Ukraine’s high-stakes Kursk gambit is unraveling in real time. Nearly seven months after its blitzkrieg military incursion in Russia that shocked many, Kyiv is staring at a crushing defeat and considering a complete withdrawal from Kursk after Russian forces broke through key defense lines and nearly 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers are facing encirclement by advancing Russian troops.
Incidentally, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is one of the key reasons for Ukraine’s imminent defeat in Kursk.
Zelenskyy’s public spat with US President Donald Trump at the Oval Office on February 28 led to a chain of events that ultimately led to the US suspending all military aid to Ukraine.
While military analysts believe that Ukraine has enough ammunition for high-intensity warfare for at least six more months, the withdrawal of intelligence from the US is hurting Kyiv the most.
This withdrawal of US intelligence is one of the key reasons for the Russian advance in the Kursk oblast.
On March 7, the Telegraph reported that 10,000 Ukrainian troops are at risk of encirclement after Russia broke through the front lines and advanced on a key supply line from two directions.
Russian forces advanced in Sudzha, 11 kilometres (about seven miles) inside of Russia, and crossed the border into Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast from the north on Friday. This effectively means that the remaining Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk are cut-off from their supply lines and facing complete encirclement by the Russian troops.
The remaining troops near the Russian border are connected by a corridor that is one kilometre long and less than 500 metres wide at its narrowest point. Moreover, this land corridor is now within the reach of Russian First-Person View (FPV) drones, further complicating Ukraine’s position.
Meanwhile, The New York Post and the Kyiv Post are reporting that Ukraine is seriously considering withdrawing its troops from Kursk to avoid a total massacre of its troops.
While Ukraine’s imminent defeat in Kursk is not surprising, the speed at which it is losing territory is unprecedented.
In January, the EurAsian Times reported that Ukraine had already lost nearly two-thirds of the territory it occupied in Kursk in its surprising August offensive. However, Kyiv hoped to maintain some of its position in Kursk at all costs as a potential bargaining chip during eventual peace talks.
One major factor in Ukraine’s rapid losses is the withdrawal of crucial US intelligence. By limiting surveillance, the US has allowed Russians to operate more freely. Ukrainian forces are no longer getting advance knowledge of Russian troops’ movements.
A military intelligence officer in Kyiv told The Telegraph that the freeze amounted to “more or less a total blackout”.
Ukrainian troops can no longer access crucial satellite data from private US companies. The US aerospace company Maxar Technologies was one of the main suppliers of commercial satellite images to Ukraine before the Trump administration told it to halt its Ukraine operations.
A source in President Zelensky’s office told Time that operations in the Kursk region have been most affected by the recent halt in intelligence sharing from the United States.
The costs of Zelenskyy’s public spat with Trump are becoming clear to Ukrainian troops. In fact, this meeting will go down in history as a textbook case of how not to do diplomacy, especially in critical times when your country is fighting an existential battle.
Trump-Zelensky Meeting: A Case Study For Diplomatic Disaster
Marked by confusion, contradictions, and apparent miscommunication, the event highlighted broader concerns about U.S. foreign policy, Ukraine’s ongoing struggle for support, and the personal dynamics of both leaders.
Background: A History Of Tense Relations
The Trump-Zelensky relationship has never been straightforward. From the infamous 2019 impeachment inquiry that stemmed from a call between the two leaders to ongoing questions about U.S. military aid to Ukraine, the relationship has been defined by political manoeuvring and controversy.
Trump’s scepticism regarding continued assistance to Ukraine and his past praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin further complicated the dynamic, making any public engagement between him and Zelensky a high-stakes affair. Zelensky, who has tirelessly lobbied for international support, entered the meeting seeking reassurances of continued U.S. backing. Conversely, Trump appeared less committed to a strong pro-Ukraine stance, leading to inevitable friction.
