The central international questions now focus on the following: what does President Donald Trump, with his remarks and approach, hope to accomplish? Does this signal a tectonic shift in United States-led world order? And what does it mean if so?

The simple, but incomplete, answer to the first question is Trump seeks to achieve peace in Ukraine. Incomplete, because “peace”, history instructs us, can come at as great (or greater) a cost as war.

The combination of President Trump’s rhetorical onslaught against Volodymyr Zelensky, and his administration’s official actions concerning Russia and Ukraine, strikes an unusual tone — not because it marks a departure from Trump’s previously staked positions; he and Vice President JD Vance have been flirting with isolationist temptations for some time — but because it is a unique demonstration of American weakness from a president who prides himself on shows of strength. How else can one explain Trump’s opening position to Russia — granting Vladimir Putin territory, resumption of trade, a restoration of diplomatic normalcy, instant rehabilitation of his international standing and no security assurances for Ukraine in exchange for nothing. Worse, the proposed deal imposes on the Ukrainians conditions the drafters of the Treaty of Versailles would have found unreasonably harsh; conditions one might impose on a vanquished enemy, not an erstwhile ally.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The accompanying rhetoric from President Trump was Biden-level delusional, including his instance Ukraine started the war. One trusts the president simply got flustered and misspoke, but this particular president does not admit to such things, and doubled down during the next day or two, going as far as calling Zelensky a “dictator.” Again, one wonders if President Trump simply has the belligerents mixed up in his head. Democracy in Ukraine may not be the perfected and well-oiled machine it is in this country, but they have taken a much more serious stab at it than Russia, a country for which democracy and rule of law has never been part of the fixed DNA. Of course Ukraine has not held elections in the past two years — they are under martial law on account of being in the process of being invaded. What does Trump think elections would look like in Ukraine right now, with entire swaths of the country under foreign occupation, and polling places being tempting targets for Russian missiles? In any case, obsession over Ukraine’s dedication to democracy smacks of Wilsonian impulses, which have nothing to do with American strategic interests.

The quarrel is not, in this instance, with the brashness of his approach. One recalls when then-President George W. Bush met with Putin in 2005, and was criticized by the usual suspects, European and domestic, for his very American directness in addressing issues of importance with Putin (Yes, Putin was Russian puppet master 20 years ago, if you’re looking for a better definition of “dictator”.) Whatever his other faults, Bush was never indifferent to slights against human freedom, and his candor was wonderfully refreshing.

This is something different. Bush was making the case for American leadership, and asserting it. Trump seems content to concede it.

This has ignited considerable consternation in Europe, and not just in Kyiv. European leaders are outraged they have been sidelined in talks about a peace deal on their eastern flank, but Europe has only itself to blame; whatever President Trump has gotten wrong — strategically, morally, dramatically wrong — about the Ukraine situation, he is correct in his assertion Europe ought to shoulder more of the burden for its own security.  Europe has for far too long traded responsibility for its security in exchange for public creature comforts, subsidizing its welfare states with an over-reliance on American security guarantees, guarantees which suddenly seem not so assured anymore.

But that will come with its own costs. American foreign policy of much of the last 50 years is pockmarked with betrayals — the abandonment of the Vietnamese, and later the Kurds, then the Afghans — each of which have taken their toll on American standing and security. By abandoning Ukraine now, America will forfeit any claim to decisive influence in any part of the world where a felt U.S. presence is of strategic benefit.

American abandonment of Ukraine signals the abandonment of its post as leader of the western order. The result will be something akin to international chaos, as nations struggle to adapt to a new world order absent the assurance of collective action. America would probably survive in such a world, and that may be the Trump-Vance calculation. But they forget the world, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and American retreat creates a big one. Europe is not in a position to fill it, structurally, politically, or economically. The United Kingdom is currently unable, and if the U.S. is unwilling, that leaves only a few remaining, and terrifying, alternatives.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.