#WTH Trump, Vance, and Zelensky

Who needed a good meeting more?

A few days ago, I wrote a hopeful post about a new phase in U.S.-Ukraine relations. The launch of this new phase was intended to be the signing of a mineral deal between Washington and Kyiv with a signing ceremony and meeting at the White House between Volodymr Zelensky and Donald Trump.

If you’re reading this, you know that the Trump-Zelensky meeting (in the event, a Trump-Vance-Zelensky meeting) turned into a fiasco, a mockery of “diplomacy,” and a possible disastrous end to U.S. support for Ukraine in its defensive war with Russia.

The facts of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship are not pretty, even before Donald Trump dreamt of the White House: The 2014 Russian invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea laid bare both Europe and the United States’ unwillingness to support or arm Ukraine; Europe’s uninterest in enforcing the Minsk agreements that should have subsequently protected Ukrainian territory; the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s paranoid fear of arming Kyiv to the point necessary to win the war….

A critical basis to any analysis of how things have gone so wrong must rest on an understanding of what should happen in this three year-old war. Clearly, different parties want different things. Ukraine wants all of its territory back. Putin wants to more territory than he has been able to capture in war, and to lock in conditions that will enable him to restart the war at a time of his choosing. But what do the United States, and perhaps Europe, want?

There are a few issues in question: Do either the Europeans or Americans want to help Ukraine regain all of its territory? The answer to that with three years of conflict behind us is clearly no. Were it yes, the Europeans would have given all (including $200+ billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets) to Ukraine to purchase the necessary arms at the moment they could have repelled Putin, in 2022. That has not happened.

Do Europeans and Americans want Ukraine to keep fighting? That’s unclear, though Donald Trump has underscored that his position is for a ceasefire.

And finally, the hardest question: Why do Western power care about the fate of Ukraine? For the most part, their concerns are not the same as Zelensky’s — the future of the Ukrainian nation. For the most part, their concern is the security of Europe, the Westphalian principles that have held hard since the end of World War II, and the containment, and to a lesser extent, defanging, of Vladimir Putin.

For me, this latter element is the most critical for the United States. War is hell, but half a million people died in Syria and neither the United States nor the EU (nor the UN or anyone else) leapt in to save them. Indeed, only Donald Trump was willing to respond to Assad’s chemical weapons attacks on his own people. 150,000 have died in Sudan in the last two years. Where is the UN Security Council? The EU? The United States?

The issue in Ukraine is not that the people are white, or that they are Christian. It is who is attacking them that animates the West. And rightfully so: Putin is a danger. He has nuclear weapons, a partnership with America’s greatest enemies in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran, and a malign desire to reconstitute a Russian Empire and counter American interests, values, and alliances. He should be stopped where he can be stopped, and before NATO is implicated. That is in Ukraine.

Where Ukraine and the United States’ interests align clearly is in stopping Putin’s advances, and for that, it has been clear over the last three years that U.S. weaponry is vital. Europe doesn’t have, won’t spend, can’t build, and hasn’t the collective ability to supply what is necessary for Ukraine to hold the line, let alone beat back Russia. Decades of disinvestment in defense are coming due. Or to put it more bluntly, Ukraine needs U.S. weapons. It doesn’t need them for free, though it doesn’t have the means right now to pay.

There are myriad means of buying those weapons — collateralized with Ukraine’s mineral wealth, in Foreign Military Financed loans, or Lend Lease. Or with the hundreds of billions in frozen Russian assets the EU refuses to confiscate. All of this will spare the American taxpayer more costs.

So what the hell happened in the Oval Office?

How you interpret the 40 minute discussion, argument — call it what you want — between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance depends a great deal on how you view Donald Trump. If you loathe him, or believe he is a Russian stooge, all the blame is on him. This is the view of the media, the intellectual elite, and foreign policy experts generally. If you adore him, believe he can do no wrong, and generally agree with him that a crown sits well atop his head, he was a godly tribune of America First.

Both these views are wrong.

Simply, America has national security interests in the elimination, or limitation of the threat emanating from the Kremlin. Whether the Ukrainian president wears a suit or a t-shirt or a sari or a thong is irrelevant. Defending American interests is the American president’s job. In an ideal world, he has good values, cares about the liberty of others, and is committed to using American power and influence to forge a better world. But we are not in an ideal world.

The mineral deal, contrary to the pronouncements of many who have never talked to Donald Trump or seen the actual text, was a way for Donald Trump to consider a “deal” with Ukraine that wrested the burden of supporting Kyiv from the taxpayer and brought benefits to the U.S. economy. His motivations are, again, contrary to what your television and your editorial pages are telling you, not the most important thing. For those of us who want the U.S. to support Ukraine and beat back Putin, the key was a modus operandi between Zelensky and Trump.

In the days before the Oval meeting, Z and DJT went at it in public, with Zelensky refusing, and then agreeing to the minerals deal, and Trump calling Zelensky all manner of things, including a dictator. In an ideal world, Trump knows Zelensky is a hero, an ally, and a courageous man. This is not an ideal world.

