to his nuclear doctrine, particularly in 2020, in response to regional changes. He announced three new conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, stating clearly that Russia might resort to nuclear weapons if:

٭Russia is attacked with chemical or biological weapons, or if its nuclear control systems are targeted.
٭Conventional warfare threatens Russia’s survival (e.g., military defeat in Ukraine).
٭Its command-and-control systems come under attack.

These amendments have raised concerns among the United States and its allies, as they challenge Western defence strategies and could compel NATO to take a firmer stance. The US believes that these revisions give Russia the opportunity to use nuclear threats in conflicts like Ukraine.

Immediately after this announcement, The New York Times reacted by stating that these amendments reflect Russia’s “aggressive and destabilising” strategy, which increases the risk of nuclear war. Subsequently, the US denounced it as a “threat” and urged NATO to strengthen its nuclear capabilities. However, during his election campaign, Donald Trump had promised his voters that the US would neither start new wars nor further engage in ongoing conflicts. But after assuming power, Trump and his administration appeared to abandon these commitments.
Three years have passed since Russia invaded Ukraine. During this period, former US President Donald Trump made several statements that were later proven incorrect. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has used this war to achieve his political and military objectives, whereas Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has successfully garnered global support and kept his military strong. This war represents a unique blend of political manoeuvring, diplomatic manipulation, and military confrontation.

Trump claimed that “Ukraine cannot become a NATO member,” despite the fact that NATO’s Article 10 allows any European country to seek membership. Trump also accused Zelensky of exploiting Europe and the US. Additionally, Trump’s supporters have labelled Ukraine’s government as “Nazi,” while Western media portrays Putin as a war criminal and views Trump’s remarks as propaganda in Putin’s favour. Consequently, Western media remains cautious and does not endorse Trump’s stance.

Meanwhile, reports of disagreements and distrust within the European Union have surfaced. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called Trump “unreliable,” sparking a new debate. Germany prioritises industrial interests, while France aims to lead a European military force. According to The Financial Times, the US views European autonomy as a “threat to NATO,” whereas the Jewish-owned media outlet Fox News has defended Trump, arguing that his policies have united Europe against China.

On the other hand, Russian media outlet RT asserts that these amendments are purely “defensive” and that the West should respect Russia’s power. Putin’s goal is to ensure Ukraine’s “neutrality” and prevent NATO’s expansion, as he perceives it as a threat to Russia’s security. His key objectives include controlling Donbas, demilitarising Ukraine, and reducing NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe.

However, Ukrainian media portrays Zelensky as a “national hero.” Around 80% of Ukrainians support Zelensky’s policies, while Russian media dismisses him as a “Western puppet.” Zelensky has urged the European Union to establish a joint military structure, arguing that Europe must enhance its military strength to become self-reliant against Russian threats.

Zelensky has recently called on European nations to form a unified European army against Russia. His primary concerns stem from NATO’s ambiguous policies and delays in American military aid. He insists that Europe should adopt an independent defence strategy to counter Russian aggression effectively. According to him, Europe must reduce its dependence on the US in its fight against Russia. He has also stressed the need for Ukraine to sign long-term military agreements with the EU spanning at least ten years.

However, Western media considers this idea “impractical” as European nations remain divided over military budgets and sovereignty. European countries such as Germany and France provide Ukraine with financial aid and light weaponry, but they still rely on the US for heavy weaponry (e.g., tanks and fighter jets). Europe’s military industry is not as advanced as America’s, and NATO’s structure is incomplete without the US. Germany possesses only 200 battle tanks, compared to the US’s 2,500. France claims its military industry can only meet domestic demands. Meanwhile, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has stated that it is time for “Europe to increase its military production.” The US, by supplying weapons to Ukraine, is simultaneously strengthening its own defence industry.
So far, the US has provided $75 billion in aid to Ukraine. However, signs of “fatigue” are beginning to emerge in Europe regarding this ongoing conflict.

