'Dictator': How Trump Clashed with Zelensky for Putin

In a sudden shift, U.S. President Donald Trump launched an unprecedented attack on his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, taking a stance that diverges sharply from Washington’s long-standing support for Kyiv with financial and military aid in its war against Moscow.

Trump’s harsh criticism of Zelensky has raised questions about the potential consequences of a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, once one of its staunchest allies against Russia. Could Trump's pressure tactics against Zelensky succeed in ending the war?

A Fierce Attack

In two heated statements on February 19, 2025, Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian president, calling him a “dictator without elections,” warning that he must act swiftly to secure peace or risk losing his country.

Trump, a former reality TV star, also attacked the Ukrainian leader personally on social media.

“Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start,” Trump wrote.

The U.S. president continued by insinuating that Zelenskyy had ulterior motives for wanting Ukraine to continue fighting for its territory.

“Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the ‘gravy train’ going,” Trump said, using an idiom that suggests Ukraine is taking advantage of U.S. funds.

He accused the Ukrainian leader of refusing to hold elections, having low approval ratings in Ukraine, and being skilled only in manipulating President Joe Biden.

Trump escalated his rhetoric against the Ukrainian President during a speech in Miami, branding him a “dictator” while touting his own efforts to negotiate a peace deal with Russia.

“A dictator without elections. Zelenskyy better move fast, or he won’t have a country left. Gotta move. Gotta move fast because that war is heading in the wrong direction,” Trump declared at the Future Investment Initiative (FII) Institute summit.

“In the meantime, we’re successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia—something, I’ll admit, that only Trump and the Trump administration can do. Even Putin has acknowledged that,” he added.

Trump also criticized Kyiv for treating U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent with disrespect during his first visit to Ukraine. He accused Ukraine of stalling an agreement that would grant the U.S. access to rare earth minerals in exchange for financial and military aid.

According to Trump, Ukrainian officials told Bessent that Zelensky was asleep and unavailable to meet him, despite the Treasury Secretary’s long and dangerous train journey to Kyiv to finalize the agreement—only to return empty-handed.

Earlier that same day, Trump had called Zelensky an utterly incompetent leader who makes ridiculous statements and whose decisions have prolonged the war. He insisted that calls for elections in Ukraine were not a demand from Russia, but from himself and many other nations.

Trump’s remarks came after Zelensky accused him of falling into a “space of misinformation,” expressing hope that his team would gain a clearer understanding of what he called the truth about Ukraine.

Since February 24, 2022, Russia has been waging a military offensive against Ukraine, demanding that Kyiv abandon its aspirations to join Western military alliances—a condition Ukraine sees as an infringement on its sovereignty.

Political Torment

Regarding the consequences of the U.S. shift, British writer Nick Paton Walsh argued in a February 20 article for CNN that Trump’s remarks about Zelensky’s low popularity closely align with Kremlin rhetoric.

“This is pretty close to Kremlin talking points. Moscow has been at pains to incorrectly suggest Ukraine’s imminent joining of NATO was behind its unprovoked attack in 2022, and that Zelensky is illegitimate as Ukraine has not undertaken the immense challenge of running elections in wartime,” Walsh wrote.

“The existential dilemma now for Ukraine is whether it even has the luxury of choice between its wartime president and its main military backer, the United States. Is enough left intact of either?”

The writer pointed out that Zelensky is now the target of scathing remarks from the world’s most powerful man, who repeatedly echoes Kremlin talking points from an unclear source—reshaping the course of the largest war in Europe since the 1940s.

He warned that Ukraine’s survival is at genuine risk if Trump’s administration cuts financial support. He noted that Trump’s claims about missing U.S. funds sent to Kyiv are part of a narrative aimed at justifying aid reductions to the American public.

Responding to Trump’s demand for Ukrainian elections, Walsh explained that they were suspended due to the war and the imposition of martial law. A ceasefire, also proposed by Trump’s team, could allow elections by enabling soldiers to vote.

“What if a Russian drone assault or missiles derail the voting day? Everything could go wrong and almost certainly will.” 

“The result would irrevocably be shrouded in doubt, further damaging the mandate Zelensky is falsely accused of lacking, or empowering an alternative who would also lack full legitimacy,” Walsh warned.

