Wiele lat temu wygłosiłam wykład na temat bezpieczeństwa zbiorowego i prawa międzynarodowego na Uniwersytecie Karazina w Charkowie. Wśród wielu pytań studentów wyraźnie pamiętam ich obawy dotyczące tego, co się dzieje, gdy zawodzi prawo międzynarodowe, a dominuje surowa siła, szczególnie jeśli stały członek Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ dopuści się aktu agresji. Rozmawialiśmy o Karcie Narodów Zjednoczonych, prawie państwa do samoobrony, Memorandum Budapeszteńskim i o tym, co by się stało, gdyby Ukraina stała się ofiarą agresji – scenariusz, który w tamtym czasie wydawał się niewyobrażalny (kto i dlaczego miałby zaatakować Ukrainę, prawda?!). Ta wymiana zdań miała miejsce przed aneksją Krymu, w tym samym budynku, który w marcu 2022 r. został trafiony rosyjskim pociskiem na początku pełnoskalowej inwazji.
Dziś odpowiedź na te pytania urzeczywistnia się na naszych oczach: gdy łamane są podstawowe zasady prawa międzynarodowego, następuje wojna. Jednak ofiara agresji ma wybór: walczyć, korzystając z prawa do samoobrony, lub się poddać. Reszta świata również ma wybór: stanąć po stronie ofiary oraz przestrzegać międzynarodowego prawa i porządku, albo zdradzić ją, tolerując agresora, lub co gorsza, otwarcie się z nim łącząc. Słowa Zełenskiego: „Potrzebuję amunicji, a nie podwózki”, odzwierciedlają wybór, jakiego Ukraina dokonała w lutym 2022 r. Ukraina zdecydowała się przeciwstawić Rosji – państwu agresorowi, potędze nuklearnej o ogromnej powierzchni oraz ogromnych zasobach ludzkich i naturalnych. Ten wybór jest jasny i pozostał niezmienny od pierwszego dnia pełnoskalowej inwazji. W przeciwieństwie do niektórych sojuszników Ukrainy.
When Law Fails, War Follows
Many years ago, I gave a lecture on collective security and international law at the Karazin University in Kharkiv. Among the many questions from the students, I clearly recall their concerns about what happens when international law fails, and raw power prevails, particularly if a permanent member of the UN Security Council commits an act of aggression. We discussed the UN Charter, a state’s right to self-defence, the Budapest Memorandum, and what would happen if Ukraine were to become a victim of aggression – a scenario that seemed unimaginable at the time (who, and why would attack Ukraine, right?!). This exchange took place before the annexation of Crimea, in the same building that in March 2022 was struck by a Russian shell at the onset of the full-scale invasion.
Today, the answer to these questions is unfolding before our eyes: When the cornerstone principles of international law are broken, war follows. Yet, the victim of aggression has a choice: to fight back using its right to self-defence or to surrender. The rest of the world, too, has a choice: to stand with the victim and uphold international law and order, or to betray them by tolerating the aggressor, or worse, openly siding with him. Zelenskyy’s words, “I need ammunition, not a ride”, reflect the choice Ukraine made in February 2022. Ukraine chose to stand against Russia – an aggressor state, a nuclear power with an enormous landmass and vast human and natural resources. This choice is clear and has remained steadfast since the first day of the full-scale invasion. Unlike that of some of Ukraine’s allies.
A moral and diplomatic betrayal
On February 28, a pivotal meeting took place in the Oval Office – one that should have reaffirmed the United States’ once “unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Instead, it turned into a harsh, humiliating experience and a clear act of betrayal not only of the people of Ukraine but also of the principles of the UN Charter and US allies in Europe. It was not merely Zelenskyy who entered the Oval Office that day; it was Ukraine – the soldiers fighting on the front lines, the families awaiting their return, the children growing up under the wail of air raid sirens. A weary warrior arrived at the doorstep of a supposed ally, one who had promised support and peace, only to be met with doubt and disdain.
What was this meeting about? The President of Ukraine was pressured to accept Trump’s, or perhaps Putin’s, peace deal, a distinction that has become increasingly blurred as the White House now echoes Russia’s propaganda, point by point.
The following moments from the tense exchange between Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance give a glimpse into the moral and diplomatic betrayal that Ukraine faced:
Zelenskyy: “Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?”
Vance: “I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President.”
A propaganda tour. That’s how they viewed Ukraine’s suffering. Three years under Russia’s attacks – bombed-out cities, mass graves, Mariupol, Bucha, families torn apart. Not reality, but a show. A performance.
Trump: “You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.”
As if Ukrainians were responsible for this war. As if the invasion, the war crimes, and the relentless missile strikes were a failure of Ukraine’s leadership rather than the brutality of an enemy, a nuclear state ten times its size. Vance: “Have you said thank you once?’
