Trump-Zelenskyy showdown: Takeaways from the most undiplomatic of White House exchanges

Trump called the shouting match “great television,” but that lightness did little to cover the heavy chill that descended after the burst of confrontation that began at the 40th minute of a 50-minute exchange, when Vance stepped in.

Here are eight key takeaways from the most unprecedented spectacle in the White House.

First, Trump will not conform with any of the global norms associated with a world leader whose statements in public are measured, calibrated and expressed after their teams have done the spadework. His speeches, comments, remarks, social media posts – all run counter to these norms. For him, the animus on display also draws from history.

Like the conversation on July 25, 2019. Then, the newly elected Zelenskyy — who, like Trump, was a pop culture figure before entering politics — told the US president that he was, in a sense, a model to which the Ukrainian aspired. “We wanted to drain the swamp here in our country,” Zelenskyy said. “We brought in many, many new people. … You are a great teacher for us…”

A few minutes later, while talking about support for Ukraine to combat a Russian-backed separatist military movement in the eastern part of the country, Trump dangled aid, offering it as a transaction: “I would like you to do us a favour,” he said. His request was that Ukraine dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. That became the basis of the first Trump impeachment.

Although Zelenskyy has not made the phone call public, the US President remembers that the Ukrainian President did not give in to his demands.

J D Vance, Trump’s handpicked VP who played the wingman to the US President — many view him as the one who instigated Zelenskyy Friday — too has his own history.

When Vance was a candidate for US Senate in Ohio in 2022, he said on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast that he thought it was ridiculous that the US was focused on the border between Ukraine and Russia. “I gotta be honest with you,” he told the host, a Trump ally. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”

“I think that there are a lot of democracies in the world,” he told the Associated Press that March, shortly after Russia launched its invasion. “And every time that one of them gets into a conflict now, at the end, it can’t be our concern.”

So no surprise that Trump and Vance got triggered by  Zelenskyy’s statements on Russia — after having endured the Ukrainian President’s show-and-tell of pictures of war victims and his miscalculation in trashing Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “killer” and a “terrorist.”

Second, the world is now dealing with a US President who wants above all to be seen to be respected in front of his domestic audience. World leaders who understand that have swallowed their pride, zipped up their mouths, smiled, and obliged him.

This happened with Jordan’s King Abdullah II when Trump talked about his plan for Gaza. The King did not contradict the President or provoke him in front of the TV crews. What he did instead was to say he would take “cancer children,” and then issue a statement, via a tweet, rejecting the plan after he left the White House.

Other leaders, such as President Emmanuel Macron of France, and even Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the UK, have been skilful and respectful. The French President smiled and held President Trump’s hand, but he also politely corrected him about Europe’s contribution to the Ukrainian war effort. Starmer charmed him by handing him the invitation letter from King Charles.

Zelenskyy, who has always been articulate and a risk-taker, did not take a leaf from the playbook of those who had been to the White House before him.

As former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao said: “Zelenskyy literally asked for it. When he walked into the Oval Office as a guest of President Trump, one assumed that he had read the room properly. There was no need for him to ventilate his views on Russia, and President Putin when the world knows where Ukraine stands on these issues and how it has been affected. He should’ve said that he was in Washington to help forge an end to the conflict, to bring peace to the people of Ukraine, and that the active involvement and support of the United States in this process was critical, was crucial, was fundamental and hat Ukraine would always be grateful for that.”

Third, the Trump-Zelenskyy showdown has shown that each country is now on their own. Bilateral transactionalism is at its peak. New Washington doesn’t respect the norms and rules of the past, and each country has to look out for their own interests — they can no longer depend on the US or its leadership. The reliability of the American establishment and power is no longer there. Europe and Ukraine are the first victims of this phenomenon.

Fourth, South Block will be heaving a sigh of relief that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was able to navigate these choppy waters during his visit to the White House last month. The contentious issues of illegal immigration and high tariffs were raised respectfully, and the Indian side was able to navigate the Trump traps.

That the Indian side came out of the White House with a target of a deal by this Fall, and that both sides decided to work on lowering tariffs, was perceived — and can be projected — as a victory by both sides. But, groundwork was prepared by lowering tariffs on high-end motorbikes (Harley Davidson) and Bourbon (Jack Daniels and Gentleman Jack). Also, the promise of buying American defence equipment, energy and easing of the nuclear liability laws smoothened the rough edges. And, most importantly, the acceptance of illegal Indian immigrants from the US appeased the US President, who has made immigration a major poll promise.

Fifth, the value of the classic old rule of diplomacy behind closed doors is becoming apparent now. That diplomacy is about talks and dialogue within the room, not a spectacle for the cameras. This would mean that back-channel talks have more value than public statements and posturing.

Former Foreign Secretary Rao also said, “Behind closed doors, diplomacy can be transacted in a much more frank and candid way, and Ukraine could have laid out its position with unvarnished clarity before the Americans. That would have definitely been a way to build common ground and reduce differences.”

Sixth, it is now even more unlikely that India will express support for either country. New Delhi has walked the tightrope all along, and it will continue to stay away from taking sides, officials said. India will only point to its stated position: dialogue and diplomacy is the only path forward, and solutions cannot be found on the battlefield. India’s latest vote at the UN, where it abstained on the Ukraine and American resolutions, has been testament to Delhi’s diplomatic tightrope walk.

Indeed, on Friday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed “support for a just and lasting peace” “based on respect for international law, principles of the UN charter and territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

Seventh, the biggest beneficiary of the drama in the White House, as of now, is Russia and President Vladimir Putin. “I think Putin couldn’t be happier,” a European diplomat said, “They’re drinking vodka straight out of the bottle in the Kremlin tonight.”

This was the outcome that Moscow would be happy about — a break of trust and partnership between Zelenskyy and the US.

Finally, what happens to Ukraine and the war now? Ukraine knows it cannot continue the fight without US support. That might mean Ukraine will come back to Trump.

Zelenskyy seemed to dial down in an interview after the standoff but the road ahead is a long, uphill one. He will come under pressure to renew the rare earth deal that both sides talked about, maybe also hold elections. Even if someone else becomes President, that leader will have to value their country’s interest more than winning a public televised debate.

In any case, neutral players and mediators may have to come in and bring the principal actors back to the negotiating table.

All eyes are on the European interlocutors now – they will have to work harder than writing tweets in favour of Zelenskyy.