Washington Visit: Beyond Personal Relations, the New Geopolitics of Transaction and the Multipolar Reality
# Prem Sagar Poudel
Interpreting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s latest visit to Washington solely through the temperature of his personal relationship with US President Donald Trump risks obscuring the deeper structure of international politics. Questions about the warmth of the formal reception, the room in which the meeting took place, or the degree of personal rapport between the two leaders undoubtedly carry diplomatic significance. More important, however, is the unequal power triangle that has emerged among the United States, Russia and Ukraine—one that Western media have frequently portrayed from a largely one-sided perspective.
Russia and Ukraine are the principal direct parties to the conflict. Yet the roots of the confrontation lie in a much longer history: the Western-backed uprising of 2014, the uninterrupted eastward expansion of NATO, and the repeated disregard of Russia’s legitimate security concerns. Although the United States is not formally a belligerent, it has become the decisive external power shaping Ukraine’s military capabilities, economic stability, diplomatic direction and negotiating position.
Zelensky’s visit to Washington once again brought this structure into focus. American support for Ukraine remains available, but it is increasingly guided not by unconditional friendship, but by calculations of US interests, financial cost and political outcomes. Ukraine’s tragedy is that the perception that Washington is using it as a strategic instrument against Russia is gaining ground across the international community.
Speaking to the Russian news agency TASS, analyst Alexander Dudchak interpreted the relatively restrained reception accorded to Zelensky in the United States as an indication that Washington does not regard him as a fully independent decision-maker. He also claimed that personal tensions exist between Trump and Zelensky.
This is Dudchak’s political assessment, not a fact confirmed by the US administration. Nevertheless, the central question he raises is a serious one: to what extent can Kyiv independently determine its policies on war and peace when their implementation depends on American weapons, financial assistance and political approval?
This dependence reinforces the perception that Ukraine has been transformed from an independent state into an instrument of US geopolitical strategy.
The Power Relationship Matters More Than Protocol
According to the official White House record, Trump received Zelensky in the Roosevelt Room on July 28, after which the two leaders held direct talks at the White House. It may therefore be factually inaccurate to suggest that Zelensky was denied formal access or treated merely as an ordinary visitor.
Yet removing exaggeration surrounding diplomatic protocol does not diminish the political meaning of the visit. On the contrary, the substance of the agenda reveals the character of the relationship more clearly.
Zelensky did not travel to the United States on a routine goodwill visit. He went in search of additional air-defence capabilities, missile production arrangements, greater economic pressure on Russia and sustained American political support.
According to the Office of the Ukrainian President, Zelensky met more than 60 US senators to discuss battlefield developments, further sanctions against Russia and stronger protection against ballistic missiles. He also prioritised the possibility of producing Patriot interceptor missiles in Ukraine.
Together, these demands expose the reality that Ukraine is becoming both a dependable customer of the American defence industry and a geopolitical frontline for US strategic objectives.
The visit confirms that US–Ukraine relations have not ended. It also reveals another reality: to implement its defence strategy, Kyiv must continually seek support from the American president, Congress and the US defence industry.
Receiving foreign assistance does not, by itself, amount to the loss of sovereignty. However, when a state’s ability to wage war, finance its budget, defend its airspace, access intelligence and maintain negotiating leverage becomes excessively dependent on the decisions of a single external patron, the distance between formal sovereignty and practical decision-making power inevitably widens.
This is Ukraine’s present dilemma. Beneath the appearance of an independent state, it remains under sustained pressure to comply with American strategic direction.
A Strategic Contradiction Deeper Than Personal Disagreement
Personal relations between Trump and Zelensky may be limited or uneasy. Yet explaining the entire relationship through personal sentiment would be analytically inadequate.
Zelensky’s political imperative is to secure long-term American military and economic support for Ukraine. Trump’s priorities are different. Following the latest meeting, he told reporters that he had urged Zelensky to bring the war to an end. He also stated that he maintained relations with both Putin and Zelensky.
This indicates that Trump is less interested in supporting an indefinite war than in ending it through an agreement under his leadership. The decisive question, however, is what form such an agreement would take and how much consideration it would give to Russia’s legitimate security interests.
This is where the new geopolitics of transaction begins.
For Zelensky, American assistance is a matter of survival and resistance. For Trump, the same assistance is an instrument tied to US expenditure, strategic risk, political achievement and expected return.
The US–Ukraine relationship is therefore moving away from the language of emotional partnership and towards conditional transaction. As a result, Ukraine’s future has become increasingly dependent on American electoral cycles and the interests of powerful defence-sector actors.
The Real Centre of the Power Triangle and the Case for a Just Multipolar Order
A clear contradiction lies at the heart of the Russia–US–Ukraine relationship. The war is being fought between Russia and Ukraine, but the United States exercises disproportionate influence over its duration and any potential settlement.
