By Narayan Prasad Mishra
From our experience in life, we know that we rarely receive help from others during economic hardship, with some exceptions. Sometimes, we may get assistance from close relatives or very close friends, but even that is rare. When we receive help from others, it is often driven by a motive on the part of the giver. No one helps entirely selflessly; most expect something in return. Those who build their fortune through their own knowledge and labor can achieve prosperity and enjoy a happy life with the necessities needed for their family, otherwise not.
When I consider foreign assistance, aid, or cooperation—under various names—received from one country by another, I always question whether the situation is any different. No country would pour a huge amount of money into the development of another nation without some underlying motive. I always feel that no country can truly develop or live in peace with pride and dignity by depending on external help and cooperation. This was my assumption.
When we study and analyze international relations, we see that no country helps another purely out of selflessness. While humanitarian concerns and moral responsibility may play a role, international aid and cooperation are almost always driven by strategic, economic, political, or ideological interests. Countries provide aid and assistance for various reasons, including geopolitical influence, economic benefits, security interests, and diplomatic leverage.
Powerful nations use aid as a tool to expand their influence in different regions. For example, the U.S. provides aid to many developing nations, not only for humanitarian reasons but also to counter the growing influence of China or Russia. Similarly, many believe that China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is not just about infrastructure development—it helps China expand its geopolitical reach.
Countries often support their allies to strengthen military and political alliances. For instance, the U.S. and Western nations provide aid to Ukraine to counter Russia’s expansionist policies. At the same time, we also see that foreign aid is often tied to economic benefits for the donor country. When a country helps build infrastructure in another nation, it often gains long-term trade benefits. Many nations provide aid with the hope of benefiting their own businesses and industries, such as requiring recipient countries to purchase goods or services from them or to fulfill their own resource shortages.
A stable and prosperous country is less likely to become a source of conflict, terrorism, or illegal migration. For example, European nations provide aid to African countries to reduce migration pressures and security threats. The U.S. and its allies provide military aid to nations in conflict zones to ensure that governments aligned with their interests remain in power, reducing security risks.
Aid is also used as a tool for gaining diplomatic influence. Countries that receive assistance often feel politically obligated to support their benefactors in international forums like the United Nations. Providing aid helps countries improve their global image and reputation. Nations like Sweden and Norway, known for their generous foreign aid policies, enhance their soft power and global standing. While self-interest is a dominant factor, some aid is genuinely intended for humanitarian purposes, such as disaster relief, food assistance, and medical aid. Organizations like the UN, Red Cross, and international charities often push for humanitarian aid in crises. However, even humanitarian aid can sometimes be politically motivated. For instance, Western countries provide aid to crisis-hit regions selectively, often prioritizing areas that align with their interests. Recently, we heard that the USA provided millions of dollars to Nepal to replace the Hindu state with a secular state and to make it a federal country. Now, we also know from our own experience how big countries fulfill their interests through NGOs and INGOs under the guise of help and cooperation.
A Harsh Reality: The Trump-Zelensky Episode
In conclusion, we can say that no country provides aid purely out of goodwill. No country helps another purely out of selflessness; there are always long-term strategic benefits involved. Even when framed as humanitarian or development assistance, aid often comes with strings attached—whether in the form of economic dependency, political loyalty, or strategic advantage.
During the Trump-Zelensky meeting, we saw, and the world saw, one of the most bitter examples of dependence on foreign aid. President Donald Trump of the USA demanded access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and a $500 billion share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth in exchange for the aid the US had already provided to Kyiv. At the same time, the world witnessed a highly undiplomatic and humiliating dialogue between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Feb. 28, 2025.
According to CNN reports, “A remarkable shouting match broke out in the Oval Office on Friday as President Donald Trump berated his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky—an extraordinarily fractious display that only underscored the deeply uncertain future of American assistance to Kyiv.
Never before has an American president verbally attacked his visitor as Trump did to Zelensky, leading to an almost real-time breakdown in relations between Washington and Kyiv. Trump, at one point, threatened to give up on Ukraine entirely.
