INVESTIGATION: Trump and Zelensky — From Contempt to Respect, Anatomy of a Spectacular Reversal

June 24, 2026: Zelensky is "doing pretty well," says Trump

Just days ago, United States President Donald Trump was suggesting that Ukraine lacked the resources to effectively defend itself against the Russian war machine. The tone was condescending, the assessment harsh. Then, on June 24, 2026, something changed. Trump declared publicly that Volodymyr Zelensky was "doing pretty well," had "excellent equipment," and "excellent people." A reversal in one week — one that deserves a careful dissection, because it is never trivial when the American president shifts his rhetoric on a war that determines Europe's security balance.

This investigation attempts to reconstruct the sequence of events, identify the actors who may have influenced this change in tone, and measure the concrete consequences for Ukraine, for NATO, and for the dynamics of the peace negotiations. Because Trump's words are never just words — they produce real effects on arms markets, on the morale of Ukrainian troops, and on Vladimir Putin's strategic calculations.

Context: a week of intense geopolitical pressure

The week of June 18–25, 2026 was particularly charged on the diplomatic front. Trump, who had said he was "tiring" of the Iran file, had refocused his attention on Ukraine according to The Guardian. Simultaneously, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte made his way to the White House with two carefully prepared posters designed to flatter the American president. And on June 23, Zelensky himself was advising Trump to "act more boldly against Russia."

This accumulation of diplomatic events over just a few days sketches the backdrop of a rhetorical reversal that was far from accidental. There are causes to identify, mechanisms to understand. That is the purpose of this investigation.

When Trump shifts his rhetoric on Ukraine in a single week, chancelleries around the world hold their breath. That is the nature of unpredictable power: every statement can reshape everything. The art, for allies, is to turn that unpredictability into opportunity before the wind turns again.

A direct, unusual diplomatic message

On June 23, 2026, according to European Pravda, Volodymyr Zelensky sent Trump a message of unusual directness for exchanges between the two men: the Ukrainian president was advising the American president to act "more boldly against Russia." This is not the kind of language a head of state in a position of military dependency normally uses with his primary arms supplier. It is a formulation that reveals confidence — or perhaps an urgency too great for the usual diplomatic precautions.

Zelensky has never been a passive interlocutor with Western leaders. His ability to appeal directly, to step outside conventional diplomatic codes and press where it hurts — this is one of the most effective weapons in his political arsenal. With a Trump who perceives boldness as a virtue, this direct approach had every chance of resonating. The sequence of events that followed suggests that is exactly what happened.

The dynamics of advice between heads of state

For one head of state to advise another to be "more bold" is a formulation deliberately designed to activate Trump's ego. The subtext: "You have the power to act stronger, and you haven't done it yet." It is an appeal to greatness, to historical legacy, to the desire to be remembered as the decision-maker who ended the deadliest war in Europe since 1945. Zelensky knows his interlocutor. He knows that Trump cannot resist the idea of being the leader who bends the arc of history.

Ukrainian diplomats have invested years in understanding Trump's psychology. They have learned the hard way what closes him off — and what opens him up. A direct, unvarnished message calling for boldness rather than caution: it is a risky approach but consistent with what appears to have worked. The next day, Trump was publicly praising Zelensky's qualities.

Zelensky is a master of political communication — he demonstrated it before the war on the Ukrainian political stage. But what impresses me here is the surgical precision with which he found exactly the right lever to press with Trump. Calling a man to "boldness" when his entire political identity is built around that image — that is high-caliber diplomatic judo.

The exact words: "excellent equipment, excellent people"

Trump's statements on June 24, 2026, reported by The Guardian on June 25, deserve careful examination. Zelensky is "doing pretty well," he has "excellent equipment" and "excellent people" — those were the American president's words. In substance, this is a public validation of Ukraine's capacity to resist. In form, it is also an indirect way for Trump to credit himself: if Zelensky has "excellent equipment," it is largely thanks to the American arms deliveries that Trump, despite his hesitations, allowed to continue.

This type of rhetorical construction is characteristic of the Trump style: praising the other while implicitly signaling his own role in the success. "I gave him the equipment, and look how well he uses it." The support is real, but it is also self-referential. This is not a bad thing for Ukraine — as long as Trump sees himself as a stakeholder in Ukrainian success, his interests align with those of Kyiv.

