Opinion: The Trump-Vance-Zelenskyy fiasco: Spontaneous fracas or planned ambush?

This opinion piece was originally published in The Post.

The images are by now seared into our minds: Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, war-weary but determined leader, explaining why past diplomacy has failed, only to get shut down belligerently by Vice President JD Vance. President Trump joined the attack, and the meeting descended into chaos.

We all saw it. But why did it happen, what does it mean and what consequences will it have?

The meeting arose amid growing uncertainty about the Trump administration’s support for Ukraine. In addition to years of praising and defending Putin, Trump had recently excluded Ukraine from ceasefire talks with Russia, falsely stated that Ukraine had started the war, and suggested that Ukraine “may be Russian someday.” His Secretary of Defense cast doubt on Ukraine reclaiming occupied territory, and the US sided with Russia on two votes at the United Nations votes regarding the war. 

With this highly charged backdrop, Zelenskyy came to Washington hoping to secure continued US support in exchange for a minerals deal. 

The now-infamous meeting was intended to be a brief photo op for the press preceding private talks. Instead it lasted nearly 50 minutes. For the first 40, the conversation showed signs of tension but was polite and even friendly at times.

It changed abruptly after Vance asked to speak. Vance denigrated former President Biden’s efforts and praised Trump’s supposed diplomacy. Zelenskyy, who had already explained that previous diplomacy had failed because of Russia breaking the agreements, restated this point and asked Vance to explain “diplomacy.” 

Vance responded with hostility, jabbing a finger at Zelenskyy, cutting him off and insulting him. Trump quickly joined in, and what had been a civil discussion disintegrated into a public humiliation of Zelenskyy. 

The meeting has been called a disaster, a disgrace and an ambush.

There have been multiple competing narratives offered by pundits and politicians to explain what happened. They seem to boil down to these two. 

In the first, Zelenskyy was rude, disrespectful and not sufficiently grateful. In this narrative, Trump and Vance reacted to being triggered by Zelenskyy’s words and behaviour. Not surprisingly, this is the narrative Trump supporters are telling. Even some Zelenskyy supporters have suggested he could have been more deferential – compare British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s extreme flattery in a meeting with Trump days earlier. 

But watching the entire meeting, it seems preposterous to blame the breakdown on Zelenskyy’s rudeness. He thanked and deferred to Trump multiple times during the meeting and maintained a civil tone even when he disagreed – until the Vance attacks started and Zelenskyy pushed back. And even then he was assertive but not aggressive. But Trump expects obsequiousness. Zelenskyy, while polite, refused to grovel.

The competing narrative is that Trump and Vance planned an ambush to justify cutting support for Ukraine and siding with Russia. There’s ample reason to take that narrative seriously. 

Trump’s critics point to his lies and attacks on Zelenskyy prior to the meeting, his years of expressed admiration for Putin, and his obsession with not giving money to allies unless there’s something tangible in return. The ambush narrative was also foreshadowed by close Trump confidante Senator Lindsay Graham, who earlier in the day had warned Zelenskyy not to “take the bait” from Trump. And then there’s Trump’s closing comment at the meeting that “This is going to be great television” – suggesting Trump got what he wanted from the meeting.

Perhaps adding the most weight to the ambush narrative was the fact that a reporter from Tass – the Russian state news agency – was allowed into the meeting while two of the largest US news organisations, the Associated Press and Reuters, were not. A Trump spokesperson said it was a mistake, but given White House security protocols, that’s difficult to believe.

The US reaction is mostly a split along party lines. Senator Rick Scott’s post is typical of MAGA world: “Thank God President Trump is back in office…. President Trump is ushering a new America-first era with a restoration of peace through strength.” 

Senator Elissa Slotkin articulated the alternative view in giving the official Democratic Party response to Trump’s speech to Congress: ”We all want an end to the war in Ukraine, but [former Republican President] Reagan [who favoured the term “peace through strength”] understood that true strength required America to combine our military and economic might with moral clarity…Trump believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends, like Canada, in the teeth.”

Even many Republican voters have expressed dismay. One posted on social media, ”We might as well have voted for Vladimir Putin… I am starting to feel ashamed of myself for being so ignorant.”

Observers around the world seem to blame Trump. The Daily Maverick of South Africa reflected broad sentiment with the headline “Ambush! A mugging in the Oval Office reveals the alliance’s deep split.” 

Most world leaders have planted themselves firmly behind Zelenskyy and rushed to offer their support. New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon responded, “New Zealand remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine as it defends itself in a war that Russia started.” Similarly, Keir Starmer stated: “Russia is the aggressor, Zelenskyy is a war leader whose country has been invaded and we should all be supporting him and not fawning over Putin.” 

Lech Walesa, the former president of Poland, was perhaps strongest in his condemnation of Trump: “This conversation . . . reminded us of the interrogations we endured at the hands of the Security Services and the debates in Communist courts.... We are shocked that President Volodymyr Zelensky was treated in the same manner.”

In an extraordinary turn of events, Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron began coaching Zelenskyy on how to deal more effectively with Trump – in particular, gushing thanks and flattery.

This meeting was a defining moment in US-Ukraine relations—and in America’s global reputation. If Trump’s goal was to humiliate Zelenskyy and push Ukraine toward making concessions to Russia, it may have backfired. Instead, it has galvanized European leaders and deepened divisions at home. The US’s closest European allies have already begun making moves based on their assumption that they cannot count on the US as a reliable partner.

One thing is clear. This was not just a bad meeting but a seismic political event, the repercussions of which are only beginning to unfold.

Professor Ted Zorn and Dr Kate Lewis are originally from the USA, with dual New Zealand-American citizenship. Professor Zorn is Professor of Organisational Studies at Massey University and Dr Lewis is a geologist with a PhD from Duke University.