Castigating Zelensky for not demonstrating enough gratitude for American support, Trump and Vice President JD Vance raised their voices, accusing the besieged leader of standing in the way of a peace agreement with Russia. Later, Zelensky was essentially kicked out of the White House, departing with a grim look on his face.
Raising his voice after more back-and-forth, Trump said, ‘You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War-II.’ At one point, Vance accused Zelensky of being ‘disrespectful’ toward his American hosts.
‘You’re not acting all that thankful,’ Trump added. ‘Have you said ‘thank you’ once?’ Vance asked Zelensky.
I’ve empowered you to be a tough guy,” Trump said to the Ukrainian leader. ‘I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States”
Ahead of his arrival, Trump had already voiced open hostility toward Zelensky, whom he termed a dictator. Yet he seemed to moderate his tone a day earlier, declining to repeat the criticism.
This is a striking example of the dangers of relying too heavily on external powers for national security and development. Ukraine, expecting full Western military support, found itself in a vulnerable position when aid was delayed or came with conditions. For instance, the Trump administration pressured Ukraine by withholding military aid and threatening to reduce support unless political and economic favors were granted, without providing the security it had hoped for. This exposed the harsh reality that powerful allies often prioritize their own interests first.”
This created significant risk and danger for President Zelensky and his country, making it almost impossible for them to escape. They are caught between two lions’ mouths. President Zelensky’s demand for the security guarantees cannot be considered wrong or unjustified. The people of Ukraine will undoubtedly feel that this is a condemnable betrayal by the USA. The world may also come to see the United States as an untrustworthy nation.
Lessons for Small Countries Like Nepal
The Russia-Ukraine war has deep historical, political, and strategic roots. Ukraine, once part of the Soviet Union, sought closer ties with the West, particularly NATO and the European Union. Russia perceived this shift as a threat to its influence and security, leading to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and a full-scale invasion in 2022. While Ukraine has received significant Western support, the war has devastated the country, showing the dangers of geopolitical entanglements.
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine is a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by small nations caught between powerful neighbors. Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression has not only reshaped global geopolitics but also offers valuable lessons for small countries like Nepal, which find themselves in similar situations. Small nations with strategic locations and historical ties to more considerable powers must navigate their foreign policies carefully to maintain sovereignty, security, and stability.
One of the primary lessons from Ukraine’s situation is the importance of strategic neutrality. Ukraine’s decisive tilt toward the West provoked Russian aggression. A small country must avoid excessive alignment with one power over another. Instead, it should adopt a pragmatic, non-aligned foreign policy that ensures good relations with all, especially its neighbors. Under no circumstances should a nation create enmity with a powerful neighbor; rather, it must understand its own capabilities and limitations. However, neutrality is often easier said than done. Powerful neighbors may not always respect a small country’s non-aligned stance—sometimes, they demand loyalty or intervention regardless of that nation’s preferences. Finland during the Cold War is an interesting example. It maintained a delicate balance, ensuring good relations with the Soviet Union while preserving its democratic system and Western economic ties. But even Finland had to make concessions to avoid Soviet hostility.
Minor conflicts often serve as flashpoints for more significant wars. These issues must be addressed through diplomatic negotiations, historical research, and, if necessary, international mediation to prevent long-term hostility. Sometimes, an inferiority complex among national leaders leads them to create unnecessary enmity with neighboring countries, much like tiny ants boasting of defeating a giant elephant. Sometimes, we also see the same tendency among our leaders, whose puppet followers perceive it as greatness, even when it harms the country. To avoid such provocation, small nations must learn to preserve their sovereignty through “smart diplomacy” rather than projecting hollow greatness by raising unnecessary, unwanted, unpleasant, or irrelevant contentious topics.
Countries seeking aid must be cautious and negotiate terms that benefit their own long-term interests rather than becoming dependent or losing sovereignty. True development comes from “self-reliance”, not from relying on foreign assistance that often serves the donor’s interests more than the recipient’s. However, this does not mean rejecting aid and cooperation entirely. We must be able to discern what benefits us and what does not. At the same time, we should be prepared to cooperate with friendly countries when they seek our goodwill, provided it is based on mutual benefit and does not come at the cost of our nation’s welfare and the well-being of our people.
Comments:
Leave a Reply