From "they're losing" to "they're doing pretty well": the markers of change

Trump's trajectory on Ukraine since the start of his second term has been chaotic. There were periods of displayed support, moments of questioning aid packages, statements that chilled European chancelleries, and reversals that gave Ukraine's defenders new energy. The week of June 18–25, 2026 fits this yo-yo pattern — with one particularity: the swing goes in the right direction for Kyiv.

What changed in one week? A combination of factors: Zelensky's direct message calling for boldness, Rutte's visit with its flattering charts, and perhaps also Trump's frustration with the Iranian stalemate that mentally redirected him toward the Ukraine file. The results on the ground in Ukraine — a resistance holding despite Russian pressure — also gave Trump the factual basis for a more positive narrative.

It is both reassuring and unsettling that American policy toward Ukraine depends so heavily on one man's mood, on an ambassador's skill in choosing the right charts, and on the timing of a diplomatic conversation. Reassuring because it worked this week. Unsettling because it might not work next week.

"The Trump Trillion" and "The Trump 47 Effect": marketing the alliance

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's visit to the White House on June 24, 2026 became a textbook case of diplomacy in the Trump era. According to the New York Post, Rutte arrived with two posters specially designed for the occasion. The first, titled "The Trump Trillion," showed the defense spending commitments of European and Canadian allies — 90 billion additional dollars in 2025, a 20% increase. The second, "The Trump 47 Effect," directly attributed this spending boom to Trump's influence since his return to power.

This is pure political marketing, and Rutte made no attempt to hide it. But behind the calculated flattery, there is a factual reality: allies did significantly increase their defense spending. According to data compiled by simongros.org on June 21, 2026, European and Canadian allies did spend 90 billion additional dollars on defense in 2025, a 20% increase. The flattery rests on real numbers — which makes it all the more effective.

Ego diplomacy: how to manage Trump in 2026

European leaders have learned, sometimes painfully, how to navigate with Trump. Direct confrontation does not work. Frontal criticism damages relations. Calculated flattery, supported by real facts, produces results. Rutte, who has developed a working relationship with Trump that few European leaders can claim, applies this lesson with masterful precision.

Rutte's strategy during this visit illustrates something important about the diplomacy of the Atlantic alliance in 2026: to maintain American support for Ukraine and NATO, allies must constantly demonstrate their value in terms that Trump understands — numbers, financial contributions, tangible proof of commitment. This is a new and exhausting constraint for European democracies, but it is also the reality of the moment.

There is something slightly humbling about the need to arrive in Washington with posters designed like advertisements to flatter a president. But diplomacy is the art of the possible — and if carefully chosen charts keep America in the Atlantic alliance and supporting Ukraine, then those posters are worth their weight in gold.

Moscow's reaction: a registered shock

According to Charter97, the Belarusian opposition outlet, the Kremlin was "shocked" by Trump's decision to reaffirm his support for Zelensky. Moscow's reaction reflects the anxiety that Trumpian unpredictability generates in Russian power circles. Putin had evidently been betting on a gradual distancing between Washington and Kyiv. The June 24 reversal contradicts that calculation.

Russian propaganda had heavily invested in the narrative of a Ukraine abandoned by its Western allies, of a Zelensky weakened by the loss of American support. That narrative becomes harder to sustain when Trump himself publicly declares that Zelensky is "doing pretty well" and has "excellent equipment." The Kremlin must recalibrate — and it is precisely that prospect that unnerves Russian strategists.

Implications for the dynamics of negotiations

The Russia-Ukraine war is fought simultaneously on battlefields and in the statements of world leaders. When Trump publicly expresses admiration for Ukrainian resistance, it sends a strong signal to Moscow: the window for extracting concessions from Washington at Ukraine's expense may not be as wide as calculated. This strengthens Kyiv's negotiating position — without firing a single additional shot.

Trump's statements also have an effect on the morale of Ukrainian soldiers and the civilian population. Knowing that the American president — even capricious, even unpredictable — publicly acknowledges their courage and effectiveness: this is a form of moral support that military aid figures cannot always replace. Zelensky has always understood the psychological dimension of this war. Trump's statement is a victory in that dimension.

