Opinion: Trump, Zelensky, and the new world disorder

The recent public confrontation between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not just a diplomatic disagreement—it was a blunt preview of a changing global order, one where alliances are no longer rooted in shared values or historical ties, but recalibrated on the basis of cost, leverage, and transactional necessity.

In plain terms, Trump’s message to Zelensky was clear: “Make peace with Russia now, or lose America’s backing.” The bluntness was intentional, cutting through the careful language of traditional diplomacy to deliver a simple point—U.S. support is no longer guaranteed and is no longer tied to defending democracy or preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty. Instead, Ukraine’s survival is now a matter of how far it is willing to bend to satisfy America’s cost-benefit calculations.

Zelensky, himself no stranger to hard choices, responded with equal clarity. He made it known that Ukraine cannot and will not accept a ceasefire or peace deal dictated by outside powers, especially not one that leaves Russian troops occupying sovereign Ukrainian territory. For Ukraine, such a truce would be nothing more than a strategic pause for Russia—a moment to regroup, rearm, and resume its ambitions at a later time. To Zelensky, any peace without firm guarantees from the West and legally binding security arrangements is simply a prelude to the next war.

Read also: US says close to cease fire deal in Ukraine as Zelenski backs proposal

This exchange exposed a deeper truth that should concern not just Ukrainians, but policymakers, diplomats, and world leaders everywhere: the foundational principles that have shaped international relations for the past 75 years — collective security, the sanctity of borders, and the defense of democracies against aggression — are being steadily replaced by a rawer, narrower logic. In this emerging world, national interests are defined not by long-term stability or moral leadership, but by short-term calculations of cost, pressure, and deal-making.

For the diplomatic community, Trump’s posture signals a return to diplomacy stripped of ideals—a world where agreements are made between strongmen, regional powers, and economic blocs, rather than alliances built on history, trust, and common purpose. For policy analysts, the message is clear: U.S. foreign policy under Trump is transactional, unpredictable, and largely indifferent to the fate of smaller nations caught between competing spheres of influence.

“This exchange exposed a deeper truth that should concern not just Ukrainians, but policymakers, diplomats, and world leaders everywhere…”

For national leaders—particularly those in Europe, Asia, and Africa—the implications are even sharper. The guarantee of U.S. protection, once the bedrock of global security arrangements, is now conditional. Nations that have long relied on American security commitments, whether in Eastern Europe, the Pacific, or the Middle East, will need to rethink their strategies—diversifying alliances, accelerating arms races, or preparing for a world where survival depends not on treaties but on their own economic and military strength.

For the general public, including citizens of democracies and autocracies alike, this shift marks the end of the belief that the world’s most powerful nations will intervene to defend human rights, democratic principles, or even the survival of smaller states. In this new world order, humanitarian appeals, legal arguments, and moral claims carry far less weight than raw strategic interests—and those interests are increasingly dictated by a handful of power centres willing to rewrite the rules of engagement whenever it suits them.

Russia, unsurprisingly, stands to gain the most from this shift. If Trump’s approach forces Ukraine to negotiate a settlement that cements Russian territorial gains, it will validate Moscow’s core strategy—that aggression, if sustained long enough, ultimately pays off. It would teach not only Russia but also other would-be aggressors that international law is only as strong as the political will to enforce it. And if the United States, once the chief enforcer, is no longer interested in that role, the lesson will be quickly absorbed from Eastern Europe to the South China Sea.

China is watching, too, and adapting. Beijing does not need Trump to openly side with Moscow to benefit from his approach. All China needs is for the U.S. to become unreliable, inward-looking, and unpredictable. That vacuum—the absence of clear, consistent American leadership—allows China to quietly position itself as the more stable alternative power. Beijing’s growing influence in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia is built precisely on this narrative: that China offers economic partnership and conflict mediation without the ideological strings that Western democracies attach to aid and diplomacy.

What Trump’s and Zelensky’s confrontation ultimately revealed is not just the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations—it exposed the accelerating unravelling of the post-World War II diplomatic architecture itself. The familiar structure, where the U.S. led alliances rooted in both power and principle, is giving way to a far less stable world where each nation is forced to calculate its own survival on the shifting sands of personal deals, regional power plays, and unpredictable great power manoeuvring.

This is not just a shift in policy; it is a redefinition of what global diplomacy means. In this new reality, countries will not be able to rely on history, moral arguments, or even legal frameworks to protect them. Survival will depend on agility—on how well nations can build flexible alliances, negotiate their own deals, and deter aggression without assuming anyone will come to their rescue.

For Ukraine, this is a terrifying prospect. For Europe, it is a call to arms—the long-delayed push for independent European defence structures can no longer wait. For smaller nations across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, it is both a warning and an opportunity—a signal that they must either find new patrons, hedge their alliances, or carve out new roles as brokers between great powers who no longer see them as anything more than bargaining chips.

Read also: Strategic silence of Nigeria in the Russia-Ukraine war

The clash between Trump and Zelensky was not just about Ukraine’s war. It was a glimpse into the future of global power—where strength, not law, dictates outcomes, and where survival belongs to those who can cut the best deal, not those who rely on old promises.

Oluyemi Ibiloye, CPO, MSPSP is the Commandant of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Ondo State, with extensive experience in security management, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution. He has served in key roles, including Technical Adviser to two Ministers of Interior. Internationally trained at institutions such as the Singapore Aviation Academy and Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, Commandant Ibiloye is a committed advocate for global peace.