The showdown between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Feb. 28 shocked the entire world. But instead of analyzing its political impact, let’s focus on the details of manners, gestures, which may seem less important than the issues at stake, but reveal more about the underlying basic stance.
The first thing that stands out is the behavior of two arrogant and self-assured U.S. politicians treating the leader of Ukraine — who was under immense pressure, on the verge of a breakdown — in an extremely disrespectful and brutal manner. The only country whose representatives I know to use such brutal language is Russia.
Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova wrote: "How Trump and Vance held back from hitting that scumbag is a miracle of restraint." As expected, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev joined in, calling Zelensky a "cocaine clown." But such statements are made by second-tier figures, never top leaders.
At the level of public diplomacy, Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance violated the rules even respected by figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. The only other regime that sometimes resorts to similar brutality is North Korea — no surprise that Trump has openly praised North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un as a good leader and even called him a friend.
Before Zelensky even entered the room, White House staff criticized him for allegedly showing disrespect by not being properly dressed. The entire treatment of Zelensky was disrespectful. What makes it even worse is that Trump, a man who set new standards in public vulgarity, now shamelessly condemns others for disrespect. The ultimate obscenity is reproaching someone for disrespect in a manner that, in itself, is a blatant act of disrespect. Even a simple AI like ChatGPT has better manners than Trump and Vance in a conversation.
"The ultimate obscenity is reproaching someone for disrespect in a manner that, in itself, is a blatant act of disrespect."
Additionally, U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz described Zelensky's reaction to being dismissed with a tasteless metaphor: "It's like, you know, an ex-girlfriend who wants to argue about everything you said nine years ago, instead of moving the relationship forward."
So, was the open conflict in the Oval Office a spontaneous outburst? At the very least, this obscene exchange had been brewing, waiting to explode. We should bear in mind that, at the level of substantive content, nothing new happened. To put it in Hegelian terms, this was a passage from “An sich” (in-itself) to “Für sich” (for-itself) — from mere background presence to the explicit positing of content.
This shift changes everything: once something is directly stated, it cannot be undone. Everyone in a group might know something that is only in itself and could interpret it away as a misunderstanding, but once it’s out in the open, it’s a different matter.
"Everyone in a group might know something that is only in itself and could interpret it away as a misunderstanding, but once it’s out in the open, it’s a different matter."
In the case of the Oval Office meeting, although tensions had always been palpable, things became tense when Vance pressed Zelensky for not appreciating the United States’ help in Ukraine’s war with Russia.
What followed was an open shouting match — something unheard of in diplomacy, where such direct and brutal exchanges are typically saved for behind closed doors. As some commentators noted, diplomacy died in the Oval Office. What we witnessed was something more akin to a low-level negotiation between mafia bosses.
Vance’s argument, that after years of trying to break Russia with arms, the time has come for diplomacy, is so full of holes that its inconsistency is glaring. War (Russian aggression) erupted after years of ineffective diplomatic attempts — when Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, diplomacy achieved nothing. The heroic Ukrainian resistance, supported by the West, didn’t fail; it created conditions for possible negotiations. Without this resistance, Ukraine would no longer exist as a state.
And, as we’ve already seen, who are Trump and Vance to talk about diplomacy after they’ve broken all its rules?
It’s naïve to claim that exposing tensions will clarify the situation. First, as we’ve seen, making things public can preclude possible solutions by adding acts of aggression and humiliation.
Second, and more important, what occurred in the Oval Office was not a process of bringing out true tensions: the situation remained obscured, with Trump clearly angry at Ukraine and Europe, and Zelensky placed in an impossible position — he had to defend Ukraine’s vital interests, which were ignored by the U.S., while also showing respect and gratitude, knowing Ukraine’s survival depends on U.S. support.
Should we blame Zelensky? Shouldn’t he have been more aware of the need for U.S. help and acted more considerately? A contrast is clear with French President Emmanuel Macron and, especially, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who, as Owen Jones pointed out, during his last visit to Washington, virtually disappeared up Trump’s backside.
I believe Zelensky should not only not be reproached — on the contrary, we should fully appreciate his tragic predicament. He defended himself clearly and counterattacked, but he had to combine this with a humiliating respect for Trump, who supports the Russian agenda.
Trump’s claim that Zelensky doesn’t want a ceasefire but a continuous war was simply a lie: of course, Zelensky wanted peace, but — quite understandably — a peace that would not just be a ceasefire opening the door for Russian reorganization and renewed attack. To paraphrase Carl von Clausewitz’s well-known definition of war as a continuation of politics by other means, such a ceasefire would be a continuation of war with peaceful means.
