By John J. MetzlerLONDON — A made for TV political smackdown in the White House between two uneasy allies, a flood of recriminations, followed the incendiary face-off during the high stakes meetings between President Donald Trump’s team and the visiting Ukrainian delegation. The fear that the pending Ukrainian peace plan had already gone off the rails haunted world capitals.
But beyond political gasping and the rhetorical fistfights in the media over who started what, when and why, belied the point; On the surface Ukraine’s pugnacious President Vlodomyr Zelenskyy and the Trump team weathered a tumultuous weekend of political sparring and infighting. Nonetheless the Western alliance supporting Ukraine seems to have held firm after massive interventions by America’s allies.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said somberly, “We stand on the crossroads” is not only a rhetorical flourish but a clear call for a reality check by all sides.
So what went wrong and who threw the first punch?
The Buildup
The run-up to the Trump/Zelensky meeting went smoothly; First, French President Emmanuel Macron and later the UK’s Keir Starmer visited the White House for preliminary talks with Donald Trump. All went smoothly in preparation for the meeting with Zelensky which was expected to seal the deal for American investment in Ukraine’s mineral sector. Trump’s plan all along has been to settle the three-year war first through a cease fire, then follow up negotiations for a comprehensive peace plan with Russia. Part of the deal is to offer the U.S. access to key mineral mining rights in Ukraine.
The whole mineral deal rests on security; But the U.S. is not going to send American forces to Ukraine; This would negate the central principle of Trump’s MAGA policy not to expand military commitment nor to enter into foreign conflicts.
The Flareup
After Vlodomyr Zelensky arrived at the White House Friday the pieces seemed in place for the first steps in a long peace plan. Indeed, the White House meeting went well for the first forty minutes. But what should have been a closed door session was held before the media in public and quickly unraveled into recriminations. Zelensky did not read the room well and was a bit too cocky with his American hosts. JD Vance expressed offense. Feathers flew.
Zelensky was expected to agree BUT had been briefed earlier by some key Congressional Democrats NOT to sign Trump’s mineral plan. Thus, his switch came on the stage of a live meeting with a media looking for blood. And for the third time, Zelensky rejected Trump’s economic investment plan.
The Oval Office dustup was a made-for-TV face-off fracas which benefited both sides, especially on their domestic fronts. Zelensky, the mendicant Messiah was able to later claim being the victim to a largely swooning audience of Europe’s political class. Donald Trump and JD Vance had another “I told you so moment” as it appeared the ungrateful Ukrainian president was scuttling the American peace plan inside the White House and was now sent home crying.
Following the Oval Office fight when the dust settled, the only people smiling were in Moscow.
President Donald Trump later doubled down pausing American aid to Ukraine. That jolted President Zelensky to reality saying, “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”
Given there’s no ceasefire, Putin may be tempted to use the late spring/early summer weather for a renewed military offensive as to seize more territory.
The Cleanup
Enter the Europeans and global media feeling Zelensky had been wronged. Even otherwise conservative British news outlets such as the Daily Telegraph were critical of the U.S.
Britain’s PM Starmer seemed to stop the political hemorrhage of transatlantic trust and pull the West out of the tailspin. A high stakes London conference attended by European allies among them France, Italy, Germany and Poland, underscored the need for unity confronting Russia’s aggression but significantly also solidarity in facing the threats to transatlantic unity.
Keir Starmer intoned, “This is a once-in-a-generation moment for the security of Europe and we all need to step up.” Italy’s Giorgia Meloni stressed the “importance of the Transatlantic Alliance in consenting shared challenges.” She added, “The West must not be divided.”
So where do we go?
The fundamental question remains can NATO’s economically prosperous but militarily weak members alone supply enough weapons, money and possibly troops for Ukraine?
The answer, at this stage, is clearly no.
The strategic fulcrum thus turns to the Americans. Still, there’s no ceasefire.
Will America now weigh in?
Either way Ukraine’s fate emerges as a Pyrrhic victory for both Ukraine or Russia.
John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of Divided Dynamism the Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China (2014). [See pre-2011 Archives]
Free Press International
[Publish This Content]
