The meeting between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was a moment of political reckoning that revealed the true nature of Trump’s approach to foreign relations. Zelenskyy, despite his attempts to gain favor, was humiliated in front of the world, exposing the reality that transactional politics reigns supreme over sentimental alliances. This event serves as a critical lesson for all populist leaders who rise to power through rhetoric and media-driven narratives but lack the substance to engage in realpolitik. The ultimate fate of such leaders is evident, they get discarded when they no longer serve the interests of global powers. This episode is particularly relevant in the context of Pakistan’s political landscape, where some still naively believe that Trump or any U.S. administration would act as a savior for Imran Khan.
The core message from the Trump-Zelenskyy encounter is that the United States, especially under a leader like Trump, prioritizes clear, tangible outcomes over lofty rhetoric. In the real world, nobody is interested in hyperbolic slogans or idealistic visions that lack a concrete plan. Empty phrases like “Haqeeqi Azadi” and “Datt ke khara hai” may captivate domestic audiences, but they hold no weight in international diplomacy. The U.S. expects pragmatic, decisive leadership from its partners, leaders who can engage in negotiations, make difficult choices, and deliver on commitments. This is precisely where populist figures like Zelenskyy and Imran Khan falter. They thrive on emotional appeal and divisive rhetoric but fail to grasp the intricacies of governance and strategic decision-making.
Trump’s sneering treatment of Zelenskyy underscored another important reality, the U.S. seeks reliable and competent counterparts who can make decisions, not wavering politicians who rely on public theatrics. Pakistan, despite its internal political struggles, has historically had decision-makers capable of engaging with global powers on pragmatic terms. However, Imran Khan’s tenure demonstrated the opposite he alienated key allies, shifted his stance irregularly, and failed to establish credibility in the eyes of foreign policymakers. Even when he was in power, no significant global leader trusted him, let alone now when he is politically marginalized. His confrontational posture and inability to build sustainable diplomatic relationships made him an unreliable figure on the global stage.
For those who still hold the illusion that Trump’s return to power could somehow translate into support for Imran Khan, the Zelenskyy episode should serve as a wake-up call. Trump does not operate on ideological loyalty; he is a businessman turned politician who values transactional partnerships. The idea that the U.S. would go through the trouble of reshaping Pakistan’s political landscape just to install an unreliable figure like Khan is laughable. Washington has no interest in investing resources in dismantling an already entrenched regime to bring back someone who failed to deliver when he had the opportunity. The U.S. is focused on securing its interests in the region, and for that, it requires stability and dependability, not erratic populism.
The pattern of populist leaders meeting an unceremonious fate is not unique. Across the world, figures who rise to power through media-driven narratives and emotional mobilization often face a harsh reality when confronted with the complexities of governance. They create deep societal divisions, manipulate public sentiment, and construct an illusion of heroism, but when the time comes for substantive decision-making, they falter. Their lack of strategic vision and policy expertise becomes evident, and eventually, they are either sidelined or discarded altogether. Their supporters, who are initially intoxicated by their charismatic rhetoric, are left disillusioned as they watch their so-called saviors struggle to navigate the real challenges of leadership.
Trump’s handling of Zelenskyy serves as a mirror for the fate of all such leaders, including Imran Khan. The masses may adore them in the short term, but the absence of governance skills ensures their downfall. They rely on media to construct an alternative reality where they appear as the ultimate defenders of the people, but in the corridors of power, where decisions are made, their weaknesses are exposed. For Imran Khan’s supporters, the belief that Trump or any U.S. administration will come to his aid is not only delusional but also indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of global politics. The world operates on strategic interests, not emotional allegiances or social media narratives.
Even now, as some attempt to twist the Zelenskyy episode into a favorable comparison for Khan, the underlying reality remains unchanged. Just as Trump saw Zelenskyy as a weak and desperate figure seeking validation, he and his administration, if they return to power, will view Khan as an unreliable, inconsequential player who has already been sidelined domestically. The U.S. engages with those who hold real power, not with those who thrive on victimhood and conspiracy theories. Any expectations of Trump swooping in to rescue Khan’s political career are built on sheer fantasy.
Pakistan’s political trajectory has always been shaped by hard realities rather than populist illusions. Leaders who understand the demands of governance and diplomacy have historically been the ones to secure the country’s strategic interests. In contrast, those who rely on slogans, performative defiance, and media-driven myths find themselves isolated and discarded. The Trump-Zelenskyy spat is a lesson in the brutal pragmatism of international politics, one that should not be ignored by those still trapped in the myth of Imran Khan’s indispensability. The world moves forward based on calculated decisions, not on the whims of political cults. Those who fail to recognize this are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
