FWAMBA: America’s broken promise to Ukraine: Call for diplomatic accountability

On February 28, 2024, the world watched in shock as President Donald Trump, his team, President Volodymyr Zelensky, and his delegation met at the White House.

What was meant to be a diplomatic exchange to resolve the Russia- Ukraine war nearly erupted into a shouting match.

 The presence of Trump’s Vice President, J.D. Vance, further escalated tensions.

In a world increasingly defined by geopolitical volatility and shifting alliances, moments like these disrupt established norms and cast doubt on the credibility of world powers.

This meeting, instead of fostering hope for peace, exposed the faltering state of U.S. foreign policy and a profound disrespect toward Ukraine’s struggle.

The behavior of Trump and Vance highlighted a troubling disregard for the very principles America once held dear—democracy, territorial integrity, and the right to resist tyranny.

To understand the depth of this diplomatic failure, we must look at the origins of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

In the early 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited a significant portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, making it the third-largest nuclear power in the world, behind only the U.S. and Russia.

With over 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and long-range bombers, Ukraine had a substantial deterrent against any foreign aggression.

 Yet, in 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its entire nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees under the Budapest Memorandum, which included assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

However, the Budapest Memorandum was not a legally binding treaty but a diplomatic assurance—a promise that proved to be hollow.

When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the security guarantees from the U.S. and the U.K. were not enforced.

Ukraine, left vulnerable, became a victim of broken promises. Had Ukraine retained even a portion of its nuclear deterrent, it might have been in a far stronger position to resist Russian aggression.

This brings us to the meeting between Zelensky and Trump in 2025.

Ukraine’s sovereignty had once been shielded by the promises of the world’s largest powers, but those promises vanished when Russia acted with impunity.

Instead of recognizing Zelensky’s plight, Trump’s treatment of him—marked by condescension and indifference—was a clear departure from the diplomatic stance expected from the United States.

 In a time when Ukraine was embroiled in a brutal war, this meeting should have been an opportunity for the U.S. to reaffirm its support, both military and diplomatic.

Instead, Trump and Vance demanded a superficial deal involving Ukraine’s mineral resources—an effort that appeared to serve no purpose other than to extract concessions from a war-torn country. 

This exchange was not just a diplomatic failure; it was a direct affront to the principles the U.S. claims to defend.

U.S. foreign policy has historically championed the right of nations to defend themselves against aggression.

Yet, here was a moment when that principle was cast aside, leaving Ukraine to fend for itself without the full backing of its supposed allies.

This was not just an insult to Zelensky but to the millions of Ukrainians caught in the crossfire of a war they did not instigate.

This diplomatic shift does not occur in isolation. Trump’s foreign policy, both in his first term and now in his second, has repeatedly undermined key alliances and principles.

His reluctance to challenge Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression and his skepticism about NATO have eroded the very structures meant to maintain global stability.

Ukraine, once at the forefront of the struggle for sovereignty, now faces an uncertain future in the international order.

The implications of this diplomatic breakdown extend far beyond Ukraine.

If the U.S. can no longer be relied upon to support Ukraine, NATO’s credibility will be severely damaged.

 The global order—based on the idea that nations have the right to defend their sovereignty—will be undermined.

If America falters in its commitment to Ukraine, other autocratic regimes will take note, and the international community will face the consequences of a U.S. retreat from its traditional role as a defender of democracy and justice.

The world, particularly in the wake of Russia’s actions, needs a strong and principled America—one that stands firm for the values of democracy and sovereignty.

If the U.S. continues to turn its back on Ukraine, it risks empowering autocracies, destabilizing global institutions, and further eroding the credibility of international diplomatic agreements.

America owes Ukraine a diplomatic duty of care.

The promises made in the Budapest Memorandum were not mere gestures—they were vital to Ukraine’s security and its ability to defend itself against foreign aggression.

The failure to honor these promises has had devastating consequences, not just for Ukraine but for the global order.

The United States must reassess its responsibility, not just to Ukraine but to the world.

 If it continues to fail in this duty, the consequences will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders, reshaping the future of international diplomacy and stability for generations to come.

Fwamba NC Fwamba is the Chairman of the National Alternative Leadership Forum, Kenya