But according to Western media, this idea is still “speculative” because European countries have not yet agreed on military budgets and autonomy. European nations, such as Germany and France, are providing Ukraine with financial aid and light weapons, but they remain reliant on the United States for heavy weaponry such as tanks and aircraft. Europe’s military industry is not as advanced as that of the United States, and NATO’s structure remains incomplete without American involvement. Germany possesses only 200 combat tanks, whereas the U.S. has 2,500. France claims that its military industry can only meet its own needs. Meanwhile, Poland’s Prime Minister has stated that “it is time for Europe to increase its military production,” while the U.S. strengthens its defence industry by selling arms to Ukraine. The United States has so far provided $75 billion in aid to Ukraine, but signs of “fatigue” are beginning to emerge in Europe.
Several instances of leniency towards Russia have surfaced in the foreign policy of the Trump administration. Some analysts consider this a mistake in American foreign policy, while others see it as a strategic move to keep the U.S. out of unnecessary wars. However, this approach unsettled NATO allies and encouraged Russia to take more aggressive actions.

On the other hand, Trump supporters argue that this was part of the “America First” policy aimed at improving relations with Russia. However, opponents (such as the Democrats) claim that Trump failed to impose strict sanctions on Russia during his previous tenure (2017-2020). The Democrats also assert that Trump’s inaction effectively gave Putin the green light to invade Ukraine, strengthening the Russian leader’s position. Trump’s current policy statements have further increased distrust among European allies, who view them as “concessions and benefits” for Putin. Political critics describe Trump’s remarks as propaganda to please Putin, with some calling it a blunder and others a calculated move.

In the Middle East, China’s mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, leading to the restoration of diplomatic ties, was deemed a “diplomatic shock” by Western media, raising concerns for the United States. Another viewpoint suggests that Saudi Arabia has ultimately sought to reduce American influence by strengthening its relations with China and Iran. Arab media, such as Al Jazeera, have hailed this as a timely and successful effort for regional stability, while Chinese media have termed it a “victory for peace.” Additionally, Saudi Arabia has engaged in several major trade agreements with China to diversify its economy beyond oil dependency. China now imports 28% of its oil needs from Saudi Arabia.

Diplomatic meetings in Saudi Arabia revealed surprising developments for the Western world. One of them was a closed-door meeting in Riyadh, attended by representatives from Russia, China, and European nations. The outcomes of this meeting could have significant implications for international relations, particularly concerning a shifting balance of power in the Middle East. This was further underscored when Trump suggested American control over Gaza and proposed resettling Palestinians in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Recent tensions were evident during a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Oval Office. The encounter, considered highly unusual in diplomatic etiquette, reportedly involved heated exchanges between the two leaders, leading to the cancellation of a joint press conference and the signing ceremony of a mineral resources agreement.

Oval Office meetings traditionally embody formality and solidarity, but power imbalances cannot be ignored. Diplomatic encounters adhere to strict etiquette and protocols, especially when involving heads of state. Meetings between Ukraine and the United States are typically conducted with utmost diplomatic decorum, emphasising symbolism and setting, with the Oval Office representing American authority and sovereignty. A meeting here signifies that the U.S. considers Ukraine an important ally, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia.

In diplomatic language, both leaders would usually express unity, cooperation, and a commitment to defending democracy. For instance, the U.S. would reaffirm its pledge of military and economic aid to Ukraine. To maintain protocol, joint statements, press briefings, and photographs would highlight mutual respect and equality between the leaders.

Some observers believe the U.S. is using Ukraine for its own strategic interests, despite maintaining diplomatic decorum. For example, in exchange for military assistance, Washington may exert political or economic pressure on Kyiv, though such actions would not be explicitly stated. Ukraine aims to develop its resources and gain access to global markets, which often involves partnerships with Western companies. These agreements typically follow transparent procedures.

According to Trump’s statement, he has demanded repayment of the grant provided to Ukraine, along with access to its valuable mineral resources. Ukraine is rich in mineral deposits such as lithium, titanium, and natural gas. It is worth noting that after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the U.S. not only condemned these actions but also acknowledged that forcibly seizing another country’s resources constitutes a violation of international law. If the U.S. were to seize control of resources illegally, it would be deemed an act of aggression; however, there is currently no concrete evidence to support this claim. While the U.S. remains a global superpower, there is no proof of an American takeover of Ukraine’s resources. However, Western economic interests in Ukraine’s reconstruction remain, operating within the bounds of international law.

Negotiations were ongoing between the United States and Ukraine over a minerals agreement, which would grant the US access to Ukraine’s rare minerals, oil, gas, and key infrastructure. The US considered this agreement crucial to sustaining its support for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Zelensky expressed willingness to sign the deal, believing that it could help restore relations with President Trump.

