Hans Petter Midttun

Nonresident fellow hos Centre of Defence Strategies

The Norwegian National Defence College  

Centre of Defence Strategies

Norway 

Mar 18, 2026

Putin has a friend in Washington. Zelenskyy doesn’t.

Trump treats Zelenskyy as the enemy—and Putin as the friend. The evidence is no longer subtle, and this week, it was laid out with unusual clarity.

Ukraine offered the United States direct help with drone interception technology. Zelenskyy confirmed that Ukrainian forces had responded to requests from the US military at multiple levels: “There were several requests either to help a particular country or to assist the Americans. Our soldiers are in contact at different levels. We received letters, calls, and requests across all military institutions.” Ukraine answered every one of them.

Trump’s response? “We don’t need help. Zelenskyy is the last person from whom we need help.”

He also declined to confirm whether the US had even accepted Ukraine’s drone expertise in the first place. No acknowledgment of what was offered. No explanation for the refusal. Just dismissal.

That same week, CNN published a report stating that Russia is actively sharing intelligence with Iran on the precise locations and movements of US troops, ships, and aircraft in the region. Moscow is helping guide targeting against American personnel. When asked about it, Trump said Russia may be helping Iran “a little.”

A little.

Zelenskyy, speaking to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, offered a sharper account. He said he has “100% proof” that Iran has deployed drones built on Russian licenses and using Russian components against US bases and neighbors across the Middle East. Ukrainian intelligence also shows that Moscow is sharing targeting data directly with the Iranian regime—not just providing arms, but actively guiding attacks. This is documented, reported, and on the public record. Trump was asked about it directly. He shrugged.

And yet Trump’s frustration continues to be directed at Ukraine. “I’m surprised Zelenskyy doesn’t want to make a deal. Tell Zelenskyy to make a deal—Putin is ready,” Trump said, adding that “it’s much harder to reach a deal with Zelenskyy.” These remarks came one day after Russia launched 498 missiles and drones at Ukraine on March 14—the 58th large-scale air strike since Trump took office in January 2025.

Let’s run the tape: Russia arms and guides Iran against US forces. Ukraine shares drone expertise with US forces. Trump scolds Ukraine. Trump excuses Russia.

This is not the posture of a president pursuing a just and lasting peace. It is the posture of a president who has chosen a side—and that side is not America’s. A world order in which might makes right, strategic territory belongs to whoever can seize it, and allies who speak inconvenient truths are treated as obstacles while adversaries who actively threaten American troops receive patience and deference.

When people treat you like they don’t care, believe them.

Political cartoon: Horsey

……………….

I spent decades defending NATO’s values. I’m no longer sure what NATO defends.

A synopsis of my latest article (link in comments): As a former officer of the Royal Norwegian Navy, my identity is inseparable from what we stood for: respect, responsibility, and courage. NATO’s founding documents haven’t changed. Its founding nation has.

The Alliance I joined in 1982 was a genuine coalition of like-minded countries. Member states agreed on the enemy, the stakes, and the shared vision—a world where sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights, and international law were respected. We committed to defending it.
That coalition no longer exists.

Today, one of NATO’s founding nations is dismantling the order it helped build. It threatens to annex Canada. It speaks of occupying Greenland by force. It disrespects European military contributions, then demands European support for operations of its own choosing—legal justification optional. It negotiates European security over Europe’s head while seeking to reset with the power that poses an existential threat to the continent.

It calls European countries “decaying.” It calls their leaders “weak.”

How can any liberal democracy claim to defend sovereignty and human rights while remaining in an Alliance whose leading power systematically undermines both?

I find it increasingly difficult to identify with the state I’m a citizen of. With the Alliance that, on paper, guarantees our security. With the member states that were supposed to defend our common values—and are now bending to placate the aggressor among them.

But I know what I believe in.

The values the Norwegian Armed Forces still espouse are clear: human life matters, freedom and safety are worth defending, and those who defend them must live in accordance with what they protect. The NATO that used to exist stood for something beyond the interests of its most powerful member.

Those values are still being defended. Just not by NATO.

Ukraine is fighting for the right to exist—for the right to choose its own path free from aggression and coercion. That is the precise language of NATO’s own strategic concept. I identify with that fight. Not out of politics. Out of principle.

Canadian PM Mark Carney said it plainly at Davos in January: “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” He called on middle powers to organize—because “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

Neither Norway nor any European leader has yet answered that call. Statements of concern are no longer enough.

When we stop defending our core values, we undermine the foundation of who we are.

It is time, as Carney urged, to engage “broadly, strategically, with open eyes”—to take on the world as it is, not wait for a world we wish to be.

We cannot unite within NATO as the US can veto any reform contrary to its interests. We can unite in a coalition of like-minded countries.

Political cartoon: Mike Luckovich

https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/03/18/i-defended-natos-values-i-no-longer-recognize-what-nato-defends/

Comment from :

Dr Lazlo Nagy

The solution is obvious: NATO should move on without the USA. A short-term challenge will turn into long-term autonomy and strength.

Hans Petter Midttun

Dr. László Nagy : I fear that the solution you promote is anything but obvious. The Alliance is facing a multitude of challenges and the present-day USA is only a part of it. Europe is also to blame. I addressed the issue in September 2023 – long before Trump became President – questioning the survival of NATO.

Matt Lund 🇹🇼🇺🇦

Sinologist

Europe could easily send in soldiers to stop Putin but they haven’t! So it seems the EU isn’t serious about stopping the genocide!

Pavel K.

Testing and performance investigation of fuels, lubricants, engines, powertrains and vehicles. Extensive e-mobility testing.

Western leadership is the weakest of all post-WWII times what russian invasion had demonstrated. Giving just as much weapons as needed to not let Ukraine fall, categorically deny Ukraine a right to strike russia, spend half a year discussing 12 tanks give or 14, then hope this armada will defeat russia – acting alone not inside the air dominance NATO strategy and tactics, letting Ukraine strike russia when momentum was lost, buying billions worth of russian oil, gas, uranium, staying silent when 75 billion of pre-approved Lend-Lease were still available but kept tight by previous US Administration during this shameful 6 month pause – and speaking loudly only now… Yes, the current Western leadership is weak. Business is still allowed to do with russia outside mil, police, oil&gas, other startegic goods – but all luxury stuff availbe in Moscow and no problem for Geran makers to buy Western electronics. Millions of russian tourists and business visitors are let in – but it took months to find an EU state (France) which will issue visa to a russian 15-y.o. girl and her father who spent two years in prison for her anti-war drawing (that was a loud story). NATO weakness part of a big one.

Kirk F.

Senior Fellow @ National Institute | National Security, Aircraft, MS NS Studies

Hans Petter Midttun – we can agree on who is in the wrong and the Ukrainians deserve better. That is painfully easy. Figuring out what can be done about it is proving far more difficult.

The U.S. failed its duty in 2014 when there was a possibility of stopping Putin. We did nothing about little green men in Donbas either. And Europe did just followed the U.S. “leading from behind”.

The U.S. didn’t take a more humble and circumspect path it ignored responsibility. But Europe failed as well. Reliance on Russian energy, fixation on the environment as the existential threat (Biden) all conspired to set the conditions for 2022.

And even then we wrote off Ukraine quietly hoping for minimal bloodshed and a quiet puppet state we could ignore.

The problem we THE WEST never had a plan for Ukraine surviving

Hans Petter Midttun

Kirk F : when I talk about the NATO of the past, you cannot have failed to notice my starting point: 1982. A time when Europe in average spent 3,5% of GDP for defence; the exact opposite of what you argue. I fear your comment is based on a wrong timeline.