In the realm of international relations, the perceptions of political leaders, their actions, and the reactions they provoke play a crucial role in shaping global alliances and identities. President Donald Trump’s handling of international diplomacy, particularly his treatment of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky during a meeting in the White House, shows a vivid example of how alliances and international dynamics can shift based on the perceived consequences of actions. This incident underscores the fluidity of identity in international relations – how it is not fixed but is shaped by the interactions and decisions of global actors.
In that highly publicized meeting last week, President Trump snubbed Ukraine’s President Zelensky in the Oval Office, a diplomatic move that raised significant concern across the international community. While the incident may seem trivial at first glance, it symbolized a deeper shift in U.S.-Ukraine relations and reflected the broader currents of international politics under Trump’s leadership. This was not an isolated event; it points to how alliances are continuously reshaped based on perceptions of power, interests, and the consequences of prior actions.
The historical context of U.S.-Ukraine relations, particularly Ukraine’s role in countering Russian aggression, makes this encounter especially striking. Ukraine, caught in the crossfire of Russia’s expansionist ambitions, has long depended on U.S. support—particularly military aid—to bolster its defense and assert its sovereignty. Yet Trump’s apparent disregard for Zelensky during this high-profile meeting suggests a significant recalibration of the U.S. stance on Ukraine, which could reverberate throughout its broader international alliances.
In international relations theory, alliances are seen as stable constructs based on shared interests, values, and strategic goals. However, Trump’s actions highlight the fluidity of these alliances, showing that relationships between states evolve constantly, influenced by the actions and perceptions of the actors involved. His approach to Ukraine, in particular, reveals how shifting power dynamics can influence the nature of international relationships and reshape national identities.
For Trump, the calculus of international politics often centers on both the immediate and long-term consequences. His decision to snub Zelensky can be interpreted through the lens of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, which prioritizes U.S. national interests—sometimes at the expense of traditional alliances. This transactional approach to international relations focuses on short-term gains, with little regard for the lasting implications of engaging with certain global actors.
From Ukraine’s perspective, the snub signals a shift in how U.S. support for its territorial integrity is framed. Once a key player in the struggle against Russian imperialism, Ukraine now faces an uncertain future in its relationship with the U.S. Although Ukraine government stated that the ongoing mineral deal will continue ith the US, this shift could have broader consequences, not only for U.S.-Ukraine relations but also for how the international community, especially Western Eurpope, will perceive the US in this ongoing geopolitical struggle.
In international relations, the consequences of actions are not just about direct outcomes but also how they shape perceptions and identities. Trump’s snubbing of Zelensky sends another important and clear message to the international community that Ukraine and other US allies may no longer be priorities or at least not to the extent they once were. For U.S. allies in Europe, particularly NATO members, this act could raise questions about the reliability of U.S. support in times of crisis. And for the Middle East, who are already biting a piece of Trump’s Pie regarding resettling of Palestianians in Gaza, it is much more a suspense.
The incident could also impact Trump’s relationships with other global actors. Russia, which has long been wary of Ukraine’s alignment with Western powers, may interpret this as a sign that U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s defense is weakening. This perception could embolden Russia and alter its future actions in the region. Similarly, other Eastern European countries, which have relied on U.S. protection, might reconsider their strategies, potentially seeking new alliances or strengthening ties with the European Union.
Additionally, actions like this challenge the U.S.’ identity as a global leader and defender of democracy. If the U.S. begins to withdraw from its commitments to support democratic nations in distress, it risks eroding its standing in the international order. The long-term consequences of such a shift could fracture traditional alliances and further diminish the U.S.’ moral authority on the world stage.
Under Trump, the U.S. increasingly appears as a state willing to prioritize immediate national interests over long-established alliances and commitments. This transformation in perception has significant consequences for how other nations view the US. Ukraine, for instance, may no longer view the U.S. as a reliable partner, prompting it to explore alternative alliances in Europe or elsewhere even if that is very slim. Meanwhile, the U.S. has just started to redefine its global role, distancing itself from its traditional identity as the defender of democracy and international stability. The “promise” to seize Panama Canal and Greenland are on the card and are not merely rhetorics!
In the contemporary international politics, the actions of the US and the consequences of those actions are integral to the constant evolving international politics and state identities. This incident reveals how perceptions of power by powerful states leaders will continuously reshape global dynamics. This will remain crucial in determining the future course of international politics in the rest of the 21st century.