Such a scenario would fuel chaos on the front lines, in Kyiv, and among Ukrainians across Europe—precisely what the Kremlin seeks: political torment to add to Kyiv’s battlefield struggles.

Walsh concluded that Trump's unpredictable motives make it difficult to foresee his next move. “You cannot undermine a wartime leader and not expect his troops to also falter on the front lines.”

“Only one strategic interest has been served by Trump’s radical rewriting of the global order in the past fortnight. And it is that of the one adversary NATO was founded to confront.”

A Strong Blow

The crisis between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents has sparked widespread discussion in Western media. The New York Times reported on February 20 that the exchange of sharp statements is igniting a hidden conflict between Trump and Zelensky, which could deal a strong blow to Ukrainian authorities.

Similarly, The Washington Post noted in a February 20 report that the sudden shift in U.S. policy towards Russia, and the retreat from unwavering support for Ukraine after three years, could lead to the largest geopolitical reshuffling since World War II.

“Mr Trump appears to want to get rid of Mr Zelensky, whom he has never liked and who he thinks is difficult,” a former diplomat told The Economist. “This is not about elections, it’s about getting rid of Zelensky.”

On February 19, Kyiv Post published an article by Mohammad Zahoor, asking a broad question: “Has the U.S. betrayed Ukraine? A Harsh Reality of Geopolitics.”

Zahoor's article highlighted the shift in U.S. stance towards the war in Ukraine as it enters its third year, recalling Washington’s previous support for Ukraine militarily, financially, and diplomatically. He said the dramatic change in U.S. policy indicates that Ukraine may have been left hanging.

Zahoor examined the stark contrast in U.S. policy, “from encouraging Ukraine to fight in the early days to now pressing for negotiations with Russia,” and questioned: “Is Washington “selling Ukraine down the river?”

The U.S. has left Ukraine in a weaker position in the war, with a slowdown in the flow of American aid and a shift in Western focus towards the Middle East, leaving Ukraine unable to mount a successful counteroffensive.

Zahoor attributed these political shifts to Trump's second-term victory, stating that his return to the White House signals a sudden U.S. withdrawal, leaving Ukraine to negotiate “from a position of weakness.”

The writer discussed the pressure Ukraine might face from the United States regarding negotiations with Russia, which could force Ukraine to concede territory and its mineral wealth.

The United States is asking Ukraine “to pay back the military aid it received—to the tune of $500 billion—in the form of its vast reserves of rare earth metals and critical minerals. These minerals are crucial for global industries, including defense, technology, and green energy.”

“This raises disturbing questions: If Ukraine is being pressured to surrender territory, why should it also pay for the war effort? The US is treating Ukraine as a colony rather than a sovereign partner.”

The writer compared these demands to an “economic warfare,” where the weaker state is forced to trade its resources “for protection.”

Zahoor criticized U.S. involvement in Ukrainian affairs if these demands prove true.

“This would fundamentally change the moral justification for U.S. involvement in Ukraine, shifting it from ‘defending democracy’ to economic opportunism.”

The writer outlined the “consequences” that would follow a “settlement of the war,” stating that Ukraine would lose large portions of its land, its economy would weaken, and the credibility of the West would be destroyed.

On February 18, Russian-American talks concluded in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, at the Royal Diriyah Palace, a traditional venue for welcoming official delegations and foreign guests. Notably, the Ukrainian side, a key party in the ongoing war, was absent.

The Russian delegation was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, President's Assistant Yuri Ushakov, and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev.

The U.S. side was represented by White House National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

Ushakov, in a press statement, indicated that the subject of the talks was to agree on how to begin negotiations on Ukraine.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that Washington seeks a permanent end to the Ukrainian conflict, not a temporary halt.

“This needs to be a permanent end to the war and not a temporary end, as we’ve seen in the past,” said Rubio In a press conference after the Riyadh talks.

“We know just the practical reality is that there is going to be some discussion of territory and there is going to be a discussion of security guarantees. Those are just fundamental basics that will undergird and underlie any type of discussion.”

“In order to bring an end to any conflict there has to be concessions made by all sides,” he added.