The New Trump Doctrine
What was seen on social networks and YouTube from the Oval Office during the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump defies previous democratic norms of perception and thought.
"Putin must not win. And he will not." With these two sentences, Anna Sauerbrey concluded her editorial in Die ZEIT, published immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
"Every war is everyone's war," Sauerbrey continued, formulating the expectation that democracies would succeed in breaking the hegemony of the military. 1,101 days later, this hopeful normativity appears to have reached its preliminary endpoint.
What can be seen on social networks and YouTube from the Oval Office contradicts all previous democratic habits of seeing and thinking. The law of the jungle, the right of the strongest, lies, and denunciation were defined—before the eyes of the press and the global public—as the Trump doctrine of U.S. foreign and security policy in dealing with its previous partners in the Western security alliance.
The Apprentice on the World Stage: Staged Performance in the Oval Office
Democracy, freedom of speech, and the rule of law—the very elements that connected Europe and the United States for decades, even surviving President Trump’s first term—have eroded in the first weeks of his second presidency.
Already during the speech by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference (from 1:12h), in which he lamented an alleged lack of freedom of expression in Europe's democracies, the deliberate distortion of facts and the normalization of so-called alternative facts through the strategy "Flood the floor with shit" was evident.
The humiliation and disparagement of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by Trump and Vance at the White House followed a carefully calculated choreography. It began with the greeting, during which Trump mocked Zelensky’s attire—since the beginning of the war, he has commonly appeared in a sweater instead of a suit to visually emphasize that his country is at war.
The occasion for Zelensky’s visit to Washington—following meetings this week with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keith Starmer—was the offer of a resource agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine. President Zelensky had shrewdly anticipated that if democratic values held no significance for the Trump administration, a "deal" might be the right instrument to secure security guarantees for Ukraine, which has been at war for more than three years.
But Trump did not want a "deal" between honest merchants. He demanded submission. The staging in the Oval Office followed the script of The Apprentice, the TV show in which Donald Trump appeared as a businessman for 14 seasons. His famous catchphrase on the show was "You're fired!"—eliminating candidates from the competition.
Trump and J.D. Vance did not treat Zelensky as responsible statesmen would; instead, they sought to corner him as if in a schoolyard brawl. Their goal: to humiliate him in front of the press and the global public in order to secure a stronger negotiating position for the intended agreement and to create domestic political images that aligned with familiar Trump campaign narratives against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris.
"You are not in a favorable position. You don't have the best hand at the moment. With us, you have a better hand," Trump told the Ukrainian president, who responded with composure: "I don't play cards."
What is a poker game for Trump is, in reality, a war—one that Russia started with the annexation of Crimea.
Trump: "But you will either make a deal, or we’re out. And if we're out, you'll have to deal with it yourself. I don’t think it’ll be pretty, but you’ll handle it. But you don’t have the cards. But as soon as we sign this deal, you’ll be in a much better position. But you're not acting grateful at all, and that’s not a nice thing. I’m just being honest, that’s not a nice thing. [...] Alright, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to make great television, I can tell you that."
With these closing words, a historic press conference ended—one that resembled a show trial more than diplomacy.
Anyone who saw the images of the Ukrainian ambassador Oksana Markarova, struggling to maintain her composure, can grasp the psychological impact of this coldly calculated staging—on Ukraine, on its people, both at the front and in the hinterland, after more than 1,100 days of war.
And that impact was intentional.
Right-Wing Narratives – Alternative Facts
Immediately after the end of this meeting, right-wing platforms like Breitbart and the Republican establishment began, in classic perpetrator-victim reversal, to shift responsibility for the debacle onto President Zelensky.
It was only a matter of time before this narrative reached the mainstream media. Stefanie Bolzen, Washington correspondent for the German daily DIE WELT, signaled in a now-edited headline—"Zelensky has jeopardized Europe's security with his behavior"—who was to blame: "Zelensky should have remained silent." This sentence from the teaser of her opinion piece has since been deleted as well.
In her commentary, Bolzen wrote that Zelensky’s mistake was that "the Ukrainian began explaining to Trump the conflict since 2014 and that Putin had broken all diplomatic agreements, specifically the Minsk agreements. 'What kind of diplomacy does J.D. mean here?' the Ukrainian asked. Then the arguments flew back and forth, getting louder and louder."
