I’m sitting in Ukraine as I write this. In a case of perhaps the most awkward timing imaginable, I arrived here on the day the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office meeting went off the rails. I was having dinner with Ukrainian colleagues when our phones blew up with the news. In another case of ironic timing, I am here to do research for a book project on US military assistance, a major theme of the Oval Office rumble.

Having now taken a couple of days to process the event, I just read through the transcript of the meeting. There are three reasons it went the way it did. First, the two sides had diverging objectives for the meeting. Although nominally they were there to sign a rare earth minerals deal, the Trump Administration wanted a photo op and a chance to score some political points by disparaging the Biden Administration. Zelensky, on the other hand, wanted to discuss the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine. Normally these diverging objectives would not have been fatal to the photo op and could have been discussed after the media left. Except for the second reason the meeting went sideways: the unprecedented intervention of Vice President JD Vance. In a normal Oval Office photo op, the others in the room are rarely even on camera, much less starting arguments with the visitor. Vance broke that norm and pushed the meeting into the open argument it became. The final reason the meeting went the way it did – and this is less important but not unimportant – was the language barrier. While Zelensky’s English is good, it was not up to the task of a two-on-one verbal sparring match in front of the cameras with his country’s existence on the line. And it was unfair to put him in the position of engaging in such a sparring match in what was supposed to be a photo op. As the argument escalated, the language barrier led to several misunderstandings that further inflamed it.

Vance threw the opening punch. Although it was mostly meant to deprecate the Biden Administration and curry favor with his boss, it came across to Zelensky as admonishing him to let the US find a diplomatic solution to the war. This, naturally, triggered Zelensky’s fears of the US negotiating with Russia over his head (because that is what is happening) and signing a cease fire deal that had no security guarantees for Ukraine. At this point, Zelensky tried to make the point that Russia cannot be trusted to respect anything it signs. To do so, he gave an overview of all the agreements Ukraine has signed in the past with the Kremlin, including several with international support. He correctly made the point that Russia had violated them all, culminating in the full-scale invasion of February 2022.

Vance then escalated again, saying that the US was trying to “end the destruction of your country” and that “you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.” Aside from the now-obligatory fawning over Vance’s boss, these statements are problematic for two reasons. The first statement highlights MAGA-world’s two bad faith, logically incompatible narratives on the war. In the first, Ukraine is being destroyed and unless it stops the war immediately and at any cost it will lie in ruins. In this view, Zelensky is morally reckless for continuing to fight. In the second view, Ukraine is getting rich from US assistance, with Ukrainians stealing US largesse to party all night and buy themselves jewelry and yachts. 

Neither of these is true. Although Russia uses war crimes as an instrument of its strategy, attacking Ukrainian schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings and killing innocents on a daily basis, Ukraine is a large, resilient country that is not at risk of being destroyed. True, some cities, like Kherson, lie partly in ruins and are largely deserted; others like Kharkiv endure daily attacks but persevere, with residents trying to salvage some sense of normalcy; in others, like Kyiv, the attacks are more sporadic, and life goes on with a modicum of normalcy. Perhaps the most appropriate analogy for Ukraine today is the UK during the German Blitz of 1940-1941: fighting alone and enduring daily German attacks on its cities, Britain carried on fighting and its people tried to salvage some sense of normalcy in the madness. The real irony of Vance’s statement is that the areas of Ukraine that are actually destroyed are those under Russian occupation, not those fighting to avoid it.

Vance’s second statement – that Ukraine is press-ganging young men off the streets because it faces personnel shortages – speaks to his rudimentary understanding of the war. While Ukraine does face personnel shortages on the front lines, and does need a strategy to address them, the situation is not as simple as Vance makes it out to be. First, Ukraine has devised ingenious ways to compensate for some of its personnel shortages using artillery, drones and other capabilities. Next, the idea that the Russian advantage in personnel makes the outcome of the war inevitable is wrong. Although Russia gained territory steadily in 2024, the pace of its gains has declined and the number of casualties it has incurred has risen in the past several months.  And after over three years of war and after sustaining more than 800,000 casualties, Russia still controls less than 20% of Ukraine. Russia’s drive to capture the Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk provides an example of the cost of Moscow’s way of war: in the 13 months it has been trying to capture Pokrovsk, Russia has lost a staggering 154 soldiers for each square kilometer of territory it has gained. Although such comparisons are never fully accurate, at this rate of casualties Russia would lose over 76 million soldiers to conquer the 494,000 square kilometers of Ukraine it currently does not control. While Russia’s resources are considerable, no country can endure losses of over 50% of its population for a war of conquest.

