Will the 21st century end with a simple television showdown? Only the history books will tell. But this February 28, 2025, will remain as the day when the whole world, shocked, witnessed the lynching of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by US President Donald Trump and his right-hand man Jay D. Vance. Three days later, the US cut off military aid to Kiev. David Frum, a star columnist for The Atlantic magazine, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a staunch opponent of Trump, warned last July that a second term for Donald Trump would be cataclysmic both domestically and internationally. In an interview with the French newspaper L'Express, this expert on the functioning of American politics analyzes the possible consequences of this brutal U.S. turn on the diplomatic front and this monumental slap in the face of the Old Continent.
L'EXPRESS: How did you react to the impressive conversation in the Oval Office between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky?
DAVID FROOM: Like many, I was shocked. I believe that the purpose of the attack - and in particular that of Vice President J. D. Vance - was to sow discord between Zelensky and the Republican senators. Because in Congress, and especially in the Senate, the Ukrainian cause still enjoys considerable support. J. D. Vance's maneuver was therefore intended to force the Republicans to choose between Trump and Zelensky. From a strictly political point of view, the maneuver is cunning. They came to the meeting with a specific plan: to stage a feud between Trump and Zelensky in order to provide the footage to the right-wing media, which would then say: "You have to choose, Trump or Zelensky, but not both". But it seems to me that it would be more reasonable for Trump and Russia to publicly pretend to be friends while quietly attacking the Ukrainians. Because, as I have already written, by doing so, Trump and Vance demonstrated to the world and in particular to their allies their relationship with Russia, as well as their hostility towards Ukraine in general and its president in particular.
L"EXPRESS: Did the Ukrainian president fall into his trap by opposing his two interlocutors?
D. FRUM: I will not criticize Zelensky, no matter what he does. Here in the United States, some are asking: Why didn't the bravest leader in the world today - the man who refused to flee his capital, who stood up to the enemy, who survived an assassination attempt - crawl before Trump? Simply because he's a decent man! But in the end, it wouldn't have changed anything, because in reality, I think that if Zelensky had taken a more conciliatory stance, if he had gone to Trump and let him play his horse, if he had signed this absurd mineral deal that Trump demanded, the betrayal would have simply happened behind closed doors.
L"EXPRESS: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is known for his support for Ukraine, said that Volodymyr Zelensky should apologize after his meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office...
D. FRUM: In literature, characters who do evil, knowing full well that they are doing evil, are perhaps more interesting than those who do evil simply because they cannot help it. This probably explains the focus on Rubio: his personal situation is psychologically complex, while Vance and Trump play the roles of obvious, unambiguous villains. Still, I don't understand how anyone can sit in a room with Zelensky and not think, "I have to be a better, braver person."
L"EXPRESS: Although they are not of the same nature, can we really consider this historical rapprochement between the United States and Russia as an event of a magnitude comparable, for example, to that of 1985 between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, at the height of the Cold War?
D. FRUM: It's like asking me what the difference is between Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand holding hands at Verdun and the act of surrender signed by Marshal Pétain (laughs). In one case, it's a dignified reconciliation between former adversaries, concluded in the interests of peace and prosperity for both nations. In the other, it's a shameful betrayal. But I want to say that this is not a true alliance between the United States and Russia, and I hope that America's friends around the world will also understand that Trump represents a part of America, but certainly not all of America. Because believe me, Americans worthy of the name watched this scene with shame and horror.
L"EXPRESS: With the exception, perhaps, of his most ardent electorate...
D. FRUM: There are a number of very active far-right people on the Internet who are ideologically committed to Russia, Putinism, and hate Ukraine and everything that Ukraine stands for. But I think a lot of people in Trump's circle would have taken a different path if Trump himself had decided otherwise. Because what we see here, first of all, are people who follow Trump simply because he is the leader of their clan. For example, Trump's base is pro-Israel, just because Trump is pro-Israel. If he turns against Israel, they will turn against him too. So you have to know how to distinguish things. This phenomenon occurs in all democracies: you have a conglomerate of people - some on the far left, many on the far right - who come together for various psychological and ideological reasons, but end up around an anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian position, and who very often also reject modern medicine, oppose free trade, and refuse global economic integration. This is a very real trend. But the majority of Trump supporters don't follow him for these reasons. They follow him for himself.
L"EXPRESS: Does Donald Trump have a strategic vision for international politics? Some argue, for example, that this rapprochement with Vladimir Putin is aimed at distancing him from China...
