The Cost of Trust: From Cambodia to Ukraine

Some time ago, I posted a review here of a book by Professor Kishore Mahbubani, an experienced Singaporean diplomat. In it, he shared memories from his diplomatic career, and one story particularly stuck with me. I think about it often, especially in light of recent events—the war in Ukraine and the decisions made by global powers, including the current U.S. administration.

This story carries a lesson worth considering—not just for our politicians, but for us, citizens of smaller countries. Mahbubani recalls his mission in Cambodia in the 1970s, during the civil war. The Khmer Rouge were fighting for power, while their opponents received support from the United States. When the conflict became unwinnable, the U.S. decided further involvement was futile and gradually withdrew. Their allies, like Sisowath Sirik Matak, found themselves in a difficult position.

Sirik Matak, a prominent politician and member of the Cambodian royal family, wrote to the U.S. ambassador on April 12, 1975: “The only mistake I made was trusting you, the Americans.” He refused evacuation, and days later, on April 21, he was executed by the Khmer Rouge. His words serve as both a warning and an invitation to reflect – please read them for yourself:

“Dear Excellency and friend,

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.

As for you and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection and we can do nothing about it. You leave us and it is my wish that you and your country will find happiness under the sky.

But mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed the mistake of believing in you, the Americans.”

Years later, the then US Ambassador John Gunther Dean, said in 2015 interview for The Associated Press:

“We’d accepted responsibility for Cambodia and then walked out without fulfilling our promise. That’s the worst thing a country can do. And I cried because I knew what was going to happen.”

We also know, what has happened: 1 in 4 Cambodians died from executions, torturing and starvation during Khmer Rouge ruling of Cambodia…

…

Consider this: someone ties their country’s fate to a great power whose interests align with theirs for the moment. But what happens when those interests diverge? Such partnerships require trust, yet they carry risks. When priorities shift, smaller nations can be left to fend for themselves—a painful lesson, but not one unique to America! It’s a recurring dynamic between powerful states and their partners.

Mahbubani underscores this geopolitical reality. His critiques of the West, including the U.S., maybe stem from witnessing such moments—but it’s hard to blame any single great power for acting according to its strategic goals.

Every major player, from the U.S. to Russia or China, pursues its own interests. The real question is: do we, as smaller nations, learn from these examples? To me, it’s clear—history is a teacher we must heed.

A nation’s interests should always come first. Relying entirely on one partner, without certainty about their long-term intentions, is a gamble. In business, no sensible person stakes everything on a single bet—in politics, caution is even more critical.

Looking at Ukraine and U.S. decisions, I see some parallels. The Biden and Trump administrations differ in approach, but both put their country’s interests first. Biden backed Ukraine while also weighing benefits for the American economy. Trump acts more bluntly, without pretense. Both are effective in their own ways—and both illustrate that the support of great powers has its limits.

Zelensky is fighting for Ukraine’s future. But was there a moment when other options could have been explored? Trump was upfront about his pragmatic stance—we knew what to expect. Perhaps Kyiv could have prepared earlier for alternative scenarios.

Will Zelensky share Sirik Matak’s fate? I don’t know.

But Sirik Matak’s words remind us that in geopolitics, there are no simple alliances—only interests and hard choices…