The US’s potential move to gain control over Ukraine’s minerals is viewed as controversial within the framework of international law and diplomatic norms. If such actions compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty and control over its resources, they could be seen as a form of aggression. International law recognises a nation’s sovereignty over its natural resources, and any external pressure or exploitation is deemed unlawful.

Overall, the negotiations surrounding the minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, along with the incidents in the Oval Office, raise significant questions about diplomatic protocol and international relations that require further scrutiny.

Some factions claim that the US is prolonging the war to gain access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth. This narrative is also prominent in Russian propaganda, though no concrete evidence supports it. Meanwhile, the US argues that its involvement is focused on rebuilding and modernising Ukraine. For instance, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) has announced partnerships in Ukraine’s infrastructure and energy sectors. It is essential to distinguish between conspiracy theories and reality in this context.

JD Vance, a close ally of Trump, is attempting to redefine US foreign policy by advocating a recalibration of relations with traditional allies and urging a reduced American intervention in global affairs. Vance argues that the US should prioritise Asia over Europe, while Western media portrays him as an indirect supporter of Putin. Vance has also stated that “America should focus on Taiwan and China.”

Recently, during Zelensky’s visit to the White House, his choice of attire sparked criticism. Previously, he had attended meetings in military fatigues rather than a formal suit. This time, his casual shirt at the White House meeting was scrutinised by the US media, linking the criticism to Trump’s personal disdain for him. Some analysts suggest that this incident symbolises the growing tensions between Trump and Zelensky. Under Trump’s leadership, shifts in US policy have directly impacted relations with Ukraine.

On Friday, JD Vance’s direct confrontation with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Oval Office was a clear indication that the US Vice President is willing to take a leading role without hesitation. Unlike his predecessors, Vance does not shy away from adopting an assertive stance rather than being a passive political aide.

It was Vance who first launched a scathing critique of Zelensky, later joined by President Trump. The meeting remained cordial until Vance began praising Trump’s diplomatic efforts to halt the Russia-Ukraine war. Zelensky, a staunch critic of direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow, interrupted Vance, asking, “What kind of diplomacy are you referring to, JD? What do you mean?” Vance swiftly responded, “I mean the kind of diplomacy that could end your country’s destruction.” His sharp tone took the Ukrainian President by surprise. “Mr President, with all due respect, I don’t think it is appropriate for you to come to the Oval Office and escalate this matter in front of the US media.”

Vance also accused Zelensky of indirectly supporting the Democrats in the 2024 presidential elections. This claim was based on Zelensky’s visit last September to a weapons manufacturing factory in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, and his meeting with Trump’s rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, at the White House.

Vance’s reprimand of Zelensky garnered significant support from Republican leaders. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a known supporter of Ukraine and advocate for a hardline foreign policy, stated, “I am proud of JD Vance for standing up for our country’s interests.” He went further, suggesting that Zelensky should resign. Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville even branded Zelensky as a “Ukrainian fox.” Meanwhile, New York Congressman Mike Lawler took a more measured stance, describing the meeting as “a missed opportunity for both the US and Ukraine.”

It is highly unusual for a US Vice President to confront a visiting head of state in such a manner. Typically, their role is to assist the President in policymaking while maintaining diplomatic decorum. Vice Presidents are expected to act as loyal aides, representing the President on foreign visits. As the saying goes, they are merely “a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

Unlike Trump’s first Vice President, the mild-mannered Mike Pence, Vance has adopted a markedly different approach. Widely regarded as the chief architect of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine, Vance has long expressed scepticism about continued US aid to Ukraine. During his 2022 Senate campaign in Ohio, he openly stated on a podcast, “To be honest, I don’t really care what happens in Ukraine.” According to CNN, Trump’s humiliation of Zelensky was a display of political dominance unprecedented in diplomatic etiquette.

These developments underscore the broader geopolitical struggle, the battle of media narratives, and the clash of national interests. For instance, the Russia-West conflict is not limited to Ukraine but is also tied to NATO expansion, the energy crisis, and the global balance of power. Democrats argue that Vance’s policies reflect “Trump’s self-interest.” In defence, Trump and his allies claim their policies are “about saving America, not the world.” His approach diverges from traditional US diplomacy, leaning towards “disruptive populism.”

Each nation’s media presents the news through the lens of its national interests, making reliance on a single source potentially dangerous. If such policies persist, they could lead to significant shifts in global diplomatic relations.