In this cynically twisted logic, it was also suggested: "The Ukrainian ambassador, who was also in the Oval Office, buried her face in her hands out of despair." From Bolzen's perspective, apparently out of frustration with Zelensky rather than with the way the U.S. treated Ukraine and its president.
Former Welt am Sonntag editor-in-chief Dagmar Rosenfeld, now with Pioneer Media, commented on Bolzen’s perspective—unsurprisingly endorsed by Ulf Poschardt—by stating on X: "No, Zelensky is defending Europe's freedom. That has always been the position of DIE WELT as I knew it." Robin Alexander, one of WELT’s most prominent journalists and certainly beyond any suspicion of adopting narratives like Bolzen’s, also commented briefly on X: "Dagmar Rosenfeld is right."
The role of mainstream media, as well as enlightened actors on social networks, is to expose narratives and the interests behind them, rather than citing, multiplying, or, as Stefanie Bolzen did in DIE WELT, adopting them uncritically.
Springer’s U-Turn on Trump
Franz Sommerfeld, who most recently served on the board of the DuMont media group before his retirement, analyzed a remarkable shift in the Springer Group's political stance in a LinkedIn post on March 1, 2025. He stated:
"No other German media house has accompanied Donald Trump’s policies and the appearances of his associates—Musk, Vance, and others—with as much empathy and approval as Springer. This ranges from the linguistically flawed invocation of a 'radiant dawn' [...] to the disgraceful perpetrator-victim reversal in the 'Welt' front-page story about the humiliation and expulsion of Zelensky from the White House [by Bolzen].
This course was driven, supported, and personally reinforced by Springer publisher and co-owner Mathias Döpfner, who repeatedly expressed respect for Trump’s team. Now, however, Döpfner has made a fundamental U-turn."
In a commentary titled "Trump and the Future of Europe – The World Order is Shaking" Döpfner acknowledges that Trump is sacrificing Ukraine for an America First and America Only policy, in which international law is not seen as binding but as an obstacle:
"The leader of a country defending itself against a war of aggression is not treated this way by his protector—unless that protector no longer wishes to be one or has switched sides. Many transatlanticists—including myself—hoped in recent weeks that behind Trump’s provocative speeches and posts, there might still be some kind of constructive strategy. That hope is now shattered. Trump means what he says."
Sommerfeld rightly notes that Döpfner’s change of course should not be met with ridicule—late insight is still better than none at all. Having started his journalistic career in the German Communist Party (DKP)-affiliated magazines, Sommerfeld is well acquainted with centralized structures and points out that in the authoritarian world of the Springer Group, the publisher’s shift was the driving force behind the recent editorial changes—including those in Stefanie Bolzen’s commentary.
Sommerfeld concludes: "It will now be interesting to see how the editors and chief editors of 'Welt,' who have been deeply fascinated by Trump’s disruption-as-lifestyle approach, adjust to Döpfner’s U-turn."
Trump and the Authoritarian International
The Kremlin is no longer isolated. The first weeks of Trump’s second term as U.S. president have been nothing less than the Orbanization of the United States.
David Smith recently reminded readers in The Guardian that Viktor Orbán, who came to power in 2010, described Hungary as "a petri dish for illiberalism." This is precisely why the MAGA movement admires him. Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon called Orbán "Trump before Trump." His long-term dismantling of institutions and media control in Hungary serves as a cautionary tale of how seemingly gradual changes pave the way for authoritarianism and how democracies can die.
Kevin Roberts, head of the far-right think tank The Heritage Foundation, once stated: "Modern Hungary is not just a model for conservative statecraft—it is the model." The Heritage Foundation drafted Project 2025, which was meant to serve as a far-right blueprint for Trump’s second term. While it is possible that Donald Trump and Elon Musk may not strictly adhere to such a script, this does not diminish the real impact of the strategies outlined in it—strategies aimed at dismantling the checks and balances of the U.S. system.
The domestic Orbanization of the United States goes hand in hand with a gradual integration of the U.S. into the international network of authoritarian populists. Ukraine is one of Trump’s entry tickets into this club.