Putin governs an empire built on certainties — the certainty of Russian military superiority, the certainty of Western fragmentation, the certainty of Ukrainian fatigue. Every time Trump says something positive about Zelensky, one of those certainties develops a crack. And empires built on certainties collapse when the certainties abandon them.

The United Kingdom: firm support for Ukraine, distance from Trump

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer offers an interesting contrast to Rutte's approach. According to The Guardian on June 22, 2026, tensions with Trump dominated the first part of his premiership, particularly on the Iran question. Starmer has chosen a line of firm support for Ukraine while maintaining cautious distance from Trump's rhetorical excesses. It is a different calculus from Rutte's, but consistent with the British tradition of diplomatic pragmatism.

The United Kingdom remains one of Ukraine's most solid supporters among Western allies. The deliveries of Storm Shadow missiles, the training of Ukrainian soldiers on British soil, Starmer's consistent political commitment despite turbulence with Washington — all of this keeps London as a foundational pillar of support for Kyiv. But Britain's capacity to influence Trump is different, and likely more limited, than that of Rutte and NATO.

Europe as a whole: 90 billion reasons to stay relevant

The 90 billion additional dollars spent by European and Canadian allies on defense in 2025 are not only an argument to flatter Trump. They represent a profound structural shift in European defense posture — a recognition that the continent's security can no longer depend indefinitely on American goodwill. Europe is investing in its own defense not to please Trump, but because the threat is real and permanent.

This transformation is, moreover, directly beneficial to Ukraine. A Europe that spends more on defense is a Europe with more capacity to offer — in arms, in training, in intelligence — to Ukraine. The "Trump Trillion" that Rutte presented at the White House is also, in its own way, an additional shield for Zelensky.

Europe rearming to please Trump ends up rearming for itself — and for Ukraine. There is a positive irony in this dynamic: even if the initial motivation is responding to Trump's pressure, the final result is a stronger Europe, more capable of defending its values and its allies. Sometimes external pressure produces the right decisions for the wrong reasons.

What "excellent equipment" means concretely

When Trump speaks of Ukraine's "excellent equipment," he is referring to deliveries that have accumulated since the full-scale invasion of February 2022: Abrams and Leopard tanks, Patriot and NASAMS air defense systems, HIMARS missiles, drones of various generations, and a constellation of precision artillery systems. This equipment has enabled the Ukrainian military to resist a theoretically far superior force in terms of mass.

The on-the-ground reality in Ukraine has been an extraordinary laboratory of military adaptation. Ukrainian forces have not only used Western equipment effectively but have also developed their own innovations — particularly in the drone field, where Ukraine has become a world leader. These military achievements are not just a matter of hardware: they reflect the courage, intelligence, and determination of Ukrainian soldiers and engineers whom Zelensky represents on the international stage.

The "excellent people": paying tribute to Ukraine's defenders

Trump's reference to "excellent people" may be the most significant element of his June 24 statements. It is a recognition — even indirect, even filtered through Trumpian rhetoric — of the courage and competence of Ukrainian soldiers who have been fighting for more than four years against one of the world's most massive armies. For the families of the estimated 60,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed since the start of the full-scale war, this recognition by the American president carries particular weight.

Zelensky has dedicated his presidency to making the Ukrainian sacrifice visible on the international stage. Every time a world leader publicly acknowledges the courage of Ukrainian forces, it is a small victory in that visibility campaign. Trump's June 24 statement, however circumstantial, points in that direction. And Zelensky knows it — he moved quickly to welcome the change in tone.

When Trump calls Ukrainians "excellent people," I think of the soldiers in the Donbas trenches, the doctors in field hospitals, the engineers keeping the power grid alive under bombardment. They deserve far better than an improvised statement — but they take it, and they keep fighting. That is Ukrainian dignity.

The political attrition of a multi-front president

A key factor in Trump's reversal on Ukraine is, paradoxically, Iran fatigue. According to The Guardian on June 19, 2026, Trump — "tired" of Iran after weeks of intense tension — had refocused his attention on Ukraine. This shift in attention reveals something important about Trump's decision-making mechanics: he cannot sustain equal intensity across all files simultaneously. When one file exhausts him, he pivots to another.

This mechanism is both a weakness and an opportunity for Ukraine. A weakness because it means American support can be hostage to presidential moods and non-Ukrainian geopolitical contingencies. An opportunity because Zelensky and his teams can anticipate these attention cycles and prepare to be "on standby" with the right messages at the right moment. The June 23 counsel — "be bolder against Russia" — arrived precisely when Trump was looking for a new file on which to project his energy.

