The Ruthless Geopolitics of Alliance in the Trump-Zelensky Clash

The clash between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, 2025 reveals 3 inconvenient truths about the ruthless geopolitics of alliance often ignored or downplayed in Western mainstream mass media. More importantly, this case study of the current Russia-Ukraine war under the "United West" narrative in this essay has a much broader theoretical implication, which is to illustrate the widespread geopolitical ruthlessness in global relations, as a cautionary tale for actors on the world stage in the future.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by The White House, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

US President Donald Trump Clashes with Volodymyr Zelensky

Inconvenient Truth #1: Small States Often Reluctantly Follow the Order of the Hegemon in an Alliance.

The first inconvenient truth is that, contrary to political correctness in Western mainstream mass media, small states in an alliance, more often than not, reluctantly follow the order of the hegemon in an alliance.

An illustrative example is the Trump-Zelensky clash in the White House on February 28, 2025, which reveals the precarious position of a small state like Ukraine, which, especially for those far-right nationalists in power, prefers to continue the war against Russia but faces the bullying stand of the hegemon like the U.S. under Trump to stop the war right away for a negotiated peace with Russia, because Trump wants to lure Russia away from the Sino-Russian "no-limits" friendship to focus on containing China as the rising superpower in the "Asian century." The rise of China as the dominant superpower was already predicted in my 1995 doctoral dissertation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or M. I.T., which was later published in 2 volumes titled "The Future of Human Civilization" in 1999, and as further elaborated in my 2007 book titled "Beyond the World of Titans, and the Remaking of World Order," which includes India as the coming rival with China as the 2 "hyper empires" on Earth in the third Cold War or "Cold War 3.0," with the U.S. and the EU as the "meso-empires" in the 2nd tier of this new world order.

Trump's order to Ukraine is blunt enough: "Stop the war now, or take the land back from Russia yourself (without out U.S. support)." Trump's subsequent "pause in U.S. military aid" to Ukraine (including "intelligence sharing") is to force Zelensky to clearly recognize that the message ("Act now, or face the consequences") is not a "bluff."

Zelensky was (and still is) of course unhappy (as he even went so far as to accuse Trump of living in a "disinformation space"), but the small country does not have the "cards," in Trump's word, because the EU does not have the financial and military means at the moment to back Ukraine for the "endless war," in spite of the bombastic warmongering rhetoric from leaders in Europe's "emergency summit on Ukraine" to rally behind Kyiv against Trump's suspension of military aid.

Out of desperation, on March 4, Zelensky sent a pleasing letter to Trump after the clash to confirm his "willingness now to sign a minerals deal without the security guarantees he is hoping for" and his readiness to work under Trump's "strong leadership" for a peace process with Russia (as reported in "Zelensky's Conciliatory Letter to Trump Suggests He's Out of Options" by James Waterhouse for the BBC on March 4, 2025). Then, on March 12, 2025, Zelensky accepted U.S. proposal for 30-day ceasefire, and Trump later reinstated military aid to Ukraine (but with new demands).

This is by no means an isolated case, as U.S. allies (like Netherlands, Taiwan, and South Korea) have been bullied in the past years by the U.S. to reluctantly restrict chip sales to China, since the U.S. chip war has hurt companies like ASML, TSMC, and SAMSUNG in the 3 small states, respectively. More recently, Trump bullied TSMC (on March 3, 2025) to invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S., UAE (on March 21, 2025) to commit to a 10-year $1.4 trillion investment in the U.S., and Hyundai (on March 24, 2025) to invest $21 billion in the U.S.; this bullying tactic led ex-President Ma Ying-Jeou of Taiwan to loudly criticize the U.S. under Trump for coercing TSMC into an exorbitant "protection fee."

It should therefore come with no surprise that even U.S. allies (like those in Europe) have increasingly sought for "strategic autonomy" from the hegemon (with France under Emmanuel Macron as a most recent vocal champion of this shift from U.S. dependency for Europe).

Inconvenient Truth #2: The Hegemon Often Rejects at Its Whim the Requests of Small States in an Alliance.

The second inconvenient truth is that, contrary to political correctness in Western mainstream mass media, the hegemon, more often than not, rejects at its whim the requests of small states in an alliance.

