From 2019 to 2024: Geopolitics in the mirror of time Unraveling Trump and Zelenskyy’s complex relationship

What is time as a philosophical category? And what is time in historical understanding? Probably, each person might have their own answer to this. From our side, we approached this question based on the perception of the fact that in order to understand what is happening in the present, it is necessary (in the fullest sense) to comprehend certain historical nuances. Knowing these will allow one to navigate what is happening here and now. And only then will the understanding of the future become more meaningful. Therefore, regardless of who may disagree with this, it is important not to forget the past, especially in geopolitical terms.

These thoughts were triggered by the situation surrounding the "clash" (not entirely in the literal sense) between the Washington administration and the President of Ukraine, even though the first signs of warming have begun to emerge after the incident. However, if we look back at the very recent past, the context of what took place becomes quite tangible. Let’s recall.

September 2019. According to open sources, American media began publishing a series of articles suggesting that US President Donald Trump (during his first term) and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani had been "pressuring the newly elected President of Ukraine, Zelenskyy," in the spring and summer of that year. At the very least, they aimed to convince him to resume an investigation into Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who at the time was a former US vice president and was serving on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

As a result of the immediate scandal, the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress lobbied for the adoption of a resolution to officially initiate the impeachment process of Trump. This was triggered by information from several American media outlets about a phone conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy in July 2019, during which the U.S. president "demanded that he begin an investigation into Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine."

As a consequence, at the end of September, the White House website published a declassified transcript of the conversation. According to the transcript, if summarized briefly, Zelenskyy, expressing gratitude to Trump for the "significant support of Ukraine's defense," mentioned Ukraine’s willingness to purchase American Javelin anti-tank missile systems. This was notable because, as experts pointed out, a week before the conversation, Trump had ordered the freezing of a $250 million aid package to Ukraine that had been approved by Congress.

After listening to Zelenskyy, Trump asked him for a "favor" (as stated in the text): to look into Crowdstrike. This cybersecurity company had investigated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee servers during the 2016 elections. According to some reports, members of the Republican Party believed that it wasn't so much Russia interfering in the U.S. elections, but rather other forces, including possibly Ukraine. This issue seemed to be important to Trump, which is why he asked Zelenskyy to work with the U.S. Attorney General to "get to the bottom of it."

Next, Trump suggested that Zelenskyy contact the U.S. Attorney General regarding a potential investigation into Joe Biden’s actions in Ukraine: "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me." In response, Zelenskyy promised that with the appointment of a new Attorney General in Ukraine, who was "100% my person," he would investigate the situation.

The nuance here is that at the time in question, Joe Biden was seen as a potential rival to Trump in the 2020 presidential elections. The information about the phone conversation leaked to the media, leading to accusations against Trump of attempting to "involve Ukraine in the electoral campaign."

Meanwhile, according to the same open sources, on September 25, when asked if Trump had pressured him, Zelenskyy told journalists, "we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me." He also denied the claims in an interview with Kyodo News. However, in October, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office, which was reviewing more than 10 cases related to Burisma at that time, responded to the question of "whether there was evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden" with a negative answer.

We do not comment on the above, understanding that readers will be able to navigate the events themselves. Instead, we will attempt to shift focus to the very recent past in the context of the "historical connection" between Trump and Zelenskyy.

And once again, September. This time, from 2024. The U.S. election marathon is nearing its final stretch. And at this crucial stage of American political life, Zelenskyy finds himself once again in the U.S. Let’s recall that shortly before Zelenskyy’s visit, Trump (as a presidential candidate) openly expressed his support for Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy, while also stating, "We keep giving millions of dollars to a man who refuses to negotiate." Moreover, Trump, not aligning with the official stance of Kyiv on the "refusal to make a deal with Russia," confidently declared that if he were to become president, "the U.S. would exit the war because he would be able to negotiate peace."

So, the question is, do we really need comments on what Trump has stated, especially when viewed through the lens of what’s happening today in relation to the ongoing "Trump-Zelenskyy" connection?

Once again, it’s September — this time, 2024. Another election marathon in the United States is nearing its finish line, and at this critical juncture in the political life of the country, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy finds himself in the U.S. once more. It’s worth recalling that just before Zelenskyy’s visit, Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, openly remarked on Zelenskyy’s apparent support for Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy. Simultaneously, Trump criticized the continued financial aid to Ukraine, stating, "We continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refuses to make a deal." In contrast, Trump, distancing himself from Kyiv's official stance on refusing negotiations with Russia, boldly claimed that if elected, he would bring the U.S. out of the war, asserting that he would be able to negotiate peace.

So, the question is, do we really need comments on what Trump has stated, especially when viewed through the lens of what’s happening today in relation to the ongoing "Trump-Zelenskyy" connection?

The situation becomes more interesting when examining the actions taken by the 47th President of the United States in various directions, all of which can also be confidently analyzed based on historical nuances. For example, consider the figure of the well-known American congressman, Azerbaijanophobe Adam Schiff, who in September 2024 initiated a bill "to confiscate Azerbaijan’s income" and transfer it to the so-called "Artsakh Revenue Restoration Fund." In February 2025, an evaluation of Schiff by the current FBI Director, Kash Patel, was widely circulated, labeling him as "the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years." In light of this, it's worth recalling that exactly one year ago, Trump directly referred to Schiff as "a slimy creature and a true nobody in the history of American politics, who has done nothing for the state of California, from which he is running for Senate."

So, what does this historical excursion have to do with the current situation, a reader might ask? However, it is precisely this moment that becomes relevant in relation to Schiff, viewed through the lens of the same "Trump-Zelenskyy" connection. To put it more concretely, it refers to the fact that in 2019, when the transcript of the phone conversation between the two presidents, which we discussed earlier, was released, Schiff, as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at that time, reacted by saying: "There was only one message that the president of Ukraine got from that call and that was: ‘This is what I need, I know what you need,’. Like any mafia boss, the president didn’t need to say, ‘That’s a nice country you have — it would be a shame if something happened to it.' Because it was already clear from the conversation."

In response, Trump, saying that "Schiff unlawfully made a false and terrible statement," essentially suggested that he be arrested for "treason." However, it was none other than Schiff who then led the impeachment investigation into Trump.

Let’s agree that, in this case, turning to recent history proves useful, right?

But, looking at it through the lens of the same transcript, we can also see how Trump’s current stance on Europe—specifically European leaders—emerges more clearly. During their July phone conversation, Trump and Zelenskyy discussed the European Union’s actions regarding the Russia-Ukraine issue. For example, Trump stated that Washington had made significant "efforts and time for Ukraine, doing much more than European countries. And they should be helping Kyiv more than they are. Germany is practically inactive. I think you should tell them that." Zelenskyy agreed with Trump, adding that "they are not doing as much as they should on sanctions; in this regard, the U.S. is doing much more for Ukraine than the European Union."

So, doesn't Trump’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war today make more sense when viewed in the context of what happened in the second half of 2019? Or, let's say, the actions he’s taken toward the European Union since returning to the White House? Similarly, when considering Schiff’s role? This is why a periodic glance at history—sometimes even recent history—helps to understand the nuances of modern global geopolitics. That’s exactly what we’ve attempted to do here.