Ashok Ogra
US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance publicly scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a photo opportunity at the White House on Friday. They chastised him for allegedly not expressing sufficient gratitude, despite Zelensky having already done so numerous times in the past, and accused him of disrespecting both the hosts and the host country.
The meeting, which could have been an opportunity for meaningful dialogue, was instead marred by personal egos and abrasive rhetoric. It resulted in the total failure of diplomacy in resolving differences, especially when one party to a summit is significantly more powerful than the other. Coercion not cooperation, tension not trust defined the failed summit.
Rewind to 2019: The US President Donald Trump is facing impeachment, and he is bringing pressure on President Zelensky to initiate investigations on Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s eventual successor Joe Biden. President Zelensky dithers and ignores the pressures, and that leaves Trump’s ego bruised. Trump administration was also aware that Zelensky had attended a campaign rally in support of Biden.
However, nobody would have thought that Trump would weaponize US foreign policy for domestic political purposes Perhaps, Zelensky never thought Trump will be back in the White House. That partly explains the pathological dislike Trump has for Zelensky to the point of calling him a ‘dictator.’
Historically, the Vice President’s role in one-on-one talks between two leaders in the Oval Office is largely ceremonial. Conventionally, the U.S. president welcomes the guest and then proceeds with the official summit meeting, held indoors, where all officials participate in the discussions.
The question, therefore, worth examining is why did J.D. Vance intervene and virtually dominate the meeting which was supposed to be more of ‘greet & welcome’ in structure.
Vance’s tone and language was both rude and undiplomatic. Was this all staged for the world media? Remember, Trump prompted Vance twice to speak- which is rather rare in what is supposed to be a courtesy warm up meeting.
Last weekend The New York Times in its lead story called Vance ‘Trump’s attack dog.’ He truly lived up to it.
We saw all this happening on TV. Not surprisingly, both the National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio who are by definition ‘traditionalist’ in their approach to diplomacy, looked rather glum though they later blamed Zelensky for the breakdown of talks.
There are commentators who view Vance’s behavior an attempt to assert himself. He must have noticed that it is Elon Musk who has been making news? He argued as one would expect a lawyer to argue: “my position is non-negotiable.”
Incidentally, only a few years ago Vance had publically called Trump an ‘idiot’ and compared him to Hitler before joining Trump team.
Zelensky’s mistake, in hindsight, was to hold back from confronting Vance’s aggressive posture. He did not handle himself well. He got emotional, responded too often and took the bait that Vice President laid for him. Though his English is good, he also should have relied on an interpreter as in such type of meetings each word/ sentence matters.
He ought to have studied French President Macron and British Prime Minister Stammer who engaged in constant flattery and showed deference towards President Trump when both of them met him in the White House last week.
He should have been wise to have a mental mapping of Trump’s negotiating style, preparing accordingly for the aggression he was likely to face. Remember, what Churchill said of his relationship with his American counterpart :”No lover ever studied every wimp of his mistress as I did those of Franklin Roosevelt.”
True, the relations between Trump and Zelensky have never been cordial. This could have made their summit discussions difficult, especially when it came to balancing Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership and Trump’s conditional support that includes getting a favourable deal over access to rich minerals.
The breakdown in talks reflect a long history of summit diplomacy shaped by differing political ideologies, diplomatic approaches, and national interests.
It is worth mentioning the Yalta Conference held soon after World War II in 1945: it was attended by US President Roosevelt (a liberal democrat), Churchill ( a Conservative statesman) and Stalin ( a Communist ideologue).
Roosevelt and Churchill were aiming to shape a post-war world based on international cooperation, free markets, and self-determination for nations. Stalin, on the other hand, prioritized Soviet security and expansion. The tension arose over the future of Eastern Europe and the division of Germany. Stalin’s aggressive tactics contrasted with the diplomatic, negotiation-heavy approaches of Roosevelt and Churchill.
The Yalta Conference resulted in agreements about post-war Europe, but Stalin’s hard-line stance set the stage for the Cold War, particularly over the division of Germany and Eastern Europe.
Similarly, the 1978 Camp David Summit, which aimed to ease tensions in the Middle East, faced challenges as Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin openly clashed, with U.S. President Jimmy Carter acting as a mediator.
These examples illustrate how through pragmatism, idealism, or ideological rigidity, the leaders’ approaches to summit diplomacy result in agreements acceptable to all partied involved.
In India we have excellent example of Sardar Patel deploying not force but resolve and patience when negotiating with Princely states to integrate with India.
Similarly, Indira Gandhi’s firm stance during the 1971 war with Pakistan demonstrated the importance of strategic diplomacy when there is little room for compromise. She is reported to have remarked, “You can’t be diplomatic when there’s nothing to compromise, but diplomacy is important when both sides can get something. There is some self-interest behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self-interest. This is a bitter truth.”
There are also many instances when the Summit talks ended without producing an agreement. The Geneva Summit (1955) between US President Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on disbarment failed of the baggage of ideological divide between the two superpowers during the Cold War.
Similarly, at the Shimla Summit, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reneged on a promise made to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi regarding the Kashmir issue.
The breakdown in talks between Trump and Zelensky is reshaping the entire structure of Western alliances. This certainly does not bode well for Ukraine: the US President has already halted further aid to the country, at least until Zelensky either apologizes or demonstrates a genuine interest in achieving peace.
The only silver lining for Ukraine is that today’s Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union once was. Its aging population is severely impacting army recruitment. Although Russia’s military strength remains larger than Ukraine’s, it is quickly depleting, and its defense budget is significantly smaller-at $80 billion-compared to the $400 billion defense budgets of NATO countries (excluding the US contribution).
Moreover, despite its earnings from oil and gas, Russia’s total GDP is $2.3 trillion, a far cry from the $20+ trillion GDP of the European Union alone, not including the UK, Canada, and other pro-western nations.
Meanwhile, the European Union, during an emergency meeting held in London on Wednesday, proposed a new defense plan worth $800 billion to mitigate the potential impact of US disengagement.
Looking ahead, Zelensky should take to heart the wise words of strategist and diplomat Henry Kissinger, who, when entering the Oval Office, said: “The task of the diplomat is not to give the impression that his country has no option other than what he proposes, but to create the impression that no other outcome is possible but what he proposes.”
Both delicacy and sophistication will be necessary as Zelensky navigates future conversations and official negotiations. In 2022, the current National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, referred to President Zelensky as the “Churchill of the 21st Century” when Russia attacked Ukraine. Now, as Ukraine is besieged, the actor/ comedian-turned-President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has no choice but to rise to the occasion. He must act less like an actor and more like an ambassador, conveying his country’s concerns and aspirations to the world with confidence, grace, and tact.
Zelensky has already expressed regret over the events in the Oval Office and has stated that he stands ready to work under Trump’s “strong leadership” to secure a lasting peace.
(The author works as Advisor for reputed Apeejay Education, New Delhi)
The post Why did Trump Zelensky Summit fail appeared first on Daily Excelsior.