A Failed Journey to the West

The famous “Journey to the West” is definitely something much more than just another classical novel of Chinese literature, written by Wu Cheng'en during the Ming dynasty. It is also a great symbol of spiritual enlightenment and self-cultivation, fighting against inner demons and discovering one’s destiny; it is a story about such timeless concepts as transformation and redemption, pride and humility, anger and calmness. Using this point of reference, one can argue that the recent trip of Volodymyr Zelensky to Washington turned out for him to be a failed journey to the West. It was not only one of the major setbacks he had experienced during his whole political career, but also a shock that should have shattered his views on the modern world in general and on the United States in particular. The likely repercussions of the meeting in the White House on February 28, 2025 are going to have a lasting impact not only on the US-Ukrainian relations, but arguably on the global politics at large.

The bad outcome of the Trump-Zelensky meeting in the White House may make the impatient and erratic US President less interested in trying to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in general. After all, Trump has already allegedly lost interest in previously broadly advertised “rare earths deal” with Kyiv. They were supposed to formally sign the deal at the meeting in the White House, but apparently Trump finally decided that it was not worth the effort. At some point, he can completely withdraw himself from the conflict in Europe letting it going on and on till one of the sides completely collapses. Instead, he might prefer to focus on Middle East, on relations with China or on strengthening the US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The US President wants to get fast returns on his political investments, and if the Russia-Ukraine conflict does not offer such returns, he can look for his “deals” elsewhere.

Would it be any easier to resolve the European crisis without the United States? Some in Russia argue that the less Washington is engaged in European affairs the better it is for the European security. However, one cannot take such an assumption for granted. A complete US withdrawal from Europe could have a profound negative impact on the overall European strategic stability—at least, in the immediate future, create many new security challenges and uncertainties and even raise the risks of a new world war. If the Transatlantic alliance were to fade away, everybody around should be interested in making its deconstruction as orderly and as smooth as possible.

The famous “Journey to the West” is definitely something much more than just another classical novel of Chinese literature, written by Wu Cheng'en during the Ming dynasty. It is also a great symbol of spiritual enlightenment and self-cultivation, fighting against inner demons and discovering one’s destiny; it is a story about such timeless concepts as transformation and redemption, pride and humility, anger and calmness. Using this point of reference, one can argue that the recent trip of Volodymyr Zelensky to Washington turned out for him to be a failed journey to the West. It was not only one of the major setbacks he had experienced during his whole political career, but also a shock that should have shattered his views on the modern world in general and on the United States in particular. The likely repercussions of the meeting in the White House on February 28, 2025 are going to have a lasting impact not only on the US-Ukrainian relations, but arguably on the global politics at large.

The mission has not been accomplished

Andrey Kortunov:
Unpacking Trump’s Proposals for Ukraine

On the eve of the journey, many in Moscow should have had not only anxieties, but also serious concerns about its possible outcomes. The pathway to the White House was carefully paved for Zelensky by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer; both visited Donald Trump prior to their Ukrainian colleague and both tried hard to convince the US leader to extend maximum support to Kyiv despite earlier Trump’s statements about his intention to cut a “deal” with Vladimir Putin. So, what if Zelensky, being a talented performer and a professional communicator, could convince Donald Trump to change his mind on the need for robust US security guarantees to Ukraine? What if the White House promises Kyiv even more military and political support in 2025 in order to exercise additional pressure on Moscow? What if the unpredictable and fickle US President finally decides to open the door to a full-fledged Ukrainian membership to the North Atlantic Alliance in a not-so-remote future?

In the end of the day, all these anxieties and concerns turned out to be misplaced. The careful groundwork of Macron and Starmer in Washington turned out to be absolutely futile. The Trump-Zelensky conversation in the Oval Office of the White House that started with nice protocol words from both sides finally slipped down to a bitter and emotional exchange of complaints and grievances. The White House has never before seen such a public display of undiplomatic statements. Vice President JD Vance set the tone by openly questioning the sincerely and trustworthiness of the Ukrainian guest in his assessment of the situation within Ukraine. President Trump, in his turn, very bluntly voiced his take on Zelensky’s problems: “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now.”

