The global power landscape is undergoing a profound and accelerating transformation, driven by the decade-long Russia-Ukraine war and a dramatic diplomatic clash between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, 2025. These events, interwoven with mounting domestic pressures in Ukraine, the strategic critiques of historian Niall Ferguson, and the incisive commentary of David Sacks—now the White House AI and Crypto Czar—signal a significant retreat of the United States as the steadfast guardian of the liberal world order. This shift—a reality Europe has been reluctant to confront—unfolds as emerging powers like Russia, China, and India observe with approval, capitalizing on the cracks in Western unity. As of March 1, 2025, this convergence of conflict, diplomacy, political analysis, and commentary marks a pivotal moment in the reorientation of global power axes, with far-reaching implications for international stability, economic alignments, and the future of democratic governance.
The Ukraine War: A Decade of Disruption and Resilience
The roots of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict trace back to 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea following the ousting of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych amid the Euromaidan protests. This swift move, legitimized by a controversial referendum widely rejected internationally, ignited a separatist war in the Donbas region, where Russian-backed militias clashed with Ukrainian forces. By early 2022, this simmering conflict had claimed over 14,000 lives, setting the stage for a dramatic escalation. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion, aiming to topple Ukraine’s government and install a puppet regime—an ambition thwarted by Ukraine’s fierce resistance and substantial Western support, though at a staggering human and material cost.
By March 1, 2025, Russia holds approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory, having seized over 4,000 square kilometers in 2024 through relentless offensives in Donetsk and Luhansk. The war’s toll is harrowing: over 40,000 civilian deaths (including estimates of indirect losses), 4 million internally displaced, 6.8 million refugees, and 14.6 million in need of humanitarian aid. Western assistance has been monumental—totaling $407 billion since 2022, with the U.S. contributing $118 billion in military hardware, financial aid, and humanitarian relief. Yet, cracks in this support are emerging, with donor fatigue evident as the conflict drags into its third year of full-scale fighting, challenging the cohesion of the Western alliance that has historically underpinned the liberal order.
The war’s trajectory reflects a broader contest between autocracy and democracy. Russia seeks to reassert its post-Soviet sphere of influence, while Ukraine’s push for NATO and EU membership—accelerated since 2022—signals a westward pivot. However, the conflict’s persistence, coupled with Russia’s battlefield tenacity despite sanctions, exposes the limits of Western resolve. This vulnerability undermines the liberal world order, traditionally anchored by American leadership, as the U.S. grapples with competing domestic and global priorities.
The Trump-Zelensky Spat: A Fracture in Western Unity
On February 28, 2025, a bilateral meeting at the White House, intended to secure a U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement and address the ongoing war, devolved into a public confrontation that reverberated across capitals. Trump, exasperated by Zelensky’s perceived ingratitude for America’s $118 billion in aid, reportedly snapped, “You’re not acting at all thankful,” and pressed for an immediate ceasefire to halt the conflict. Zelensky rejected this outright, reacting with intensity even to Vice President J.D. Vance’s use of the word “diplomacy.” The exchange escalated into a shouting match, ending with Trump ordering Zelensky out of the Oval Office and canceling a planned joint news conference—a breach that stunned European allies and delighted Russian commentators.
David Sacks, the White House AI and Crypto Czar, provides a penetrating analysis of Zelensky’s refusal in his X post “WHY ZELENSKY CANNOT MAKE PEACE.” He argues that Zelensky’s “meltdown” reflects existential stakes: fear of losing power under martial law, the cessation of a corrupt “gravy train” of Western aid, threats from ultra-nationalists, a psychological commitment to victory, and dread of historical judgment for a worse deal than offered early in the war. Sacks’s perspective frames the spat as more than a diplomatic misstep—it’s a window into Zelensky’s entrenched position, clashing with Trump’s pragmatic push for resolution.
Further complicating the scene, reports surfaced of U.S. negotiations with Russia in Saudi Arabia, potentially excluding Ukraine, suggesting Trump prioritizes deal-making—such as securing access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals—over ideological solidarity with Kyiv’s sovereignty. European leaders rallied behind Zelensky, with one Ukrainian lawmaker lamenting, “I’m just crying because of what I hear,” underscoring Europe’s emotional and strategic dependence on a faltering U.S. anchor. This episode marks a significant departure from America’s postwar role as defender of liberal values, exposing a shift toward transactional foreign policy that reverberates globally.
Zelensky’s Domestic Peril: Impeachment on the Horizon?
Within Ukraine, the Trump-Zelensky spat has intensified an already volatile political landscape. Prediction markets like Polymarket indicate a rising probability of Zelensky’s impeachment in 2025, a trend fueled by the diplomatic fallout and persistent governance challenges. Sacks’s X post amplifies this narrative, asserting that Zelensky clings to power through martial law, having cancelled elections scheduled for May 2024—a move legally justified under Ukraine’s Constitution during wartime but politically contentious. He suggests Zelensky is unpopular and fears retaliation from opponents he has imprisoned (e.g., pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk in 2022) or whose assets he has seized under anti-corruption measures, a risk plausible though not yet evidenced by specific threats.
Corruption, a pre-war hallmark of Ukraine—ranked 116/180 by Transparency International in 2021—remains a flashpoint. Sacks highlights the “gravy train” of $407 billion in Western aid, pointing to documented scandals like the $40 million embezzlement from military funds (TIME, 2023) and inflated procurement contracts (AP News, 2023). Peace, he argues, would halt this flow and invite audits disastrous for Zelensky’s allies, if not himself. Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Dubinsky’s post-spat call for impeachment, citing “diplomatic failure” and lost U.S. support, aligns with this critique, though it lacks the three-quarters parliamentary support needed under Article 111 for treason or crime.