An illustrative example is the Trump-Zelensky clash in the White House on February 28, 2025, which reveals the rejection (by the U.S. under Trump) of Ukraine's wish (especially for those far-right nationalists) to "keep fighting" against Russia, as Trump insisted that "[y]ou're either going to make a deal or we're out…You don't have the cards right now."

In an alliance like this with the U.S. as the "hegemon" and Ukraine as the "pawn" in the proxy war against Russia, small states do not "call the shots," as it is the hegemon which is in charge and makes final decisions, at its whim, regardless of the displeasure of small states. This ruthless abandonment stands in sharp contrast to the well-known "We Are All Here" speech by Zelensky on the second day of Russia's invasion in 2022, when the West (under the leadership of the Biden administration) was so ready to rally behind Kyiv for its own self-interests at the time.

The reason is ruthless enough, because small states, as "pawns," are dispensable from the ruthless eyes of the hegemon, at its whim, since there are already plenty of historical precedents (evidences) over the past decades on the unreliability of a hegemon (like Gerard Ford's abandonment of South Vietnam in 1975, Jimmy Carter's switch of diplomatic recognition from its ally Taiwan to the Communist PRC in 1979, Ronald Reagan's abrupt abandonment of the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon in 1983, Bill Clinton's hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia in 1993, Barack Obama's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, Joe Biden's hasty Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021, and Donald Trump's abrupt pull-out of military aid from Ukraine in 2025). A hegemon is simply not a reliable partner when it uses small states as "pawns" in the larger board game of ruthless global geopolitics, as they are embraced when needed but abandoned when un-needed.

It should therefore come with no surprise that even U.S. allies (like those in Europe) have increasingly sought for "strategic autonomy" from the hegemon (with Ukraine as a most recent example of seeking alternative "diversified" support by the EU this time, after the Trump-Zelensky clash).

Inconvenient Truth #3: It Is Often Better for Small States Not to be (than to Be) in an Alliance.

The third inconvenient truth is that, contrary to political correctness in Western mainstream mass media, it is, more often than not, better for small states not to be (than to be) in an alliance with a power bloc against an opposing one in a tough neighborhood.

An illustrative example is the Trump-Zelensky clash in the White House on February 28, 2025, which reveals how much Ukraine has increasingly come under the control of the West, in the aftermath of the Western-backed far-right nationalist Maidan Revolution in 2014 to seek membership with the EU and NATO, while much of the country has been left in ruins (together with territorial losses) after all these years of fighting against Russia. Simply put, Ukraine does not have the "cards," in Trump's word, and is forced to do what is told (by the U.S.) in this alliance.

The utter destruction and territorial losses of Ukraine (by Russia) and its subsequent fall under the control (by the West) could be entirely avoidable and unnecessary, only if Ukraine showed more understanding of its geopolitical vulnerability in the face of being sandwiched between two power blocks (the Western-led vs. the Russia-led) and chose a more neutral stand vis-a-vis its powerful neighbors (so as to benefit from good relations with both).

But Zelensky, a former professional "comedian," choose the unwise (or "rookie") alternative (with the insistence from his far-right nationalist support base) of aligning with the West to fight Russia, with the "naïve" hope for pivoting to the West (away from Russia) without suffering from utter destruction (and territorial losses) and also without becoming a Western vassal in the process, as he had been carried away (until the clash with Trump) by the gullible narrative in line with U.S. and Western European officials (during the Biden administration) about the war against Russia as a "moral" and "strategic" imperative in the "Good vs. Evil" (or "Democracy vs. Autocracy") Manichaean struggle.

Unfortunately, the ruthless reality behind these euphemistic (propagandistic) slogans is that Trump now wants the exaggerated (or "unreasonable") amount of $500 billion dollars from Ukraine to pay for U.S. military aid with the "U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal" (which allows the U.S. to control mineral deposits in the small country), as it is not "free," in ruthless reality, to receive aid from the West as the "free world" (on paper). The "art of the deal" for Trump is in fact the "art of vassalisation" for Ukraine. The end of the war will leave Ukraine in ruins together with territorial losses (by Russia) and in vassalage (by the West, especially the U.S.), in spite of the euphemistic (propagandistic) "moral" and "strategic" imperative.

This is by no means an isolated case, as the U.S. (the hegemon) has also taken advantage of close allies (small or weak states), like Canada, Denmark, Panama, Mexico, and Colombia (in recent examples) to extort different concessions from them, with threats like making Canada become the "51ststate," annexing "Greenland" from Denmark, retaking the Panama Canal from Panama, carrying out military intervention inside Mexican border, and forcing deportation of migrants to Colombia.

