One trait that U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have earned in his time in the political wilderness is the ability to take an event and create so much dust that it takes days to figure out what is going on.
Case in point, the “dustup”, and that is putting it lightly, was in the confrontation the President and Vice President had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the 28th of February at the Oval Office of the White House.
PC: The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the immediate post-event (or post-incident if you are inclined to call it that) reporting done, the main focus centered on the potential after-effects. They include but are not limited to the political ramifications between Trump and other elements in government, whether this would cause real damage to U.S. allies and diplomatic tensions.
Just to name a few.
There was also reporting, mostly from pro-Trump outlets, that said what Zelenskyy did in the meeting was disrespectful to the President, and he should both apologize and focus on securing a cease-fire/peace treaty in the conflict.
Even Zelenskyy’s allies in Europe publicly are asking him to do just that.
Amid all the chaos, the first of several questions kept nagging at this blogger. The first one is: why did Zelenskyy and his team let this spectacle unfold? While Trump loves a good TV moment, it’s still a valid question to ask
The reason for this question is because of the nature of these events. Typically, and this has been reported in other areas, what typically happens is both leaders – the Presidents in this matter – come in and sit down for what is called a Pool spray. It is defined as a brief photo opportunity, for instance at the White House following a meeting.
In this case, it was before the meeting.
This blogger, answering this question, first suspects that the players in the center of the room were the controllers of the event, and no one was going to “stage direct” either of them. If they wanted the press out of there, either one of them would have said so.
This raises another question: why, when prodded, did Zelenskyy say what he did to Trump? After all, it would have cost him nothing to simply sit there, smile, and stay silent. He must have known that, as Benjamin Franklin put it in John Adams, the script was to “[O]bserve much, act little, and speak softly.”
The answer to this question is that, in essence, Zelenskyy has it figured in his mind that any “security guarantees” that Trump made to him either before or during the meeting, were highly questionable.
In short, Zelenskyy’s demand for stronger security assurances from the United States—beyond what Trump was willing to offer—was not just about immediate concerns. Instead, it was a broader critique of a recurring pattern: deals that, in the end, offer little to the victims and remain purely transactional.
Why would Zelenskyy think this way? After all, the United States and its allies have invested billions in pushing Russia back, and Europe is still planning to contribute more. The answer lies in Donald Trump’s pattern of making bold claims about brokering deals with Russia to end the war—especially as he pursues ‘negotiations’ in Saudi Arabia between Secretary of State Rubio and his Russian counterpart, all without Ukraine at the table
If this sounds familiar to the reader, it should. During the first administration of Donald Trump, he did this twice to allies of the United States in Afghanistan and Syria.
In the case of Syria, Trump abruptly announced the U.S. withdrawal, giving Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the green light to invade and act on its own terms. This sudden move, without proper consultation or consideration for local allies, was seen as a ‘cut-and-run’ strategy, abandoning the Kurdish forces who had been critical in fighting ISIS.
Trump would repeat this pattern in Afghanistan but with even more dramatic consequences. There, he negotiated directly with the Taliban, leaving the Afghan government completely sidelined. Only after the negotiations concluded did the U.S. present the terms to the Afghan government, effectively telling them to negotiate with a Taliban they had been fighting against for years.
PC:The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the end, the Taliban saw no need to negotiate with a government that was easy to defeat and marched in, almost unopposed, into Kabul anyway.
Given these precedents—where the U.S. made abrupt, unilateral decisions that sidelined its allies—it’s understandable to this blogger why Zelenskyy might fear a similar betrayal in the case of Ukraine
To be fair, the mineral deal that brought Zelenskyy to Washington in the first place is being touted by Trump supporters as a kind of security guarantee. However, as many know, once private industry senses danger, it withdraws without hesitation. So, even if this deal were considered a guarantee, it remains a flimsy one at best.
Did Zelenskyy, in the end, really need to confront Trump in front of the press? While the spectacle sent shockwaves through diplomatic and military circles, it raised a crucial question: Can the United States still be trusted as a reliable partner, given its history of unpredictable, self-serving foreign policy?
The answer to this is Zelenskyy, sensing an opportunity to make his point, chose to address it directly in front of the press. This bold move wasn’t accidental—it was calculated. With U.S. leaders focused on their agendas, Zelenskyy had little choice but to raise his concerns in the most direct way possible. Though uncomfortable, the confrontation may, in the end, spark the much-needed conversation about the reliability of U.S. commitments and whether any ally can truly trust the U.S. to honor its word.
With changes in the situation happening almost daily, the news reported on Tuesday, the 4th of March, that Zelenskyy wrote a message to Pres. Trump, noted that he wanted to seek peace and that the meeting on Friday, the 28th, was “regrettable”.