Two men, Vololdymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump, are depicted in a heated discussion, separated by a torn paper effect through the centre, revealing an image of a map of New Zealand. Both appear engaged in animated conversation, in a grayscale colour scheme.
Trump and Zelenskyy’s meeting at the White House on February 28 (Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsMarch 6, 2025

America or Europe? Why Trump’s Ukraine U-turn is a fork in the road for New Zealand

Two men, Vololdymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump, are depicted in a heated discussion, separated by a torn paper effect through the centre, revealing an image of a map of New Zealand. Both appear engaged in animated conversation, in a grayscale colour scheme.
Trump and Zelenskyy’s meeting at the White House on February 28 (Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

If the US president decides to force Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiating table against his will, and Europe continues urging and supporting him to fight on, New Zealand will have to take sides. It cannot take both.

The aftermath of one of the most undiplomatic – and notorious – White House meetings in recent history reveals a changed world.

Having berated Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for supposedly not wanting peace with Russia and failing to show sufficient gratitude to the United States, President Donald Trump has now paused all military aid to Ukraine.

This equates to about 40% of the beleaguered nation’s military support. If the gap is not quickly covered by other countries, Ukraine will be severely compromised in its defence against the Russian invasion.

This has happened while the Russian army is making slow but costly gains along the front in eastern Ukraine. Trump’s goal appears to be to force Zelenskyy to accept a deal he does not want, and which may be illegal under international law.

New Zealand is a long way from that front line, but the implications of Trump’s unilateral abandonment of Ukraine still create a serious foreign policy problem.

Aside from its unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s actions, New Zealand has provided Defence Force personnel for training, intelligence, logistics and liaison to the tune of nearly NZ$35 million. The government has also given an additional $32 million in humanitarian assistance.

At the same time, New Zealand has supported global legal efforts to hold Russia to account at both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. With Trump undermining these collective actions, New Zealand faces some stark choices.

Allies at war

While a genuine ceasefire and eventual peace in Ukraine are the right aims, Trump’s one-sided proposal has involved direct talks between Russia and the US, excluding all other parties, including the actual victims of Russian aggression.

With eerie parallels to the Munich Agreement of 1938 between Nazi Germany, Britain, France and Italy, peace terms could be dictated to the innocent party. Ukraine may have to sacrifice part of its territory in the hope a wider peace prevails.

In exchange, Ukraine may be given some type of “security assurance”. But what that arrangement would look like, and what kind of peacekeeping force might be acceptable to Russia, remains unclear.

If the current UK and European ceasefire proposals fail, Europe could be pulled more directly into the conflict. Since the Trump rebuff, European leaders are embracing Zelenskyy more tightly, wary of an emboldened Russia threatening other states with substantial Russian populations such as in Estonia and Latvia.

European boots on the ground in Ukraine could escalate the existing war into a much larger and more dangerous conflict. The complexities of this new reality are now spilling over in the United Nations.

A Ukrainian soldier looks out from a tank as he holds his position near the town of Bakhmut in the Donetsk region on December 13, 2023 (Photo: Anatolii Stepanov/AFP via Getty Images)

A fork in the road

While the Security Council finally agreed on a broad statement in favour of a lasting peace, just what that might look like has seen opposing resolutions in the General Assembly.

On February 18, 53 countries, including New Zealand, voted in favour of a resolution condemning Russian aggression and calling for the return of Ukrainian territory. The resolution passed, but the US, Russia, Belarus and North Korea voted against it.

The US then put up its own resolution calling for peace, without recognising Russian aggression or the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. New Zealand supported this, too.

Those two votes clearly signal a fork-in-the-road moment for New Zealand.

As well as the wider consequences and potential precedents of any Ukraine peace settlement for security in Europe and the Pacific region, there is the immediate problem of supporting Ukraine.

With the US and Europe – both traditional allies of New Zealand – now deeply divided, whatever path the government chooses will directly affect present and future security arrangements – including any possible “pillar two” membership of Aukus.

Potentially complicating matters further, Trump’s civilian lieutenant Elon Musk has publicly advocated for the US leaving the UN and Nato. Whether or not that happens, the threat alone underscores the gravity of the current situation.

‘Help keep The Spinoff funny, smart, tall and handsome – become a member today.’
Gabi Lardies
— Staff writer

No option without risk

Ultimately, if Trump decides to force Zelenskyy to the negotiating table against his will, and Europe continues urging and supporting him to fight on, New Zealand will have to take sides. It cannot take both.

The National-led coalition government will either have to abandon the stance New Zealand has taken on the Russian invasion over the past three years, or wait for Europe’s response and align with efforts to support a rules-based international order.

The first option would mean stepping back from that traditional foreign policy position, cutting military support for Ukraine (and trusting the Trump process), and probably ending sanctions against Russia and diplomatic efforts for legal accountability.

The other path would mean spending more on military aid, and possibly deploying more defence personnel to help fill the gap Trump has created.

