If you haven’t watched the full video of the Trump/Vance-Zelenskyy tag team WWF death match in the Oval Office, here it is:
Stop right there. Don’t try to tell me you saw it. Or you already know what happened. Unless you watch the full forty-nine minutes, don’t even try it.
You might have seen a video clip or partial transcript which focuses on the contentious parts, but this is the full version. The first thing you’ll notice is how boring it is. The first eight minutes are completely normal, with a pleasant exchange and mutual supporting language. Then the press is invited to ask questions. Trump and Zelenskyy have a jocular disagreement over whether Europe or the US has provided more support, but they laugh it off. There’s a snarky question (around 19:00) from the press about Zelenskyy’s “not wearing a suit,” which is odd in that nobody seemed upset about Elon Musk’s attire at the cabinet meeting. Trump later makes a point that Zelenskyy’s “outfit is fine.”
Things start to go south around twenty minutes in, when Trump suggests Ukraine “won’t need security assurances because Putin won’t want to go back” into Ukraine. Zelenskyy shakes his head, and when he gets his chance to talk, he challenges Trump directly that Putin “broke his agreements” even “when you were the President.” Trump sits back and becomes visibly agitated while Zelenskyy reiterates his point, then he explains Putin must pay for starting the war. Even that would have been a blip, and that’s all. There was a lunch waiting to be served, and an agreement waiting to be signed
For those who suggest this was an “ambush” planned by the administration, all this agenda was agreed to in advance by the two staffs. Photo op in the Oval with nice words and press pool, lunch (no press), signing ceremony with press conference. They are at the end of the photo op when President Trump says, “ok, one more question.” It’s over for all practical purposes. A reporter asks a question about negotiating with the Russians, and JD Vance responds by saying, in effect, the US is more influential when it engages in diplomacy rather than tough talk (an explicit swipe at the Biden administration). This comment is not directed at Ukraine or Zelenskyy, yet the Ukrainian President asks if he may interrupt Vance, then proceeds to explain that Putin does not honor his word, “what kind of diplomacy are you speaking of here?” This is the point where things blow up.
The people focusing on the theatrics are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter whether Vance’s comment was provocative. It also doesn’t matter whether Zelenskyy called Vance a name or just swore under his breath. If you think there haven’t been such arguments in the Oval, you’re wrong. Joe Biden swore at Zelenskyy in an Oval phone call, before hanging up on him. LBJ and Richard Nixon said much worse, just not for the cameras (although there are tapes, and what tapes!). What you saw was what normally goes on behind the scenes. There’s a reason for that, because politicians want people to believe politics is all about rational positions, not personalities, but adults know that personalities are often just as important.
What you saw was, in Trump’s phrase, “great television,” but lousy diplomacy. Whether you think either side was right or wrong, it doesn’t pay to take such arguments public, regardless of who starts them. What you saw was two opinionated men (not one) who already disliked one another let their personal animosities take over. On a superficial level, it was uncomfortable, like children watching mom and dad fight. For Americans, it was embarrassing, except President Trump is not capable of feeling embarrassment.
For Ukraine, it was suicidal. Tell me how getting thrown out of the White House, no mineral rights deal, and perhaps all aid shut off, helps Ukraine fight Russia. Then remind me if anybody on the planet didn’t know Trump was mercurial, antagonistic, and not particularly enamored of Zelenskyy. British, French, and American Congressional leaders all warned Zelenskyy, to no avail. As to Zelenskyy’s claim Putin cannot be trusted, answer this question: how does this war end except with negotiations with Russia? Did Zelenskyy think he was making some new point?
You may remember that the almost-signed mineral rights deal was preceded by another rupture, sparked by the Rubio/Vance meeting with Zelenskyy last week. According to the former, the Ukrainian President said he needed time to get his legislature to approve the deal. Then he left and publicly announced he was rejecting the deal. That’s just politics; they all eventually got over it. That will probably happen here again, although much damage has been done.
In the end, Zelenskyy knows he cannot win (the war or the peace) without US support. He wants a security guarantee, and I don’t blame him. He wants it for the same reason he can’t have it: Russia will eventually try to invade Ukraine again. European leaders just held an emergency summit and agreed (wait for it) to provide peacekeeping troops NOT along the conflict line, and calling for a “US backstop.” Europe cannot secure Ukraine’s future or rearm it without US support. Putin wants to secure the gains he has and end the fighting, for now (yes, he’ll try again). And Putin wants the US to end the economic sanctions which are starting to bite.
Contra Putin’s comments, NATO didn’t start this war, nor did Ukraine. But neither did the US. If you read the bold faced text in the last paragraph, you’ll note that all parties know that only the US can end the war with negotiations. Zelenskyy would be happy to keep fighting forever as long as the billions in aid keep flowing, but he has no plan for victory, just a hope, and “hope is not a method.” Putin knows he has gained only a partial victory, and like he did with Crimea and earlier in the Donbas, he’ll take his winnings for now, confident he can invade again, or perhaps badger Ukraine into submission. This is why negotiations are the only way out at this point. And the United States, not Ukraine, is “holding the cards” as Trump put it.
The undiplomatic row in the Oval Office was a symptom of a deeper change in world politics. I’ll cover what that is in part two!
Excellent commentary, as usual and expected from you!