The window of opportunity: act before the next pivot

Ukrainian diplomats and their European allies know that Trump's windows of positive attention have a limited shelf life. Converting the benevolent statement of June 24 into concrete measures — new arms deliveries, strengthened engagement in negotiations, strong signals to Moscow — requires acting quickly, before Trump is once again distracted by another file.

This dynamic is not new for Ukraine's allies. They have learned to convert each positive statement into a concrete building block of support as rapidly as possible. The logic is relentless: in the Trump era, the time between words and forgetting is short. Those who can turn words into deeds within that narrow window win. Those who wait lose.

Governing with Trump as your principal ally means navigating a sea of unpredictability with a compass that changes north every week. Zelensky handles it remarkably well — not because the task is easy, but because he refuses to be afraid to show up as himself with a man who respects authenticity.

A signal to Putin: America is not abandoning Ukraine

Beyond the statements, the week of June 18–25, 2026 sends an important geopolitical signal to Moscow: America is not on the verge of abandoning Ukraine. Putin had bet on attrition — the military attrition of Ukrainian forces, the economic attrition of Western economies, and above all the political attrition of Western democracies in the face of a war that drags on. Trump's reversal, even partial, even rhetorical, undercuts that bet.

The Russian president had also likely counted on a growing rift between Trump and Zelensky. This week demonstrated the opposite: despite their differences in style and approach, the two men maintain a channel of communication that produces results. Zelensky advises, Trump listens. Trump declares, Zelensky capitalizes. It is an improbable partnership, but it is a real one.

Prospects: lasting change or passing ray of sunshine?

The question that now arises is whether this reversal will hold. Analysts who follow Trump's foreign policy are unanimous: a positive statement does not necessarily presage a stable policy. Trump can reverse course as quickly as he pivoted in a positive direction. Ukraine's allies are aware of this and are not relaxing their diplomatic vigilance.

What could anchor this change in tone into more durable policy is the dynamics of European defense spending. If allies continue to increase their contributions — if Rutte's "Trump Trillion" becomes the "Trump Two Trillion" next year — Trump will have a growing interest in maintaining his role as the "catalyst" of Western defense. That narrative serves him politically. And what is politically advantageous for Trump can, in this specific case, be geopolitically advantageous for Ukraine.

I do not believe in the stability of Trump's foreign policy over the long term. But I believe in the capacity of Ukraine and its allies to transform flashes of goodwill into concrete policies. That is the whole art of diplomacy in the Trump era: capture the light when it shines and bottle it before it disappears.

Portrait of a head of state who refuses to capitulate

Volodymyr Zelensky was elected in 2019 on a promise of peace and anti-corruption — not as a wartime leader. The transformation he has undergone since February 24, 2022 is one of the most remarkable political metamorphoses in recent history. From a comedian turned president, he became a worldwide symbol of resistance to oppression. This transformation is not cosmetic: it reflects genuine endurance, a capacity to hold under pressure that few contemporary politicians have had to confront.

What makes Zelensky particularly effective in his relationship with Trump is that he does not seek complicity — he seeks common interests. He does not tell Trump "you're right," he tells him "here is what serves your interests." This approach, intellectually honest and politically astute, produced results this week. It will continue to produce results as long as Zelensky has the clarity to hold that line.

International legitimacy: an asset Zelensky preserves

Despite pressures — including those from certain American circles pushing for peace negotiations on Russian terms — Zelensky has held his line: no territorial capitulation, no neutralization of Ukraine, no abandonment of the principles of international law. This line is not only moral — it is politically essential to maintain Ukraine's international legitimacy and justify continued Western support.

Trump's recognition of the quality of Ukrainian defense consolidates that legitimacy. It makes it harder — for those within Trumpian circles who might push for concessions to Moscow — to argue that Ukraine is doomed or deserves less support. The June 24 statement is not just a reward for Ukrainian courage. It is a validation of the resistance strategy that Zelensky has maintained through every storm.

Zelensky a hero? That word is sometimes overused. But in this specific case, it seems right. Being the man who refuses to yield before the continent's largest army, in the face of internal and external pressures, in the face of the fatigue and pain of his people — and continuing to fight with intelligence and dignity: that is heroic. And no statement from Trump changes or diminishes that.

