Zelensky/Trump: what exactly happened in the Oval Office on 28 February? What might happen next?
Just over two weeks ago, President Trump rocked Europe by starting talks with Russian President Putin. Simultaneously, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the US seemingly had no problem with Russia winning its war of aggression against Ukraine. Russia, Hegseth said, was likely to keep Ukrainian territory it had captured. Hegseth also ruled out Ukraine joining NATO. I wrote here about those events.
Then on 28 February 2025, a Zelensky/Trump meeting took place:
Clicking on the picture takes you to the BBC video of the Oval Office exchanges
A slow-motion car crash
Watching the Zelensky/Trump scenes in the Oval Office was, to any supporter of Ukraine, excruciating. Vice-President Vance’s provocative interventions, with Trump then weighing in, seemed almost scripted. Some commentators have argued that this was a planned ambush of Zelensky in order to make it easier not to involve Ukraine in future negotiations. Certainly, both Vance and Trump made incendiary statements, then accused Zelensky of “disrespect” when he tried to respond.
The scenes that unfolded were like a primer in how not to deal with thin-skinned narcissists. Zelensky was in an impossible situation: attacked, ridiculed and unable to get a word in edgeways. It is hard to see how he could have responded, other than “perhaps we should continue this discussion in private”. Maybe – easy to say with hindsight – he should have slowed things down by speaking in Ukrainian, with translation. But by rising to the provocations of Vance and Trump, he failed utterly to achieve his prime goal of building the good relationship with the US President on which the future of his country may depend. Instead, we witnessed a slow-motion car crash.
Afterwards, Trump posted that Zelensky “disrespected the US and its cherished Oval Office“.
Zelensky/Trump: what to do next
Ukraine
Ukraine has swung into damage limitation mode. Zelensky posted a statement, saying “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.” Zelensky also gave a scheduled interview on Fox News, saying all the right things. Of course, Ukraine should make crystal-clear that they are grateful to the US for their support, and to Trump for seeking to build peace. But it has to be a peace which is durable and does not encourage Russia to attack Ukraine or someone else a few years down the line.
Europe
Europe, including the UK, must step up immediately to help Ukraine, militarily and economically. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer already planned to hold a Ukraine summit in London on Sunday 2 March. After the events of 28 February, the London Summit has ten times the urgency. It will be catastrophic for Europe’s security if Russia wins this war. Russian victory would embolden Putin to attack Ukraine, or other countries, again. Other countries around the world would see Russia benefiting from aggression, and want to try it. Finally, when Trump talks about Zelensky “gambling with WW3”, he seems to be implying that a non-nuclear-armed country attacked by a nuclear-armed state should not defend itself. This seems to send a clear message to all countries that the key to guaranteeing your security is to possess your own weapons of mass destruction.
The idea of Europe defending Ukraine sounds promising. It is helpful that many European leaders have spoken up in support of Zelensky. But speaking up is the easy part. Gaining and maintaining popular support for massively increased defence expenditure will be a challenge. UK taxpayers, for example, generally support Ukraine. But to persuade them to give up other public spending to stop Russia winning this war will require political leadership of the highest order. The resignation of UK international development minister Anneliese Dodds over cuts to her department to help fund higher defence spending is a sign of bruising battles to come.
Re-engaging with the US
Europe – and Ukraine – need to go straight back to work on the US. The thing that Zelensky said today that most incensed Trump and Vance was the most important. This is that Russia winning this war would also harm US security. As I said in my earlier post, there has always been a strong streak of isolationism in the US. People tend to believe foreign wars are far away, and that the US is protected by oceans. But Zelensky is right. A future world where Russia wins this war – where every country is acquiring nuclear weapons, where every country thinks there are no consequences for invading your neighbour – would present the US, too, with huge problems.
Zelensky/Trump: who really disrespects the US?
The idea that Zelensky “disrespected” the US, or Trump, or “the Oval Office” by not agreeing with everything Vance and Trump said, is of course absurd. Is the US, or the President, so sensitive that they feel “disrespected” so easily?
In fact, it is Moscow that is really “disrespecting” the US, and President Trump specifically. Kremlin spokesmen keep contradicting Trump:
- Trump recently said Russia would accept European peacekeeping troops on the ground in Ukraine. When journalists queried this, Trump said “I specifically asked him that question”. Asked about this, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov referred to a statement by Foreign Minister Lavrov in which Lavrov said the presence of European peacekeepers was “unacceptable” – a direct rebuke to Trump.
- Trump has said several times that Ukraine will get back at least some of the land occupied by Russia. In response, Peskov said Russia was not prepared to make any territorial concessions. On the contrary, Russia still claims the entire territory of Crimea, plus that of four regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) that they do not yet fully control but have annexed – in a display of naked imperialism – into Russian territory. Peskov said the annexed territories were “unnegotiable”.
If Trump wants to know who is really disrespecting him, he need look no further than President Putin and the Russian leadership. They think he is a “useful idiot” – someone they can easily manipulate to help achieve their goals.