D. FRUM: The more stupid an idea seems, the smarter you have to be to try to find a rational explanation for it. This is how some brilliant people who support Trump for other reasons come up with elaborate explanations that essentially make no sense. Take China for example. It asks itself: "Is it dangerous to attack Taiwan? Can we do it safely?" If Ukraine wins the war, Beijing's answer will be: "Attacking Taiwan would be too dangerous". But if Russia prevails — or worse, triumphs through the corruption of American leaders — then the message to China becomes:
"It's not so dangerous after all. All we have to do is convince Elon Musk (editor's note: Tesla relies heavily on its Shanghai gigafactory) to dissuade Donald Trump from interfering." And that shouldn't be too difficult, given China's vast economic interests. There is therefore no strategic logic behind these statements. And much of the geopolitical arguments we hear are really just pretexts for manipulating domestic politics. Above all, it gives more moderate Republicans an excuse not to oppose Trump. It's a pretext, not an explanation.
L"EXPRESS: Since the end of World War II and the creation of NATO, Europe's security has been guaranteed by the American umbrella. Were the Europeans too naive about this American umbrella?
D. FRUM: I don't think the problem here is naivety. I think the problem with Europe is that it has made big domestic commitments to its pensioners. Its pension systems are fragile. And for a long time, relying on the United States to provide collective security helped to avoid having to solve difficult political dilemmas about public spending, especially after the growth model ran out after 2010. But now, as I noted, one of the few benefits of what happened last week in the Oval Office is that it has become impossible to ignore the problem any longer.
L"EXPRESS: Is the nearly 800 billion euro plan for European defense announced on March 4 by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen a step in the right direction?
D. FRUM: Yes. I am simply repeating what all Europeans already know. A real security policy must be developed. This will include the creation of a European National Security Council with a majority voting system. A powerful European military structure must also be built. The UK must stop hiding in its corner and at least join the European security umbrella. Europe needs the UK because it needs real military integration. Too many contradictions can easily be exploited if this leadership is provided by the Germans. This role will therefore have to be entrusted to the British or French command. And this will require a nuclear component, as well as integration and not duplication of British and French nuclear deterrents, but rather a rationalization, a unification, in which each country provides specialized equipment. Including a significant naval deployment. The worldview that Trump proposes - and which he has managed to impose on his party - is made up of large predatory blocs. And in such a world, Europe will have no choice but to adapt.
L"EXPRESS: Can Europe do it? In recent days, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have seemed to take the lead on the Ukrainian issue...
D. FRUM: Europe faces significant obstacles to collective action. Obviously, the decision-making mechanisms include so many veto points that this will remain difficult. But it can do it and it must do it. It must find a way to unite the possible and the necessary.
L"EXPRESS: Some politicians and commentators on this side of the Atlantic believe that the American president is a realist on Ukraine. In their opinion, Kiev has long lost the war, and the Europeans refuse to look reality in the eye.
D. FRUM: Frankly, I don't understand how the group of supporters of capitulation to Russia can convince anyone to call them "realists". This is the most scandalous act of false advertising that can exist. This is pure fantasy. A fantasy based on pan-Slavism, remnants of pro-Soviet nostalgia and the belief that Putin is the savior of the heterosexual white race. This is just ideology and nothing more than an illusion. The reality is that we are dealing with a country that is only a third-rate economic power and a second-rate military power. If the United States had fully supported Ukraine from the very beginning, providing it with long-range weapons in a timely manner, Russia would have been completely defeated. Its economy is in ruins. And those who call themselves "realists" are actually dreamers and ideologues. The reality is that this war in Ukraine is Putin's 1905 (ed. note: in 1905, the rule of Tsar Nicholas II was weakened by a revolution that foreshadowed what happened in 1917). It exposed the lie of the Russian authorities.
L"EXPRESS: How could this change in American foreign policy affect the position of the United States on the world stage?
D. FROOM: In Trump's mind, the world order that the United States has built with its allies since 1945 doesn't really serve his interests. He doesn't grasp the extent to which that order is shaped to benefit Americans. Look, you and I are doing this interview in English. Americans don't need to learn a second language. It's up to others to do that. You can use a Visa card in Thailand, and if there's a problem with a merchant, you'll get a refund. Goods move freely along major sea routes without the United States having to police every corner. The standard of living in the United States is extraordinarily high. Conventional economic statistics don't really measure how much richer Americans are than citizens of other comparable democracies. They live in bigger houses, have air conditioning, eat more meat, own all the latest electronic gadgets. This world is what the United States has created for itself. And whether they realize it or not, that's what worries me the most.
L"EXPRESS: Why?