Words that can translate into weapons

In the relationship between presidential rhetoric and concrete policy, the translation of good words into material support remains the ultimate test. Trump's June 24 statement comes at a moment when important decisions are under discussion regarding future military aid packages for Ukraine. If this change in tone is reflected in accelerated approvals of equipment deliveries, if the hesitations that marked certain recent periods recede, then the statement will have concrete value beyond its symbolic dimension.

Those within the Trump administration who support robust aid to Ukraine — and they exist — will undoubtedly use the June 24 statements as leverage in internal discussions. "The president himself says Zelensky is doing pretty well and has excellent equipment — that is the argument to keep providing that equipment." It is a rhetorical weapon that Ukrainian diplomats will know how to wield.

The American defense budget and the Ukraine variable

The request for 350 billion additional dollars for defense presented by Hegseth to Congress also creates a budgetary context in which aid to Ukraine must find its place. An administration requesting massive sums for American defense cannot simultaneously reduce aid to an ally that is fighting directly against the primary threat that defense is meant to contain. Argumentative consistency demands that support for Ukraine and strengthening American defense be presented as complementary — which, in fact, they are.

Trump's positive statements on Zelensky facilitate that argumentative consistency. They create a political environment in which aid to Ukraine can be presented not as a questionable expenditure, but as an investment in collective Western security — one that the president himself implicitly validated by praising the results achieved on the ground.

Trump's words carry a price: they commit a policy, even when he doesn't fully realize it. When he says Zelensky is "doing pretty well," he makes it politically harder to cut aid to someone who is doing pretty well. That is a logic that his own advisers can and must exploit.

Iran, NATO, Ukraine: the geopolitical triangulation of June 2026

The week of June 18–25, 2026 is remarkable not only for Trump's reversal on Ukraine, but for the general geopolitical complexity it reveals. The gradual American disengagement from the Iran file, the Rutte-Trump meeting at the White House, the preparations for the NATO summit in Ankara — all of these events articulate to form a rapidly moving geopolitical picture where positions are never fixed and where each week can redraw the balance.

In this shifting context, Trump's reversal on Ukraine is not an isolated event. It is the product of a combination of pressures, opportunities, and political calculations that reflect the complexity of the moment. And as in any complex moment, it takes leaders capable of reading the situation with precision and acting at the right time — which Zelensky, once again, demonstrated knowing how to do.

The solidity of foundations in the face of momentary volatility

Beyond presidential moods and rhetorical reversals, the foundations of Western support for Ukraine remain solid. Democratic values, the principle of inviolable borders, the rejection of the law of the strongest in international relations — these foundations do not depend on Trump's weekly statements. They have been reaffirmed by European parliaments, by peoples who have demonstrated their support for Ukraine, by companies that have maintained their sanctions against Russia.

Trump's June 24 reversal is good news for Ukraine. But it is not the only news. It sits within a structural Western support that transcends the oscillations of a single politician. And perhaps that, at its core, is the real strength of the alliance — its capacity to hold even when some of its members are unreliable, incoherent, or unpredictable.

The West is more than Trump. This elementary truth is sometimes forgotten in the daily news cycle. Institutions, values, alliances outlast presidential moods. This is what this week confirmed once more: despite Trumpian volatility, solidarity with Ukraine holds. And that is what matters.

Russian propaganda confronts Trump's rebuttal

The Kremlin's propaganda machine had invested heavily in a precise narrative since the start of Trump's second term: a Ukraine progressively abandoned by its American allies, a Zelensky increasingly isolated on the world stage. Pro-Kremlin television channels, troll farms, disinformation accounts on social media — all were hammering this message with formidable consistency. Trump's June 24 statement shatters that narrative spectacularly. It is hard to argue that America is abandoning Ukraine when its president publicly declares that Zelensky is doing pretty well and has excellent equipment.

This informational dimension of the war must not be underestimated. Putin uses disinformation as a strategic weapon, and that weapon is most effective when it rests on real foundations — real divisions, real hesitations. When reality invalidates the pro-Russian narrative, as it did this week, Moscow must recalibrate. That recalibration takes time, consumes resources, and weakens the coherence of Russian propaganda. It is a modest but real victory in the information war.