At the UN Security Council this week—serving as background music to the Oval Office spectacle—the U.S., alongside China and Russia, passed the Moscow-friendly resolution "The Path to Peace", demonstratively bypassing the five European partners in the council. The resolution calls for a rapid end to the war in Ukraine without explicitly naming Russia as the aggressor or demanding a Russian troop withdrawal.
In terms of international law, Trump, Putin, and Xi are rewriting the history of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The fact that the UN General Assembly, albeit without legally binding force under UN statutes, corrected the Security Council resolution at key points—explicitly naming Russia as the aggressor, demanding Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and calling for a "lasting and comprehensive peace between Ukraine and Russia in accordance with the UN Charter"—is an important signal. But it is not enough.
Even After Three Years of War: Ukraine Must Not Lose
Current debates center on military aid to Ukraine—and for understandable reasons. Humanitarian aid has so far accounted for only about 5–7% of total support, while approximately 49% has gone to military assistance and around 44% to financial aid.
Three years after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the humanitarian situation in Ukraine is critical to catastrophic. Estimates indicate that by 2025, about 12.7 million people will require humanitarian assistance. The situation remains dire, marked by ongoing hostilities, displacement, and destruction.
Between 2022 and 2025, the European Union provided €1 billion in humanitarian aid. Germany, as the world’s second-largest donor, has allocated more than €1.3 billion in humanitarian assistance since February 2022. Aid organizations such as LandsAid continue to provide support, adapting to evolving needs. This includes essential provisions such as food, water, emergency shelters, and medical care, as well as psychosocial support, which now accounts for over 10% of the aid required.
A particularly crucial focus is on rebuilding and repairing energy infrastructure, systematically targeted by Russia. Damage to infrastructure has also severely impacted water supply in many areas.
Despite extensive international aid, the situation in Ukraine remains extremely precarious. Humanitarian assistance must adapt far more comprehensively to shifting needs in order to support the suffering population. However, the opposite is happening. In the magazine Vorwärts, Nils Michaelis writes:
"Three years after Russia’s large-scale offensive began on February 24, 2022, both the military and humanitarian situation in Ukraine remain difficult. According to UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, more than 12.7 million people in Ukraine currently rely on assistance—about 40% of the population. This aid is needed not only in frontline areas in the south and east but also where most of the 3.7 million internally displaced persons now live, such as in the north and northwest of the country."
The effective dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Trump administration, combined with Germany’s decision to halve aid to Ukraine as part of its budget cuts, is suffocating the humanitarian response needed for the embattled country.
Award-winning political scientist and journalist Anne Applebaum describes this as a wake-up call. She was quoted on Swiss radio as saying:
"Europe needs a military alliance and a financial alliance to confront Russia. The money exists—and this is where Switzerland comes into play: There are $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, 80 to 90 percent of them held in European financial institutions. The interest on this money is already being used for Ukraine’s reconstruction. I think it’s time to take the rest. It’s a large sum, and there’s a solid legal argument for using it: After Russia’s declaration of war and unprovoked invasion, it was condemned by an overwhelming majority of UN General Assembly member states. Based on that decision, it is legal to take the money."
In February three years ago, I reported that the Thuringian state government—then led by a red-red-green coalition, in which I served as head of the state chancellery—took immediate measures to prepare for the expected influx of Ukrainian war refugees. The image in this article shows the Ukrainian flag flying outside the state chancellery in Erfurt at the time. The new Thuringian government under Mario Voigt has since taken it down. It is in such small gestures that priorities become evident.
In the early weeks of the war, Germany experienced a wave of solidarity with Ukrainian refugees—just as it did in 2015/2016 ("We can do it") and at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, that experience is too often buried beneath the voices preaching alienation instead of solidarity. Those who argue that, as in Syria, some parts of Ukraine are now "safe enough" for refugees to return ignore the reality on the ground.
Such a stance is not only heartless—it is dangerous. In the end, it strengthens autocrats by undermining humanity itself.
"Putin must not win," Anna Sauerbrey wrote in 2022, adding: "And he will not." That assertion now bears a question mark.
Humanity, solidarity, and an awareness of our democratic values—rooted in the Enlightenment—must form the foundation of a renewed commitment: Ukraine must not lose. Putin must not win.