Trump ups the pressure on Zelensky

US President Donald Trump has levelled new accusations against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying that the US has "given Ukraine a lot – they've given us nothing" and that Zelensky was "no real help" in the peace efforts. The Ukrainian President had complained about a lack of support from the US. The press wonders whose interests are being served with these comments.

Open/close all quotes
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (DE) /

Ukrainians facing even tougher times

Kyiv can no longer count on the US president for support, explains the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:

“Will Trump's strategic folly at least return to its usual level after election day? We can't count on it. Putin is still trying to tempt him with the big deal. Moreover, the Kremlin is offering the White House mediation services in the war in the Gulf, which is a thousand times more painful for Trump than Russia's war of aggression in Europe. This means even tougher times lie ahead for the Ukrainians.”

De Volkskrant (NL) /

Inner circle focused solely on own interests

Trump's deals always benefit the Trump clan, De Volkskrant criticises:

“Geopolitical consequences take a back seat to financial gain: diplomacy is driven by self-interest. ... The conflicts of interest and the self-enrichment of the clique surrounding the US President also define his regime. This is a hallmark of autocracies. ... The US is led by an unchecked clan that prioritises its own interests in every geopolitical crisis – from Venezuela to Ukraine. And yet its foreign policy is described as 'realistic'.”

La Repubblica (IT) /

The end of the West

Former EU Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni fears the worst in La Repubblica:

“Over the last ten days, Donald Trump first struck a deal with Putin on exports of Russian diesel, then called for Urkaine's attacks on Russian refineries to cease, and finally scrapped the new package of sanctions against Moscow passed by the US Senate. Desperate decisions. And pointless too, given that it was the war in the Gulf that triggered the surge in prices. But their pointlessness does not make them any less serious. Europeans find themselves confronted with a US President who presented himself as a 'neutral' party between the attacked and the attacker but now seems to have chosen to side with the attacker. And if Trump openly sides with Putin, what will remain of the West?”

Abbas Gallyamov (RU) /

US president overemotional

There may be subjective reasons behind Trump's behaviour, political scientist Abbas Gallyamov suggests on Facebook:

“Trump undoubtedly has rational motives. In particular, the desire to bring down fuel prices ahead of the midterm elections. But his constant quest to find yet another excuse for attacking Zelensky comes across as far too emotional. ... Trump needs to prove to himself that by acting against Ukraine's interests, he is doing the right thing. After all, acknowledging the legitimacy of Zelensky's actions would mean calling his own decisions into question. It's far easier to portray Zelensky as a bad person who only has himself to blame for what is happening now.”

Der Tagesspiegel (DE) /

Europeans must stand firm

Ukraine cannot simply ignore the pressure from Washington, argues Der Tagesspiegel:

“While it no longer receives direct financial aid from Washington, it remains dependent on the US for air defence, satellites and reconnaissance. Even before Trump's latest interference the Ukrainians were facing their harshest winter since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. Now it's likely to be even harsher. The Europeans must therefore stand firm, continue to support Ukraine and make it clear to Trump that this approach will not bring peace, but at best a Ukrainian defeat followed by civil war.”

The Sunday Times (GB) /

Hesitant Europe is the real problem

In the Sunday Times, columnist Matthew Syed counters the criticism of Donald Trump's deal with Vladimir Putin:

“I recognise that the diesel deal was designed to distract from his calamitous war in Iran. I know he doesn't give a fig about Ukraine, justice or sovereignty. But given his accurate conclusion that Europe will never give Ukraine what it takes to win, what's the point of one, two or four more years of a frozen front line, while thousands more Ukrainians perish (more Russian soldiers are dying each day than the UK lost over the entire Iraq war, not that Putin cares) when we will end up in much the same place?”