Most of you by now have heard of the epic row in the Oval Office on Friday, with Trump and Vance becoming increasingly heated over Zelensky refusal to fall in line with Administration plans, from saying he needed security guarantees in order to sign the Ukraine “minerals deal” to disagreeing with the Trump position that negotiating with Putin to end the war was a good idea, to even disputing Trump’s repeated claim that the US had spent more on Ukraine than the EU had (the charts in this Financial Times article support Zelensky’s claims).
For a quick review, Matt Taibbi has a transcript of the key ten minutes of the press conference; you can find the full fifty minute video here.
Some contend that if Zelensky had handled himself better, the simmering conflict between Trump and Zelensky would not have led to this apparent fatal rupture. I beg to differ.
The yelling match reflected irreconcilable position on what each side regarded as core issues. Thought experiment: if Zelensky were to grovel to Trump and say he was now willing to sign the minerals pact, do you think Trump would say no? He’d relish in his power play having gotten Zelensky to acknowledge Trump as the big dog and making a visible concession (admittedly, Trump would ask Zelensky for more, as in a commitment to negotiate with Russia, which Zelensky would find a way to renege on in due course). Even if Trump is saying otherwise now, he holds no fixed stances. But the bigger point is that it is Zelensky that would not proceed with the minerals pact and certainly would not cooperate with negotiations with Russia. So what could happen in an alternate universe is moot.
I also have difficulty with the claim that Trump and Vance intended to force this rupture. They were muscling, yesiree bob, to get Zelensky to execute the minerals pact. Let us not forget what had already transpired: Zelensky had offered Ukraines’s wealth, first to the Biden Administration, later to Trump and in his Victory Plan, in return for security guarantees. Trump then tried to outrageously retrade the offer by insisting that the purported $350 billion the US had spent on Ukraine (the Wall Street Journal, among others, challenges this claim) should be repaid, when that support was never in the form of loans. Should Taiwan worry about similarly getting a payment demand from Trump? And let us not forget that the US put up Ukraine to this fight via helping arm and train its forces during the Minsk and Minsk 2 duplicities and having Boris Johnson act as our emissary (confirmed later by Samantha Power in her book) to scupper the Istanbul peace deal…with US and NATO and NATO member state leaders promising with one voice that we’d support Ukraine for as long as it took?
In other words, even though Zelensky was never a sympathetic or admirable character (if you were paying attention), Western behavior in this conflict has been reprehensible.
If you review the past week or so of news, it shows clearly that Zelensky was not keen about going to Washington. Alexander Mercouris argues, and it’s certainly plausible, that the desperate and deluded Macron-Starmer tag team had convinced themselves that they could get Trump to guarantee the security of UK and French “reassurance” forces, even though Russia is maintaining no way, no how will they tolerate any NATO (or other) forces in Ukraine ex the approval of the UN Security Council, where Russia has a veto. The scheme was then after getting these commitments from Trump, Zelensky would firm up the arrangement via accepting the minerals pact. Boris Johnson was promoting it as providing de facto security to Ukraine via increased presence; some have speculated that the former Prime Minister also talked to Zelensky, but I have yet to see any evidence.
However, despite his reluctance, Zelensky decided to make the trip, making clear that his agreeing to the minerals pact was not a given. He said he needed to hear what Trump had to say about security guarantees. So Zelensky has not budged from his original position, although he might have been willing to accept verbal assurances (as if those were credible from the US in light of “not one inch further east” and the aforementioned support of Ukraine “for as long as it takes”). But given the parlous state of Ukraine and Zelensky’s rule, any confidence-builder might be adequate.
There are similarly rumors that the disastrous meeting was in part due to bad American advice to Zelensky:
Blinken, Rice, Nuland, and Vindman conference call with Zelenskyy on the flight to DC advising him to “stand strong” and “be tough” and “don’t let Trump bully you”
seems to have backfired 😂😂😂— Peachy Keenan (@KeenanPeachy) February 28, 2025
Regardless, if you look at the transcript, Trump and Vance resorted to the highly irregular device of having a private discussion and then calling the press in for a press conference. Trump recently used the same trick with the King Abdullah of Jordan. The King had apparently not been told of the press conference plan, where Trump told reporters that the King had agreed to his Gaza ethnic cleansing plan and would be taking in Palestinians. Abdullah did not confront Trump but as soon as he could, issued firm denials of any such consent.
