The Russia-Ukraine conflict entered its newest chapter recently, as Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance sparred in the Oval Office during a meeting surrounding an impending mineral rights deal between the United States and Ukraine.
During the meeting, with dozens of cameras focused on them, the three statesmen clashed, with Trump saying that the “hatred [Zelenskyy] has for Putin” has made it hard for a deal to end the war to be negotiated. When Zelenskyy pushed back on the administration’s focus on diplomacy with Russia, Vice President Vance responded by saying that it was “disrespectful for [Zelenskyy] to try to litigate [American involvement in the War in Ukraine] in front of the American media.”
Trump leveled the accusation against Zelenskyy that he was “gambling with World War 3” and Vance pressed the Ukrainian president further, asking, “have you said thank you once this entire meeting?
The meeting ended unceremoniously, with Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian delegation being kicked out of the White House without an agreement being signed.
In the days following the meeting, the United States suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, marking an extreme reversal of American policy in Ukraine since the war began in 2022.
Joseph Phillips, a political science major at KSU, described the incident as “embarrassing.” He explained that he didn’t feel like the situation was resolved properly, saying, “I don’t really like seeing international diplomacy handled that way. I prefer them to handle it more professionally.”
He continued, explaining who he felt was at fault, saying, “I do like to put the blame on the people that represent me the most, so I do put most of the blame on JD Vance and Donald Trump.”
In regards to how he felt meetings with other nations should go in the future, he said ”I hope they can do better with international diplomacy going forward. I’m not expecting much, but hopefully they do better.”
Jack Uler, another political science major, spoke in similar terms, calling the encounter “embarrassing” and condemning it as “unbefitting the dignity of the office.”
Political science professor Thomas Nisley described the incident as a “setup,” citing the unusual presence of Vice President JD Vance. He spoke on how he saw press conferences like this one as largely just for show, meant to signal to the world that two sides are talking, not typically requiring the Vice President.
“…it was intentionally set up to be confrontational.” He continued, “It looked to me as if they wanted to kill the deal.”
Another foreign affairs expert, Professor Megan Hauser, spoke on the personal issues Trump may have with President Zelenskyy, referencing the 2019 phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy, where Trump offered additional aid to Ukraine in exchange for information on Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, which led to Trump’s first impeachment.
“I think there’s been a longer personal frustration that President Trump has had toward President Zelenskyy.”
Uler spoke on the impact of the meeting on America’s reputation abroad, saying, “I don’t think it’s going to give other countries confidence in the ability of the United States to handle world affairs, to negotiate logically [and] rationally, basically, constructively for the next four years.”
He continued emphasizing the long term consequences of the event, saying, “I think it’s going to undermine confidence in the United States’ position in the world stage, potentially after this administration.”
Phillips leveled a grave prediction for American support in Ukraine, saying, “I think U.S. support for Ukraine is over with for at least the next four years.” He continued, now commenting on how America may come to be viewed if they discontinue support for Ukraine, with, “I think [The U.S. dropping support for Ukraine] does hurt the United State’s international image.”
On alternative areas of support for Ukraine, Phillips said “…I think if Ukraine wants support, they’d have to just look to Europe now.”
Professor Nisley shared similar sentiments, mentioning that future support for Ukraine may need to come from Europe, currently in the midst of a rearmament program, something he called “advisable.”
Nisley also commented on the idea that the mineral rights deal, meant to strengthen economic cooperation between Ukraine and the United States, may not have as great of an impact as expected.
“…even if there are economic interests [in Ukraine for the United States], there were economic interests there before the Russians invaded the last time, and that doesn’t stop the Russians. So without a security guarantee, Ukraine’s in dire straits.”
Professor Hauser spoke on what she viewed some of Trump’s motivations for his policy toward Ukraine to be.
“[President Trump] likes the idea of gaining international status for trying to resolve conflicts. He’s tried to frame himself as having done that in the past.”
She continued, saying, “[Trump] has had a more isolationist bent, so he just generally is a little bit more critical of providing military aid.”
Hauser emphasized the shift toward Russia that Trump has taken as of late. Specifically, she targeted how this has impacted his perception of the dynamics between Russia and Ukraine, saying that Trump has been “more sympathetic towards what Russia has endured in the war, rather than Ukraine, and also focusing on the economic costs [or supporting Ukraine] that the United States has borne throughout the last three or four years.”
She also spoke on the ways Russia may be trying to spin the recent shift in American policy to their benefit, specifically comments from the Kremlin stating that the Trump administration’s foreign policy “largely aligns with our vision.”
“On paper, not that much has changed between the U.S. and Russia in the last few months, but Russia’s putting a different sort of glint on the relationship, partially to sell this image that [the U.S.] actually has a lot more in common [with Russia].”
Something else of note that Professor Hauser spoke on was that Zelenskyy’s motivation for proposing the mineral rights deal was likely an attempt to tap into Trump’s transactional foreign policy style, and get him on the side of Ukraine.
With the status of the mineral rights deal currently in limbo, Zelenskyy has signaled to Washington that he’s ready for diplomacy and committed to peace talks.
No one can say for sure how the War in Ukraine will end, but what’s certain is that it will come to define American foreign policy and international relations for years to come.
