When Betting on One President Becomes a Risk: Portnikov on Trump, Israel, and the Price of Political Illusions

On June 21, 2026, Ukrainian publicist and political commentator Vitaly Portnikov published a text that for the Israeli audience sounds not like a commentary on foreign politics, but as a direct warning.

His main idea is simple but painful: a state that builds its security on relations with one leader, even if that leader seems the most convenient ally, sooner or later finds itself in a dangerous dependency.

At the center of the text are Donald Trump, Israel, Ukraine, the politics of Benjamin Netanyahu, and the broader question: should alliances be based on values or on benefits?

Portnikov writes that during the 2024 US presidential campaign and the first year of Trump’s new presidency, he often had to argue with American and Israeli acquaintances. They convinced him that criticism of Trump was only related to Ukraine — with the new American president’s reluctance to continue the previous line of assistance to Kyiv.

But Portnikov himself explains it differently. For him, the problem is not only in Ukraine. The problem is that politics built not on values but on personal calculations can change at any moment. Today such a leader seems beneficial to Israel. Tomorrow he may decide that it is more advantageous to negotiate with those who were considered enemies just yesterday.

For Israel, the question of relations with the US has always been strategic. America remains the main ally, a source of diplomatic support, military cooperation, and political cover on the international stage.

But Portnikov draws attention not to the alliance with the US itself, but to something else: it is not friendship with America that is dangerous, but turning this friendship into a personal bet on one politician.

In his logic, Israel should not reduce its security system to relations with one US president. Especially if it concerns a leader who acts primarily out of personal interests, political gain, and a desire to prove his strength.

This is where the text becomes important for the Israeli internal discussion.

When Israeli politicians say that Trump is the best president for Israel, it may sound convenient at the moment. But if the entire strategy is built on the expectation that one person in the White House will always do exactly what is expected in Jerusalem, that is no longer a strategy. It’s a gamble.

Portnikov directly compares this approach to gambling in a casino. Betting all the money on one number can bring a win, but it can also leave you with nothing.

Portnikov draws a parallel with Ukraine.

According to him, Ukraine, after the change in American policy, was forced to learn to survive without the previous level of US support. This became possible not by itself, but because Kyiv, after the Russian attack, began to build a complex system of alliances.

Ukraine could have acted differently: put everything on Washington and find itself at a loss when American policy changed. But Ukrainian diplomacy and defense system gradually sought other supports — European alliances, domestic production, new technological solutions, military cooperation with various partners.

For Israel, this example is important not because the situation of the two countries is the same. It is different.

Ukraine is at war with Russia in Europe. Israel lives in a different regional reality, surrounded by different threats and has a different history of alliances. But there is a common lesson: a state should not allow its security to depend on the mood of one external center of power.

A particularly strong part of Portnikov’s text concerns the history of Israel itself.

He reminds that the Jewish state has always been able to create situational alliances, move from one agreement to another, and act independently when an ally became unreliable.

This is indeed an important thought.

Israel was not created as a dependent territory. It emerged as a nation-state capable of defending itself, making decisions, and not waiting for someone abroad to allow it to survive.

Therefore, when Israeli politics begins to look as if the fate of the country depends on the decision of one US president, it contradicts the very idea of Israeli independence.

Portnikov formulates this harshly: those Jews who want their future to be decided by the US president live in the US. Those who want to live in a nation-state live in Israel — and should not depend on the whims of the White House.

For the Israeli reader, this is not just a political phrase. It is a question of Zionism, national dignity, and strategic maturity.

Portnikov offers several conclusions.

The first is to stop living with the illusion that Trump will necessarily “remember” Israel, strike Iran, meet the expectations of Netanyahu, Smotrich, or any other Israeli political force.

Yes, circumstances may arise where the US will again enter into a tough conflict with Iran. But even in such a case, according to Portnikov’s logic, Trump will primarily pursue his own interests, and only then consider Israel’s interests.

The second conclusion is that Israel needs to regain the ability to act independently. Not in the sense of breaking with the US. Not in the sense of rejecting the alliance with America. But in the sense of understanding that an ally should not replace its own strategy.

The third conclusion is that Israel needs to strengthen partnerships again, based not only on benefits but also on values.

This is perhaps the most difficult part of the text.

Portnikov says that without the reputation of a democratic state in the Middle East, it will be harder for Israel to build new alliances. A state that wants the world to recognize its right to exist must itself maintain moral and political clarity. Not because it sounds better in diplomatic statements, but because reputation becomes part of security.

For Israel, 2026 is a time of tough decisions.

After the war, regional pressure, internal disputes, and growing dependence on external support, Israeli society increasingly asks the question: who can we rely on?

The answer “only on the US” sounds familiar, but is no longer sufficient. The answer “only on Trump” can be dangerous.

The US remains Israel’s main ally. This does not change. But even the most important ally should not become the only support. Israel needs additional diplomatic bridges, a broader system of partnerships, work with Europe, regional contacts, technological and defense independence, as well as a more precise understanding of the Ukrainian experience.

Ukraine has shown that a country under threat cannot afford the luxury of waiting for one savior. Israel cannot either.

Portnikov’s text essentially poses a question to Israel that goes far beyond the attitude towards Donald Trump.

It is a question of what Israel’s security strategy will be in the coming years.

Will it be built on personal connections, political sympathies, and the hope that “our man” in Washington will solve everything?

Or will Israel return to a more mature model: a strong army, independent decisions, an alliance with the US, but not dependence on one president; partnership with democratic countries, but without illusions; regional policy, but without abandoning its own principles.

Portnikov does not write a text against the Israel-US alliance. On the contrary, his logic is different: a true alliance should not turn into political dependence.

Because dependence is not security. It is expectation.

And a state that lives under constant threat cannot afford to just wait.

For Israel, the main lesson of this text sounds like this: The US is important, but Israel cannot be the project of one American president. The country needs a system of alliances, its own strategy, and a return to a policy where values are not a weakness, but become part of strength.