Trump in his opening remarks, in which Trump talks up both the minerals deal and his talks with Putin, tells Zelensky that “It’s something that you want and that he wants” and that Zelensky will be joining him and others in a lunch meeting and then will sign the minerals pact. So consistent with widespread expectations before the meeting, Trump was prepared to have Zelensky sign on.
Zelensky immediately focused on the outtrade:
ZELENSKY: Thank you so much, Mr. President. Thank you for invitation. And really I hope that this document, first document will be first step to real security guarantees for Ukraine, our people, our children. I really count on it. And of course we count that America will not stop support. Really for us, it’s very important to support and to continue it. I want to discuss it with details for them during our conversation and of course the infrastructure or security guarantees.
The wheels come off as Zelensky also immediately pushes back on the idea that Putin can be trusted even as Trump doubles down, and also gets into a spat over Trump’s insistence that the US provided more support than Europe. As Taibbi noted:
“25 times [Putin’s] broken cease fire,” Zelensky said.
“He never broke to me,” snapped Trump, realizing the meeting had moved into deeper water.
From there it was obvious the two sides had fundamentally different understandings. Trump and Vance clearly saw the minerals deal as a necessary precursor to making a security deal with Putin. Zelensky meanwhile began talking as if he intended to keep fighting with or without American support. One can call that brave, but once Trump and Vance realized they’d invited a throng of international media to have Zelensky call them out on their home ice, the mood turned ugly fast.
But remember, even though this getting this ugly in public was clearly not necessary, a crack-up of some sort seemed inevitable. As Simplicius pointed out:
Firstly, let’s again mention the epistemic three-way impasse that has recently surfaced, which we spoke about last time: Ukraine doesn’t want diplomacy without a security guarantee; US wants a ceasefire before major deals with Russia; Russia doesn’t want a ceasefire without its own security guarantees. Despite what went on today, Trump only yesterday appeared to demonstrate his unrealistic understanding concerning the war. He stated in a press conference not only that he would try to get Ukraine as much of its land back as possible, but—and this is the big one—that he thinks Ukraine might be able to get some of its coastline back:
Granted, he may just be egging the press on, and putting on appearances for the sake of playing the peacemaker. Think about it: what coastline could Ukraine possibly get back? The Azov Sea, which would necessitate returning Mariupol or Melitopol, parts of Kherson and Zaporozhye? Or does he actually think Russia could give back Crimea itself?….
And for that matter, we absolutely must include these next essential exhibits into the evidence. Just yesterday, Lavrov again decisively put the final word on the matter of ceasefires when he explained that there will absolutely be no ceasefires “along the current contact line”
I’m inclined to think that the bizarre Trump mention of retaking Ukraine coast was to throw a bone to Zelensky. But that throwaway would have been deeply alarming to the already distrustful Russians.
Confirming Simplicius, progress in the US-Russia talks is slow. The expert had an over 6 hour second meeting in Riyadh. From the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:
In accordance with the instructions from the foreign policy leadership of both countries, the parties meticulously explored avenues to overcome numerous irritants inherited from previous US administrations. Joint measures were agreed upon to ensure the unfettered mutual financing of Russian and US diplomatic missions’ operations and to establish appropriate conditions for diplomats to fulfil their official duties.
The consultations also addressed issues related to Russian diplomatic properties in the United States, with a particular focus on the restitution of six premises unlawfully seized between 2016 and 2018. The necessity of achieving tangible outcomes to foster conditions conducive to improving bilateral relations, in the interests of both nations, was underscored. In particular, the American side was encouraged to consider the restoration of direct air service between the two countries.
So the only addition to the agenda was restoring flights between Russia and the US. In other words, the bigger issues have yet to even be tabled, let alone a process for considering them to be devised.
What happens now? One popular point of view is that Zelensky needs to quit sooner rather than later. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has found a new high register in her denunciation of Zelensky in the wake of his White House debacle. For instance:
With his outrageously rude behaviour during his stay in Washington, Zelensky re-affirmed his status of the most dangerous threat to the international community as an irresponsible figure that can stir up a big war. It must be clear to everyone that this kind of attacks coming from a terrorist leader are quite unambiguous.
