Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word

Was Ukraine's fate sealed by a bad press event, or can it be salvaged?

After watching the White House meltdown that was the press event with Ukrainian President Zelensky last Friday, I sat down to pen a piece on the end of the United States as an honest broker on the side of democracy, western values and sovereignty. It would have been a searching, and ultimately self-pitying, essay that bemoaned the evident capture of this Administration by its isolationist “National Conservative” elements – championed most notable by Vice President Vance – only five weeks into power. This would have been one of hundreds of similarly toned articles that were dropped that day and over the weekend.

I didn’t write the piece. It wouldn’t have been wrong, and it would have accurately reflected my thoughts, but I wanted time to reflect. I wanted to see if I was missing something. Some argument that would make that event – the most cringe-inducing event I’ve ever seen in the White House – make sense. Put simply, nothing heard or read was able to put forth a conclusive argument that reconciled what I saw with a sound, pro-Ukrainian, policy. What I encountered, however, discouraged me in a whole different way.

Too few have wanted to argue the implications of the row on actual Ukrainian policy. Most analysis chose to look at the event through a lens of domestic politics. That this would have happened should have been so obvious that I am ashamed that I didn’t expect it going in. The embroglio was either the fault of a rude and inappreciative Ukrainian stooge showing disrespect to the United States, or it was an ambush by the pro-Russia Putin-puppet Donald Trump and his attack dog JD Vance. The media coverage and excepted video certainly supported the later, and that has become the main narrative.

I will not take issue with that interpretation. The behavior of the President and Vice President were, in the end, embarrassing. As I watched the event on Friday, my immediate suspicion was that this was a set-up. An elaborate effort to summon Zelensky to Washington in order, simply, to embarrass him and, by extension, the Ukrainian cause. I no longer believe this was a set-up, at least not one that Trump was involved in. The press event had proceeded for over 30 minutes before it fell apart. Trump was, in his own self-congratulatory way, complementary of Ukraine and seemed to be in support of continued assistance and their goals to regain lost territory. He had his minerals deal, as the symbolic totem of his victory, and that seemed to be what was important to him.

While I give a pass to Trump, I am not so willing to do so for Vance. His repeated past statements regarding Ukraine show that he does not support the cause. He is clearly ingratiating himself with that portion of the right that, expressly or not, admires Putin’s Russia for whatever reasons. At best, I will say that Vance did not intend to use this event as an opportunity to attack Zelensky. Had he planned such a move, he would have done so much earlier. But his is not so much of a man that he could pass up the opportunity when Zelensky finally gave it to him. He attacked, and he more than likely knew that if Zelensky responded, it would be just the sort of provocation that Trump’s lizard brain couldn’t ignore. And that’s what happened, and that’s the reason why we’re here.

At least, it’s part of the reason. As they say, it takes two (in this case, three) to tango. One of my core beliefs is that people have agency. With the occasional exception of obstinate princelings who inherit their positions through the accident of birth, those who rise to become players on the world stage possess self-awareness and, to succeed, must display self-control. As one of the principals in that room, Zelensky must take some of the blame. No one going into a meeting with Donald Trump in 2025 should have any illusions about what to expect. He will ramble. He will boast. He will make wild, exaggerated claims. He will misstate facts, both intentionally and through ignorance. He will make himself into the subject of every question, statement, event, etc. Anyone who disputes his statements or challenges him will not be met halfway. This is what he does. I do not excuse this behavior, nor do I in anyway admire it. But it is part of what makes Trump the man that he is, and it excites his supporters as much as it baffles and angers his opponents. Nonetheless, for good or bad, right or wrong, it is a fact and must be recognized as such.

Zelensky did not appreciate that reality. As demeaning or insulting as it may be, he needed to realize that a public event with Trump is something to be endured. No matter what inanities were spewed by his host, Zelensky needed to sit there and smile. He didn’t do that, despite the fact that it was absolutely in his interest to have done so. Maybe he was exhausted after the marathon session. Maybe his command of English, as good as it is, failed him at that moment. “Maybe” any number of things. The point is, he should have bit his lip and sat there while Trump continued to talk. He should have watched the Netanyahu press conference and studied the Israeli PM stand there quietly while Trump extolled the paradise that he was going to make of Gaza. But Zelensky didn’t.

Part of this, no doubt, was poor preparation. If one can believe the statements of some who were Zelensky’s meeting with members of Congress prior to the White House event, he was reminded to play the dutiful supplicant to Trump. His personal staff should have reinforced this. His ambassador, her face now famously buried in her hands, should have instilled this in his mind. There should have been translators on hand, not just to ensure that language was precise but also provide a brief cooling-off moment. Someone on either staff – perhaps even Secretary Rubio or Zelensky himself – should have had the presence of mind to simply say that the public event had gone on long enough and it was time to move on to actual point of the visit.

Failing to do this, and it pains me to say this, Zelensky should have apologized. Maybe the language barrier kept him from immediately grasping this in the moment of the rapid-fire blame-game. But the moment he left the White House he should have realized this. And if he is too proud or too (understandably) certain of his cause, he still should have had the self-awareness to realize that an apology, no matter how tightly his teeth were clinched, was required. But he didn’t. And if his staff didn’t explain this to him, they failed him inexcusably. Hours later, he went on Fox News and was asked repeatedly by Brett Baier – an interviewer that is, by all indications sympathetic to Ukraine’s cause – if he was prepared to apologize or give the thanks that he was accused of not expressing and he refused to do so. It doesn’t matter that he has expressed gratitude many times in the past, Trump demanded that he do so again. And he should have realized that he needed to do so, and he didn’t.

I get it. It sucks. Even children hate apologizing for things that aren’t their fault. But adults realize that, sometimes it’s what has to be done. World leaders, especially those that are fighting for the very survival of their nation, have sometimes to make compromises with their consciences to achieve goals. This is an integral part of real diplomacy. Enough people have spoken to Zelensky in the ensuing days that he now has no excuse not to realize that this is the fact. He has to realize that securing the support of Trump is essential to survival of his country, and that will only come about through horrible contrition. Trump, like most Americans, doesn’t care that much and has already moved on to Congressional addresses and antagonizing trade partners and the markets. No one in the Administration who might want to argue Zelensky’s case is going to do so at this point. There is no European cavalry that can provide the material he needs. Only he possesses what is needed to secure his goal, and it will cost him his pride. Pride is a luxury that leaders up against the proverbial wall can’t always afford. Speaking of supporting Stalin in the wake of Operation Barbarossa, no less a pride filled person as Churchill famously said, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

Not one word of what I write here is meant to qualify or excuse the policy of the Trump Administration vis a vis Russia and Ukraine. A responsible, intelligent administration would see that Ukraine’s cause and American geopolitical interests are completely in line. As I have written before, there is no serious downside to providing whatever aid the Ukrainians can use against the Russians. But the road the world takes if Russia prevails is strewn with destinations. Is sending aid for Ukraine worse than sending marines to die in Estonia? Who can seriously argue that it is? But of course, the Vance’s of this Administration will argue that we don’t have to send those troops, and they’ll probably prevail. And Putin knows that.

The imperative that Ukraine win (or at the very least that Russia, by its own measure, lose) this conflict is so great, so obvious, that I don’t feel it can be adequately expressed through words. Given the likely choices that the Trump Administration will make and the amount of time left to it, there is too much that can be irrevocably damaged as a result of Ukraine’s defeat. If that means the Zelensky has to praise the Devil, then he should do so.