Imagine that during World War II, at the height of Nazi Germany’s blitz of Britain, President Roosevelt invited PM Winston Churchill to Washington and humiliated him with derisive comments about Britain’s looming defeat and failure to thank the president for US support.
Unthinkable, of course, but that’s exactly what happened when Ukraine President Volodymir Zelensky visited Washington and had to endure Donald Trump’s appalling interrogation.
Today’s headlines speak of a “collision” and a “blowup” between the two leaders, but it was far more than that. It marked an historic American retreat from Europe and from international responsibility.
But before that drama played out, there were visits to Washington by the French and British leaders. Neither received any indication that the US might backstop a NATO presence in Ukraine should Ukraine and Russia reach agreement to end their war.
France’s Emmanuel Macron was forthright in insisting that “peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine” or “a ceasefire without guarantees.” Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer tried to stroke Trump’s ego and fared better, bringing an invitation to visit from King Charles and getting Trump to consider not increasing tariffs on Britain.
Whether by design or circumstance, the Trump-Zelensky meeting was a setup for failure. The planned signing ceremony for a one-sided minerals deal descended into an argument, almost a shouting match, something never before seen in the Oval Office and captured on live TV.
It began with JD Vance’s assertion that diplomacy was the path to peace. Zelensky challenged that, noting how untrustworthy Putin has been in the past when agreements were signed. That led to a heated exchange during which both Vance and Trump told Zelensky he was being disrespectful of the Oval Office and had not said “thank you” to the US. (Actually, CNN counted 33 times that Zelensky has thanked the US for its support.)
Trump told Zelensky, ‘You’re not really in a good position, you don’t have the cards right now, you’re gambling with World War III.” “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” Trump threatened. “And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out and I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.”
Aftermath
After Zelensky left the meeting, Trump said it was “meaningful” but that Zelensky “is not ready for peace. He can come back when he is ready for peace.” Well, ready for a just peace, not peace at any price. A joint news conference planned for after the meeting was cancelled.
While Trump and Vance will never waver in believing that Zelensky was ungrateful and should have kowtowed to the President, theirs was a disgraceful performance. The leader of a country that has endured three years of bombardment, enormous losses of life and economy, and Putin’s war crimes should not be treated as a supplicant.
For Trump to remind Zelensky of the weakness of his position (“I know,” said Ukraine’s president) and then to expect him to accept terms imposed by the US and Russia is entirely unacceptable—and another example of Trumpian appeasement. After the meeting, Zelensky said on Fox News that he regretted the angry exchange but would not apologize, saying he wanted Trump “to be more at our side.”
For now, the minerals deal is off the table. It should be, since not only is it far too favorable to the US; it also turns out to be far more complicated than initially presented. For one thing, Ukraine’s supposed wealth in rare earths and other valuable minerals may be considerably exaggerated.
Some experts say that at best, the reserves remain to be determined, and the costs of extraction could be monumental. Moreover, some mines are in Russian-controlled territory. The Russians have apparently offered a deal for US ownership. That would mean US mining in occupied land, another heavy blow to Ukrainian sovereignty.
In Trump’s view, the minerals deal is supposed to substitute for a military commitment to Ukraine’s security. The idea is that the Russians would not dare attack knowing that US contractors were busy mining for Ukraine’s lithium. But that’s hardly a security commitment; rather, it’s an excuse for non-involvement.
At his first cabinet meeting, Trump said “I’m not going to provide security guarantees beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.” In short, Ukraine cannot count on the US to backstop Europe—an enormous policy shift that leaves any Ukraine-Russia peace agreement likely to fail.
America in retreat
Nearly every European leader rallied behind Zelensky. All issued statements in support of him, in direct contrast with fulsome Republican support of Trump. A senior Ukrainian official said Zelenskyy spoke to Macron, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, after he left the White House, describing all the conversations as “supportive” of the Ukrainian leader.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, told Zelensky: “Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.” Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country would always support Ukraine. “We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.”
Only Hungary’s Viktor Orban and the former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev took Trump’s side—in itself an indication of where things stand these days, which is that the US enjoys good relations with Russia, Iran, Belarus, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and just about nobody else.
Donald Trump evidently wants to return world politics to spheres of influence, with the US in control of the Americas, China predominant in Asia, and Russia the principal power in Europe. With US-Russia relations moving toward normalcy, and Israel in the driver’s seat in the Middle East, all it takes to realize Trump’s vision is for China to bend to Trump on trade.
Principles, values, and commitments are out the window; pure self-interest in a world run by autocrats is all that matters. What can possibly go wrong?
Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest.
Share
