The Trump-Zelenskyy slugfest was shocking. What does Ukraine do now? | Rajan Menon

For the Ukrainian leader, there’s no coming back from the debacle. His country’s best hope now lies with Europe. No matter their position on the Russia-Ukraine war, people who view the televised encounter between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office will likely be shocked. It didn’t morph into a full-on screaming match, but it came close.

The meeting might have gone sideways anyway, but JD Vance’s presence ensured that it became ugly – and quickly. The vice-president spoke over Zelenskyy, accused him of ingratitude for the assistance provided by the United States (“Have you ever said thank you?”) and of disrespecting Trump, his host, and, for good measure, scolded him for litigating his country’s case in public. That raised the temperature – a lot.

To be fair, the Ukrainian president shouldn’t have sprung the trap Vance set. He might have said that he had in fact expressed his gratitude in the past, wished to do so again, and was pleased to be in the United States to have a direct discussion with Trump, a man he regards as a strong leader.

Yuck, you might say: that would have been obsequious and undignified. True, but there are two rules for anyone meeting Trump, especially when the press corps is on hand: use flattery and avoid arguments. The formula works. Consider Keir Starmer’s Thursday meeting with Trump, in a similar public setting. The British prime minister played Trump like a violin. He nodded earnestly, smiled and delivered the coup de grace by whipping out of his pocket King Charles’s letter inviting Trump to visit the UK and underscoring how important a gesture it was. Trump, momentarily taken aback, beamed with pride and gushed over the UK and its monarch.

Was Starmer genuflecting? Yes. Was it a bit queasy to watch him? Yes. Did his approach work? Absolutely. It was a masterly lesson in Trump-handling. It’s too late for Zelenskyy to try the Starmer method. He and Trump didn’t hold a press conference; a state dinner was scarcely possible after the Oval Office fiasco; the US-Ukraine mineral deal is likely dead – and Zelenskyy left.

Where does Ukraine go from here?. The video of what happened between Trump and Zelenskyy will course through the news cycle for a few days and make for dinnertime discussions – or quarrels – but it won’t elicit attention for long. Yet for Zelenskyy, there’s no coming back from this debacle. Trump holds grudges, doesn’t forget slights and never forgives.

Leave aside the mineral deal; Trump has slammed Nato’s door shut in Ukraine’s face. Kyiv had best abandon all hopes of ensuring its postwar security through a place in the Atlantic alliance, especially given that other members, such as Hungary and Slovakia, are already determined to lock it out.

There’s more bad news for Ukraine. It might have hoped that a mineral accord worked out with the Trump administration could pave the way for American arms sales paid for by Ukraine with its mineral revenues. That is now all but impossible. So how can a Ukraine that’s been shut out of Nato and won’t get any sort of American security guarantee, or even US arms, ensure its postwar security? It must look to Europe.

Zelenskyy’s idea of a 200,000-strong “army of Europe” peacekeeping force won’t work. Europe can’t field a ready-for-battle army anywhere near that size. It’s not just a matter of insufficient troops. Having relied comfortably on American protection for over a generation, Europe had the luxury of neglecting its defenses. Consequently, it lacks the firepower (aircraft, armored personnel carriers, tanks and artillery) and logistical capabilities to field a force that can defend Ukraine if Russia attacks again.

Yet Europe can help Ukraine build a well-trained army with top-flight weaponry – one that Russia will find an even tougher opponent than it does now. To be sure, the Russian army is scarcely facing defeat in Ukraine; nor are its economic problems so severe that it can’t fight for much longer. Yet the performance of Vladimir Putin’s forces in Ukraine has been far from stellar. Russia has just entered year four of a war with a far weaker country – one that just about every military expert thought would be overrun in weeks, even days.

Europe, with its world-class defense industries and resources for training troops, can help build Ukraine’s future army so that Russia must reckon with a far more powerful adversary than the one it has fought since 2022. The purpose of that army wouldn’t be to defeat Russia’s but rather to deter it by raising the cost, in blood and treasure, that it would have to pay to prevail.

Trump can abandon Ukraine without endangering American security. Europe can’t and therefore has a stake in Ukraine’s security. Both Ukraine and Europe now have a Trump problem. They should turn it into an opportunity for defense cooperation. Rajan Menon is Spitzer professor emeritus at City College of New York and a senior research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.