Pat, you are doing a great job of analyzing things. Maybe that distant view from Down South should be what more writers should get. Invite all those laid off WaPo folks to move there. Cheers, Mo
You are a master in wording the issue in simple terms but with deep analysis!! Love your blog!!
UPDATE: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2025/03/04/id/1201325/
A few comments:
1) The mineral rights deal originated with Trump to pay back the US for previous support to Ukraine. That Trump lied and almost doubled the amount the US has given (he claimed $350 million–a bogus figure–also note that at least the weapons provided were made in the USA and the money went to US arms manufacturers). That deal makes the US out to be a kind of mafia boss. Trump continues to think that the fact the US US firms would have a presence in Ukraine would stop another attack from Putin. Putin attacked in 2014 and 20022 even though there were US firms operating in Ukraine. Nevertheless, apparently Zelensky was ready to sign the deal, if that got the US on his side.
2) Trump then purposely put Zelensky in an impossible position. Zelensky is the president of a country of almost 38 million people. He is also a politician. How is he supposed to sit still while Trump spouts falsehoods about his country or how is to go back to Ukraine with no security guarantees. And that Putin can be trusted. No one in Ukraine believes that, and Zelensky had to make at least a token response. Despite your analysis, I actually think the last few minutes of the press conference was cooked in advance by Trump and, especially, Vance.
3) Trump assumes that Ukraine has no agency, that they have no say on their own desires for an end to the conflict, hence the freezing out of Ukraine on talks about its own future.
4) There has yet been no public info on the talks that that the US and Russia have had. This is not a good sign.
5) The war could end tomorrow, if Putin pulls out his troops. He invaded and he could leave. Hence, I disagree that “Zelensky would be happy to keep fighting.” He knows better than we that the war is draining and damaging to all Ukrainians, but he has to have someone to negotiate with and Russia has so far refused to negotiate unless Ukraine surrenders its sovereignty. Yes, this is where the US is crucial, but now Russia has gotten what it wants: a pro-Putin foreign policy in the US that will give it concessions it could not gain after 3 years of war that has devolved into a stalemate.
Joel, I’ll address most of your contentions in parts two and three, but I want to respond to this statement here: “How is Zelenskyy supposed to sit still while Trump spouts falsehoods about his country or how is (he) to go back to Ukraine with no security guarantees.”
First, leaders have to sit through such things all the time, and Zelenskyy is no exception. It’s called diplomacy, and it’s especially important when dealing with a mercurial leader who you must rely upon; he knew that going in. As to security guarantees, no one is giving Ukraine tight security guarantees. Not the US, not the Brits & French, and certainly not NATO.He’ll get bland security assurances (words), and that is all.
Diplomacy is one thing, but being publicly kicked in the head is another and that is what T\rump did. I also thought that having a major (and relatively long) meeting in front of the cameras was genuinely weird. That is what you do behind closed doors, so the public meeting is usually anodyne, even if there are major disagreements. Getting into NATO would work as a Ukrainian security guarantee, but Trump (and Hungary) are against it. Curiously, Ukraine would provide NAT0 with a battle-hardened and large force much like the Poles did. This would stop Putin from trying again. For Putin that is a red line, but Russia is actually in bad shape, so why cater to it? Trump’s offer of American businesses mining for rare earth and other extractive fields (which Zelensky today signaled he would accept) offers less than nothing regarding security. The Europeans are making some minor comments about troops in Ukraine to cement a deal, but you are correct that we are along way from postwar military commitments.
On a different note, Trump’s fascination with the possibility of US companies making big money in Russia is a bit bizarre. There are a lot better places to invest, where there is the rule of law, lacking right now in Russia. Even smart oil companies, used to investing and dealing with corrupt countries, got burned in Russia well before Russian invaded Ukraine.
It is clear from today’s statements from Ukraine that Zelensky and Ukraine will try anything to patch things up with Trump. I actually follow Russia, and the Putin government has shown no real interest in any peace deal with Ukraine short of Ukrainian defeat and its becoming a de facto vassal of Moscow. I hope I am wrong.
Assuming that wasn’t a typo, please refrain from social media language (T/rump).
I think we agree that NATO membership is not on the table. The last time the US (Bush) tried to add Ukraine and Georgia, France & Germany pointed out clearly why we DON’T add countries under direct threat by Russia. The complete reversal of the principle now tells you something about how sacrosanct it is. And I think we also agree it wasn’t wise to concede NATO membership before the negotiations begin.
Glad to hear you’re still on the case (ie Russia). Given signalling is all important on negotiations (witness previous discussion on NATO membership for Ukraine), exactly what public signals would you expect from Putin? I would expect exactly none.
Yes, t was a typo, though I am no fan of Trump.
I agree that Putin will say nothing publicly. If he says publicly what he really thinks, there probably is little to negotiate. He will want to see what the US (Trump) says is a “reasonable” deal and go from there. The real issue is how much Ukraine is willing to give up and what kind of “guarantees” they will get or accept to prevent further Russian aggression–it could be, for example, a continued lifetime to Western weapons. TBD. The most interesting question is what kind of successor could there be to Putin (unless he lives forever—see the darkly comic movie, El Conde, with Pinochet as a vampire), since his bellicose stance has undermined key parts of the Russian economy. Again, TBD.