Trump vs Zelenskyy
If you don't want disaster, have short press conferences. But President Trump wanted it to run on – why? Power politics: politicians feel the heat – they don't see the light.
I love high-minded idealism as much as anyone, but don’t expect it from the USA for a few years. No amount of fulminating about how President Trump treats President Zelenskyy appallingly by whichever historical comparison will make him behave any differently.
You may just have to be disappointed.
The complete press conference with Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy may be found here. It lasted nearly 50 minutes, encompassed heated exchanges and appeared to be a disaster for Ukraine and for European security. It was painful to watch.
What factors produced this event and why? I wish I could say I had never seen anything like it but, alas, I certainly have, though of course at lower stakes.
In the midst of major disagreements, keep press conferences short and formal
In ordinary circumstances where you wish to avoid unpleasantness over major disagreements among friends, keep press conferences short and formal.
As a Northern Ireland minister, I often attended UK-Ireland press conferences. Relations were cordial, and while disagreements existed, the presentation of them was managed carefully by both sides. We did not want an escalation; we wanted a way through. Ministers and officials rightly saw press conferences as risky, so they were brief, formal and well-prepared. We spoke to the press, overwhelmingly not to each other, avoiding confrontation.
The Trump-Zelenskyy press conference was far looser. The seating encouraged debate amongst politicians, not just Q&A with journalists. Given Trump’s likely statements and Zelenskyy’s inevitable reactions, the layout was a disaster waiting to happen. Had Trump wanted to avoid a public row, he could have ended it after 20-30 minutes. Instead, as he said, he prolonged it, ensuring disagreements surfaced publicly.
This was a trap into which Zelenskyy walked.
President Zelenskyy’s mishandling
Choices have consequences which we may or may not foresee. I understand why President Zelenskyy wears combat clothing as he leads a nation at war – Churchill too wore fatigues at the White House – but it is reported he was asked to wear a suit. That might have been a bind at home but if he was asked, he should have worn one respectfully rather than leave himself open to Trump’s several criticisms, followed up by sneering questions from the Press. Zelenskyy’s first mistake was to wear fatigues when his hosts would have preferred a suit.
Having left himself open to the charge of being disrespectful by his clothing, he should have prepared a great line of explanation, such as, “I wear these fatigues to remind everyone that I am not in business - I lead a nation at war for its survival against an enemy who cannot be trusted to honour any agreement. These clothes are worn as a reminder to all of the fact that the matters we are discussing have mortal consequences for the people of Ukraine. I shall wear a suit gladly when it is over.” His second mistake was not to prepare for the consequences of his first decision and thereby to turn those consequences to his advantage.
His opening thanks were for the invitation only before he moved quickly into his main issue: security guarantees for Ukraine. He left himself open to the charge later made that he was ungrateful for expensive American support. He should have opened with an extended expression of gratitude for generous support, explaining that the American people had prevented the fall of Ukraine into Russian occupation, thereby seizing and sharing the moral high ground before making his claim for peace guarantees in terms of American interests. Note that Trump ruthlessly declined to discuss that main issue: it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book but this time it cleverly forced the Europeans’ hands.
Zelenskyy corrected Trump, bickered with the Press and argued with Vance. None of this was likely to secure political capital with which to negotiate: it was all likely to leave him exposed and it did. He was accused of being disrespectful, ungrateful and neglectful of the risks to world peace. Zelenskyy ought in everything he said to have acknowledged the other person’s point of view before politely making his own: he was never to be allowed to win a battle of wills with Trump, by Trump, in Trump’s own office.
The error underpinning the others was failing to adapt himself and his conduct to the fundamental fact that this was an unsympathetic audience from whom there was no effective appeal. Whatever my sympathy for a great war leader under pressure and speaking not in his native tongue, it was a mistake to approach the meeting as if with friends.
The two sides’ profoundly different preferences
President Zelenskyy wants, I believe, a durable peace, the full restoration of Ukraine’s territory and compensation for war damages from Russia, which initiated the invasion. These seem to me entirely reasonable demands in line with the rules and norms of the international system.
However, what President Trump appears to want above all is to staunch the cost to the USA of a war for which he cares little. He also wishes to slash the cost of providing Europe’s defence through NATO. Trump appears comfortable taking a line between the two sides in order to get a deal to bring peace. He appears at ease to have positive relations with Putin. The long tradition of American isolationism may be deeply inconvenient to Europe, but one might imagine that there is a cast of mind in the USA which believes their country was established to escape the rivalries and wars of Europe. It would be a fair point.
For what reason would President Trump object to Putin annexing Ukrainian territory from Russia through to Crimea? We can easily catalogue reasons why we object ourselves but why should Trump, a man who plainly believes in power, respect and relationships before rules, norms and conventions in international relations. I do not doubt he can see the strategic advantage to Putin and shrugs off the implications of allowing military action to secure territorial objectives.
Trump will be following a grand strategy in his country’s own interests, perhaps one of peeling apart the informal, expanding alliance of the BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. China’s power is already immense in the world and its institutions. India is growing rapidly and has a huge population. Russia is a vast territory comprising 11% of the world’s land, which means natural resources.
President Trump’s thesis is America First: he is not seeking the approval of the rest of the world and plainly he does not wish to be clubbable on the world stage. His priority is to further the interests of the USA with great drive and vigour.
BRICS brings together people, territory and resources on a vast scale: it is and will continue to be a threat the dominance of the USA in the world order and, given the population distribution of the world, reasonably so. Trump will want to secure an alternative to American subordination in a new world order dominated by BRICS.
That will mean for him constructive relations with Russia, China and India, even at the expense of Ukraine’s legitimate interests. It is a mistake to think Trump will see the world as Zelenskyy does.