Yet, Zelensky’s domestic standing is more complex than Sacks suggests. Polls from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in February 2025 show 57-63% trust, a decline from 91% in 2022 but far from unpopularity, contradicting Sacks’s assertion. His third point—fear of ultra-nationalists—adds intrigue; while groups like the Azov Brigade oppose territorial concessions, no documented threats to Zelensky’s safety substantiate this claim, rendering it speculative. Intriguingly, Zelensky’s February 23, 2025, offer to resign for peace or NATO membership hints at internal pressure, lending some credence to Sacks’s portrayal of a leader trapped by his own choices amidst a fracturing political base.
Niall Ferguson and David Sacks: A Call for Strategic Realism
Niall Ferguson, born April 18, 1964, in Glasgow, Scotland, is a British-American historian, author, and public intellectual who has shaped discourse on global history and geopolitics. He earned a B.A. (1985) and D.Phil. (1989) in History from Oxford University, where he excelled at Magdalen College. A prolific scholar, Ferguson has held professorships at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford, and is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His books—Empire (2002), The Ascent of Money (2008), and Doom (2021)—explore imperialism, finance, and catastrophe, earning acclaim and critique for their bold theses. A frequent commentator in Bloomberg and The Free Press, he blends historical analysis with policy critique. In The Free Press (February 22, 2025), Ferguson argues the U.S. must prevent Russia’s victory to counter an autocratic axis of Russia, China, and Iran, but deems Zelensky’s demand for full Russian withdrawal “unrealistic” given Ukraine’s military exhaustion. He sympathizes with Trump’s frustration in the spat, yet rejects Vance’s isolationist call to abandon Ukraine, advocating a pragmatic U.S. role in brokering a negotiated settlement.
David Sacks, born May 25, 1972, in Cape Town, South Africa, is a South African-American entrepreneur, investor, and tech influencer who moved to Tennessee, USA, at age five. He earned a B.A. in Economics from Stanford University (1994), editing the conservative Stanford Review, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago (1998). A Silicon Valley luminary, Sacks was COO at PayPal, guiding it to a 2002 IPO and $1.5 billion sale to eBay, and founded Yammer, sold to Microsoft for $1.2 billion in 2012. Co-founder of Craft Ventures and All-In podcast co-host, he was appointed White House AI and Crypto Czar by Trump in December 2024. His X post details why Zelensky cannot compromise: power retention under martial law, the corrupt aid pipeline, nationalist threats, and a “messianic” belief in victory—backed by TIME’s 2023 report of Zelensky’s “immovable faith” and an aide’s remark, “He’s delusional.” Sacks’s fifth point—that Zelensky dreads history’s judgment for rejecting the 2022 Istanbul Accords—mirrors Ferguson’s critique of maximalism. Both call for a “diplomatic off-ramp,” with Sacks invoking Solzhenitsyn: “The yes-man is your enemy, but a friend will argue with you.” Their shared insistence on realism over unconditional support frames the spat as a symptom of strategic misalignment, hastening the erosion of U.S. global leadership.
The Shifting Axes: A Multipolar Dawn
These developments herald a seismic global realignment. An observer in the essay laments, “Fundamentally, this also means that the idea of the U.S. as the guardian of the liberal world order is dead for now—something I have been trying to warn about for six months.” Sacks’s analysis bolsters this, exposing how Zelensky’s refusal, propped up by waning U.S. resolve, accelerates this decline. Trump’s transactional approach—pushing peace and minerals over ideological solidarity—departs from America’s postwar commitment to democracy, leaving Europe reeling: “This is a reality that we in Europe have refused to acknowledge until today.”
Russia, China, and India “like what they see,” as the observer notes. Russia’s control of 20% of Ukraine, cemented by a war Zelensky cannot end, strengthens its position. Sacks’s reference to the Istanbul Accords—where Ukraine could have secured most territory in 2022—highlights Russia’s gains from prolonged conflict, with hundreds of thousands dead for a worse deal now. China, eyeing Taiwan, benefits from Western disunity, while India thrives in a multipolar world, leveraging neutrality and economic growth—its GDP growth projected at 7% for 2025 (IMF). Ferguson’s warnings of an emboldened autocratic axis resonate, as the $118 billion in U.S. aid—once a liberal bulwark—fades into irrelevance amid this shift.
Implications and Unanswered Questions
This realignment poses profound questions for the future. Can Europe fill the leadership void, as its post-spat solidarity with Zelensky suggests, or will it remain a reactive player? The European Council’s calls for increased defense spending (up 20% since 2022, SIPRI) hint at potential, yet political fragmentation—e.g., Hungary’s pro-Russia leanings—complicates unity. Ukraine’s trajectory—whether Zelensky survives politically or the war ends through imposed terms—will test this new order’s contours. Ferguson and Sacks’s call for a balanced settlement, avoiding escalation or abandonment, offers a roadmap, but its success depends on a U.S. unwilling to dominate yet still engaged—a delicate balance Trump’s administration has yet to prove.
The war’s economic fallout—disrupted energy markets (Brent crude at $80/barrel, March 2025), strained aid budgets—further complicates the picture. Ukraine’s resilience, with 57-63% public support for Zelensky, and Europe’s potential to adapt challenge a narrative of total Western decline. Yet, as of March 1, 2025, the axes of power tilt unmistakably—away from a U.S.-led liberal order toward a fragmented, pragmatic world. Russia’s battlefield gains, China’s strategic patience, and India’s quiet ascent thrive as Western unity frays, with Sacks’s critique illuminating Zelensky’s role as both victim and architect of this unraveling tapestry.