The Press Meeting: Breakdown Of The Fiasco
Opening Remarks and Immediate Tensions: The meeting began with a sense of unease. Zelensky, clearly aware of the political delicacy of the moment, attempted to emphasise the need for U.S. solidarity with Ukraine. He spoke about Ukraine’s resilience, the necessity of sustained military aid, and the importance of a united front against Russian aggression.
Trump, however, struck a different tone. Instead of affirming U.S. support unequivocally, he pivoted to grievances about past U.S. financial commitments, echoing his longstanding argument that European nations should bear more burden for Ukraine’s defense. He also made cryptic remarks about Ukraine’s leadership and the need for a negotiated settlement with Russia, which many interpreted as a sign of wavering commitment.
Contradictory Statements and Public Disagreements: As the meeting progressed, the contradictions between the two leaders became more evident. In response to a journalist’s question about military aid, Zelensky reaffirmed Ukraine’s urgent need for continued weapons shipments. Trump, however, avoided direct commitments, instead suggesting that if he were in office, he would have “ended the war in 24 hours,” a vague assertion he repeated without offering concrete details.
The starkest moment of discord came when a reporter pressed Trump on whether he believed Ukraine could win the war against Russia. Trump hesitated, then pivoted to criticising NATO and questioning whether Europe was doing enough. Zelensky, visibly frustrated, countered by stressing that Ukraine’s ability to win depended on consistent U.S. and allied support. The exchange underscored the growing gap between the two leaders’ worldviews.
Mixed Signals: Observers were quick to highlight the numerous diplomatic missteps throughout the meeting. Trump’s non-committal language and refusal to explicitly endorse continued U.S. military support for Ukraine was seen as a signal of uncertainty, leaving allies and adversaries speculating about future policy shifts.
While maintaining his composure, Zelensky’s increasingly direct responses indicated his dissatisfaction and frustration with Trump’s reluctance to take a firm stance. Trump’s critique of NATO contributions muddled the broader message further about Western unity, raising concerns among European allies.
Diplomacy At Its Worst
The Fragility of Diplomatic Engagements: The meeting’s abrupt shift from a planned minerals agreement to a contentious exchange underscores the delicate nature of diplomatic interactions. Despite prior negotiations, the inability to finalise the deal highlights how quickly diplomatic efforts can unravel when foundational trust and mutual respect are compromised.
The casual and often adversarial tone of Trump’s remarks toward Zelensky further exemplified a shift in diplomatic norms. Rather than projecting a united front, Trump’s statements highlighted internal divisions and personal grievances.
The Importance of Diplomatic Protocol and Respect: The public nature of the dispute, with President Trump accusing President Zelensky of ingratitude, deviated from traditional diplomatic decorum. Such breaches can strain bilateral relations and diminish the effectiveness of future diplomatic engagements, emphasising the need for maintaining professionalism and mutual respect in international affairs.
Despite attempts to project unity, Zelensky’s visible discomfort and Trump’s dismissive attitude toward concerns about quid pro quo revealed the limitations of public diplomacy when deeper tensions exist behind the scenes. The meeting failed to resolve underlying doubts about U.S.-Ukraine relations and instead amplified media scrutiny.
Mixing Domestic Politics With Foreign Relationships
The Influence of U.S. Domestic Politics on Foreign Relations: The press conference underscored how U.S. foreign policy, especially toward allies, is deeply entangled with internal political battles. President Trump’s confrontational stance, influenced by internal political dynamics, exemplifies how domestic agendas can shape foreign policy decisions.
Trump’s remarks about Ukraine and its supposed history of corruption tied directly into his impeachment inquiry, showing how personal political interests can shape international dealings. This incident illustrates foreign leaders’ challenges when navigating the complex landscape of U.S. internal politics, especially when partisan considerations overshadow international commitments.
The Influence of Personal Diplomacy on International Relations: The incident highlights how personal dynamics between leaders can profoundly impact bilateral relations. The personal grievances aired during the meeting suggest that individual personalities and interpersonal interactions play a critical role in shaping the course of international diplomacy.
