Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump (Photo: Getty Images) Author: Roman Kot
The loud dispute between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump and the abruptly interrupted visit of the Ukrainian president to Washington have completely mixed up the cards in the potential peace process. What are the consequences of this crisis and how will it affect efforts to end the war – read in the material of RBC-Ukraine.
Content
- How the Escalation Between Zelensky and Trump Happened
- What's Next – Risks for Ukraine
- Europe and Ukraine together
How the Escalation Between Zelensky and Trump Happened
In a matter of days, US President Donald Trump has shocked the world three times in the context of Ukraine – first by calling Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and then “forgetting” that he said such a thing. And the third time was yesterday – during a public spat with the Ukrainian president in the White House.
Trump said Ukraine would not be able to win, noted the lack of personnel in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and called on Kyiv to stop fighting. Zelensky responded by accusing Russia of failing to comply with previous agreements, which irritated Trump. The US president accused the Ukrainian leader of “playing with World War III.” US Vice President J.D. Vance also joined the squabble.
After the quarrel, Trump gathered with advisers in the Oval Office – Zelensky and the delegation were asked to leave the White House early. Therefore, the long-suffering agreement between Ukraine and the United States on minerals was not signed.
Was this a setup on the US side, orchestrated by Trump and Vance playing “good cop and bad cop,” or was it all impromptu?
“I don't know. It was a really tough situation because we were very open and direct,” Zelensky told Fox News hours after the spat.
The Washington Post and the New York Times reported from the scene of the events about the confusion and even chaos surrounding this situation. “Most likely, this was not a preparation on the part of the White House,” said Dmitry Sherenovsky, an international political scientist and vice-rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University, in a commentary to RBC-Ukraine. Although the biased negative attitude towards Ukraine on the part of J.D. Vance and a number of American journalists has long been known.
“This was a situation where those actually present wanted to demonstrate this famous Trumpian dominance, which they used more than once. We saw that they also treated the Mexicans, the Canadians, the Danes and Greenlanders with this disdainful attitude. This is something that was very, very characteristic of them,” Sherenkovskiy told the publication.
Zelensky and Trump meet in the Oval Office (Photo: Getty Images)
It is characteristic that Zelensky responded correctly to the pressure for most of the conversation and gave vent to his emotions only at the end, when the conversation turned to security guarantees in exchange for fossil fuels.
This is a fundamental disagreement between Ukraine and the US, which arose at the beginning of the preparation of the agreement. But since the US made it clear that without signing the agreement there would be no further negotiations to end the war, the parties found a temporary solution – to sign a framework document now, and talk about guarantees later, during the preparation of a more substantive agreement. Therefore, according to RBC-Ukraine, the Ukrainian delegation went to Washington in an optimistic mood. Everything went wrong closer to the end of the public part of the conversation in the Oval Office.
“When this situation was already in full swing, when Zelensky was not holding back (and obviously, it is unknown how we would all behave in this state), then everything was already played out. There was a desire from both J.D. Vance and Trump to bring the situation to the point of absurdity,” Sherenovsky is convinced.
There were also tactical miscalculations on the Ukrainian side. Zelensky spoke directly to Trump and Vance in English, although it is common practice to use a translator during such meetings. It is not a question of sufficient language proficiency. The translator gives a few extra seconds to think about the answer, and perhaps to reduce the temperature, avoiding a squabble.
In addition, the dress code issue suddenly arose. Most of the Ukrainian delegation changed into business suits this time. But not the Ukrainian president, for whom this is an important symbol – Zelensky has repeatedly stated that he will only wear a suit again after the war is over. However, this time the dress code became one of the lines of criticism of Zelensky.
“Wearing a suit may seem like a small thing, and I know (President Zelensky) prefers his military style, but it was the wrong choice,” the New York Post quoted a US official close to the talks as saying.
What's Next – Risks for Ukraine
Immediately after the spat, a White House official told Reuters that Trump had not ruled out signing another mineral deal with Zelensky.
