-
Michael J. Tyler
- March 1, 2025
The recent contentious meeting between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has reignited concerns about the United States’ global position and alliances. Once considered the unequivocal leader of the free world, the U.S. has shown signs of shifting its strategic stance, raising questions about whether it now aligns with authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Russia, and Belarus. While this assertion may seem extreme, examining recent developments in U.S. foreign policy reveals an increasing ambiguity in its commitment to democratic alliances.
The Historical Role of the United States as a Global Leader
Since the end of World War II, the United States has positioned itself as the vanguard of democratic values and global stability. Through institutions like NATO, the United Nations, and various international treaties, the U.S. has championed human rights, economic liberalism, and security against authoritarian expansion. The Cold War further solidified its status as the primary counterforce to the Soviet Union and its allies. Even in the post-Cold War era, the U.S. maintained this leadership role through interventions in conflicts where democracy was perceived to be under threat, as seen in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
However, recent years have witnessed a shift in this paradigm. Under the Trump administration, traditional alliances were frequently questioned, with NATO commitments scrutinised and relationships with leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un openly entertained. This ideological shift has raised concerns that the U.S. may be retreating from its historical leadership role in favour of a more isolationist or transactional foreign policy.
The Trump-Zelenskyy Meeting: A Tipping Point?
The meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy, rather than reinforcing U.S. support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, was marked by tension and controversy. Trump’s history of questioning military aid to Ukraine, coupled with his previous impeachment over pressuring Zelenskyy for political favours, has already cast doubt over his commitment to Kyiv. His recent remarks during the meeting, in which he appeared to downplay Ukraine’s struggle and entertain the possibility of disengagement, fuelled speculation about the U.S.’s future role in the conflict.
Meanwhile, reports suggest Trump has made comments suggesting he would not intervene if Russia attacked a NATO country that was not paying its ‘fair share’. Such statements fundamentally undermine NATO’s principle of collective defence under Article 5. If a future U.S. administration were to follow through on such rhetoric, it could fracture Western unity and embolden authoritarian states to test international boundaries.
U.S. Opposition to Ukraine Support in the United Nations
Further evidence of a shift in U.S. global positioning emerged with its recent vote against a United Nations resolution aimed at providing additional support to Ukraine. The resolution, which sought to bolster humanitarian and military assistance, was opposed by the United States, signalling a potential reluctance to continue standing firmly with Ukraine. This move was widely criticised by Western allies and interpreted by some as a concession to Russian interests. Such a decision reflects growing divisions within the U.S. political landscape regarding its commitment to Ukraine and broader democratic principles.
Alignment with Authoritarian States?
The notion that the U.S. has outright “switched sides” and now aligns with authoritarian regimes is a dramatic claim, yet there are indicators that Washington’s approach to such states has softened. Trump’s past admiration for leaders like Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and even Belarus’ Alexander Lukashenko suggests a shift towards a more pragmatic or even sympathetic stance toward autocratic governance.
While the Biden administration sought to restore the traditional democratic alliances fractured under Trump, the upcoming U.S. election could determine whether America returns to its post-war leadership role or continues its drift towards a more insular, unpredictable foreign policy. If Trump or a similar leader wins the presidency again, the West may have to recalibrate its security strategies without relying on U.S. support.
The Implications for Global Stability
A diminished U.S. role in the liberal world order could have profound consequences. The European Union, already increasing its defence capabilities, may need to develop a more independent security structure. NATO could face existential challenges if member states can no longer trust U.S. commitments. Additionally, authoritarian leaders in Russia, China, and North Korea could exploit this perceived weakness to expand their influence, whether through territorial aggression, cyber warfare, or economic coercion.
Conclusion
While it may be premature to declare that the U.S. has abandoned the free world and aligned with authoritarian regimes, its shifting approach to global leadership is undeniable. The tensions in Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy, his rhetoric regarding NATO, and his past engagements with autocrats suggest an ongoing recalibration of U.S. foreign policy. The recent U.S. vote against supporting Ukraine at the United Nations further underscores this uncertainty. The world is watching to see whether this shift is a temporary deviation or a permanent restructuring of global alliances. If the U.S. continues down a path of unpredictability and disengagement, traditional democratic allies may be forced to take up the mantle of leadership in the free world without America at the helm.
Michael J. Tyler