The Precarious Position of U.S. Allies in a “Transactional” Foreign Policy: Trump’s “America First” approach was evident in his insistence that European nations should contribute more to Ukraine’s defense. This transactional nature of U.S. support made it clear that Ukraine (and similar allies) could not assume unconditional backing but had to navigate shifting expectations and potential political costs.
Domestic And International Reactions
U.S. Political Response: Reactions to the meeting in Washington were polarised. Trump’s Republican allies attempted to downplay the discord, with some arguing that Trump’s tough talk was aimed at pushing European nations to contribute more.
However, critics, especially from the Democratic Party and foreign policy experts, warned that Trump’s ambiguity could embolden Russia and undermine Ukraine’s war effort. Some within the party, particularly those who support continued aid to Ukraine, expressed concerns about how Trump’s remarks might be interpreted in Kyiv and Moscow.
Ukrainian Stance: Reactions in Ukraine were mixed but largely apprehensive. Ukrainian officials emphasised their appreciation for past U.S. support but privately expressed concerns about Trump’s unpredictable stance. Some Ukrainian commentators viewed the meeting as a missed opportunity to secure more substantial commitments from a key U.S. leader.
European Reactions: European leaders, meanwhile, were alarmed by Trump’s comments on NATO burden-sharing. French and German officials reiterated their commitment to Ukraine but privately worried that Trump’s rhetoric could further strain transatlantic relations.
Moscow, predictably, seized on Trump’s remarks as evidence of weakening Western resolve, with Russian state media amplifying his criticisms of NATO and U.S. financial commitments to Ukraine.
Implications For U.S.-Ukraine Relations
Impact on Ukraine’s War Effort: For Ukraine, clarity on long-term U.S. support remains critical. Trump’s lack of firm commitments in this meeting means Kyiv will likely intensify its outreach to Congress and other Western leaders to secure ongoing aid. If Trump or his allies push for a reduction in assistance, Ukraine may face more significant challenges in sustaining its military operations against Russia.
Geopolitical Ramifications: Beyond the U.S.-Ukraine dynamic, the meeting had broader implications for global diplomacy. It highlighted deepening divisions within the West over approaching the Ukraine conflict and signalled to adversaries that American foreign policy may remain unpredictable. This uncertainty could embolden Russia while complicating efforts to maintain a strong and united Western response.
Knock-On Effects
Power Dynamics in Asymmetrical Alliances: Zelensky’s cautious and deferential tone initially highlighted the challenges faced by smaller nations dependent on U.S. military and financial support. His attempt to downplay the controversy around Trump’s alleged pressure suggested an effort to maintain favor with Washington while avoiding deeper entanglement in U.S. domestic politics.
The Strategic Calculations of Smaller Nations: Ukraine’s predicament reflects the complex calculus smaller nations must perform when aligning with major powers. Balancing national interests against the expectations of powerful allies requires astute diplomacy, especially when those allies’ internal politics are in flux.
The Necessity for Allies to Diversify Support: Given the U.S. administration’s unpredictable stance, Ukraine’s subsequent outreach to European leaders signifies the importance of nations diversifying their alliances. Relying on a single ally, especially one with shifting foreign policy positions, can leave countries vulnerable, underscoring the need for a broad base of international support.
Conclusion
The Trump-Zelensky press meeting was a textbook example of how diplomatic engagements can go awry. The event showcased the growing uncertainty surrounding U.S.-Ukraine relations, from mixed messaging to visible tensions. For Ukraine, securing unwavering support remains a top priority, while for Trump, the meeting underscored his evolving and often ambiguous stance on foreign policy.
As the war in Ukraine continues, the need for clear, consistent, and unified diplomatic messaging has never been greater. Whether future engagements between the U.S. and Ukraine can avoid similar pitfalls remains an open question with high stakes for both nations and the wider international community.
- Air Marshal Anil Khosla is a former Vice Chief of Air Staff (VCAS) of the Indian Air Force and AOC in C of Eastern Air Command.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
- He tweets at: @AnilKhosla16