Trump’s repeated metaphor of cards is also misleading — Zelensky was right to reply, "I don’t play cards." Jews didn’t hold any good cards in Nazi Germany, especially after 1938, but should we have told them, "Sorry, you don’t have good cards — you want our full support, but this could lead to a new world war"? How can one argue against that logic?
After Trump and Vance humiliated Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude, he posted a brief message on X: “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”
Was this almost compulsive repetition of “thanks” meant to show gratitude for the lack of which Trump and Vance criticized him, or is there an element of irony in this message, whether intentional or not?
When Trump evokes humanitarian reasons, there is always a hidden horror behind it. Remember that he also claimed Gaza should be emptied for humanitarian reasons, but neither in Gaza nor Ukraine did he ask the obvious question: who is responsible for the destruction? Both in Gaza and in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, "America First" clearly means business.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio extolled the “extraordinary opportunities, economic and geopolitical, that the U.S. and Russia could both seize once the war in Ukraine was over.” This emphasis on business is not just an ideology, but one thoroughly intertwined with specific ideological-political choices. Business presupposes a set of unwritten rules that should be respected — basic trust is fundamental. These rules are violated by Trump, who turns business into a brutal game of blackmail.
As for political choices: why treat China as the main enemy and dismiss any “extraordinary opportunities” for collaboration with China? Why, especially, does Trump repeatedly characterize Europe as the main foe of the U.S., including the absurd claim that the EU was created to "screw" the U.S.? The story is well-known, so there’s no need to repeat it here.
And there’s no need to point out what Europe should do: if Trump claims the EU was made to screw the U.S., then Europe should respond fully — politically, economically, and militarily — all options should be on the table, including a new alliance with China and de-dollarization. In short, Europe should unite as much as possible and declare a state of emergency.
What Trump is doing in his obscene actions is applying to politics the stances he declared publicly years ago.
The horror of such actions extends well beyond economic extortion and the violation of diplomatic norms. When someone acts legally, their external acts do not violate any legal prohibitions or regulations. However, politeness — manners, gallantry, etc. — is more than just obeying external legality. It’s the ambiguously imprecise domain of what one is not strictly obligated to do (but is expected to do). This is part of our unspoken customs and expectations, something rooted in our inherited substance of social mores.
Incidentally, this is the self-destructive deadlock of Political Correctness: it tries to formulate and legalize manners. Trump and Vance, great opponents of Political Correctness, acted precisely this way when they forced Zelensky into an impossible position by demanding that he explicitly say “Thank you.”
Trumpian discourse (in its strict Lacanian sense of a social link sustained by speech) poses a threat to the very substance of our social life. It contributes directly to the social disintegration that many analysts have noted. The lack of manners excludes others from communication: I pretend to listen to my partner, but I don’t really hear them. This stance is becoming a mass phenomenon.
Here’s what Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said after the Oval Office meeting: “What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful, and I don’t know if we could ever do business with Zelensky again. I think most Americans saw a guy that they would not want to go into business with, the way he handled the meeting.”
Again, the term “business” is revealing here. Graham then urged Zelensky to prioritize a minerals deal over security guarantees or a ceasefire with Russia — an obscenity if there ever was one. The minerals deal was a clear case of extortion by the U.S.: you get our help if you pay for it — estimated by Trump at $350 billion, which is more than the actual sum — by allowing the U.S. to exploit your natural resources for decades to come.
In other words, the minerals deal was a price for security guarantees. A minerals deal without security guarantees is meaningless for Ukraine. The whole affair becomes even more obscene when we combine it with Trump and Vance’s demands for gratitude: Ukraine must say “Thank you!” for help and then pay for it.
A classic example of political “realism” — Trump and his gang like to present themselves as “realists,” repeating the mantra that they just want to prevent the concrete suffering, destruction, and death of ordinary people. However, as John Ganz insightfully pointed out, such “realist” views (practiced by Henry Kissinger, for example) ignore the concrete suffering of hundreds of thousands of individuals.
Zelensky told Vance about the Russian threat: "You have a nice ocean and don’t feel it now, but you will in the future." Trump immediately jumped in: "Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel!"
Trump’s arrogance seduced him into misreading Zelensky: his “you will feel it” had nothing to do with subjective feeling; it referred to political and military pressure. Trump, however, took it as Zelensky ordering him how to feel — if anyone should have been ordered to feel gratitude, it was Zelensky. In a normal exchange between allies, Zelensky should have responded that it is Ukraine that deserves respect and gratitude for defending not only its own sovereignty but also the freedom of all of Europe and, ultimately, the U.S.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.
Timothy Ash