Vance’s statements rankled Zelensky and he hit back, saying, “Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?”, and then inviting him to “come once”. Vance excused his failure to visit the country he was expounding on by claiming all he would get is a “propaganda tour” and accusing Zelensky of being disrespectful toward the administration “that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country”. Zelensky responded, “A lot of questions, let’s start from the beginning”, to which Vance said, “Sure”. And here is where the language barrier really made its presence felt. Zelensky began by saying, “First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless.” Zelensky’s point was that wars put all countries under military, economic, social, and demographic strain, something to which even the strongest countries in the most favorable geopolitical circumstances are not immune.

But his statement triggered President Trump, who attacked Zelensky by saying “you don’t know that… don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.” Then the following exchange unfolded:

Trump: “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good.”

Zelensky: “You will feel influenced.”

Trump: “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

Zelensky: “I am telling you. You will feel influenced.”

Trump then tells Zelensky, “you don’t have the cards right now”. Zelensky responds, “I’m not playing cards. I’m very serious, Mr. President. I’m very serious.” Trump says, “You’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.” Vance then interjects again, portraying Zelesnky’s October 2024 visit to a US factory to say thank you to workers making artillery shells for Ukraine as a case of the Ukrainian president “campaign(ing) for the opposition,” and demanding that Zelensky “offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.”

Trump then piles on, saying “your country is in big trouble” and “you’re not winning this” but “you have a damn good chance of coming out OK because of us.” Zelensky responds, “Mr. President, we are staying in our country, staying strong. From the very beginning of the war, we’ve been alone. And we are thankful. I said thanks.” After some back and forth between Trump and Zelensky, Vance jumps in again, saying “Accept that there are disagreements, and let’s go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you’re wrong. We know that you’re wrong.” Aside from the gratuitous assertion that “you’re wrong”, Vance’s statement could have provided both sides an opportunity to “go litigate those disagreements” after the media left the room.

But the argument seemed to energize Trump. Rather than end the public session, Trump accused Zelensky of rejecting a cease fire when, “You’re buried there. People are dying. You’re running low on soldiers.” Zelensky then returns to his original point, “Of course we want to stop the war. But as I said to you, with guarantees”. When Trump asks, “Are you saying you don’t want a cease fire?”, Zelensky responds, “Ask our people about a cease fire”, returning to the point that Ukrainians know that Russia will not respect a cease fire without security guarantees for Ukraine. 

Trump then distorts the historical record, claiming that previous cease fires broke down because he was not in office. Instead, Biden, who is “not a smart guy” and Obama, who “gave you sheets and I gave you Javelins” are to blame. While it is true that the first Trump Administration approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine – something Obama had refused to do – it is also true that Trump later held up $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine after Zelensky refused to hand over incriminating information on Hunter Biden (which he did not have). This was the “perfect call” that became the catalyst for Trump’s first impeachment, something Trump has not forgotten. Trump then ends the meeting in vintage Trump fashion, saying, “All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television. I will say that.”

Where the US-Ukraine relationship goes from here is unclear. It had been under strain before this fateful meeting, with Trump calling Zelensky a “dictator” and Zelensky responding that the US president lives in a Russian “disinformation space”. Worse than the verbal sparring was the US taking the unprecedented step of siding with Russia by voting against a UN resolution condemning Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, which passed with 93 votes for and only 17 against. Adding an exclamation point to America’s dramatic shift toward Russia over the war was the fact that China – often seen as a key Russian partner – was among the 65 states that abstained.

While the impact of the Oval Office brawl on the US-Ukraine relationship is unclear, its effect on two other issues is already clear and colossal. First, European unity and support for Ukraine have been greatly strengthened. Zelensky left the US and went straight to the UK, where he met both Prime Minister Keir Starmer and King Charles. Starmer declared that Ukraine has the “full backing” of the UK “for as long as it takes”, and put his (or rather, Russia’s) money where his mouth is by extending Ukraine a loan of 2.26 billion British pounds ($2.85 billion) to be repaid using profits from frozen Russian assets. Starmer then hosted a summit on Ukraine with leaders from Ukraine, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Czechia and Romania. And support from Europe’s largest economy also looks set to increase. The incoming German government under likely Chancellor Friedrich Merz will take a far stronger stance on the war than its predecessor, including the likely provision of Taurus cruise missiles to Kyiv. 

Next, here in Ukraine, people have closed ranks around their president. Wars, especially long wars of attrition like this one, inevitably strain societies and political systems. While Zelensky’s approval rating was never as low as the 4% Trump claimed it was – the most recent polling before the meeting put it at 57% – it had fallen from the stratospheric heights of the early days of the war. But seeing their president attacked in the Oval Office has rallied Ukrainians to Zelensky’s cause. As FPRI’s Ukrainian Fellow Maria Avdeeva puts it, “the assault on President Zelensky and the attacks on him, in front of all the cameras and media, Ukrainians took very personally, like an attack on everyone here.” Although the Kremlin celebrated the clash in the Oval Office, if it ends up increasing Ukraine’s resolve to fight, and forcing Europe to get serious about building its military capabilities and turning them toward helping Ukraine, the biggest loser might be Russia itself.

Image: president.gov.ua