- While Trump pledged during his campaign to “end the war in one day,” his failure to force a rapid settlement emphasised the conflict’s complexities and Zelenskyy’s tenacity in negotiations.
- Russia saw the tense relations between the United States and Ukraine as a tactical advantage that could help Moscow fortify its position in the war and erode Western solidarity.
- Reduced US military funding and future NATO fissures may compel Ukraine to accept a ceasefire on less favourable conditions.
The Oval Office Showdown: Trump vs. Zelenskyy
Tensions between the US and Ukraine culminated on February 28, 2025, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Washington. The meeting, which was supposed to seal a US-Ukraine minerals deal and arrange a joint news conference, turned into a furious argument. President Donald Trump warned that rejecting a ceasefire could lead to World War III and accused Zelenskyy of being ungrateful. Vice President JD Vance reiterated this stance, blasting Zelenskyy for ignoring US interests.
The meeting concluded quickly, and the press conference was cancelled. Trump later charged Zelenskyy with being “not ready for peace” and “disrespecting the United States.” However, the aftermath did not undermine Zelenskyy’s position. Instead, he became a symbol of defiance, gaining support from European leaders and bolstering the David vs. Goliath narrative against Russia. While Trump pledged during his campaign to “end the war in one day,” his failure to force a rapid settlement emphasised the conflict’s complexities and Zelenskyy’s tenacity in negotiations.[1]
Shifting U.S. Policy: Diplomacy, Trade, and Strategic Recalibration
President Trump started a change in U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine when he took office in January 2025. The administration reevaluated military assistance and placed a strong emphasis on quick peace talks. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said[2] on February 12, 2025, that it was “unrealistic” to aim for Ukraine’s pre-2014 boundaries and emphasized that European countries must provide a greater proportion of military and financial support. Additionally, he voiced doubts about Ukraine joining NATO.
President Trump positioned himself as a mediator and began direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin in mid-February[3]. European allies and Ukrainian authorities were concerned that Ukraine’s interests would be jeopardized by this action. On February 12, Trump and Putin had a “highly productive” meeting. He then had talks with President Zelenskyy about stopping Russian aggression and bringing peace back.
European and Russian Reactions: Divisions and Opportunities
Reactions to the consequences of the Oval Office altercation were not all the same. European leaders called for a United States-Europe Summit to address the worsening situation and reiterated their support for Ukraine, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron[4]. Reactions were divided in the US, with some senators supporting President Trump’s peace initiatives and others criticizing his strategy as weakening US pledges and giving Russia more leverage.
Russia saw the tense relations between the United States and Ukraine as a tactical advantage that could help Moscow fortify its position in the war and erode Western solidarity. In line with Russia’s long-term goal of militarily and politically depleting Ukraine, Russian officials saw the Oval Office altercation as an indication of the United States’ declining support for Kyiv.[5]
Ukraine’s Future: Internal Pressures and Global Uncertainty
Despite rising challenges, President Zelenskyy has successfully managed the challenging geopolitical scene. His staunch opposition to transactional diplomacy has cemented his reputation as a tenacious wartime leader. While some domestic opponents push for discussions, Zelenskyy’s perseverance has earned him ongoing European support, bolstering the picture of Ukraine’s battle as a righteous defence against aggression.[6]
However, reduced US military funding and future NATO fissures may compel Ukraine to accept a ceasefire on less favourable conditions. This scenario may strengthen opposition voices calling for talks with Russia. Further military losses may aggravate internal divides among Ukraine’s military and political leaders. Moscow could use Ukraine’s economic vulnerabilities to press for concessions. Nonetheless, a dramatic overthrow of Zelenskyy’s government appears improbable; instead, a gradual political rebalancing could take place. A lengthy battle with dwindling Western support may exacerbate internal dissatisfaction, nudging Kyiv into a truce but without necessarily leading to a change of government.[7]
Historical Context: A Departure from Previous U.S. Administrations
The Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine is a considerable shift from prior US approaches. Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the United States took a tough position against Russian aggression, offering military help and backing Ukraine’s desire to integrate more closely with Western institutions[8]. The current administration’s emphasis on fast peace talks, limited military backing, and transactional accords marks a significant departure in US foreign policy, raising concerns about the consequences for regional stability and the world order.
References:
- [1] Zelenskyy leaves White House without signing minerals deal after Oval Office blowup
- [2]Pete Hegseth says ‘everything is on the table’ to end Ukraine war
- [3]Trump offers key concessions to Putin ahead of Ukraine peace talks in Saudi Arabia
- [4]European leaders back Zelensky after Trump clash
- [5]Putin Allies Rejoice After Heated Trump-Zelensky White House Meeting
- [6]The art of no deal: Negotiation experts dissect Trump and Zelenskyy’s Oval Office clash
- [7] Is Ukraine now doomed?
- [8] https://x.com/LScribbens/status/1895938279461310888
Pranav S is a Project Assistant at the Energy Department, Government of Karnataka with an MA in Public Policy. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Satish Chogule 
Balaji Subramanian 
Aayush Pal
Zelensky is not the joker everyone has assumed. He is playing the long game. It was Trump who was played by Europe.