European leaders would be more worried about Ukraine and European security after the Oval Office breakdown; Russia would be delighted
The very public confrontation in the Oval Office between US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance on the one side and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the other on February 28 is unprecedented in diplomatic history.
Certainly, there has never been such a brutal public exchange between top leaders in the White House in any diplomat’s memory. But yes, behind the scenes, tough conversations have taken place in the Oval Office. The one between then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and US President Richard Nixon in October 1971 on the Pakistani military’s genocide in what was then East Pakistan and what became Bangladesh on December 16, 1971, comes to mind.
Similar situation, another conversation
Nixon fully supported Pakistan and did not want India to undertake military operations because then Pakistan President General Yahya Khan had helped him open a path to normalize relations with the Communist China. That conversation is relevant even today because the US President even then did not care about who was the aggressor and who was the victim but was interested only in promoting US interests.
Indira Gandhi told Nixon to understand the basic reality but he was unwilling to do so. The important matter is that all the tough — though politely worded — talk took place behind closed doors and not in front of the media, and the great gap between the positions of the two countries became known but not with the drama that took place in the White House on Friday.
Also read: Trump, Vance and Zelenskyy script an epochal moment in global politics, diplomacy
Who is the aggressor?
This writer has deliberately recalled the Indira Gandhi-Nixon exchange because at the heart of the current differences between Trump and Zelenskyy lies the former’s refusal to acknowledge that Putin’s Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022.
Whatever may have been the provocation to the Russians by the Europeans and the US in the past, the aggression was not justified. Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden, the European leadership, and the majority of countries in the world accepted that fact.
Trump has not been willing to do so. He is emphasizing, as he did in the Oval Office confrontation on Friday, that he was focused on a deal between the two sides and, therefore, it was essential for him not to be critical of Putin.
But he also went further when he said that Putin had been targeted, along with him, by his political opponents in the US. In saying so, Trump indicated a sympathy for Putin. This was also reflected in his repeatedly saying that he knows the Russian leader well and that he will not break any deal with him.
Demand for security guarantee
Indeed, that has been the heart of the matter. Zelenskyy wants the Americans and the Europeans to give him security guarantees—by putting their army contingents in Ukraine. He has said that Putin has broken so many ceasefire agreements in the past that without these contingents, a ceasefire deal will mean nothing. It will leave his country and people insecure.
Clearly, Zelenskyy wanted a security guarantee to be reflected either in the minerals deal that has been struck between the US and Ukraine, or to be separately and strongly stated by Trump prior to its signing. The minerals deal is to enable the US to access and mine Ukraine’s rare earth resources, which the American industry needs for its hi-tech programmes. It is significant that Trump also wanted this agreement to compensate for all the funds the US has given Ukraine to fight the Russians.
Also read: Trump-Zelenskyy clash: US drops Ukraine like hot potato
In an interview to Fox News, Zelenskyy declared that the US had till now supplied Ukraine with $67 billion worth of weapons and that it had given $41.5 billion in direct financial support. Trump was also irked when Zelenskyy repeatedly said that both the US and Europe have helped Ukraine. He implied that their help was equal though Trump has consistently maintained that the US has done more.
Business deal versus national security
Interestingly, Trump, during the combative exchange in the Oval Office, stressed, “I am a businessperson.” He also remarked that while the European support to Ukraine was in the form of loans, the American one was not so, the implication being that it was in the form of grants.
It is amazing that a person who holds the world’s most powerful political office has no reluctance in openly saying that he is a “businessperson”. Obviously, the minerals deal was, therefore, the most important thing for him whereas, for Zelenskyy, it was security guarantees. Indeed, Trump said security guarantees were only 2 per cent of the problem. Naturally, no Ukrainian leader whose army is fighting a war could give security guarantees such a low priority.
The anti-Putin tirade
The meeting in the Oval Office became more contentious because Trump clearly did not appreciate Zelenskyy’s anti-Putin tirade. This was especially so because Trump enjoys good ties with Putin. For his part, Trump put Zelenskyy in a difficult situation because he was critical of his predecessors, especially Biden, who had taken a very strong position against Putin.
Trump got irritated when Zelenskyy pointed out that Putin had continued his aggression in Eastern Ukraine and broke ceasefires repeatedly from 2014 through 2022. These years included those in Putin’s first term. In a way, this also contradicted Trump’s oft-repeated claim that Russia would never have invaded Ukraine had he been President.
Also read: ‘Trump a bully, US siding with Russia:’ Ukrainian media rallies behind Zelensky
Trump was right when he warned Zelenskyy that Ukraine had “no cards” and that he was in a very difficult position, with thousands of his soldiers dying every week. He also blamed him for being irresponsible, for the current situation could lead to World War 3. And, assuming a peacemaker’s demeanor, Trump said that all he wanted was peace and was, therefore, working for a deal.
He also said, “My whole life is deals”. The problem is that deals in business are different from deals in international relations, for, in the former, people largely behave for profit or prevent losses and, therefore, not emotionally. In international relations, unless a country is fully defeated, its nationalism often pushes it to fight on despite losses.
The fallout
There is no doubt that the Oval Office meeting would not have turned so ugly had Vance not sought to chide Zelenskyy for not appreciating Trump’s diplomacy, which was trying to end the war. He also accused Zelenskyy of being ungrateful to Trump for his efforts and being disrespectful in the Oval Office, in front of the media. Zelenskyy took him on and, naturally, Trump supported Vance and came on the Ukrainian President like a tonne of bricks. This is where the meeting broke down.
Zelenskyy was asked to leave the White House though not in front of the media. The minerals deal signing was abandoned. Trump left for his Florida home and Zelenskyy tried to repair some damage in his interview to Fox News by saying that he and his people were very grateful to the American people in their hour of need.
It is unlikely that Trump or his colleagues will get assuaged with this. They would prefer that Zelenskyy leaves office so that they could deal with another Ukrainian leader. On his part, Zelenskyy has correctly said that it is for the Ukrainian people to decide who will lead them.
Also read: ‘Whatever it takes’: World leaders rally behind Ukraine after Trump-Zelenskyy showdown
The fallout of this verbal duel is that peacemaking in the Ukraine war has become more difficult now. European leaders would be more worried about Ukraine and European security after the Oval Office breakdown. Russia would be delighted.
Matters will become clearer after the dust raised by the White House storm settles down.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