It should therefore come with no surprise that even U.S. allies have increasingly sought for "strategic autonomy" from the hegemon (with Canada as a most recent example, when the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney now wants "less U.S. dependency," as reported by Reuters on March 11, 2025).

Conclusion: The Ruthless Geopolitics of Alliance in Global Relations

The Ukrainian novelist Andrey Kurkov, in a recent article titled "A Humiliation at the White House and What Does It Tell Us? Trump Would Make a Colony of My Country" (published on February 28, 2025), was not shy to warn that "a cold reality hit us in Washington. Zelensky was being forced to buy hope of survival by people who have no care for our freedom." This is precisely the existential predicament for a small country to align with one power bloc against an opposing power bloc in a tough neighborhood, instead of being neutral and benefiting from good relations with both.

As already predicted and warned at the outset of the war (in my 2022 article titled "Three Historical Lessons from 2022 Russia-Ukraine Crisis"), the paragraphs in the section on "A Weak Country Dealing with Rival Powers is Better off with Neutrality" were as much relevant then (in 2022) as now (in 2025): "[T]he pro-Western foreign policy after the 'Orange Revolution' in Ukraine in 2004 (especially under the current leadership of Volodymyr Zelensky) had worsened relations with Russia, resulting in the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022, allowing Russia to recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine -- with subsequent Russian military presence in Ukraine, as it is so now. The major blunder committed by…Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine now is the one-sided pro-Western foreign policy with an ambition to join NATO and the EU, without a reasonable sensibility towards the existential needs of Russia as the rival power (or power bloc) in the ruthless geopolitical competition between the U.S.-led alliance and the Russia-led one in the region."

The important point to remember, as I stressed in the 2022 article, is "not how to condone imperial domination but how to win (not to lose) in a geopolitical struggle for survival in a tough neighborhood. [This war]…could have been avoided, if a more sensible neutral foreign policy were taken by…Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine…, without favoring either power bloc (Western or Russian), while maximizing the benefits of being in good relations with both of them. This is the same 'neutral' strategy that some weak European states (like Switzerland…) had adopted (and still do), so as to play with rival power blocs without being either attacked by one side (which is rejected) or dominated by the other side (which absorbs them). Weak countries therefore face two existential dangers if they naively choose a non-neutral, one-sided foreign policy when dealing with rival powers (or power blocs), as they risk being attacked by the major power which they reject, on one side, or being dominated by the other major power which they join, on the other side. Weak countries, if naively behaving in a tough neighborhood like this, risk living a more unstable and dangerous life, much to their regret later in a historical (cool-headed) retrospect."

Ironically, it is the former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who once frankly wrote: "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." The Russia-Ukraine war would have been avoided (and unnecessary) if Zelensky had heeded this advice. But now the war has already broken out, with Ukraine facing utter destruction and territorial losses (by Russia on one side) and vassalisation (by the West on the other side). The ruthless geopolitics of alliance is therefore not for the faint of heart. What a sad ending it is then for a small state like Ukraine choosing to be (rather than not to be) in an alliance with a power bloc against an opposing one in a tough neighborhood! Thus is a cautionary tale for actors on the world stage in the future.

---------------------

About the author:

Dr. Peter Baofu is an American visionary and author of 180 scholarly books and numerous articles (as of July, 2023) to provide 150 visions (theories) of the human future in relation to the mind, nature, society, and culture -- and had been in 158 countries around the world (as of April, 2025) for his global research on humanity, besides knowing 10 languages with different degrees of fluency. His books are listed in top university libraries and national libraries around the world (including the Library of Congress in Washington, D. C.). He was interviewed on television and radio as well as by newspapers around the world about his original ideas and visions of the human future (search for "Peter Baofu" on YouTube, or go directly to his official YouTube (podcast) channel <https://www.youtube.com/@Dr.PeterBaofuOfficial>). He was a U.S. Fulbright Scholar in the Far East and had taught as a professor at different universities in Western Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Asia, South Asia, North America, and Southeast Asia. He received more than 5 academic degrees, including a Ph. D. from the world-renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), was a summa cum laude graduate, and was awarded the Delta Sigma Pi Scholarship Key for being at the top of the class in the College of Business Administration, with another student.