Zelenskyy: “A lot of times. Even today.”
But that was not enough.
Vance: “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the President who’s trying to save your country.”
Is Trump really saving Ukraine? This is the same person who supported blocking military aid to Ukraine in early 2024, hindering Ukraine’s ability to defend its positions and allowing Russian forces to make tactical gains. It is the same person who, on 25 February 2025, opposed a European-drafted UN resolution condemning Moscow’s aggression. A person who blames Ukraine, insisting that Ukraine should have never started this war. And yet, this is the person to whom Ukraine was expected to express gratitude.
Trump: “Look, if you can get a ceasefire right now, I tell you, you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed.”
Zelenskyy: “Of course we want to stop the war. But I said to you, with guarantees.”
Trump: “Are you saying you don’t want a ceasefire? I want a ceasefire. Because you’ll get a ceasefire faster than an agreement.”
No one longs for peace more than Ukraine. No one is more exhausted by war. But true peace can only come with real guarantees that prevent further aggression and ensure that Ukraine’s existence is secure. This is a simple yet profound request: Security and assurances that the bloodshed and destruction will not continue, and that Russia will not return.
Ukraine has a long list of international agreements in which Russia explicitly recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (e.g., the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia (1997), the Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the State Border (2003)). More critically, when Ukraine relinquished what was then the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, Russia, along with other signatories, pledged to uphold its security under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. All these commitments were violated in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and launched a hybrid war in Ukraine’s Donbas. The Minsk process that followed failed to bring lasting peace; instead, it revealed Russia’s tactic of using ceasefires as temporary pauses rather than genuine steps toward peace. In fact, over 25 ceasefires agreed upon since 2014 were broken, ultimately leading to Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. After so many breaches of trust, any promise of peace from Russia remains meaningless without concrete and enforceable guarantees.
Someone from the audience repeated Zelenskyy’s request about the guarantees for Ukraine: “What if Russia breaks the ceasefire?”
Trump: “What, if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now?’’
Yes, Mr. President, at that exact moment, Ukrainians were under Russian attack: Missiles and bombs raining down on their heads. Russia was demonstrating its “readiness for the peace deal”.
Trump: “… And your people are very brave. But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out… But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing… ”
In the days following this meeting, the US suspended military aid to Ukraine, retroactively halting all previously approved assistance that had yet to arrive. The most critical consequences are the delays in delivering Patriot air defence systems and interceptor missiles – vital for protecting Ukraine from Russia’s relentless airstrikes. Furthermore, the US cut off intelligence sharing, depriving Ukraine of real-time warnings about incoming attacks. Trump’s decisions do not just weaken Ukraine’s ability to fight; they directly endanger the lives of civilians while giving Russia a strategic advantage in the skies. Hospitals, schools, and residential areas – already frequent targets – will face even greater danger.
Over the past three years of war, US support has been a cornerstone of Ukraine’s resistance, signaling strong opposition to Russian aggression. Now, with these lifelines cut, Kyiv is left more vulnerable than ever while Moscow watches and benefits. Is this a peace negotiation? It seems more like the US has opened a new front – against Ukraine. In the end, what is the difference between the US weakening Ukraine and Iran supplying missiles and drones to Russia or North Korea sending soldiers to bolster Putin’s army?
This is a striking shift in US policy: helping Russia gain from Ukraine what it could not win on the battlefield.
The Future of the International Order Lies in Ukraine
A Trump-brokered peace deal would mean Ukraine being overtaken by Russia. But why is this dangerous for the entire world?
First, it sends a clear message that national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law no longer matter. By forcing Ukraine into a peace deal that legitimizes Russia’s aggression, it sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging other states to use force.
Second, Ukraine is a country that gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for international guarantees of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine’s experience – where two nuclear powers impose their will – could prompt other nations to reconsider disarmament and instead pursue their own nuclear programs for self-protection.
Third, by aligning with Russia, the US risks weakening the so-called “collective West”, dismantling the most powerful alliance in human history. By undermining Ukraine, the West signals that it no longer upholds its own values – rule of law, justice, democracy, human rights.
The livestream from the Oval Office and the decisions that followed highlight a troubling reality: The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place for everyone.
Trump: “All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television. I will say that.”
Alina Cherviatsova
Dr Alina Cherviatsova jest współpracowniczką naukową Centrum Praw Człowieka (HRC) i koordynatorką modułu Jean Monnet Academy4UA w Instytucie Prawa Europejskiego w Gandawie (GELI), na Wydziale Prawa i Kryminologii Uniwersytetu w Gandawie.
Zdjęcie: Źródło: The White House, Wikimedia Commons
