By Fortune Madondo and Mafa Kwanisai Mafa
IN a dramatic departure from its steadfast
support of Ukraine over the past
three years, and in direct contradiction
to the key talking points of the previous
US administration, the US vetoed a UN
General Assembly (UNGA) resolution
condemning Russia for the invasion of
Ukraine.
This marked a significant break from
Washington’s earlier position and effectively
nullified the US-Ukraine Charter
on Strategic Partnership. This Charter
had previously outlined mutual commitments
to Ukraine’s territorial integrity
and sovereignty, as well as its integration
into Euro-Atlantic institutions, including
NATO and the EU.
US opposition to the resolution
The resolution that the US opposed
explicitly acknowledged Russia as the
aggressor in the ongoing war that began
in 2022.
Just months earlier, the US was leading
calls for UNGA members to reaffirm
their commitment to Ukraine’s “…sovereignty,
independence, unity and territorial
integrity”.
However, this stance has now drastically
changed, leaving Kyiv in a vulnerable
position. The move was met
with strong opposition from European
allies, with French President Emmanuel
Macron stating: “This is a betrayal of
democratic values and Ukraine’s right to
self-determination.”
The US-favoured resolution
Instead of supporting the European-
backed resolution condemning Russia,
the US introduced its own resolution
titled ‘The Path to Peace’. This resolution
strategically avoided assigning blame for
the war and instead called for an expedited
peace process between Russia and
Ukraine.
The shift aligned the US with Russia,
rejecting the EU’s position, which identified
Moscow as the aggressor. This was a
clear departure from Washington’s previous
commitments to Kyiv and NATO’s
eastern flank. The resolution also explicitly
stated that Ukraine’s NATO membership
was ‘off the table’.
This stark policy reversal saw both the
US and Russia opposing the European-
backed UNGA resolution, effectively
sidelining Ukraine’s territorial claims
and sovereignty. In effect, the US has
walked away from its earlier assurances,
leaving Ukraine to navigate an increasingly
uncertain geopolitical landscape.
The betrayal: Abandoning Ukraine
Many observers view this dramatic shift
in Washington’s approach as an outright
betrayal of Ukraine. A growing number
of analysts argue that it was not President
Donald Trump’s administration
that initially set Ukraine up for failure,
but rather, the Western powers that
encouraged Kyiv to fight Russia under
the illusion of guaranteed NATO and EU
membership.
By pushing Ukraine into a war it could
not win, they created false expectations
that are now being crushed by geopolitical
pragmatism.
The Washington Post noted that:
“Ukraine is learning the hard way that
promises from Western powers are not
guarantees.”
Backtracking: NATO’s changing
stance
On February 14 2025, NATO Secretary-
General Mark Rutte stated that
there was never a definitive guarantee
that Ukraine would join the alliance. This
contradicted his own previous remarks in
December 2024 when he assured President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine’s
“…path to membership is irreversible…”
and that it was “…closer to NATO than
ever.” The reversal in NATO’s stance
mirrors Washington’s new position, signaling
a broader Western backtrack on
earlier promises to Kyiv.
The new US line is clear: “Ukraine
cannot hope to restore total sovereignty
over its entire territory, and NATO membership
should be off the table to get the
talks going.”
This marks a stark departure from the
rhetoric of 2022 and 2023, when NATO
leaders spoke of an ‘open-door policy’ for
Ukraine.
Abandoning, but ‘not totally abandoning’
Ukraine
While the US administration has not
completely cut ties with Ukraine, the nature
of its support is shifting.
In line with Ukraine’s demands for
Western security guarantees, US Secretary
of Defence Pete Hegseth mentioned
the potential deployment of peacekeepers.
However, there is a major caveat:
peacekeepers from NATO countries
would not be covered by NATO’s Article
5, which mandates a joint response in the
event of an attack on any alliance member.
Furthermore, the US has explicitly
ruled out sending American peacekeepers.
For Kyiv, this falls far short of the security
guarantees it had hoped for. President
Zelenskyy has repeatedly stressed
that: “Western security guarantees are of
When it becomes fatal to be an
enemy of the US
little value without US involvement.”
Without American backing, Ukraine’s
position is significantly weakened.
A desperate Zelenskyy
Faced with diminishing support, Zelenskyy
has proposed that Ukraine’s military
form the core of a new European defence
force. However, EU leaders fear that such
a move would provoke direct confrontation
with Russia.
On February 23 2025, just a day before
the third anniversary of Russia’s
full-scale invasion, Zelenskyy stated
that he would be willing to step down
as president if it meant securing NATO
membership for Ukraine. This response
came after President Trump reportedly
labelled him a ‘dictator’.
Zelenskyy remarked: “It has never
been my dream to be president for a decade.
If my departure leads to peace for
Ukraine, so be it.”
The ultimate price: US prioritises economic
gains over Ukraine
As Ukraine faces increasing pressure to
negotiate, reports suggest that the Trump
administration is seeking economic
concessions in return for any continued
support. President Trump reportedly
stated that Ukraine should “…compensate
the US for past military aid”, citing
an inflated figure of US$350 billion — far
exceeding the estimated total military
aid provided, which is closer to US$175
billion.
In addition, Washington is allegedly
pursuing a new deal concerning
Ukraine’s critical raw minerals.
The US is said to be seeking control
over up to 50 percent of Ukraine’s mineral
and rare earth resources. These minerals
— such as neodymium, lanthanum,
cerium and europium — are essential for
high-tech industries, including defence,
telecommunications and renewable energy.
While Ukraine is estimated to possess
around 5 percent of the world’s critical
raw materials, a significant portion is
currently under Russian control.
The fatal cost of US friendship
Ukraine entered this war with assurances
from the US and its allies that it
would receive unwavering support for
its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
However, the grim reality is that these
promises were little more than political
expediency. With the US now pushing for
peace talks that effectively accept Russian
territorial gains, Ukraine is being
forced to make impossible concessions.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s costly alliance
with Washington has left it in a perilous
position. Not only has it lost vast swathes
of its territory, but its aspirations for
NATO and EU membership are now
fading into the distance. The war has
devastated Ukraine’s economy, displaced
millions, and led to enormous casualties.
And yet, despite all these sacrifices,
Ukraine finds itself abandoned at the
negotiating table, expected to settle for
a compromise that will forever alter its
sovereignty and future.
Henry Kissinger’s words have never
been more relevant: “To be an enemy of
the US is dangerous, but to be a friend of
the US is fatal.”