Social media as a battlefield of perception

Trump's statement on Zelensky was amplified by pro-Ukrainian networks on every platform within hours. Video clips, infographics, analysis pieces — an entire digital communications ecosystem mobilized to spread the positive message and counter Russian disinformation. This is a dimension of modern warfare that Ukrainian forces master remarkably well — better, in some cases, than their Russian adversaries who are equipped with far greater state resources.

The information war is not won in a single day. But every narrative victory counts, every setback inflicted on Moscow's propaganda contributes to the overall effort. Trump's June 24, 2026 statement is one of those narrative victories. It does not change the realities on the ground. But it changes perception — and in modern warfare, perceptions carry their own power of reality.

The war is also fought in minds. Putin has always known this — which is why he invests so heavily in disinformation. But this week, reality beat fiction: Trump said good things about Zelensky, and no troll farm can erase that. Truth is sometimes the best counter-propaganda there is.

What this week teaches about diplomacy in the Trump era

The week of June 18–25, 2026 offers several valuable diplomatic lessons for those who must continue working with a Trump administration in the months ahead. The first: the direct approach works. Zelensky did not get lost in diplomatic precautions — he told Trump directly to be bolder. And Trump responded positively. Directness is a language Trump understands and respects.

The second lesson: quantified data talks. Rutte's charts were kitsch in their presentation, but they contained real facts — 90 billion extra dollars, a 20% increase. Trump is responsive to numbers that confirm his success narrative. Providing those numbers, flagrantly and repeatedly, is an effective diplomatic strategy. The third lesson: timing is everything. Approaching Trump when he was looking for a new file after "tiring" of Iran produced results. The synchronization between the message and the psychological readiness of the recipient is an art that Ukraine's allies are mastering more and more.

Toward an adaptive diplomacy model

What we see emerging in the diplomatic practices of Ukraine's allies in dealing with the Trump administration is an adaptive model — flexible, results-oriented, capable of using the American leader's specific characteristics as levers rather than obstacles. This is not complicity with the problematic aspects of Trumpism. It is diplomatic pragmatism in service of a clear objective: maintaining and reinforcing support for a Ukraine that is fighting for values the West claims to cherish.

This adaptive model will be necessary for as long as Trump is in the White House. And even afterward, because the mechanics of American presidential attention, the need for political validation, the sensitivity to numbers and success narratives are not exclusively Trumpian characteristics — they are inherent to the American presidency in the contemporary media age.

The real lesson from this week is that diplomacy is not dead in the era of tweets and impulsive statements. It has transformed — more agile, more personalized, more focused on the psychology of the individual leader. Zelensky and Rutte have understood this. Other allies would do well to follow their lead.

Hope, fragile and necessary

The week of June 18–25, 2026 ends on a more positive note for Ukraine and its allies than it began. Trump's reversal — from condescension to recognition — is not a guarantee of victory, nor even an irreversible turning point in American policy. But it is a positive signal, extracted by skillful Ukrainian diplomacy, backed by European allies who played their cards at the right moment.

Hope is a precious resource in a long, exhausting war. The hope of Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches, the hope of families in bombed cities, the hope of diplomats who keep working to find the political combination that will ultimately open a path to a just peace. Trump's June 24 statement feeds that hope — and even if it is fragile, even if it could evaporate tomorrow, it is better than its absence.

The mission continues

This reversal does not change the essential: Ukraine keeps fighting alone against the Russian army on its territory. Soldiers keep dying. Infrastructure keeps being targeted. Hybrid warfare — disinformation, cyberattacks, economic pressure — keeps unfolding against Western democracies. Zelensky cannot afford to lower his diplomatic guard because Trump said something kind about him on June 24. And he does not — that is the whole difference between a politician and a statesman.

The mission continues: support Ukraine, maintain sanctions against Russia, strengthen the West's defense capabilities, and work — patiently, stubbornly — toward a peace that is not a disguised capitulation. This mission transcends the declarations of a single week. It is written into the fundamental values of the West — values worth defending, whatever the political weather in Washington.

A good diplomatic week does not make a victory. But it can make the difference between holding and giving way, between continuing to fight and beginning to doubt. For Ukraine, every good week counts. And this one, thanks to the intelligence of Zelensky and his allies, was a good week.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.