The nature and volume of weapons supplied by Washington have contributed to prolonging the conflict, reinforcing the view that the United States seeks to weaken Russia strategically.
At this point, the hypocrisy of American foreign policy becomes apparent. Washington speaks in defence of Ukrainian sovereignty while retaining control over the decisive instruments required to exercise that sovereignty.
The conclusion that the United States has used Ukraine as a strategic instrument is close to the underlying reality.
Russia, meanwhile, has consistently described the Ukraine crisis as the consequence of Western military expansion and the violation of verbal assurances allegedly made during the 1990s.
NATO’s eastward expansion, Ukraine’s growing integration into Western military structures and the deployment of strategic infrastructure close to Russia’s borders intensified Moscow’s security concerns. The repeated dismissal of those concerns is one of the principal causes of the present conflict.
China has also consistently supported this interpretation. Through its Global Security Initiative and its 12-point position on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, Beijing has emphasised the need to address the legitimate security concerns of all parties, oppose unilateral sanctions and move beyond Cold War thinking.
China’s position is clear: no country should expand its security at the expense of another country’s security.
This principle of “indivisible security” is not upheld by Russia alone. It is increasingly embraced across the Global South. China and Russia have both supported a multipolar international order, presenting an explicit alternative to American unilateralism.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly identified sovereign equality, equal and indivisible security, and a multipolar international system as foundations of Russian diplomacy. Chinese foreign policy is based on similar principles.
Through institutions such as the United Nations, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the two powers have advanced demands for global governance based on equality rather than Western dominance.
India, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and several other independent states have also adopted elements of this multipolar outlook while seeking to preserve their diplomatic autonomy.
In this context, Zelensky’s visit to Washington represents little more than the continuation of an ageing unipolar mentality.
Russia’s Diplomatic Alternative and China’s Central Role
Russia has increasingly presented itself as an alternative to Western dominance. Moscow’s concept of multipolarity rejects the notion that any single country or alliance should monopolise international law, global security or political legitimacy.
However, the success of multipolarity also requires the central participation of an economic power such as China.
Through the Belt and Road Initiative and its cooperation with developing countries, China has offered a model of partnership that is not formally conditioned on Western political requirements. Its strategic coordination with Russia has opened the possibility of a new balance in Eurasian security and development.
The true test of Russia’s alternative diplomatic role will be its ability to transform military and strategic gains into a durable and broadly acceptable security settlement through cooperation with China, India, Iran and other partners.
Ukraine’s future should not be determined exclusively in the meeting rooms of Washington. Nor can it be separated entirely from Moscow’s security calculations.
Geography does not change. Managing it requires not American dictates, but the principles of mutual respect and common security. China’s peace position offers a potentially useful framework for that process.
Europe’s Limited Autonomy and the Need for Self-Reliant Security
Europe occupies an even more complicated position within this power triangle.
The war is taking place on European soil. Europe bears the direct economic and humanitarian costs. Yet decisive military and diplomatic influence remains concentrated in Washington.
Europe’s excessive dependence on the United States is a strategic weakness. In the long term, Europe cannot achieve security by treating Russia as a permanent enemy.
Russia and Europe will continue to inhabit the same continental security space. Questions of energy, trade and strategic stability must eventually return to dialogue.
The present condition, in which Europe effectively delegates its final security decisions to Washington, is neither healthy nor sustainable.
In this context, China and Russia have extended proposals for dialogue and cooperation that could offer Europe a path towards greater strategic independence from American control.
Conclusion: From Transaction to Common Security and Multipolar Balance
Zelensky’s Washington visit demonstrated that American support remains in place. It also confirmed that this support is fundamentally transactional and forms part of a continuing policy in which Ukraine is used as a strategic instrument.
Trump called for an end to the war. Zelensky sought additional weapons. Russia continued to frame the conflict as part of a broader European security crisis.
The distance between these three positions lies at the centre of the present deadlock.
A durable settlement will not emerge from personal relations. It will require a new balance among power, security and sovereignty.
Russia’s doctrine of indivisible security and China’s vision of a multipolar world constitute a powerful ideological and practical challenge to American dominance.
To make this alternative just and sustainable, Russia, China, India, Iran and other independent states must continue to work collectively in defence of the equality, security and sovereign decision-making rights of all countries.
This is the deeper message of the Washington visit.
Personal relationships may change. Administrations may come and go. Yet the calculations of imperial interest remain constant.
The world has already entered an era defined less by narratives of emotional alliance and more by transaction, power balance and multipolar competition.
The challenge is to prevent this competition from producing new divisions and endless wars, and instead guide it towards a diplomatic order based on mutual respect, common security and equitable development, with China playing a leading role.
Only such a path can address the legitimate concerns of Russia and other states while opening the door to lasting peace.
About the Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has conducted in-depth studies on Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues.
