Ukrainian-American bilateral ties are at an all-time low, especially since last Friday’s (February 28) much-publicized spat between American leaders (US President Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance) and Ukrainian authoritarian leader Volodymyr Zelensky at the Oval Office.
On that very day, I was taking a much-needed short break in the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, navigating my way through tunnels, ruins and bunkers at the Northern Defences with a bunch of friends, as well as soaking in the territory’s war-torn history.
Across the Atlantic, Zelensky was also doing a different sort of navigation – that is, he seemed to be trying to wheedle his way into obtaining more “security guarantees” (i.e. more military aid) for his war-ravaged country despite previously refusing to sign a minerals deal with the US.
Unbeknownst to me around that time, as the Trump-Vance-Zelensky meeting progressed, conversations were interrupted, tempers flared, and diplomatic niceties were cast aside.
It was only after I returned to my accommodation after a long (but fulfilling) day out that I was greeted by a flurry of news headlines and videos regarding the “explosive” Trump-Vance-Zelensky exchange.
During the heated conversation I saw on video, Vance slammed the Ukrainian leader for the latter’s “disrespectful” attitude towards his hosts.
“Mr President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the frontlines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president,” Vance rebuked Zelensky.
“Do you disagree that you’ve had problems with bringing people in your military, and do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?”
Moreover, Trump, the ever seasoned businessman he has always been, joined Vance in lambasting the war-mongering Zelensky, in an “Art-of-the-Deal” manner.
“You right now are not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having the cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people; you’re gambling with World War Three and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country.”
Strikingly, Zelensky attempted to articulate a litany of actions perpetuated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly following Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of trying to “litigate this in front of the American media”.
In a subsequent post on Truth Social, Trump wrote:
“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”
Over the weekend, I could not help but re-watch the acrimonious altercation in the Oval Office several times over to observe the emotions and body language of the three world leaders.
Certainly, as US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz proclaimed on Breitbart News Saturday, Trump’s rebuke of Zelensky was a true “moment in history”, one that “historians, the Smithsonian, and others will be studying for quite some time”.
As many readers of The Remnant already know, I am no fan of the authoritarian and anti-Christian Zelensky who evidently showed contempt for his American hosts via his condescending body language (i.e. crossing his arms and rolling his eyes).
Also, I could not help but agree with Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of the Verkhovna Rada parliament in Kyiv, who criticized Zelensky for his “absolute idiocy” in bickering with the two US leaders in front of the cameras.
Undoubtedly, Zelensky, a former comedian-turned-politician, made “great television”, entertaining the world by starting the antagonistic conversation with Trump and Vance. (After all, what else could the world have expected from the Ukrainian leader, already so accustomed to browbeating the West for purportedly not “doing enough” for his country?)
In remarks cited by Breitbart News, Goncharenko stated that Zelensky’s behavior could have “very bad consequences” for Ukraine.
Likewise, Time Magazine quoted an anonymous Ukrainian official as stating:
“Well done. He pushed back. You have to respect that. But now we’re f—ed.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Laura Ingraham, host of Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that “this has to be one of the greatest diplomatic mishaps of all time by President Zelensky.”
“It is impossible to have an economic partnership with someone who doesn’t want to be your partners in peace”, Bessent added, alluding to Zelensky’s war-mongering track record and intransigence with regard to signing the minerals deal.
Following the Oval Office showdown, Zelensky, in his hubris, insisted that replacing him would be pointless, asserting that the West would eventually have to “negotiate with me”.
“It’s not enough to simply hold elections. You need to prevent me from running,” Zelensky stated.
Notably, in an article published by Russia Today (RT), Vitaly Ryumshin, a political analyst, declared that “while polls indicate that Zelensky’s approval ratings have been steadily declining since 2023, recent attacks from US President Donald Trump and other Western critics have paradoxically caused his numbers to rebound”. Yet the analyst conceded that it was “difficult to assess whether the Ukrainian people truly want Zelensky to step down”.
To the amusement of many observers (myself included), Zelensky did not stop his diplomatic blunders, even telling the Associated Press (AP) that peace with Russia is still “very, very far away”. In response, Trump renewed his offensive on the Ukrainian politician on Truth Social, stating:
“This is the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer! It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing.”
Additionally, Trump halted military aid to Ukraine following the Oval Office fiasco.
In remarks to Fox News, a White House official verified that “President Trump has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution”.
Back in Europe, the pro-war camp foreseeably voiced their backing for the embattled Zelensky, with the unelected EU czar Ursula von der Leyen telling the Ukrainian leader that he was “never alone”.
For years, the pro-war camp in Brussels has conveniently chosen to gloss over the Kyiv regime’s anti-Christian bent and unglamorous sympathies with the murderous Stepan Bandera (think of the Volhynia massacre of innocent Poles).
On a continent long known for operating on “consensus” based on some sort of “mob psychology” regarding the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, (save for countries like Hungary and Slovakia from the outset at least), it is no wonder that Trump’s remarkable display of one-upmanship irked many of the Brussels brahmins.
One does not have to be a champion of Vladimir Putin nor a supporter of Russian actions in Ukraine to arrive at the realistic conclusion that a “ceasefire” would truly benefit ordinary Ukrainians (and the rest of the world) in the long term.
Nonetheless, as a non-American, I acknowledge that Trump and Vance seemed to be acting more like disenchanted college frat seniors than presidential figures in their squabble with Zelensky.
As much as I respect healthy American patriotism and love my many American friends (given that I lived in the beautiful Midwest for a period of time), I can be a little put off at times by how some people act as if America is the “center of the world”, “talking down” to others (myself included) and thinking that smaller nations are “inferior”.
Unfortunately, watching the Oval Office exchange and the actions of the Trump-Vance duo reeked of some unpleasant encounters I had with certain ultra-prejudiced and narrow-minded pockets of the American population who automatically assumed I was from “Communist China” (given my East Asian heritage) and chose to sideline me in conversations and interactions.
(Surely, it is possible to be both patriotic AND respectful of other smaller nations!)
Nevertheless, I concede that Trump’s and Vance’s actions with regard to Zelensky were in line with their modus vivendi of “America First”.
Predictably, Trump’s and Vance’s behavior did not sit well with many leftist liberals (and their media sycophants).
Yet even those who call themselves “pro-freedom” or “conservative” did not warm up to the Americans’ behavior in the White House last week as well.
For example, writer Chris Bayliss wrote in The Critic, stating:
“The problem of course is that almost nobody else thinks through risks and benefits in the clinical manner with which Trump is approaching the conflict. Particularly not when the soil of their own country is concerned, upon which the blood of their countrymen has been spilled.”
Yet given that the Trump team has taken over Washington (much to the relief of peace-loving conservatives), Zelensky and his European backers have to face up to the harsh reality that there is no strong statesman in Europe to counterbalance Trump at the moment (though “might” is not necessarily always “right” – but that is discussion for another day).
On a continent already besieged by unbridled migration and weak defenses, the Europeans would likely have to listen to the table-banging of the “new sheriff in town” at the White House and get their defense act together.
May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace, pray for us.