In truth, the little guy was always entering into the room to be ripened for the sickle.
Only human
Wishing things to be other than they are is a strategy for failure. One ought not to walk into a situation expecting everyone to listen carefully and surrender their interests to your own. One must accept the world as it is, especially when seeking to change it. And yet in their enthusiasm, even statesmen and women routinely fail to see the other person’s point of view. We are all only human.
My role in leaving the European Union is well documented. It gave me an opportunity to participate first hand in the clash of interests between nation states – usually through interactions with embassies – and between hard-bitten and tough-skinned senior politicians with fundamentally incompatible hierarchies of preferences.
All too often, I watched sides misunderstand one another in intolerable frustration, asking, “Why can’t they understand?”1 For Eurosceptics, we insisted on being entirely outside the legal order of the European Union. The then Prime Minister and her Cabinet wanted a half-way house to avoid too much disruption. It was a dialogue of the deaf and became an all-out scrap until one side lost. It was existential.
I recognised in the Trump-Zelenskyy press conference the same kind of frustration and impatience which I saw in my own experience. I expect it was in earnest. But here the power dynamic is fundamentally different: as Trump said, America holds all the cards.
What America wants is peace and Europe carrying the cost of defending Europe. As I type, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is announcing more or less that, through “a coalition of the willing” to guarantee a peace deal in Ukraine. Starmer firmly agrees with Trump on the urgent need for a durable peace.
Ukraine and President Zelenskyy are about to have a peace forced upon them. That’s why Trump and Vance scolded, berated and humiliated him: to make politicians feel the heat, because they so rarely see the light. The recent Munich security conference now appears to have been the warm up.
European politicians have responded as they were bound to: in solidarity with Ukraine, promising to uphold a peace, while running after America.
What next?
America will take Ukrainian rare earths and other minerals in recompense for support provided.
Putin will not wish to give up territory connecting Russia to Crimea and the Black Sea. Trump will not demand he does so: why would he? America’s interests as Trump sees them are to be found in reconstructing the relationship with Russia and making inroads into BRICS, eventually countering China and persuading India to ally with the maritime, free-trading democracies – such as they are – instead of with the Eurasian authoritarians, Russia and China.
Trump faces a steep uphill climb to “Make America Great Again”: that requires interrupting China’s climb towards a new hegemony as the greatest power in the expanding BRICS. It is an ascension which will be hard to stop without giving both China and Russia something that they crave: status and power. So, to Trump, Ukraine will be little more than an inconvenience on the path to his greater goals, even as he may lament the suffering and loss of life. Whether we like it is not important.
In that context, do not expect to see Trump side outright with Zelenskyy as he requested in the press conference: it will not happen.
In a masterful thread yesterday, Zelenskyy:
Thanked the USA, President Trump and Congress, acknowledging the USA’s vital role in Ukraine’s survival – a smart move to give the USA the appreciation they demanded and deserve,
Asked America to “truly understand our shared goals” – they are not so shared as he thinks, beyond a durable peace, but the request had to be made,
Emphasised the crucial importance of Trump’s support in a fight for their freedom, for their very survival – again, a smart move, and one which Trump will bank as he did in the Press conference,
Pointed out how Putin has broken ceasefires and insisted on security guarantees – guarantees which today PM Starmer announced a coalition of the willing in Europe would provide,
Asserted that everyone must understand that “This isn’t just about territories or numbers—it’s about real lives.” – leaving open the possibility of ceding territory, and
Repeated his thanks and appreciation.
So the scene is set for Trump to get all he wants, partly by giving Putin what he wants: that broad slice of Ukraine.
Conclusion
In all its brute ugliness, we just witnessed the USA wield its mighty power to great effect to meet its own ends, ends which Europe was hoping against hope would not materialise. High-minded fulmination may be politically necessary but it will be to no effect: this is to be an age of deals, not sacrifice to principle.
Expect within weeks for everyone to claim victory as Europe commits to guarantee the peace for a smaller Ukraine, a Ukraine mining minerals for America as America moves on.
I doubt the international system will survive this return to the brute reality of government by strong men who care little for the views of the weak or the principles established on past experience to protect them. Alas it is for the best Europe rearms fast, going for mass instead of the complexity which followed from the assumption of merely supporting the awesome military power of the USA2.
Those days are over.
Former Conservative MP Claire Perry notably said negotiating with the ERG was like negotiating with the Taliban. I cannot quickly find a reference. It illustrates the mutual lack of understanding even among party colleagues.
“Mass” means numbers of soldiers, ships, planes, tanks and so on. In the 2010 parliament, I frequently asked admirals, generals and air marshals why, given the low-tech enemies we faced, we insisted on matching the Americans for sophistication. It was always on the assumption that we would be fighting with them to provide political support, not military effect. What a stupid policy that turned out to be, not least because Russia has proven scarcely more sophisticated on the battlefield than our other enemies. Perhaps their clandestine operations are much to be feared…
Great resume, Steve. Unfortunately, Zelenstkyy hasn't yet fully overcome his fear of failure (or not securing what he believes is the right deal) when dealing with Trump. This isn’t a criticism—it's simply where he stands at the moment. He’s still relatively young, learning the ropes of politics "on the job" as a wartime leader, which is obviously a very challenging position to be in. Once he’s able to let go of that fear (which is difficult for anyone, even in everyday situations), and once he prepares a little 'mise en place,' as you mentioned, before these meetings, the outcomes will be different, and he won't make fear based quips at his political 'aggressors'. He walked into a challenging situation unprepared. One additional point I'd add to your commentary is that, in the future, he might consider speaking in his native language with a translator. This approach can slow the proceedings when needed and gives him more time to think about his response while the translation occurs.