The Ukrainian President, who had got used to be a darling of his numerous Western counterparts, was clearly overwhelmed with such a stiff approach; he tried to counterattack, but with no particular success. His objections were interpreted as a manifestation of disrespect to the US leadership and to America in general. In the end of the day, the standard Ukrainian tactics of making more and more demands to US leaders in public that served Zelensky so well over the last three years backfired; Trump had to demonstrate to his domestic constituency that he had no inclination to yield under the Ukrainian pressure.

The planned press conference was cancelled and Zelenskyy left the White House empty-handed, without even a damage limitation plan to think about. The future of bilateral relations between the United States and Ukraine remains unclear; the same can be said about the future of the US engagement in the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. It is up to psychologies to conclude at what exact point in time the conversation got really out of hand and what triggered the evident deviation of the meticulously prepared event from the official protocol, but the results of the meeting seemed to be completely unexpected and truly devastating for the Ukrainian leader.

Is damage limitation possible?

Ivan Timofeev:
Can Trump Stop the Conflict in Ukraine?

Of course, it would be wrong to argue that the US military and political assistance to Kyiv will now be abruptly and irreversibly terminated. There is a lot of institutional inertia in such assistance programs and the Biden Administration did its best to upload in advance as much aid to Kyiv as possible to help the Ukrainian leadership in dealing with exactly such contingencies. Neither one should conclude that Trump has suddenly become unequivocally pro-Russian; in fact, he has already extended the US ani-Russian sanctions till early 2026, which allows him to keep more leverage in any future negotiations with the Kremlin. And, of course, there are still many strong Zelensky’s supporters across the United States, including not only a politically active Ukrainian diaspora, but also a number of influential politicians in Washington, DC, who will not sit on their hands waiting for the US-Ukraine strategic partnership to unravel in front of their eyes. The US domestic political wars around Ukraine will undoubtedly continue and at this moment their outcome is hard to predict.

In terms of the likely moves by other global actors, the ball seems to be in Europe’s court for the time being. European Union and UK leaders now confront a difficult choice: they may either side with Trump threatening to downscale their support to Ukraine and join the United States in its pressure on Zelensky or, on the contrary, they may challenge the US President by significantly enhancing their military and financial assistance to Kyiv to fill the vacuum that might be left by Washington already in 2025 and later on.

The option of following the United States in whatever decisions are made in Washington is historically more common among Europeans, but under the circumstances this option appeals to only a small minority of European government. Indeed, to follow Trump in his abrupt change of the US positions in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict would be more than humiliation for the European Union, it would be a signal that EU simply does not exist as a geopolitical actor. Some already say that the transatlantic unity has not been under such a severe pressure since the days of the 1956 Suez Crisis, when the United States forced France, the United Kingdom and Israel to stop their war against Egypt. So far, in Europe they mostly articulate their continuous support for Ukraine, but whether this declaratory support may or may not be converted into modern military hardware and additional hundreds billion of euros remains to be seen. It is not only about money: some of the most advanced and sophisticated US made weapon systems now supplied to Kyiv by Washington do not have any adequate European analogues and such analogues will not emerge anytime soon.

Clear enough, European nations have many other funding priorities to think of and the economic situation within the Eurozone leaves a lot to be desired. Europeans have to consider an unpleasant prospect of a trade war with the United States, they do not see eye to eye with Washington on relations with China and a potential clash with Trump about Ukraine can become insult to injury. For many European leaders (not only for Hungarian Viktor Orban or Slovakian Robert Fico, but also for Italian Giorgia Meloni and even for Emmanuele Macron, who tries to position himself as the natural EU leader), a choice between Brussels and Washington is something next to impossible, and the inability to make a clear choice will inevitably erode any attempts to pursue a consistent course in the direction of the EU “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

An opportunity for the Kremlin?

