The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was, as Trump said, "great television".

It certainly made for riveting viewing, just not in the way expected. What unfolded was a stark reminder of the shifting dynamics of global diplomacy and the challenges faced by nations navigating an increasingly unpredictable international landscape.

The meeting, broadcast live to a global audience, was expected to see the signing of an agreement that would grant the US access to half of Ukraine's mineral resources. This deal, framed as a lifeline for Ukraine amid its ongoing conflict with Russia, had drawn criticism for its seemingly exploitative nature, with many likening it to "looting a burning house", although it was originally mooted by Kyiv, for whom it represents a painful but necessary compromise in the face of current realities.

What transpired during the meeting, however, was far more compelling viewing than a handshake to seal a deal. In what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated setup, the encounter devolved into President Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, openly berating Zelenskyy, who had traveled to Washington with a security guarantee in mind, with Trump dismissing Ukraine's negotiating position and Vance accusing Zelenskyy of ingratitude.

The Ukrainian leader, for his part, sought to articulate his concerns about Russia while expressing gratitude for US support. As diplomacy, the spectacle was unseemly. But as reality television, it offered a gripping and revealing glimpse into the realpolitik of the Trump administration.

The fallout from this ignominious public spat raises questions about the future of US-Ukraine relations. Despite the Trump administration's continued military aid, the meeting suggests that Ukraine may need to recalibrate its expectations of substantial US support. Even with the resource deal, the US has made no firm commitments to the kind of security guarantees Ukraine seeks, intimating that it should be shouldered by European countries.

In this context, Ukraine's pivot toward Europe is both logical and necessary. Following the contentious meeting in Washington, Zelenskyy flew directly to London, where he was warmly received by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The strong support voiced by European leaders in the wake of his treatment in the US highlights the growing importance of European solidarity for Ukraine.

But for the European Union itself, this episode should serve as a wake-up call: the era of relying on US security guarantees may be coming to an end.

The conflict in Ukraine has exposed vulnerabilities in Europe's defense capabilities, much as the COVID-19 pandemic revealed weaknesses in supply chain resilience. In response, major European powers are taking steps to bolster their own defense capabilities and explore collective security mechanisms. This push toward strategic autonomy is not only essential for Europe's security but also for the stability of a multipolar world. As the US under the Trump administration increasingly retreats from international responsibilities, the concept of a "US-led West" is receding into history.

China, for its part, has consistently advocated for dialogue and consensus-building to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. Beijing's vision of a community with a shared future for mankind is rooted in the principles of multipolarity and mutual respect. A Europe that embraces strategic autonomy aligns with this vision, offering hope for a more balanced and harmonious international order.

The Oval Office meeting may or may not have been "great television", mileage on that will depend on how on board one is with the messages it was intended to convey, but regardless of that, its true significance lies in what it has laid bare: For Ukraine, it underscores the need to diversify its alliances and seek sustainable partnerships. For Europe, it highlights the urgency of achieving greater self-reliance. And for the world, it serves as a reminder that the path to peace and stability lies in cooperation, not confrontation. As the global order continues to evolve, the choices made today will shape the future for generations to come.