What happened during the intense interaction among Volodymyr Zelensky, Donald Trump, and J D Vance? Could it be that Ukraine’s president intentionally provoked The Donald as a form of retaliation for his apparent friendliness towards Vladimir Putin, as some suggest?
Did Zelensky find it politically advantageous to sabotage the ‘rare minerals’ agreement with America since it was evident that the desired US security assurances would not be provided? Or was this entire scenario just another strategic move by Trump, using it as a negotiation tactic to push Zelensky further regarding the deal?
Was it possibly a calculated display of Trump’s typical showmanship aimed at pleasing his Maga supporters, indicated by his statement at the end of the confrontation: ‘This is going to be great television’?
Who knows. Certainly, Zelensky is a man exhausted and hardened by three years of brutal war against a relentless oppressor.
US Vice President J D Vance speaks during a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington, DC on Friday
Perhaps he just took umbrage at being patronised by two puffed-up popinjays who clearly thought they had him over a barrel and expected him to grovel accordingly. Big mistake: this is a man who, when Russian tanks threatened to roll into Kyiv in 2022, responded to Joe Biden’s offer of a US-backed evacuation with a defiant ‘I need ammunition, not a ride’. As Putin has discovered time and again, Zelensky does not lack balls.
This sets him apart from Trump, who’s someone who doesn’t see the point of fighting for anything, unless there’s a payday at the end of it.
Let’s not forget, he thinks the answer to the conflict in Gaza is to turn it into the Middle Eastern equivalent of Sunset Strip. For him, it’s not about right or wrong, it’s just about the bottom line. And the bottom line here is that Zelensky is not providing enough of a return on America’s investment. It’s time for a hostile takeover.
That’s why Trump spent the previous week talking down the Ukrainian leader’s stock: excluding him from initial peace talks with Russia, calling him a ‘dictator’, blaming Ukraine for starting the conflict, glossing over Russia’s long list of war crimes, mocking his approval ratings.
America even sided with Russia at the UN, opposing a resolution supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Not content with humiliating him on the global stage, the first thing Trump did when the Ukrainian president arrived for their meeting was take him down personally, mocking him for his outfit (a perennial theme on Russian social media bot sites), noting sarcastically: ‘Oh look, you’re all dressed up!’.
Then, one of the client journalists that now make up the remaining rump of the White House Press corps, pressed the point by asking why he wasn’t wearing a suit, or if he even owned one. An uncomfortable looking Zelensky answered in his broken English, to self-satisfied chuckles from Trump and Vance. It was almost as if Trump had brought Zelensky there as a final part of his plan to discredit and humiliate him in front of the world, including – and perhaps especially – Putin.
Indeed, afterwards, the former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev wrote on X: ‘The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office. And @realDonaldTrump is right: The Kiev regime is ‘gambling with WWIII.’
Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump shake hands during their meeting at the White House on Thursday
Given all that, under the circumstances I think Zelensky showed a positively zen-like level of restraint. As for the accusations by Trump supporters that he provoked Trump and Vance by being combative and confrontational on several issues, it’s hardly Zelensky’s fault if Trump is so thin-skinned he can’t cope when someone challenges him or points out factual mistakes. Nor is it Zelensky’s problem that Trump surrounds himself with sycophants. It’s never good when politicians do this, and in Trump’s case he’s clearly forgotten what it’s like to have a conversation with someone who is not prepared to instantly bend the knee.
Not, it must be said, that this was a problem when he met Sir Keir Starmer, who is no stranger to the bending of knees but on Thursday, he practically prostrated himself. His was a masterclass in how to appease the giant orange toddler who now rules the Free World.
As well as some vigorous hand-pumping and much mutual appreciation, there was a carefully staged ‘surprise’: a letter addressed to Trump from King Charles (‘a beuddiful man, a wonnerful man’), which Starmer delivered with suitable reverence.
‘Am I supposed to read it right now?’ asked Trump, to the general hilarity of the assembled company. ‘Please do,’ replied Starmer, placing a companionable hand on the President’s shoulder.
It was, of course, an invitation for a second state visit, which Starmer was at great pains to underline is ‘unprecedented’, ‘truly historic’, adding that His Majesty wants to make this one ‘even better’ than the last one.
Naturally, Labour (and its panting cheerleaders) have hailed the exchange as an unmitigated triumph, even though less than a year ago the vast majority, including and especially Foreign Secretary David Lammy, would have been howling for a boycott.
Indeed, it was Lammy who, before Trump’s first State visit in 2019, penned a furious article for Time magazine denouncing him as a ‘tyrant in a toupee’. What’s perhaps more worrying is how questionable that ‘triumph’ now looks and how premature the decision to make King Charles roll out the red carpet for Trump seems in the light of Trump’s behaviour.
Witnessing the greedy look in Trump’s eyes as he accepted ‘on behalf of our wonderful first Lady’, it had the desired effect.
That invitation is catnip to a man like Trump, the kind of thing that validates his own opinion of himself as the greatest president that ever lived.
Sir Keir Starmer and Volodymyr Zelensky shake hands at Downing Street yesterday
To have not one, but two British monarchs grovelling at his feet will thrill him to the core.
But should the invitation stand? Did Trump know it was forthcoming? Did he use the prospect of a deal to help secure it? Did he wait until it was in the bag to deliver the coup de grace on Zelensky?
I don’t know. All I know is that what happened to Zelensky in the Oval Office was a degrading spectacle for all concerned, but especially for a man who, while controversial for some, is nevertheless a far better and more noble human than his opponent, Putin.
He, and the people of Ukraine who have suffered so much, deserve better than to be treated like this.
Which is why Starmer was right to seize the initiative and invite Zelensky to Downing Street yesterday, and why it is even more encouraging that the King will receive him at Sandringham today.
Starmer may have jumped the gun with the state visit; but at least this sends a clear signal to Washington: the special relationship is the special relationship; but Britain never has, and never will, give in to bullies.