This cynical individual will stoop to anything in pursuit of his goals and is obsessed with preserving the power he has usurped. This is why he has destroyed the opposition, built a totalitarian state and is ruthlessly sending millions of his fellow citizens to their deaths. Under the increasingly deteriorating political conditions, this figure is unable to show a sense of responsibility and is therefore obsessed with continuing the war and rejects peace, which means death to him.
Unprecedented in the history of international politics and diplomacy, a dressing down given to Zelensky by the US president in the White House is also indicative of the political weakness and extreme moral degradation of the European leaders who continue to support the maniac leader of the Nazi regime who has lost touch with reality.
But I am not sure how feasible it is for Zelensky to make a clean exit even if he wanted to. Remember that he got over 70% of the vote in 2019 and ran on a platform of normalizing relations with Russia. But my impression was that before then, the US neocons and friends had gotten Banderites into key positions in government, way in excess of their representation in society or the Rada (1% to 2% as of then). I recall seeing Chrystia Freeland interview George Soros a couple of years before that. Soros bragged that 15% of the people in the Ukraine government (by that he meant the Administration, not the legislature) had either personally gotten Open Society grants or had an immediate family member how had. Now getting an Open Society grant does not necessarily mean being a Banderite, but it does mean being Russia hostile. And recall also that the Banderite in the post-Maidan regime snagged positions in the internal policing-security apparatus, so they could use force. It’s not hard to imagine that the Zelensky reversal was due to threats to his safety. Other politicians had been badly beaten and at least one had been killed.
Even assuming the Ukraine government is coming to recognize that its goose is cooked, the Banderites may well be in Fuhrer-bunker mode. Russia has promised war crimes trials. Russia would likely go to some lengths to hunt down prominent neo-Nazi figures. Zelensky has to assume the walls have ears as far as his Banderite minders are concerned, save perhaps when he can meet foreign officials in private. And the Banderites have an escalatogical bent, so they might prefer to ride on a white horse into the flames rather than go to Canada, get plastic surgery, and hide out with Galicians.
In the meantime, just three hours ago, Zelensky put up a tweetstorm that indicates he is persisting as best he can in his current course:
We are very grateful to the United States for all the support. I’m thankful to President Trump, Congress for their bipartisan support, and American people. Ukrainians have always appreciated this support, especially during these three years of full-scale invasion. pic.twitter.com/Z9FlWjF101
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) March 1, 2025
Zelensky is to meet with Keir Starmer. The Independent reports that the Europeans are trying to use the rift to worm their way in:
Donald Trump “needs to sort out this mess as much as Zelensky”, Sir Malcolm Rifkind has told The Independent, warning that the US president “cannot deliver a deal unless Zelensky agrees”.
Backing Sir Keir Starmer’s approach to the situation so far, Sir Malcolm – who has previously served as both defence secretary and foreign secretary – said European leaders should help to mediate between the Ukrainian and US presidents.
And the even bigger question: how long can Ukraine keep up the fight? There are two levels to this question: will the Trump Administration take quick and punitive action, such as cutting off access to intel, such as satellite data, and comms, most of all Starlink to force a Zelensky resignation or ouster? A wee problem is that two of the top pretenders to the throne, former general Valerii Zaluzhny and Petro Poroshenko, are also strongly anti-Russian and will probably do their best to sandbag a deal.
Or will it assume that no arms shipments and bad press will do the trick and lead to even more desertions and refusals of orders?
In the meantime, Zelensky has many backers, even if they aren’t in a position to do him much good. A few of ample examples:
This isn’t about Zelenskyy, a patriot and hero. This is about an American administration penetrated and compromised by America’s enemies.
— David Frum (@davidfrum) March 1, 2025
This is utterly repulsive!
Trump and Vance just tried to humiliate Zelensky live on American TV, smugly demanding gratitude while openly mocking him like playground bullies counting favors. My respect for Zelensky—and my embarrassment as an American—just surged off the charts.… pic.twitter.com/0C4d03PDmi
— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) February 28, 2025
Another view:
⚡️🇬🇧🇺🇦British soldier has a message for the world from the Ukrainian frontline: pic.twitter.com/N1UAo4jLSi
— SIMPLICIUS Ѱ (@simpatico771) March 1, 2025
If this is bona fide, it says that some in Ukraine do not want to give up despite the high cost.
So this is not over until the fat lady signs. And despite all the high drama, that has yet to happen.
