I still can’t quite believe what I watched. The Oval Office meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy was less a diplomatic discussion and more a public spectacle that left me reeling. I never expected either Trump or Vance to be masterful statesmen—especially after Vance’s tone-deaf performance at the Munich Security Conference—but even with my expectations in check, this was something else entirely.

A Public Flogging Disguised as Diplomacy

The way Trump and Vance went after Zelenskyy wasn’t just a tough negotiation; it felt like a deliberate humiliation. Trump’s warning—“You’re gambling with World War III”—and Vance’s condescending remarks about American generosity weren’t about diplomacy. It was theater, a performance designed to send a message. But to whom? Was this about strong-arming Zelenskyy into a ceasefire? Was it a way to create a pretext for scaling back U.S. involvement? Or, more cynically, was it about appeasing Putin and giving him a symbolic victory? Perhaps it was something even more self-serving—an attempt to find a scapegoat for their own failure to extract any meaningful concessions from Putin. If they couldn’t bring him to the negotiating table, they could at least shift the blame onto Zelenskyy, portraying him as the obstacle to peace rather than admitting their own diplomatic shortcomings.

Zelenskyy, to his credit, didn’t back down. He pushed back against the idea of a ceasefire, pointing to Russia’s track record of breaking agreements—the 2014 and 2015 ceasefires, and, crucially, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Both the U.S. and Russia signed that agreement, committing to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and provide assistance if it became a victim of aggression. Had it not been for this promise, Ukraine would likely never have agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal—then the third largest in the world. Why, he seemed to ask, should Ukraine trust any new deal when even the most binding commitments have proven to be meaningless? It’s a fair question, one that Trump and Vance either ignored or dismissed outright.

The Dangerous Message to the World

This is where the real danger lies. The Budapest Memorandum was not a vague promise—it was a concrete security assurance, a document meant to uphold the principles of sovereignty and deterrence. By disregarding it so blatantly, the U.S. not only weakens Ukraine’s position but also sends a chilling message to other nations: security guarantees from Washington are conditional, political, and ultimately expendable. How can any ally, be it in Europe or Asia, trust American commitments when they have seen Ukraine’s experience? This erosion of trust is not just about one war; it’s about the very foundation of international alliances and deterrence strategies.

The global reaction has been telling. European leaders have rallied around Ukraine, reiterating their support. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the event has further cemented the political divide—Democrats calling it an embarrassment, some Republicans praising Trump’s ‘tough love’ approach. Ukrainian media framed it as a show of defiance by Zelenskyy, while Russian outlets predictably spun it as a sign of Western weakness and a win for Putin. The strategic implications of this moment are still unfolding, but one thing is clear: the fractures in the Western alliance are deepening, and those looking to exploit them—Russia, China, Iran—are paying close attention.

The Erosion of American Credibility

Which brings me to the bigger question: what does this moment say about the future of American power? Watching this unfold, I couldn’t shake the feeling that we were witnessing the fraying of Pax Americana in real-time. The United States used to project an image—whether accurate or not—of strategic leadership, of being the stabilizing force in global affairs. But does it still uphold its own ideals of freedom and democracy? With the recent executive order on 'Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,' raising concerns about the president’s potential influence over the FEC, can one even count on fair elections in the world’s oldest democracy—especially when Trump still insists the previous election was 'stolen' from him?

Trump clearly does not intend to uphold the Budapest Memorandum, as he openly threatens to withdraw support for Ukraine. With his administration’s historical threats of pulling out of NATO altogether, the question of U.S. reliability looms larger than ever. What we saw in that room wasn’t diplomacy; it was its complete absence. There was no effort to build consensus, no recognition of mutual interests—only pressure, posturing, and intimidation. It was an attempt to strong-arm an ally into submission rather than engage in meaningful dialogue. Trump and his entire administration continue to behave like schoolyard bullies, more driven by a thirst for power and self-validation than by any genuine commitment to international stability or principled leadership.

What Comes Next?

So, what now? Is this the beginning of a new era where the U.S. plays hardball with its allies while adversaries lie in wait, ready to exploit any weakness? Or is this just another chapter in the broader turbulence caused by the rise of populism worldwide? The U.S. is at a crossroads, and the decisions made in the coming months will shape its global reputation for decades to come. Will its allies stand by, hoping that institutional checks and balances hold? Or will they begin to hedge their bets, forging their own paths without counting on Washington’s leadership?

A few weeks back, an American colleague of mine confided that they felt guilty for the way their elected officials were acting. They knew they weren’t personally responsible, yet they couldn’t shake the shame of watching their country’s leadership erode its credibility on the world stage. And unfortunately, they will likely have to endure even more of these moments in the future, as the second Trump presidency has only just begun.

At the very least, they can take some comfort in the fact that the rest of the world can distinguish between Trump and the American people. Most rational observers understand that his administration does not reflect the will or character of every American. We can only hope that the U.S. finds its way back to its founding ideals, regaining its former glory and international standing. But as it stands right now, the country seems to be in a steady decline, one that feels more irreversible with each passing day.