March 6, 2025
SEOUL – The heated exchange in the White House on Feb. 28 between US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shocked the world. The meeting was supposed to be a routine diplomatic event where national leaders exchanged opinions using calculated expressions and sophisticated language. However, what transpired shattered every fundamental element of diplomatic communication. Given the significance of this failure, a thorough review should be meaningful. We must examine what went wrong, where the meeting unraveled, and who bears responsibility. If we can conduct an accurate analysis, we can extract valuable lessons for the future.
The dialogue in the Oval Office lasted about 50 minutes. Until the 40-minute mark, it appeared a standard diplomatic discussion. However, the conversation suddenly became heated between Zelenskyy and Vance, eventually drawing in Trump. While most commentators focused on the final 10 minutes, carefully reviewing the entire meeting reveals crucial moments leading up to the collapse.
When Zelenskyy arrived at the White House and was welcomed by Trump, the prospects seemed favorable. Preparatory negotiations between the two sides had been de facto completed. The meeting was set to be a mere formality, a “done deal.” Trump’s welcoming remarks included a mention of a signing event and a luncheon following the meeting.
The first symptom occurred at the 10-minute mark when Trump emphasized that US assistance to Ukraine was substantial while criticizing European nations for contributing less. Zelenskyy nonchalantly countered, asserting that Europe had provided significant support and remained a strong partner. Trump insisted that European contributions paled compared to US aid, to which Zelenskyy responded, “No.” Though both leaders laughed it off, Zelenskyy had unknowingly struck a sensitive nerve — Trump detests being fact-checked in real-time. This moment created an opening for Vance, who possesses a debater’s instinct and saw an opportunity to raise sense of existence.
Approximately three minutes later, a significant moment occurred when Trump began to say, “We have had very good talks,” but was abruptly interrupted by the media. This scene was crucial — it indicated Trump’s intent to wrap up the open session and dismiss the press. Some analysts speculate that the entire fiasco was premeditated, with Trump and Vance setting a trap for Zelenskyy to pressure him into making more concessions. However, Trump’s attempt to conclude the session suggests otherwise.
The situation deteriorated further when a journalist asked a loaded question about Zelenskyy’s attire, subtly implying a lack of respect for the United States. Four minutes after the provocative question, Trump began showing displeasure toward Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy stressed that Putin had broken promises 25 times and urged Trump not to trust him. Trump responded that Putin had never done so to him. Around this time, Zelenskyy noticeably began nodding — a minor yet telling sign of increasing discomfort.
At the 33-minute mark, Zelenskyy attempted another fact-check. When Trump mentioned the destruction of numerous Ukrainian cities, Zelenskyy insisted that Ukraine still had many beautiful cities and that Trump had fallen victim to Russian disinformation. This remark further irritated Trump, who appeared increasingly agitated.
As Trump offered an opportunity for some remarks, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Vance seized it to assert himself. He boldly argued that diplomacy was the best option. Zelenskyy flatly dismissed this argument, leading to a full-scale eruption. Zelenskyy declared that Ukraine had been left to fight alone from 2014 to 2022, with no outside help. Trump immediately tried to correct him, stating that the incident was in 2015. Zelenskyy, however, insisted on 2014. Though brief, this exchange was damaging — Trump likely felt it made him look uninformed.
At this point, Vance launched a direct attack on Zelenskyy, accusing him of being ungrateful and disrespectful to the US. When Zelenskyy warned that the US would feel Russia’s influence in the future, Trump exploded. He rebuked Zelenskyy, saying he should not dictate how the US should feel about its foreign policy. Trump unleashed a barrage of harsh remarks: “You have no cards,” “You are not in a good position,” and similar cutting statements. Vance delivered the final blow, accusing Zelenskyy of interfering in the US election by visiting Pennsylvania to support Joe Biden. Zelenskyy was caught off guard and scored an own goal saying, “That was your president.” The Ukrainian leader did talk over Trump more than several times which was very undiplomatic and only worsened his position.
This disaster provides several critical lessons. Diplomatic communication matters, and national leaders and senior officials must be well-trained in diplomatic communication skills. Effective diplomacy requires careful wording, emotional control and strategic maneuvering. Leaders from weaker nations must adhere to diplomatic fundamentals. Zelenskyy’s missteps in handling Trump’s ego and Vance’s aggressive rhetoric left Ukraine in an unfavorable position.
Contrary to popular belief, Trump does not always enter negotiations with a hidden agenda. Foreign leaders can engage him in productive discussions if they offer reasonable concessions. However, Trump’s advisors lack coordination. While Rubio attempted to maintain a balanced approach, Vance undermined him by aggressively escalating the situation. This highlights a broader issue — Trump’s team is often disorganized and unpredictable. While most diplomatic meetings follow a prearranged script, this incident proves that the fallout can be immense when things go awry.
Trump succeeded in asserting dominance but also damaged US credibility as a global leader. Zelenskyy failed to secure more substantial support and worsened Ukraine’s position diplomatically, militarily and financially. Vance emerged as a rising star within Trump’s political sphere, reinforcing his influence in US foreign policy debates. Putin was the biggest winner, as the chaos within the US-Ukraine relationship played directly into Russia’s hands.
This failure serves as a stark reminder that diplomacy is not just about policies and deals but also about personalities, communication and the careful management of egos. Both Trump and Zelenskyy ignored these principles, leading to a diplomatic disaster that could have lasting consequences for Ukraine, the US and global stability.
Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.