Analysis: Zelenskyy's smile and long silence told everything about the Trump turn

The question concerned whether Zelenskyy had become a scapegoat for problems that Trump had caused himself. It was a politically charged question because relations between the United States and Ukraine had become more strained. Zelenskyy’s reaction avoided a direct accusation while still making his view clear.

Before answering, Zelenskyy remained silent for quite a long time. Then he smiled. Finally, he said, “This is my answer.” The reporters laughed. His silence suggested that he found the question revealing, or that he did not need to add a direct verbal judgment.

The moment happened after Zelenskyy attended the EU leaders’ summit in Brussels. The meeting came as Ukraine’s relationship with the United States was worsening. That made European support especially important. Zelenskyy received supportive statements from EU leaders and also requested €70 billion for Ukraine next year.

The phrase refers to a change in the relationships surrounding the war. Relations between the United States and Ukraine are becoming more strained, while the article describes ties between Trump and Russia as increasingly warm. That shift matters because Ukraine depends heavily on outside political and financial support.

The article gives two signs of this turn. Trump blamed Ukraine for high fuel prices in the United States. It also mentions Trump’s diesel agreement and says that relations with Russia are becoming warmer. Meanwhile, Ukraine is asking the European Union for €70 billion for next year because its finances are under pressure.

The result is greater importance for European backing. EU leaders repeated that support for Ukraine would continue while the war continued. Finland and other countries also continued pushing for frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. The article says the changing US-Russia relationship is adding momentum to that debate.

Trump accused Ukraine of causing high fuel prices in the United States. The article presents this as an attribution that does not match the main forces behind the price rise. Its explanation points instead to events in the Middle East and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Middle East and the Strait of Hormuz affected fuel markets because the situation there created pressure around energy supplies and transport. The article says this situation was itself influenced by a war being fought by the United States. It therefore places the main responsibility for the price increase outside Ukraine.

The accusation became part of a wider dispute between Washington and Kyiv. Their worsening relationship was a central subject at the EU leaders’ summit. For Ukraine, the dispute made European support more valuable, as Zelenskyy sought continued political backing and €70 billion for the following year.

Ukraine is asking EU countries for €70 billion for next year. The request shows how quickly wartime financing needs are growing. The amount is lower than the EU’s previously agreed €90 billion support loan, but the comparison needs context because that loan was intended to cover both this year and next year.

EU leaders agreed to the €90 billion loan last December. It was expected to last across two years. However, Ukraine’s money is now beginning to run out because of the difficult wartime situation. Zelenskyy therefore brought a new, concrete financial request to the Brussels summit.

The figures indicate a serious funding gap. Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said the shortfall “must be resolved.” Finland and several other member states still want to use Russia’s frozen assets to support Ukraine. The European Commission and Belgium are preparing a model for sharing the risks among EU countries.

Ukraine needs outside support to continue resisting the war. When relations with the United States deteriorate, political and financial help from Europe becomes more important. European backing can provide Ukraine with diplomatic support and help address its growing wartime funding needs.

At the Brussels summit, EU leaders repeatedly said that support for Ukraine would continue as long as the war continued. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was among those stressing this point. Zelenskyy also asked EU countries for €70 billion for next year, while Ukraine’s cash reserves are already beginning to run low.

The European response is still partly political rather than fully financed. Finland and other member states want to use frozen Russian assets, but Belgium remains opposed because it fears Russian retaliation. A possible compromise would distribute the risks among EU countries. That could make financial help more achievable as US-Ukrainian relations worsen.

The EU has frozen approximately €210 billion in Russian assets because of Russia’s war of aggression. Freezing prevents the assets from being freely used or moved, but it does not mean the EU has simply taken ownership of them. Their possible use has become a major question in financing support for Ukraine.

Most of the money is held in an account at Euroclear, a securities depository registered in Belgium. Finland and several other EU countries want to use the frozen assets to support Ukraine. The idea has been attempted before, but Belgium opposed it last year and blocked the move.

Belgium’s position has not changed. It still resists touching the assets because it fears possible Russian countermeasures. A new proposal may share the risks among EU member states. According to Orpo, the European Commission and Belgium are preparing such a model, which could revive discussions about using the funds.

Freezing assets means blocking their transfer or ordinary use while leaving ownership formally unchanged. Using them means directing the assets, or their proceeds, toward another purpose, such as supporting Ukraine. Confiscating them goes further by permanently taking ownership. The article specifically describes frozen Russian assets and a debate over using them.

These categories matter because each creates different legal and financial consequences. A freeze can be imposed as a restriction, while use or confiscation may trigger disputes over property rights, sovereign immunity, and compensation. The article does not detail these legal rules, but it clearly identifies the political danger: Belgium fears Russian retaliation if the assets are touched.

The EU has frozen about €210 billion, most of it held through Euroclear in Belgium. Finland and other countries still support using the money. The Commission and Belgium are now preparing a risk-sharing model. That could address financial exposure, but the article does not say that confiscation has been agreed.