It was the most awkward moment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s week in America, a week in which his one mission was to convince the United States and its allies that Ukraine has a realistic plan for victory after 2 1/2 years of war with Russia.
Zelensky, stone-faced, stood next to Donald Trump outside the former president’s eponymous New York skyscraper as Trump put words in his mouth he didn’t say while extolling the chumminess of his relationship with the dictator responsible the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children, and the destruction of dozens of Ukrainian cities and towns.
Zelensky has always been careful not to correct Trump, but when Trump went on about his “very good relationship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin and how it would help things get “resolved very quickly,” Zelensky seemed to squirm and interjected, “I hope we have more good relations.”
“We’re going to have a lot. Yes,” Trump replied. “But, you know, it takes two to tango.”
“He said President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong. He said it loud and clear, and the impeachment hoax died right there,” Trump declared at one point, which is not remotely close to what Zelensky actually said about the Russia investigation in a series of media interviews back in 2019.
“If people couldn’t see how uncomfortable Zelensky looked in that picture, I don’t know what else to say to describe it,” John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said in an appearance on CNN.
“It reminded me of the picture of Zelensky and Trump together in September of 2019 when they had their first in-person meeting at the United Nations,” he said. “Zelensky looked just about as uncomfortable.”
Trump had initially snubbed Zelensky, apparently because in a New Yorker interview two weeks earlier, Zelensky dismissed Trump’s boast to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours as “just sloganeering” and Trump’s pick for running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), as “too radical.”
Trump took offense and on the campaign trail accused Zelensky of “making little nasty aspersions toward your favorite president, me.”
It was only after Zelensky groveled in a personal “Dear Donald” note, in which he wrote, “You know I always speak with great respect about everything connected with you,” a private communication that Trump promptly posted on his Truth Social platform, did Trump relent and agree to a meeting just hours before Zelensky was scheduled to return to Kyiv.
“I think [he met Zelensky] for political reasons,” Bolton said. “I think it’s designed to calm the nerves of some Republicans who despise Trump and don’t want to vote for him.”
“They’re rationalizing, in their own minds, ‘Surely Trump won’t sell out Ukraine. … Trump won’t be so bad,’” he said. “I’d just like to break that bubble.”
Even before his Sept. 27 meeting with Zelensky, Trump’s stump speeches and rally ramblings consistently described his plan to cut a deal with Putin as the only way to prevent World War III.
“I will settle the war in Ukraine. Before I even take office, I’ll settle it as president-elect. I met with President Zelensky the other day. I know President Putin very well. I’ll get it settled,” Trump said at an afternoon stop in Waunakee, Wisconsin, Oct. 1.
A few hours later In Milwaukee, Trump was hedging a bit.
“I think I can get it solved, but we should get on that immediately. I think I would like to be able to solve it while president-elect,” he told the crowd. “If I get elected, I’m going to work on that immediately. It’s going to be my first two phone calls.”
“I think everybody should understand, and particularly Republicans who hope that Trump will continue support for Ukraine if he wins, that is not going to happen,” Bolton said. “In terms of American support for Ukraine, if Trump wins, I think it’s toast.”
What concerns Zelensky is how Vance described Trump’s likely peace deal in a podcast interview last month as one that would require Ukraine to give up most, if not all, of the territory Russia holds, along with its aspirations for NATO membership, which Zelensky sees as the only real insurance that Putin won’t manufacture a pretext to restart the war once his military is rebuilt.
“What this looks like is Trump sits down, he says to the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Europeans, ‘You guys need to figure out what does a peaceful settlement look like,’” Vance said.
“And what it probably looks like is something like the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine becomes like a demilitarized zone. It’s heavily fortified so the Russians don’t invade again. Ukraine retains its independent sovereignty. Russia gets the guarantee of neutrality from Ukraine. It doesn’t join NATO,” Vance added.
“The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine’s expense is unacceptable,” Zelensky said in the New Yorker interview, calling Vance’s framework “an awful idea.”
“There’s certainly no way this could ever happen. This kind of scenario would have no basis in international norms, in U.N. statute, in justice,” Zelensky said. “And it wouldn’t necessarily end the war either.”
In a press availability after his New York meeting with Zelensky, Trump came off as patronizing, while Zelensky appeared to tip-toe around their differences so as not to further alienate the man who may well hold the fate of his country in his hands if he returns to the White House.
“I believe if I win, we’re going to have a very fair, and, I think actually, rather rapid deal,” Trump said. “It should stop, and the president wants it to stop, and I’m sure President Putin wants it to stop, and that’s a good combination. So, we want to have a fair deal for everybody.”
Asked by a reporter what he envisions as fair, Trump replied, “It’s too early to say that. I mean, I have my own ideas, and I’m sure the president definitely has his own ideas, but it has to be fair.”
The idea that Putin would agree to a “fair” deal is folly, argues Michael McFaul, U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 and now a professor of political science at Stanford University.
“There is no reason for Putin to stop his war now. At a minimum, he will keep sending more Russians to die in Ukraine until he controls the four Ukrainian regions he annexed on paper almost two years ago,” McFaul writes on his Substack page.
“Remember, ‘land for peace’ failed before. Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 simmered until an even bigger invasion in 2022,” McFaul argues. “Moreover, letting Putin keep the territory he illegally annexed would set a terrible precedent for other power-seeking autocrats and regimes. In fact, we know what happens next: we witnessed how poorly appeasement works in the 1930s.”
There are other factors that figure into Trump’s calculus: Zelensky’s refusal to bow to pressure from Trump in 2019 to announce an investigation into then-former Vice President Joe Biden and his son and, more recently, what Trump sees as Zelensky’s strong preference for Trump’s opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
“He wants them to win this election so badly,” Trump said at a campaign event in Pennsylvania last month, referring to the Democrats.
And during his Washington visit, Harris made clear she shared Zelensky’s revulsion with Trump’s plan for bringing the war to a quick end.
“There are some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations,” Harris said, standing with Zelensky at the White House — both literally and figuratively.
“These proposals are the same as those of Putin. And let us be clear: They are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender, which is dangerous and unacceptable,” she added.
To Trump, who highly values loyalty, the perception that Zelensky is aligned with the Democrats smacks of betrayal.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Trump likes Putin and believes Putin likes him. The same can’t be said of Zelensky.
“When they don’t like me, I don’t like them, OK? It sounds childish,” he said in Pennsylvania, repeating one of his stock phases. “That’s the way it is. Call it a personality defect.”
Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner’s senior writer on defense and national security. His morning newsletter, Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, is free and available by email subscription at dailyondefense.com.