Ultimately, the agreement was forged, and Zelensky made his way to DC. What remained unclear was how the United States intended security guarantees for its “investment” in Ukraine to work. That was the Ukrainian president’s mission for his White House meeting. For his part, Trump was excited about the deal (say those who spoke with him directly in the hours before). He was interested in redrawing the battle lines between Ukraine and Moscow in a sustainable way. He was excited about constructing a forceful DMZ between the two. Or so he said.

So how did it all go to hell? How did it go from Trump saying:

“It's an honor to have President Zelensky of Ukraine and we've been working very hard, very closely, and we've actually known each other for a long time we've been dealing with each other for a long time and very well we had little negotiation spat but that worked out great I think for for both countries,” and,

“If I were president this war would have never happened — we would have had a deal negotiated for you without having to go through what you've gone through. But you, uh, your soldiers have been unbelievably brave. We've given them great equipment but somebody has to use the equipment; they've been unbelievably brave, and we give them great credit. This was supposed to be over very quickly and, uh, here we are three years later… so I give tremendous credit to your generals and your soldiers and yourself in the sense that, uh, it's been very hard fighting, very tough fighting. They [are] great fighters, and you have to be very proud of them from that stand point, but now we want to get it over with…” and,

“We're going to have arms to Ukraine, yeah, sure. Hopefully I won't have to send very much because hopefully we're going to have it finished. We're looking forward to finishing this quickly, uh, we're not looking forward to sending a lot of arms. We're looking forward to getting the war finished so we can do other things,” to…

Zelensky: “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 –”

Trump: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.” to…

Trump: “The problem is I’ve empowered you [turning toward Zelensky] to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave. But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing.”

Two answers to the question of how it went to hell: First, Vice President J.D. Vance inserted himself combatively in the conversation, and accused Zelensky of not appreciating Trump’s diplomacy. Second, Zelensky fell directly into Vance’s trap, and began arguing with both Trump and Vance.

I’d share the entire transcript, but you won’t find it, because the legacy media doesn’t want you to read the hopeful and positive statements from Trump at the outset. They want you to believe this was a pure set up. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was in on a set up; if anyone, it could have been Vance. But that’s not the point here. Bad people do bad things.

Would we like our president and vice president to recognize the intrinsic value of a democracy in Ukraine, and the need to defend it? Of course. Would we like our leaders not to yell on camera at foreign leaders? You bet. Would we like our president to be more like Ronald Reagan and less like Joe Rogan? Indeed.

But you go to war with the president you have, not the president you wish you had. And at the end of the day, the imperative for Zelensky, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, suit or olive drab, is support from the United States for this war. That’s the prize, the goal, the necessary outcome . Not winning a spat with Donald Trump, not owning JD Vance. Did Zelensky truly believe he should educate the elected leaders of the United States, whether or not they need an education?

The key to managing in a complex and hierarchical world is to understand who has the power. In the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, it is the United States, and the president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. Don’t like it? Doesn’t matter. Wishful thinking doesn’t win wars, and it doesn’t deliver arms.

Zelensky partisans can suggest that Trump was never planning to support Ukraine. They neither know that, nor, if they are genuine in their desire for a sustainable solution for Kyiv, should they want to risk it to satisfy their partisan, or even principled desire to see Trump belittled. The best road to victory for Ukraine is not through London or Paris. It is through Washington.

All of my respected colleagues who are dunking on Trump and Vance, embarrassed these are our elected leaders, ashamed this is what America has come to, can proudly display their virtuous ethics, better manners, and keener understanding of how diplomacy ought to work. Me, I want to see Russia defeated and Ukraine restored. And I don’t need a vote in the United Nations, or empty positive rhetoric from the White House. Just the support for Ukraine to guarantee the security it needs.

Railing against Trump and Vance gets us nothing except the satisfaction of preening about our superior virtues. And Zelensky’s stubbornness, his commitment to his people, his acute understanding of Putin, and all of these genuinely admirable qualities got him squat at the White House. Told by many, many friends — of which I hope I am one — that he must apologize, or explain his reaction, or somehow seek to patch things up with Trump, Zelensky refused. Repeatedly. This is insanity.

Leadership means having the guts to stand up to Putin, to lead your people in a war you were told was lost, to show resourcefulness and humor in the face of undeniable tragedy. But it can also mean eating your pride for an outcome that is better for your people in the face of reprehensible behavior by an ally. Because winning is more important than outclassing either JD Vance or Trump.

Many are suggesting that Zelensky should resign. I hope he does not have to. I hope he sees reason. Should Trump do the right thing? Should Vance see the importance of Ukraine? Obviously. But we are not going to remake these men in the coming three years, and Ukraine needs America now. Ukraine should not be allowed to fail while we muse about how to make Trump a different man.

Finally, by allowing himself to be drawn into an argument with the leader of the free world on live TV in a situation where it was clear that Trump wasn’t going to back down, Zelensky has put himself in a position where he can have his pride, or he can have America’s backing, but can’t have both. He needs to decide which is more important to his country.

Note: This post allows comments from paid subscribers only. I understand this is irritating to some, but I like to try to respond to thoughtful interventions, and that is taking a growing amount of time. Your subscriptions enable us to promote both the WTH podcast and this substack. Thank you.