No option is without risk. But, on balance, the European approach to international affairs seems closer to New Zealand’s worldview than the one currently articulated by the Trump administration.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Keep going!
An older man in a striped suit speaks at a podium. A graphic of a conference pass with the text "The Spinoff Echo Chamber" is superimposed on a green background showing a layout of chambers and offices.
Winston Peters flubbed his lines in parliament on Wednesday.

PoliticsMarch 6, 2025

Echo Chamber: Is Winston losing his edge?

An older man in a striped suit speaks at a podium. A graphic of a conference pass with the text "The Spinoff Echo Chamber" is superimposed on a green background showing a layout of chambers and offices.
Winston Peters flubbed his lines in parliament on Wednesday.

The NZ First leader is one of parliament’s greatest quippers, but his hit rate lately has been well below his career average.

Echo Chamber is The Spinoff’s dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus.

Question time on Wednesday opened as it often does, with opposition leader Chris Hipkins and leader of the house Chris Bishop arguing about an arcane point of the standing orders and speaker Gerry Brownlee mixing up their names.

Hipkins complained that National was using patsy questions to attack the opposition and insisted that Labour had been very good boys and girls after the speaker asked them not to yell so much. Brownlee said it was OK to reference previous governments, but agreed that some answers had crossed the line.

The great tōtara of the house, Winston Peters, made a point of order: “What happened to ‘Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me’? Brownlee replied dismissively, “With all due respect, that completely misses the point I was making.”

The leaders of the two minor coalition parties, David Seymour and Winston Peters, like to use tactical points of order to disrupt the opposition’s lines of questioning or land a biting one-liner. Seymour is particularly good at bailing out his allies when they’re in trouble – especially prime minister Chris Luxon.

Early into the debate, Greens co-leader Marama Davidson sent Luxon into a spiral of what-I’d-say-to-yous over school lunches, while Labour’s Rachel Brooking and Deborah Russell mimicked the prime minister’s finger-wags back to him. He tried to spin his “go make a Marmite sandwich” gaffe by claiming Labour and the Greens were vilifying working parents who give their kids Marmite sandwiches for lunch. Seymour came to his rescue by asking whether the prime minister was aware that Labour’s last budget only funded school lunches through 2025. Luxon took the hint and pivoted into a stump speech.

Peters has a less subtle style than Seymour. He barely tries to pose his statements as questions (“Prime Minister, will you explain to Mr Hipkins…”) and is usually more concerned with landing a witty one-liner than winning the debate. Lately, though, his strike rate on these jokes has fallen well below his career average.

Green MP Kahurangi Carter questioned children’s minister Karen Chhour about reports of overworked social workers when Peters jumped in: “In line with MP Kahurangi Carter’s recent select committee request, if she offers the issue a hug, will it go away?” You could almost hear the cicadas chirping outside. “Yeah, that’s not something that the minister has direct responsibility for,” Brownlee replied.

It was a niche joke that relied on the audience knowing that Carter sarcastically offered a Hobson’s Pledge trustee a hug during select committee hearings for the Treaty principles bill. It also wasn’t particularly well-timed, appropriate or relevant to the topic.

In the echelon of parliamentary quippers, Peters is up there with the best. But like a great athlete in the twilight of their career, he’s not quite what he once was. There are flashes of vintage Winston, but they’re inconsistent. New Zealand First’s coalition partners, who rely on his support, have become accustomed to smiling and nodding through every slurred punchline and questionable statement of fact.

Since being appointed minister for rail in December, Peters has thrown around some bold predictions for the costs of the new Interislander ferries. On Tuesday, he told Newstalk ZB the reported $300 million break fee for cancelling the previous ferry contract was actually “way less than $300 million”. When Barbara Edmonds asked Nicola Willis about this, she replied diplomatically: “I find it is wise to agree with the minister for rail.”

Peters asked whether Willis was confident that the new ferries and port infrastructure would be at least $2 billion cheaper than the previous iReX project. It was intended as a softball so Willis could attack the previous government’s spending, but instead, she had to carefully avoid making a claim that could come back to bite her. “Well, I’m delighted to hear that the minister for rail has these matters in hand,” she said. Edmonds, keen to pin the government to a commitment on the price, asked again whether Willis could confirm Peters’ prediction of a $2 billion saving. “As I’ve just said, I find it’s always wise to agree with the minister for rail,” she replied.

One fun moment

Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon were in a back-and-forth about school lunches and tax breaks for landlords when backbench National MP Nancy Lu made a rare point of order.

Nancy Lu: “Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the mic for the prime minister is actually not on, so most of the MPs sitting here cannot hear him at all.”

Speaker Brownlee: “Well, some people might thank the lord for small mercies, but I will ask the technicians to have a look at what’s going on.”

‘Hutt Valley, Kāpiti, down to the south coast. Our Wellington coverage is powered by members.’
Joel MacManus
— Wellington editor