Why does Ukraine not want a cease-fire?
Following the Zelensky/Trump Oval Office exchanges, President Trump argued that Zelensky wanted to “fight” rather than agree a cease-fire. Once again, Trump was echoing talking points from Moscow, which has been pushing for a cease-fire since 2022. For a full analysis of why a cease-fire would not necessarily help, see my post “Russia-Ukraine ceasefire: why not?” of August 2022.
To hear the US President repeating Russian talking points must be even more maddening for Zelensky than many other aspects of Trump’s behaviour.
11 Responses
I was keen to get your take on the situation. A helpful point of view, thank you.
Thanks – glad you found it helpful.
As ever from Leigh, a cool and diplomatic assessment of a disastrous exchange between two Presidents that are supposed to be Allys for the sake of “great television”. Absolutely correct, Zelensky should’ve reverted to Ukrainian to slow the debacle. Although his English is excellent and it was courteous of him to conduct the meeting in English, he was exposed, as negotiating in a second language is more difficult. I can only hope, Europe steps up and wakes up. Thank you Leigh!! You should be the Chief Negotiation facilitator here, speaking all languages and understanding all three cultures.
Thanks Detlef. Doing my best to make sense of the situation.
thoroughly analyzed
Danke Georg!
President Donald Trump has shown reservation of his administration on the US Ukraine support. On the contrary that is not good mediation when leaders exchange war of words.The interest of United States may be at steak as well since the rhetoric is about nuclear defense capabilities.It is surely not negotiating a deal from the position of strength given Moscow might be tricking the US into a soft walk over to Kiev. Previous peace agreement were violated and therefore what makes this one special ? The answer would be the war has taken toll on either sides. Russian military is reliant of proxies from Iran ,North Korea and Belarus.Both side has serious problem of man power and equipment particularly the Russian side that anticipated the war would be a matter of days but three years on it is still raging on.Ukraine has not deployed any machineries or deployed and foreign troops on its soil but received overwhelming moral and military support coupled with unilateral sanctions that has since the Biden administration crippled its economy which relies on mainly military exports and energy into the EU.President Trump needs to mediate from the position of strength to make a viable deal for both Ukraine and Russia but more cautiously on who is the Agressor.Both nations are in dare need for an end to the conflict but surely the support on the Ukrainian side still holds which President Trump has not realized that is among the many strength he has as a US negotiator .Certainly the Russians are laughing within themselves how a superpower like the United States could make such a concession on major ally like Ukraine.The US and Russia have a number of biletral treaties particularly the ICBM treaty of which Ukraine’s support provides vital security guarantees beside NATO involvement.
President Donald Trump has shown reservation of his administration on the US Ukraine support. On the contrary that is not good mediation when leaders exchange war of words.The interest of United States may be at stake as well since the rhetoric is about nuclear defense capabilities.It is surely not negotiating a deal from the position of strength given Moscow might be tricking the US into a soft walk over to Kiev. Previous peace agreement were violated and therefore what makes this one special ? The answer would be the war has taken toll on either sides. Russian military is reliant of proxies from Iran ,North Korea and Belarus.Both side has serious problem of man power and equipment particularly the Russian side that anticipated the war would be over in a matter of days but three years on it is still raging on.Ukraine has not deployed any machineries or foreign troops on its soil but received overwhelming moral and military support coupled with unilateral sanctions on Russia that has since the Biden administration crippled its economy which relies on mainly grain ,military and energy export nto the EU.President Trump needs to mediate from the position of strength to make a viable deal for both Ukraine and Russia but proceed more cautiously on who is the Agressor.Both nations are in dare need of an end to the conflict but surely the support on the Ukrainian side still holds which President Trump has not realized is among the many strength he has as a US negotiator .Certainly the Russians are laughing within themselves how a superpower like the United States could make such a concession on major ally like Ukraine.The US and Russia have a number of biletral treaties particularly the ICBM treaty of which Ukraine’s support provides vital security guarantees or deterent beside NATO involvement.
Thanks Dickson. I agree that President Trump risks weakening rather than strengthening US security by making concessions to Russia.
‘The resignation of UK international development minister Anneliese Dodds over cuts to her department to help fund higher defence spending is a sign of bruising battles to come’ – this is the crux of the matter: economics.
The Trump/Vance Oval-Office boor-fest was just part of their programme to make us Europeans grow up and accept responsibility for our own security and – more to the point – the associated costs.
As we are discovering, we cannot afford everything we want. More borrowing and more tax – our normal postwar MO – have been tested to destruction and are economically unfeasible. So now we have to decide between spending priorities and the likes of Ms Dodds don’t like it. As you say, Leigh, a sign of what is coming. Despite the horror with which we superior Europeans look on what happened yesterday and on DOGE, maybe this stuff is required to shake us from our complacency.
It is a tough row to hoe. Let’s see how our political leaders get on with persuading us to cough up for defence.