Obviously, Trump's team is really interested in the deal for purely mercantile reasons, so it is likely that this issue is not completely closed and can still be played on.
But there has been a major shift in emphasis regarding negotiations to end the war, one that is very dangerous for Ukraine. After his spat with Zelensky, Trump wrote in Truth Social that the Ukrainian president is not interested in peace.
“The drama of this situation is that if before the meeting Putin was the “bad guy” who did not want to sit down at the negotiating table, and we demonstrated that we were ready to sit down, we were ready to talk, now this has unfolded. I am sure that the Russians, and Trump's circles, and the White House itself will play on this in such a way that, look, it is Ukraine that is not ready to sit down at the negotiating table,” Sherenovsky noted.
At the same time, the expert is convinced that this had to happen sooner or later, given Trump's narratives, for whom it is important to distance himself from the toxic topic, freezing the conflict as quickly as possible. Even earlier, Trump's team stated that it considered providing aid to Ukraine as a lever of pressure to force it to negotiate. Therefore, this issue arose again, but this time as a real prospect.
“We're no longer going to just write checks for a war that's happening far away without a real, lasting peace. And that's what the president wants,” White House press secretary Caroline Levitt said on Fox News.
According to The New York Times, this could involve not only direct military aid, but also intelligence sharing, training of Ukrainian military personnel and pilots, and the deployment of an international aid command center at an American base in Germany. Also, according to Reuters, the United States has previously threatened Ukraine with the cessation of the Starlink communication systems.
But for now, the U.S. is not giving up on trying to end the war, an unnamed Trump administration adviser told Bloomberg. Too much effort has been invested in trying to reach an agreement to end the war to give it up now, he said. Instead, the U.S. is likely to sharply increase pressure on Ukraine and avoid direct contact with Zelensky.
Europe and Ukraine together
In the hours following the conversation between Zelensky and Trump, almost all European leaders, with the exception of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, declared their support for Ukraine. This is a trend that has taken shape recently, especially after the Munich Security Conference, when the United States made it clear that Europe would not be at the negotiating table to end the war.
During this week, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer flew to Washington. The topic of Ukraine was discussed in coordination with Zelensky. Moreover, the leaders of both countries, to some extent, acted as advocates for Kyiv, and also offered Trump various options for how Europe could take on assistance to Ukraine.
One of the ways is to deploy European troops in Ukraine. Several statements on this matter have appeared during the week. The issue is about replacing American weapons for Ukraine, which Trump also wants. But there are problems here. As RBC-Ukraine wrote, Europe can find the funds for this, albeit with difficulty. However, it is not possible to quickly increase production capacity.
Zelensky and Trump meeting at the White House (Photo: Getty Images)
“What Europe can do to help here is to actually act as a mediator between Ukraine and the United States to a certain extent. And convince Trump that, look, we have a plan, we will take over Ukraine completely, as you, my friend, want, but we need time for this,” Sherenovsky emphasized.
If this can be explained and supported by the White House, then it is possible that the statements about ending aid and providing weapons may remain just statements, at least for a while, he said.
“I think they will raise the stakes for another day or two. They will shout about how bad Zelensky is, but they will still come to the conclusion that they will have to make peace with Zelensky and meet. Most likely, this will not be in the Oval Office, but at some international conference. That is, they will meet somewhere on neutral territory, sign this agreement and show: we are friends after all and can work together,” political expert and PhD in Philosophy Andrey Gorodnitsky told the RBC-Ukraine YouTube channel.
A series of meetings between European leaders is expected in the coming days. An informal meeting in London on March 2, and a special EU summit on security and support for Ukraine on March 6. And Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has announced plans to convene an emergency EU-US summit.
In addition, there are still other sympathizers of Ukraine in Washington. And not only from the Democratic Party. Therefore, after a failed round of negotiations, it is important to focus on the next one and not repeat mistakes.
When writing this material, publications from the New York Post, Axios, Reuters, Bloomberg, Washington Post, The New York Times, and comments from Dmitry Sherengovskiy and Andrey Gorodnitskiy were used.