What Trump's Ukraine turn must teach Africa

In William Shakespeare's King Lear, Cordelia tells her deceitful sisters: “Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides.”

Time, indeed, has a way of exposing the assumptions that politics often conceals. For Africa, there is a lesson in what is happening around the Russia-Ukraine war—particularly in Washington's changing calculations under President Donald Trump.

For more than four years, the US and its European allies have poured weapons, intelligence, money, logistics and diplomatic support into Kyiv. But the old certainty that Western backing for Ukraine would continue indefinitely is being replaced by a more transactional calculation.

That does not mean Washington has abandoned Kyiv, nor that Europe has given up on Ukraine. Far from it. Germany has just committed additional Patriot interceptors, while the European Union continues to provide substantial financial and military support.

But the architecture of Western support is changing - and Africa should be paying close attention. Why? The continent is often either caught napping or her leaders willingly lend themselves to be used as puppets of their former colonial masters and neo-imperialist puppeteers!

Trump's approach is markedly different from that of the administration that preceded him. He has repeatedly framed the war in terms of American interests, the cost of prolonged involvement and the need to bring the conflict to an end.

The evidence of recalibration is becoming difficult to ignore. The proposed US budget for 2027 contains no dedicated funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a programme that had become an important channel for American security assistance to Kyiv. Pentagon officials have also pressed European governments to carry more of the burden.

Even the Patriot question illustrates the complexity. In July, Trump agreed to allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot interceptors under licence, while also acknowledging shortages in American stockpiles. On the surface, the United States is, therefore, not simply walking away, but is reassessing what it is prepared to provide, how much it can provide and who should ultimately carry the burden. But there is an underlying thread guided by national interest. It is a ceasefire to the costly conflict—and ultimately a resolution!

Europe is discovering the same uncomfortable reality. While major European powers continue supporting Kyiv, divisions over the scale and duration of assistance have become more visible. The EU has committed a €90 billion loan for Ukraine's 2026-27 needs, but countries such as Hungary and Slovakia have resisted elements of the bloc's Ukraine policy.

The Western coalition, therefore, is not collapsing. It is evolving. And that evolution raises another question: what happens when political leadership changes? This is particularly relevant to the debate over President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's mandate. His five-year electoral term was due to end in May 2024, but Ukraine remains under martial law and elections have not been held. The issue has generated political debate, including criticism in Washington.

But this political questions about legitimacy is further complicated by Ukraine's Constitution, which spells out the regime’s tenure and imposes a caveat on the same by stating that a “president exercises powers until a newly elected successor assumes office”.

Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that the agreements and commitments being signed now will be declared invalid and contested by the new president. And the individuals who sign them will be held accountable.

That nuance matters for African governments. It is dangerous for any government to assume that today's diplomatic arrangements will automatically carry the same political weight tomorrow. Wars end. Governments change. Alliances shift. Leaders leave office. National priorities are rewritten. The African lesson is therefore not to take sides between Washington, Moscow or Kyiv.

Prof PLO Lumumba puts the Pan-African argument bluntly. In an interview with the Midwest Herald, he said: “There are no good Samaritans. There are only bad Samaritans.”

The point is not that Africa should distrust every foreign partner, but the continent should position itself as credible polar leveraging its resources and geographical advantage to be the table of equal partners in global affairs—instead of always second fiddle or blindly walking in the shadows of others.

It is imperative for Africans to understand that powerful states pursue interests. They may share objectives with African countries, but they do not cease to be guided by their own national calculations.

A government in Nairobi, Abuja, Accra or Addis Ababa should ask not merely: Who is supporting us today? It should ask: What happens if that government changes tomorrow? What happens if the geopolitical balance shifts? What happens if our partner's interests change?”  he said.

-The writer comments on global issues