Donald Trump’s relationship with Volodymyr Zelenskyy appears to have reached a breaking point, with the latest clash between the two presidents raising serious concerns about the future of U.S. support for Ukraine. As the New York Times points out in its analysis, the new crisis appears to be deeper than previous ones and threatens to deprive Kyiv of military capabilities that remain vital for countering the Russian invasion.

The U.S. president has never hidden his distrust of Zelenskyy or his willingness to engage with Vladimir Putin. However, despite occasional clashes with the White House, the Ukrainian president has so far managed to maintain a level of U.S. support, by participating in Washington’s peace initiatives and repeatedly expressing his gratitude to Trump for his “strong leadership.”

SEE ALSO: Trump “freezes” sanctions against Russia following agreement with Putin on diesel

This time, however, the situation appears to be different. With the U.S. midterm elections approaching, the two leaders are facing a crisis that, according to analysts, could have serious consequences for both Ukraine and U.S. foreign policy.

The week that pushed relations to the brink

For Kyiv, the past week has been a series of negative developments. Trump attributed the rise in diesel prices to Russia’s war against Ukraine, although energy experts believe the root cause lies in the war the United States launched against Iran.

Subsequently, the U.S. president moved to temporarily lift sanctions on Russian diesel sales in an attempt to curb fuel prices. According to an analysis by The New York Times, it is doubtful whether this move will achieve its economic goal, while at the same time offering Moscow a way out.

This was followed by the unilateral announcement of an “energy truce,” which Trump presented as an agreement to limit attacks on energy facilities.

According to the American newspaper, this initiative served Russia’s interests more than Ukraine’s. Trump even went so far as to call for the election of a new president in Ukraine, openly challenging Zelenskyy.

The Ukrainian president’s reaction this time was clearly more intense. Visibly enraged, he essentially accused his American counterpart of aligning with Russia, at a time when Russian attacks continue to kill Ukrainian civilians.

Defying Trump’s announcement of an energy ceasefire, Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would resume attacks on Russian refineries. When journalist Piers Morgan asked him if he believed his country was “losing” the United States, Zelenskyy replied with a single word: “Yes.”

For his part, Trump told Newsmax that “Zelenskyy is not a good person to work with.”

Restrictions on Starshield and the Ukrainian military’s concerns

The dispute took on even more serious dimensions when the Ukrainian military reported sudden and unexplained restrictions on the use of Starshield, the military version of the Starlink satellite system.
This network, operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is critical for communications on the front lines and for coordinating many military operations.

According to The New York Times, the restrictions affected the launch of unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as a range of other operational activities by Ukrainian forces.

Musk, who has maintained a relationship with Trump that has at times been close and at other times contentious, hinted that only the U.S. military and, ultimately, the U.S. president himself could limit the use of Starshield.

At the same time, he himself spoke out in favor of replacing Zelenskyy as president of Ukraine.
These developments sparked reactions in Washington as well, with a bipartisan group of U.S. senators calling for an investigation into the restrictions.

The possibility of losing access to critical satellite services is considered particularly dangerous for Kyiv, as it could significantly hinder the conduct of military operations.

Fears of a suspension of U.S. military aid

According to an analysis by The New York Times, the worst-case scenario for Ukraine would be a decision by Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense to suspend aid to the Ukrainian armed forces. Although Ukraine has significantly boosted its domestic defense production, it remains dependent on the United States in critical areas.

One of these is the provision of military intelligence that enables the timely detection of Russian missile attacks and supports Ukrainian operations against medium-range targets. Equally important is U.S. assistance in the area of military equipment, even when the weapons systems are purchased with funds from European allies.

Ukraine needs U.S. spare parts for its F-16 fighter jets, missiles that home in on enemy radars, and, most importantly, Patriot interceptor missiles. These systems are a key means of protecting Ukrainian cities against Russian ballistic missiles.

A suspension of this aid could weaken Ukrainian forces at a time when, according to the newspaper, they are making gains on the front lines. At the same time, it would leave cities that are under daily attack by missiles and drones more vulnerable, increasing the risk of civilian casualties.

“We’ll die because we won’t have time to reach the shelters.”
Oleksandr Katkov, a military analyst and editor-in-chief of a Ukrainian media outlet covering defense and technology, describes the importance of U.S. intelligence. “We will die because we won’t receive warnings about ballistic missile attacks,” he warns. As he explains, without timely notification, civilians will not have enough time to take shelter, while a potential shortage of Patriot missiles will deprive Ukraine of the ability to intercept attacks.

Niko Lange, a former official at the German Ministry of Defense and a contributor to the Munich Security Conference, expresses similar concerns. He points out that, although European countries provide Ukraine with some intelligence, they cannot fully replace U.S. early-warning capabilities.

This is particularly true for missile launches from ships in the Black Sea and for attacks with ballistic weapons.
If Ukraine loses both its early warning systems and its Patriot missiles, Russia will gain a much greater ability to strike targets without effective resistance.