D. FRUM: The history of the Euro-Atlantic world over the last 500 years is the history of the rise of successive great powers - Spain under Charles V, France under Louis XIV - but also the history of coalitions of other states aimed at overthrowing that dominant power. And no matter how strong that great power is, it is never strong enough against the alliance of all the others. So Charles V, Louis XIV, Kaiser Wilhelm II... they all failed. The difference with the United States is that they said: "What if we used our power not to dominate but to export security? What if we shared security? What if we offered everyone a deal: Rest assured, we will protect you for free." This discourages anyone from "playing Louis XIV" against us because we offer security without compromise. This has made America so valuable to its democratic allies that it has never had to face a serious challenge. Today, imagining an alliance between India, China and the European Union against the United States seems like science fiction. It seems unthinkable, since the European Union at least has so many benefits from the current system. But if the United States becomes a predatory power following the example of Louis XIV, then it will find that it will have many more enemies... and many fewer friends.
L"EXPRESS: Since the United States has long dominated the world, does Donald Trump underestimate the consequences of his decisions for his own country?
D. FRUM: Trump has always been a player. He's trying to amass great power and wealth. And he definitely has a plan. He's put in place the necessary elements to control the FBI and the military, something he failed to do in his first term. So he's not going to act completely blind. But he's taking a high-risk approach: he's setting big goals, with huge potential gains, but also with equally huge potential losses. Those bets can backfire. And there are ways to thwart them. It all starts with preserving the integrity of elections. I think one of Trump's biggest Achilles' heels is that elections are not run by the federal government. Elections are run by the states. So if Trump wants to rig the 2026 election, that's going to be a tougher project than in other countries. He's going to have to convince 50 states to stop holding elections. He can always try to impose his will on states like California, saying, "This is how I want you to conduct your elections". But California will have no obligation to comply. So the federal system is a huge safeguard.
L"EXPRESS: The Trump administration has been in office for less than two months, and the face of the world has already been changed. What can we expect from it in the coming months?
D. FROOM: Well, I don't think this situation can continue without a major crisis erupting within four years. At least that's the direction we're heading. The American political system is extremely polarized and deeply divided, with one party holding a slim majority in Congress. During his first term, Trump carefully avoided difficult domestic policy decisions. He didn't bother to balance the budget, he didn't make big cuts. He just cut taxes, spent lavishly, borrowed, and so on. The difference today is that we are living in a time of war. Interest rates are higher. The context is less liberal. But this time Trump is making real decisions: on the one hand, he is cutting funding for AIDS programs in developing countries to give more money to billionaires, on the other hand, he is attacking veterans' benefits and Medicaid, and soon he will attack Social Security. This will not be a long, calm river for him. This will be a very conflicted term, marked by scandals and crises. America is about to experience a particularly turbulent period.
L"EXPRESS: What exactly do you mean?
D. FRUM: There are several major events on the horizon, some of which could even be spectacular. Especially on an economic level. The markets have just seen that Trump really intends to impose tariffs on our three largest trading partners: Canada, Mexico and China. This could have serious consequences. At the same time, food prices, such as eggs, which are already very high (editor's note: up to $17 per dozen in New York, about 16 euros), could rise further. Then we will enter a phase of economic slowdown. Even a real recession is possible.
L"EXPRESS: Consumer confidence in the US fell in February as concerns about tariffs continue to grow...
D. FRUM: Trump has a very primitive view of the economy. He does not understand what economic integration means. For example, one of the largest producers of flat glass in the world is located in Mexico. This company produces huge sheets of glass, which are then transformed into window systems in Canada and the United States. These window systems are installed in buildings where conferences and shops are held. If you make glass more expensive or force people to adapt, you increase the cost of windows, then the cost of buildings, then the cost of events that happen in them, and this effect permeates the entire economy. And Trump, for his part, imagines that the economy works simply like this: you impose tariffs on toasters, you block foreign toasters, and that immediately revives the American toaster industry. Sure, the product becomes a little more expensive, but that doesn't matter, because we create new jobs in local factories. But in reality, it systematically weakens the economy, making it less competitive, like adding a layer of fat to every muscle fiber, which slows down the entire system and raises costs for everyone.
L"EXPRESS: What mark do you think Donald Trump will leave on history?
D. FROOM: The day Trump took office, I tweeted that he was the worst man to ever hold the office of President of the United States. And that includes all the former slave owners. I think he has now emerged as the man at the very center of the greatest outbreak of corruption and crime in the history of not only the United States but any major democracy. He is actively destroying American leadership in the world, and all the peace and prosperity that many countries have enjoyed because of that leadership.