Zelenskyy’s White House ‘Trap’ Sends a Dangerous Message to the World
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, March 2
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent controversial meeting at the White House has generated a plethora of images and quotes, not to mention conspiracy theories. This encounter sent a resounding message to the world, offering a stark lesson for those still bound by outdated perceptions of US President Donald Trump’s thinking, his value system, his understanding of political mechanisms, his definitions of enemies and allies, and his respect for institutions, traditions, and historical relationships.
What the cameras and microphones captured seemed more akin to a “trap” laid by the Trump administration for the Ukrainian leader than a sincere political dialogue between allies, irrespective of their size. Although Zelenskyy probably anticipated that today’s Washington is not the same as yesterday’s, I doubt he expected to face a firing squad as he did in reality.
It is well documented that most American commitments to Ukraine were solidified during the Democratic administrations since 2014, including the terms of Barack Obama (2009-2017) and Joe Biden (2021-2025), encompassing Trump’s initial term (2017-2021). What has been confirmed, whether during Trump’s years in office, through his campaign slogans, or his media statements, is that his mold is not only distinct from his Democratic predecessors but also from a significant portion of American presidents and leaders post-World War II in 1945.
Here, one might argue that Trump possesses an independent mind that enables him to think outside the box. Others might assert that times have changed, along with the concepts and political dangers, necessitating a new approach that liberates from the constraints of inherited alliances and considerations that have traditionally restricted presidential actions and limited maneuverability.
This reality has even recently reflected the coexistence of two “schools” of conservative thought that have increasingly influenced the Republican Party, at least since the early 20th century. The party has historically housed right-wing and center-right currents, as well as centrist and progressive elements.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
A retrospective glance at a few notable figures from the 20th and 21st centuries within the party’s ranks reveals hardline conservative right-wingers like Senator Robert Taft, Senator Joseph McCarthy, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Governor and President Ronald Reagan, and then Governor and President George W. Bush. These individuals rose to prominence in the Republican and American political arena before the Trump era, influenced by extremist phenomena such as McCarthyism, the clash with the East, and the moral majority representing evangelical Christianity, followed by neoconservatives, a coalition of the Christian religious right, the Jewish lobby, and the arms lobby.
Alongside these were the realist and center-right currents, exemplified by figures like President General Dwight Eisenhower, Presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, and political leaders like Thomas Dewey, Robert Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Prominent liberal and progressive centrists historically included President Theodore Roosevelt (considered leftist by today’s standards), and statesmen like Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Charles Percy, John Chafee (former secretary of the Navy), and James Jeffords.
The pluralism once evident within the Republican Party seems absent in Donald Trump’s second term. Indeed, the previously mentioned extremist elements, despite their fervor, appeared more adherent to democratic foundations, institutions, and traditions, guided by the principle of separation of powers and more accepting of coexistence with opposing views.
Despite their intensity, these movements were less prone to “deification” compared to the MAGA (Make America Great Again) phenomenon, which we’re seeing not only with the populist political base of President Trump. The MAGA movement, with Trump at its helm, disregards the separation of powers, the peaceful transition of power, and the independence of the judiciary, and refuses to acknowledge any election outcome unfavorable to its candidate. To achieve its goals, it did not hesitate to storm the Capitol building in Washington—the sacrosanct symbol of American democratic legitimacy.
Domestically, what remains of the New Deal, initiated in the 1930s following the Great Depression to provide a safety net for the American citizen, is currently being dismantled in cooperation with unelected billionaires. On the international front, all traditional prohibitions have been lifted; the erstwhile enemy has become a friend, the ally an irritating economic rival, and the territories of “neighbors” have turned into alluring, loose spaces open for annexation, occupation, and enforced acquisition, or regions from which undesirable inhabitants must be isolated behind walls of separation.
The entire political culture Washington inherited from the Cold War era has collapsed, with the notable exception of unwavering alignment with the ambitions of the Israeli far-right settler movement.
The distressing and profoundly detrimental signal sent by Washington, under Donald Trump, to the world, through the demeaning treatment of President Zelenskyy, signals that there is no longer peace of mind for Washington’s allies in the Far East and Western Europe, no vision for a stable and viable Middle East, no South Asia safe from nuclear calamities, and no South America free from the emergence of reckless populist regimes that fail to learn or be deterred.
Eyad Abu Shakra (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