Dmitry Trenin:
Why 2025 is going to be more dangerous than you think

In any case, the apparent failure of Zelensky’s Journey to the West gives another boost to already rapidly changing US-Russian relations. The clumsy and disappointing performance of Vladimir Zelensky in the White House now allows the Russian side to impose all the responsibility for the continuation of the conflict on Kyiv, which is allegedly opposed to any plausible compromise settlement with Moscow. Be mindful, that during the meeting with the Ukrainian leader President Trump carefully avoided any statements that could be interpreted as derogatory or insulting to Vladimir Putin; the US President flatly declined all attempts of his Ukrainian counterpart to prove that Putin was not really interested in any peace settlement and was instead obsessed with the idea of completely destroying the Ukrainian statehood. Moreover, Trump underscored once again that, in his view, Putin is sincerely committed to ending the fratricidal conflict as soon as possible. The failure of Zelensky’s journey to the West might motivate the US President to put even more emphasis on his ongoing communications with the Russian leader.

It should also be noted that just on the eve of Zelensky’s trip to Washington, US ad Russia’s diplomats had an important meeting in Istanbul on restoring the nearly completely broken lines of diplomatic communications between the two nations. The meeting turned out to be quite productive, plans for new contacts have been set, and a US -Russian summit meeting to nail down the changing dynamics of bilateral relations is already looming on the horizon.

Still, it would be an overstatement to argue that there is a broad consensus in Russia on the desirability to relaunch a substantive dialogue with the United States. A large part of the expert community and Russia’s public is firmly convinced that Donald Trump, just as any other US leader, cannot and should not be trusted and that Russian-US relations are doomed to remain confrontational no matter what Administration stays in the White House. The anti-American sentiments fly high in Moscow and it is not going to be easy to change the prevailing public attitudes. In fact, international developments of recent weeks put under question the overall established Russia’s foreign policy narrative. Within this narrative, the so called “collective West” led by the “Anglo-Saxon” alliance presents and existential challenge to Russia and is firmly committed if not to completely destroy it, then to inflict a strategic defeat to it. Today, it turns out that the “Anglo-Saxon” alliance is crumbling, and the resilience of anti-Russian sentiments is much stronger on the East Coast of the Atlantic Ocean than on its West Coast. This shift has to be properly absorbed and digested in Russia.

In any case, the majority of Russia’s public is clearly tired with an endless confrontation between Moscow and Washington and they would welcome at least a modest relaxation of tensions, if not a fundamental reset of the bilateral relationship. There are also hopes that the United States is in a position to convince if not Volodymyr Zelensky personally, then the Ukrainian political establishment to take a more realistic approach to a peace settlement with Moscow.

What if the US abandons Europe?

The bad outcome of the Trump-Zelensky meeting in the White House may make the impatient and erratic US President less interested in trying to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in general. After all, Trump has already allegedly lost interest in previously broadly advertised “rare earths deal” with Kyiv. They were supposed to formally sign the deal at the meeting in the White House, but apparently Trump finally decided that it was not worth the effort. At some point, he can completely withdraw himself from the conflict in Europe letting it going on and on till one of the sides completely collapses. Instead, he might prefer to focus on Middle East, on relations with China or on strengthening the US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The US President wants to get fast returns on his political investments, and if the Russia-Ukraine conflict does not offer such returns, he can look for his “deals” elsewhere.

Would it be any easier to resolve the European crisis without the United States? Some in Russia argue that the less Washington is engaged in European affairs the better it is for the European security. However, one cannot take such an assumption for granted. A complete US withdrawal from Europe could have a profound negative impact on the overall European strategic stability—at least, in the immediate future, create many new security challenges and uncertainties and even raise the risks of a new world war. If the Transatlantic alliance were to fade away, everybody around should be interested in making its deconstruction as orderly and as smooth as possible.

First published in the Guancha.