Four takeaways from the Trump-Zelensky meeting that devolved into shouting

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday engaged in the kind of heated exchange that must be common in private foreign policy disputes between world leaders.

Except this one played out for a crowded room full of cameras.

Amid increasing tensions between Washington and Kyiv over a deal to end the war in Ukraine — and even as an accord has been forged between the two sides on mineral rights — their leaders jousted publicly and aggressively over a number of topics in a way that could upend continued and already tenuous U.S. support for the Zelensky government.

The war of words included how willing Ukraine should be to cut a deal, how strong its bargaining position is, basic facts about the war, and whether Zelensky has been sufficiently grateful to the United States for its help.

It was a lot to absorb. Below are some takeaways.

1. A brief summary

There was much back-and-forth, but it basically boiled down to Trump and Vance casting Zelensky as ungrateful and uninterested in cutting a deal with Russia to end the war. Zelensky also suggested that Trump and Vance were insufficiently sceptical of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions.

To summarise:

Trump responded to a question from a reporter about whether he was too aligned with Putin by arguing that his softer approach was necessary.

“You see the hatred [Zelensky has] got for Putin,” Trump said, with Zelensky sitting right next to him. “It’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate; he’s got tremendous hatred. And I understand that. But I can tell you the other side isn’t exactly in love with, you know, him, either.”

Vance, in a particularly eye-popping moment, then interjected and argued it was time for diplomacy rather than “thumping our chest,” like he said President Joe Biden did with regard to Russia.

Zelensky seemed to take exception to this, saying Putin wasn’t a reliable negotiator and had reneged on past deals.

Vance then got more aggressive, responding by calling it “disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Zelensky then asked Vance, a prominent critic of Ukraine funding dating to his time as a senator, whether he had visited the country — which Vance has not. Vance dismissed such a visit as a “propaganda tour.”

Zelensky suggested that letting Russia expand westward would eventually reverberate in the United States, too. Trump repeatedly objected to this, and Zelensky responded that he was talking only about Russia’s “influence.”

That comment turned up the volume even more. Trump proceeded to expound at length on how Ukraine was in a very bad spot and needed the United States, suggesting Zelensky should be more careful. Vance noted that Zelensky hadn’t yet said thank you for its help — Zelensky quickly did — and criticised him for appearing with Democrats in Pennsylvania late in the 2024 election season.

“It’s going to be a tough deal to make up because the attitudes have to change,” Trump said.

After things calmed a bit, Trump reflected: “This is going to be great television, I will say that.”

In as telling a picture as any, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, at one point put her head in her hand for a prolonged period.

2. Trump’s factual flub set things off

One moment in particular epitomised Trump’s fact-challenged yet boisterous approach to mediating a deal to end the war — and seemed to set things off.

After Zelensky talked about how Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 with little Western intervention, Trump cut in and tried and correct him.

“2015,” Trump said, suggesting Zelensky had gotten the year wrong.

Zelensky noted that it was, in fact, 2014. Vance cut in to suggest both men were actually somewhat right, saying, “2014 through 2015.”

“Oh, 2014?” Trump concluded, before alluding to the fact that he wasn’t there to stop it: “I was not here.”

It was a minor detail in the exchanges, but also a striking one and a potential turning point. Here was Trump confidently (yet wrongly) trying to correct the leader of another country about when a portion of his own country was taken over by force. And then you had Vance trying to rescue the point. (Certain fallout from the Russian annexation did linger into 2015, but the main event was in early 2014.)

Two points.

One is that it was the third Oval Office meeting this week featuring a factual dispute about Trump’s and Vance’s claims, with the other two involving French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The second is that this appeared to be the moment things took a turn. Vance had argued that diplomacy was the path to ending hostilities, but Zelensky took exception to that — or at least the White House’s version of diplomacy — noting that Russia had reneged on previous agreements.

“What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?” Zelensky said. “What do you mean?”

And they were off.

3. Trump’s kid gloves with Putin loom large

As ever, Trump’s softer touch with Putin than with Zelensky was evident.

“You want me to say really terrible things about Putin and then say, ‘Hi, Vladimir. How are we doing on the deal?’ ” Trump said toward the beginning.

But Trump has had no problem saying terrible things about Zelensky recently, including falsely claiming that Zelensky is a dictator and that Ukraine started the war (Russia illegally invaded Ukraine). While Zelensky had hit back at Trump by saying he lived in a “web of disinformation,” Trump got the ball rolling on criticizing Zelensky - and, notably, in a way he almost never does with Putin.

Later in the meeting, Trump evinced some sympathy for Putin.

“Let me tell you: Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,” Trump said. “He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia. You ever hear of that deal? That was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden scam. … And he had to go through that.”

It was an extraordinary comment. Trump has gone further than the evidence suggests in claiming his own exoneration in the Russia investigation. But here he was suggesting Putin also had been wronged in the process.

Multiple U.S. government efforts, including the special counsel Russia investigation and a bipartisan Senate committee report, have detailed Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

But Trump has always sought to cast doubt on that. And again, his approach to the invader in the Ukraine war was very different from his approach to the invaded.

4. The big question: How it could play

The most important question, of course, is what such a heated, public disagreement means for the war moving forward. The United States is the biggest source of aid to Ukraine, and losing that money and those weapons would have an existential impact on Ukraine.

Was this Zelensky just losing his cool? Or was there some strategy at play?

The first thing to note is that Trump is a very transactional president whose chief concern often seems to be how much you praise him. He also wields huge power. It’s why you generally see world leaders and other politicians take care not to criticize him.

Zelensky certainly risked raising Trump’s ire and having him take an even more antagonistic approach toward helping Ukraine than he already has.

And, sure enough, Trump posted on Truth Social that he had “determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

But Zelensky might reason that this ship has already sailed - or is in the process of sailing. At least one Republican has likened the mineral rights deal to “extortion” of a war-torn country by Trump, and Trump and his defence secretary have made comments this month that could hurt Ukraine’s bargaining power.

Some critics - including conservative foreign policy hawks - have wagered that Trump is pressuring Ukraine to cave to end the war, even if that means favourable terms for Russia.

To the extent there could be some strategic benefit for Zelensky, though, it could be in reinforcing Trump’s and Vance’s soft approach to Putin. Here were the leaders of the United States dressing down no less than the leader of a devastated country, very publicly, while legitimising Putin. Americans overwhelming side with Ukraine in the conflict.

And Zelensky made a point to suggest that the United States’ catering to Putin could one day lead to regret, because it would have to confront Russia’s “influence.”

“You have [a] nice ocean and don’t feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future,” Zelensky said.

That could all lead some Republicans who have been sitting on the sidelines and worry about emboldening Russia to speak out.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) told the Wall Street Journal that the White House sounded “like Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s in regard to Russia. Reagan was right then.”

Even to the extent this did further alienate Trump, perhaps Zelensky reasoned that it was necessary to send partners in Europe a signal that they would all have to go it alone.

Or perhaps Trump and Vance simply have done and said a bunch of things that the leader of a war-ravaged country resented, and, after weeks of that and three years of war, he wasn’t going to take it anymore.

© 2025 , The Washington Post