The two attacks on Kyiv without early warning

According to The New York Times, an initial glimpse of the potential consequences emerged within that same week.
Ukrainian officials reported that they received no advance information from their allies about two waves of missile attacks against Kyiv on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The missiles reached their targets almost simultaneously with the activation of the air raid sirens.
Ukrainian authorities stated that they had not been informed by their “partners,” indirectly referring to the United States. However, it is unclear why there was no prior warning.

One possible explanation is that the attacks were carried out using S-400 missiles, which can travel relatively short distances at very high speeds, leaving little time for warning.

Moreover, Ukrainian officials reported that they were routinely briefed on other ballistic missile attacks.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding these specific incidents, their timing—coinciding with the restrictions on Starshield—has heightened concerns that military cooperation with the U.S. may be entering a new, more uncertain phase.

Ukraine has reduced its dependence, but cannot replace the U.S.

The New York Times notes that Ukraine’s current position differs from that of the war’s early years.

When Trump returned to power, he announced that the policy of isolating Russia had to end and revised key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

This was followed by his eventful meeting with Zelenskyy at the White House, during which the Ukrainian president was publicly rebuked for not wearing a suit and because, according to his American counterparts, he did not express enough gratitude for U.S. aid.

Zelenskyy subsequently managed to restore his relations with Washington, but U.S. policy had already changed. The United States stopped providing free weapons to Ukraine, now requiring Kyiv and its Western allies to pay for the supplies.

In the period that followed, Ukraine significantly developed its own defense industry, reducing its dependence on certain American weapons systems. This development gives Zelenskyy greater leeway to respond to Trump’s pressure. “Trump’s ability to exert pressure by cutting off military aid to Ukraine is now very limited,” argues Niko Lange.

As he explains, the perception still prevails that without U.S. aid, Ukraine will automatically lose the war; however, this assessment does not fully reflect current conditions. Nevertheless, there are critical areas in which U.S. assistance remains irreplaceable.

Concerns over the Patriots and the depletion of stockpiles

The possibility that the supply of Patriot interceptor missiles might cease is causing particular concern in Kyiv.
Solomiya Bobrovska, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Defense Committee and deputy head of the Ukrainian delegation to NATO, expresses concern that such a decision would have serious consequences for the country’s air defense. Global stockpiles of these missiles have decreased significantly, mainly due to the war in Iran, while Ukraine continues to receive a small number each month. Bobrovska points out that Kyiv and its allies must seek alternative solutions to limit future dependence on the United States. She makes it clear, however, that Ukraine has no intention of giving up its struggle.
““If you’re expecting to hear the words ‘peace’ and ‘capitulation’ from me, that’s not even an option,” he says.

Zelenskyy’s smile in Brussels that said it all

The extent of the mistrust between the two leaders was also captured in a telling moment from Zelenskyy’s press conference in Belgium on Friday. When a reporter asked him if he thought Trump was using him as a scapegoat for his own political problems, the Ukrainian president chose not to answer immediately. He smiled discreetly, paused for a long moment, and waited, prompting laughter in the room. He then approached the microphone and said, “That is my answer.” The moment, as noted by The New York Times, particularly highlighted the Ukrainian president’s exasperation, as this time he made no attempt to fully conceal his dissatisfaction with the U.S. stance.

“A situation in which everyone loses”

Where this standoff might lead remains uncertain. Balazs Jarabik, a former European Union diplomat in Kyiv and currently an analyst at R. Politik, believes that the conflict serves none of the parties involved. “It’s a lose-lose situation,” he notes, explaining that the development is negative for Trump, Zelenskyy, and the Europeans.

According to analysts, the continuation of the standoff could benefit Russia, as it would weaken cooperation between Ukraine and its Western allies. At the same time, a complete halt to U.S. military aid could prove politically damaging for Trump himself, who is already facing criticism from Republican Party officials over his stance toward Kyiv.

Harry Nedelku, a senior executive at the European consulting firm Rasmussen Global, believes that the period leading up to the U.S. midterm elections will be decisive. As he notes, Trump wants, on the one hand, to show American voters that he is trying to curb gas prices and, on the other hand, to counter the criticism he is facing from within his own party. From a geopolitical perspective, however, Nedelcu characterizes the U.S. stance as a “stab in the back” and “geopolitical betrayal.”

The conclusion of the New York Times analysis is that the crisis in relations between Trump and Zelensky has now gone beyond the level of a personal confrontation. The real issue at stake is whether Ukraine will continue to have the U.S. operational support it needs to counter Russian attacks.

And while Kyiv has gained greater military autonomy than in the past, the potential loss of critical intelligence, satellite services, and air defense missiles could have immediate consequences both on the battlefield and for the safety of millions of Ukrainian civilians.

Source: Proto Thema