Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico recently shed light on what he perceives as a profound anxiety gripping Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky: the possibility that Washington may stop supporting Ukraine should Donald Trump win a second term. Speaking to Radio Slovensko on November 9, Fico described Zelensky as appearing “visibly shaken” at the recent EU summit in Budapest, expressing serious concern over the likelihood of reduced military and financial assistance from the United States if Trump takes office again.

According to Fico, Zelensky’s reaction at the EU summit reflected a fear that Trump’s re-election could mean a dramatic shift in the US stance on Ukraine. “Have you ever seen a person who is afraid that the war will end?” Fico remarked, adding, “I saw him, and his name is Vladimir Zelensky.” The Slovak leader went on to suggest that Zelensky, accustomed to Washington’s steady support, was “shocked that Trump won and that there could be a halt to aid from the United States.”

Since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in early 2022, the US has been one of Kyiv’s largest financial backers, providing billions in military, humanitarian, and economic aid. However, Trump’s long-standing “America First” philosophy suggests a potential shift away from military entanglements and overseas spending. His repeated statements promising to end the conflict in Ukraine “within 24 hours” – though vague on specifics – underscore a distinct departure from Washington’s established pro-Ukraine policy.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump has questioned the United States’ extensive involvement in foreign conflicts, including Ukraine, and has often voiced a preference for resolving international issues through economic sanctions and tariffs rather than direct military intervention. Fico highlighted this difference, noting that Trump’s business acumen and historical preference for “deals over wars” could likely translate into new policies that would prioritize US interests while pulling back on overseas financial commitments.

Fico elaborated, “He is someone who simply doesn’t like wars as such.” He suggested that if Trump were to take office, the former president might adopt a strategy that emphasizes diplomatic or economic measures, potentially pressuring Ukraine and Russia into negotiations rather than funding a protracted conflict. These “decisive steps,” according to Fico, could fundamentally alter the landscape of the war and the West’s involvement in it.

As the prospect of a Trump administration casts uncertainty over Washington’s role in the conflict, European Union leaders have begun contemplating their own capacity to support Ukraine independently. In Budapest, EU leaders reportedly discussed whether the bloc could continue funding Kyiv’s military if Trump scales back US involvement. According to Bloomberg, while financial concerns are pressing, EU leaders are equally worried about the scarcity of military resources, much of which has been provided by the US.

European leaders face a difficult dilemma: while supporting Ukraine aligns with their geopolitical interests, the EU is not structured to shoulder the full economic and logistical burden of sustaining Ukraine’s resistance against Russia. Prime Minister Fico addressed this, questioning whether the EU was truly prepared to “assume all the costs of the war in Ukraine” and noting that Europe’s original mission was as a “peace project.”

Fico’s comments underscore a growing concern within parts of the EU regarding the bloc’s involvement in the conflict. He suggested that an unwavering focus on supporting Ukraine militarily may no longer be feasible, urging the EU to consider shifting toward diplomacy and negotiation.

As he confronts the potential loss of American support, Zelensky has been exploring alternative funding sources, including the possibility of using frozen Russian sovereign assets held in European countries. During the Budapest summit, Zelensky demanded approximately $300 billion in Russian assets frozen by Western governments, claiming that these funds “rightfully belong” to Ukraine to cover the ongoing costs of its defense. This proposition, however, remains controversial, as some EU members worry about the legal and diplomatic ramifications of reallocating frozen assets from Russian state accounts.

Zelensky has insisted that the question of how and when to end the war should be decided by Kyiv, signaling his determination to continue the fight on Ukraine’s terms rather than bending to external pressures. “Only Kiev should decide what should and should not be on the agenda for ending this war,” Zelensky asserted at the summit, underscoring his insistence on Ukrainian sovereignty over peace negotiations.

Fico’s remarks not only highlight Zelensky’s apprehensions but also shed light on a wider debate unfolding among Western nations regarding their collective approach to Ukraine. With the possibility of a Trump administration scaling back or halting US aid, European leaders face a strategic crossroads. Fico questioned the West’s reliance on continued arms shipments to Ukraine as a viable solution, criticizing the assumption that Russia can be weakened or subdued through military support alone.

“There is still an opinion that if we keep supporting Ukraine, we will bring Russia to its knees, but that does not work,” Fico argued, urging EU leaders to rethink this logic. This view represents a cautious realism, as Fico calls into question the sustainability of the current Western approach and the EU’s long-term interests.

Fico’s perspective is not isolated. Within the EU, a growing chorus of voices advocates for a more balanced approach that would avoid escalating tensions and return Europe to its foundational principles as a peace-oriented coalition. Some argue that protracted military engagement, particularly without the substantial support of the US, could lead to a deadlock that benefits neither side and risks further destabilizing Europe’s eastern frontier.

Zelensky’s reaction to Trump’s potential re-election illustrates the precarious nature of Ukraine’s reliance on Western support. With Trump advocating for a swift end to the conflict, potentially through non-military means, Zelensky finds himself in a vulnerable position, dependent on allies whose priorities may soon shift. The likelihood of diminished US aid under Trump’s leadership has also compelled European leaders to reassess the EU’s capabilities and goals, potentially steering them toward peace negotiations as an alternative to continued military aid.

As the world watches the US election unfold, Ukraine’s path forward remains uncertain. The possibility of a shift in Washington’s policy underscores the need for Kyiv and its allies to prepare for a world in which the current levels of support may not be guaranteed. Should Trump assume office and cut or reduce aid, the EU may need to assume a larger role or push for a diplomatic solution to resolve the conflict.

For Zelensky, the stakes are higher than ever. Without the steady flow of American funds and arms, Ukraine’s leadership faces difficult choices in safeguarding its sovereignty while navigating an evolving geopolitical landscape. This crossroads highlights not only Ukraine’s dependency on its allies but also the limitations of a Western strategy that may soon reach the point of unsustainability.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel