Trump’s Oval Office thrashing of Zelensky shows limits of Western allies’ ability to sway US leader

Trump’s Oval Office thrashing of Zelensky shows limits of Western allies’ ability to sway US leader
President Donald Trump, center right, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at the White House in Washington on Feb. 28, 2025. (AP Photo)
Short Url
Updated 02 March 2025
Follow

Trump’s Oval Office thrashing of Zelensky shows limits of Western allies’ ability to sway US leader

Trump’s Oval Office thrashing of Zelensky shows limits of Western allies’ ability to sway US leader
  • White House blowout capped a week of largely futile efforts by US allies to steer Trump away from his flirtations with Moscow
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had warned Zelensky before the meeting “not to take the bait” in his dealings with Trump

WASHINGTON: All it took was 90 seconds for weeks of tortured diplomacy to unwind in spectacular fashion.
President Donald Trump’s Oval Office thrashing of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday laid bare the limits of a full-court press by America’s allies aimed at reshaping Trump’s determination to end Russia’s invasion even if the terms are not to Ukraine’s liking.
It also stressed the profound ways Trump feels emboldened to redirect US foreign policy priorities toward his “America First” agenda in ways that extend well beyond those of his tumultuous first term.
The sudden blowup was the most heated public exchange of words between world leaders in the Oval Office in memory, as the usual staid work of diplomacy descended into finger-pointing, shouting and eye-rolling.
The encounter left the future of the US-Ukraine relationship, and Kyiv’s ability to defend itself in the brutal conflict with Russia, in mortal jeopardy.
“You either make a deal or we are out,” Trump told Zelensky, underscoring the American leader’s plans to dictate a swift end to the war or leave its longtime ally to continue the fight without its strongest backer.
Less than a day later, Zelensky used a series of posts on X to express his thanks to the American people, Trump and Congress for “all the support,” which he said Ukrainians “have always appreciated,” especially during the war.
“Our relationship with the American President is more than just two leaders; it’s a historic and solid bond between our peoples. That’s why I always begin with words of gratitude from our nation to the American nation,” he added. Ukrainians want “only strong relations with America, and I really hope we will have them,” he said.
Zelensky was in London to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer before a summit Sunday of European leaders.
Episode capped intense lobbying effort by American allies
The stunning episode in Washington had capped a week of what turned out to be largely futile efforts by US allies to paper over differences between Washington and Kyiv and to try to steer Trump away from his flirtations with Moscow.
On Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron huddled with Trump to lay the groundwork for an eventual European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine aimed at deterring future Russian aggression and to encourage the US president to be more skeptical of Vladimir Putin.
But even as Trump and Macron greeted each other with a vise-like grip, the US was splitting with its European allies at the United Nations by refusing to blame Russia for its invasion of Ukraine in a series of resolutions marking the third anniversary of the war.
On Thursday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Washington and appealed to Trump for a US “backstop” for European nations who would provide front-line security for Ukraine. He was in essence looking for insurance that, should a peace deal be reached, Russia won’t restart the fighting in the future. Starmer brought flattery and a state visit invitation from King Charles III to soften the ask.
The approach seemed to work, as Trump struck a more conciliatory tone toward Ukraine, calling America’s support for the country against Russia’s invasion “a very worthy thing to do” and disclaiming any memory that he had called the Ukrainian leader a “dictator.”
But Trump also brushed aside Putin’s past broken diplomatic promises, claiming they occurred under different presidents, and saying the Russian leader had never violated a commitment to him. It came as his aides were planning a series of negotiating sessions with Russian officials to lay the groundwork for a potential meeting between Trump and Putin in the coming weeks.
Mineral deal pursued by Trump goes by the wayside, for now
All the while, Trump was focused on securing a financial stake in Ukraine’s critical minerals to recoup the tens of billions the US has given to Kyiv to defend itself. Zelensky, meanwhile, wanted more than Washington’s vague promises that the US would work to preserve its economic interest in Ukraine under the agreement and pushed for more concrete security guarantees.
But Trump would not budge, and US officials repeatedly said Zelensky would not be welcome to meet with the president to discuss Trump’s push for negotiations with Russia until it was signed. After weeks of browbeating, Zelensky’s government on Wednesday formally agreed to the proposal, clearing the path for Friday’s meeting.
It started off cordially enough, as Trump and Zelensky spoke politely, even with admiration, of one of another for the first half-hour of the meeting. Trump even suggested he would continue some military assistance to Ukraine until he could secure an enduring peace deal with Russia.
But when the Ukrainian leader raised alarm about trusting any promises from Putin to end the fighting, Vice President JD Vance rebuked him for airing disagreements with Trump in public. It instantly shifted the tenor of the conversation. Zelensky grew defensive, and Trump and his vice president blasted him as ungrateful and “disrespectful” and issued stark warnings about future American support.
A warning before the meeting ‘not to take the bait’
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a defense hawk and Trump ally, said he had warned Zelensky before the meeting “not to take the bait” in his dealings with Trump, who has repeatedly shown a penchant for throwing criticism but a deep resistance to receiving it.
It was Vance — a longtime critic of American support for Ukraine — who dangled it, when he insisted diplomacy was the only way forward.
“What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?” Zelensky said, listing Russia’s past violations of ceasefires. “What do you mean?”
“I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country,” Vance responded before tearing into the Ukrainian leader. “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”
Trump then let loose, warning the Ukrainian leader, “You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have.”
At another point, Trump declared himself “in the middle,” seeming to formally break from years of American support for Ukraine. He went on to deride Zelensky’s “hatred” for Putin as a roadblock to peace.
“You see the hatred he’s got for Putin,” Trump said. “That’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate.”
“It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this,” Trump said to Zelensky as the two leaders talked over each other.
Latest example of major shift in US foreign policy
The episode was just the latest instance of Trump’s brazen moves to shift long-held American policy positions in his first six weeks back in office, portending even more uncertainty ahead for longtime American allies and partners who have already felt pressed to justify their place in Trump’s eyes. It comes just weeks after Trump floated a permanent relocation of Palestinians in Gaza and an American takeover of the territory, and as he has doubled down on plans to put stiff tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada starting next week.
After the Oval Office dustup, Zelensky was asked to leave the White House by top Trump advisers — scrapping plans for a lunch, a joint press conference and the signing of the economic agreement, even as the Ukrainian leader and his aides pushed for a “reset” on the meeting.
Trump later told reporters he didn’t want to “embolden” the Ukrainian leader if he didn’t want “peace” with Russia — flipping what Ukraine had seen as an inducement for security guarantees into a cudgel.
“You can’t embolden somebody who does not have the cards,” Trump said.
After the disastrous encounter, Zelensky appeared on Fox News on Friday evening and told Bret Baier that his public spat with Trump and Vance was “not good for both sides.” But Zelensky said Trump — who insists Putin is ready to end the three-year grinding war — needs to understand that Ukraine can’t change its attitudes toward Russia on a dime.
Zelensky added that Ukraine won’t enter peace talks with Russia until it has security guarantees against another offensive.
“Everybody (is) afraid Putin will come back tomorrow,” Zelensky said. “We want just and lasting peace.”
“It’s so sensitive for our people,” Zelensky said. “And they just want to hear that America (is) on our side, that America will stay with us. Not with Russia, with us. That’s it.”
Zelensky acknowledged that without US support, his country’s position would grow “difficult.”
After repeatedly declining opportunities to apologize to Trump, Zelensky closed his Fox appearance with a sheepish expression of remorse as he struggled with the reality of Trump’s new direction in Washington: “Sorry for this.”


Top defense officials say Ukraine war has blurred lines, exposing global threats

Updated 9 sec ago
Follow

Top defense officials say Ukraine war has blurred lines, exposing global threats

Top defense officials say Ukraine war has blurred lines, exposing global threats
SINGAPORE: China and North Korea’s support for Russia in its war against Ukraine has exposed how lines between regions have blurred, and the need for a global approach toward defense, top security officials said Sunday.
North Korea has sent troops to fight on the front lines in Ukraine, while China has supported Russia economically and technologically while opposing international sanctions.
Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė told delegates at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premiere defense forum, that if Ukraine were to fall, it would have a ripple effect in Asia and suggested it could embolden China in its territorial claims on Taiwan and virtually the entire South China Sea.
“If Russia prevails in Ukraine, it’s not about Europe. It’s not about one region,” she said. “It will send a very clear signal also to smaller states here in Indo-Pacific that anyone can ignore their borders, that any fabricated excuse can justify invasion.”
The comments echoed those from French President Emmanuel Macron as he opened the conference on Friday advocating for greater European engagement in the Indo-Pacific.
On Saturday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested European countries should focus their defense efforts in their own region and leave the Indo-Pacific more to the US, but Šakalienė said the regions were clearly intertwined.
“It’s not a secret that when we talk about the main perpetrators in cybersecurity against Japan it’s China, Russia and North Korea,” she said.
“When we talk about main cybersecurity perpetrators against Lithuania it’s Russia, China and Belarus — two out of the three are absolutely the same.”
She added that “the convergence of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea into an increasingly coordinated authoritarian axis,” demands a unified response. Iran has been a key supplier of attack drones to Russia for its war effort.
“In this context, the United States’ strategic focus on Indo-Pacific is both justified and necessary, but this is not America’s responsibility alone,” she said.
Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told reporters on the sidelines that his main takeaway from the three-day conference, hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, was the “real intent in the way in which European countries have engaged” in the debates.
“It reflects the sense of connection, interconnectedness ... between Indo-Pacific on the one hand and the North Atlantic on the other,” he said.
China sent a lower-level delegation from its National Defense University this year to the conference, but its Foreign Ministry on Sunday responded to comments from Hegseth that Beijing was destabilizing the region and preparing to possibly seize Taiwan by force.
“No country in the world deserves to be called a hegemonic power other than the US itself, who is also the primary factor undermining the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific,” it said, while reiterating its stance that the Taiwan issue was an internal Chinese matter.
“The US must neve play with fire on this question,” the ministry said.
Philippines Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr, whose country has been involved in increasingly violent clashes with China over competing claims in the South China Sea, scoffed at the idea that the US was the problem.
“What the Chinese government considers fair and just may stand in stark contrast to the norms and values accepted by the rest of the world, especially the smaller countries,” he said.
“To envision a China-led international order, we only need to look at how they treat their much smaller neighbors in the South China Sea.”
He also underscored the international implications of the tensions in the Indo-Pacific, noting that the South China Sea was one of several maritime routes that are “arteries of the global economy.”
“Disruption in any of these maritime corridors triggers ripple effects across continents, impacting trade flows, military deployments, and diplomatic posture,” he said.

Mexico’s first judicial elections stir controversy and confusion among voters

Mexico’s first judicial elections stir controversy and confusion among voters
Updated 27 min 22 sec ago
Follow

Mexico’s first judicial elections stir controversy and confusion among voters

Mexico’s first judicial elections stir controversy and confusion among voters
  • Instead of judges being appointed on a system of merit and experience, Mexican voters will choose between some 7,700 candidates vying for more than 2,600 judicial positions

MEXICO CITY: Mexico is holding its first ever judicial elections on Sunday, stirring controversy and sowing confusion among voters still struggling to understand a process set to transform the country’s court system.
Mexico’s ruling party, Morena, overhauled the court system late last year, fueling protests and criticism that the reform is an attempt by those in power to seize on their political popularity to gain control of the branch of government until now out of their reach.
“It’s an effort to control the court system, which has been a sort of thorn in the side” of those in power, said Laurence Patin, director of the legal organization Juicio Justo in Mexico. “But it’s a counter-balance, which exists in every healthy democracy.”
Now, instead of judges being appointed on a system of merit and experience, Mexican voters will choose between some 7,700 candidates vying for more than 2,600 judicial positions.
Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum and party allies have said the elections are a way to purge the court system of corruption in a country that has long faced high levels of impunity. Critics say the vote could damage democracy and open the judicial system up further to organized crime and other corrupt actors hoping to get a grip on power.
That process has only grown more chaotic in the run-up to the vote.
Civil society organizations like Defensorxs have raised red flags about a range of candidates running for election, including lawyers who represented some of Mexico’s most feared cartel leaders and local officials who were forced to resign from their positions due to corruption scandals.
Also among those putting themselves forward are ex-convicts imprisoned for years for drug-trafficking to the United States and a slate of candidates with ties to a religious group whose spiritual leader is behind bars in California after pleading guilty to sexually abusing minors.
At the same time, voters have been plagued by confusion over a voting process that Patin warned has been hastily thrown together. Voters often have to choose from sometimes more than a hundred candidates who are not permitted to clearly voice their party affiliation or carry out widespread campaigning.
As a result, many Mexicans say they’re going into the vote blind. Mexico’s electoral authority has investigated voter guides being handed out across the country, in what critics say is a blatant move by political parties to stack the vote in their favor.
“Political parties weren’t just going to sit with their arms crossed,” Patin said.
Miguel Garcia, a 78-year-old former construction worker, stood in front of the country’s Supreme Court on Friday peering at a set of posters, voter guides with the faces and numbers of candidates.
He was fiercely scribbling down their names on a small scrap of paper and said that he had traveled across Mexico City to try to inform himself ahead of the vote, but he couldn’t find any information other than outside the courthouse.
“In the neighborhood where I live, there’s no information for us,” he said. “I’m confused, because they’re telling us to go out and vote but we don’t know who to vote for.”


Bridge collapse causes train to derail in Russia’s Bryansk region, killing at least 7 people

Bridge collapse causes train to derail in Russia’s Bryansk region, killing at least 7 people
Updated 01 June 2025
Follow

Bridge collapse causes train to derail in Russia’s Bryansk region, killing at least 7 people

Bridge collapse causes train to derail in Russia’s Bryansk region, killing at least 7 people
  • Moscow Railways blamed the bridge collapse on “illegal interference”
  • The bridge is in Russia’s Bryansk region, which borders Ukraine

MOSCOW: A passenger train derailed in western Russia late Saturday after a bridge collapsed because of what local officials described as “illegal interference,” killing at least seven people and injuring 30.
The bridge in Russia’s Bryansk region, which borders Ukraine, was damaged “as a result of illegal interference in transport operations,” Moscow Railways said in a statement, without elaborating.
Russia’s federal road transportation agency, Rosavtodor, said the destroyed bridge passed above the railway tracks where the train was traveling.
Photos posted by government agencies from the scene appeared to show passenger cars from the train ripped apart and lying amid fallen concrete from the collapsed bridge. Other footage on social media appeared to be taken from inside other vehicles that narrowly avoided driving onto the bridge before it collapsed.
Bryansk regional Gov. Alexander Bogomaz said emergency services and government officials were working at the scene. He said seven people died and two children were among the 30 injured.
“Everything is being done to provide all necessary assistance to the victims,” he said. Russian officials have not said who is responsible for Saturday’s incident, but in the past some officials have accused pro-Ukrainian saboteurs of attacking Russia’s railway infrastructure. The details surrounding such incidents, however, are limited and cannot be independently verified.
Ukrainian media outlets reported in December 2023 that Kyiv’s top spy agency had successfully carried out two explosions on a railroad line in Siberia that serves as a key conduit for trade between Russia and China. Ukraine’s security services did not comment on the reports.
Russian Railways confirmed one of the explosions described by Ukrainian media, but did not say what had caused it. There was no comment from Russian authorities on a second explosion.


UK faces choice next week between health and other spending, IFS think tank warns

UK faces choice next week between health and other spending, IFS think tank warns
Updated 01 June 2025
Follow

UK faces choice next week between health and other spending, IFS think tank warns

UK faces choice next week between health and other spending, IFS think tank warns
  • The non-partisan IFS said this spending review could prove to be “one of the most significant domestic policy events” for the current Labour government

LONDON: British finance minister Rachel Reeves’ key decision in next week’s multi-year spending review will be how much to spend on health care versus other public services, the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said on Sunday.
Reeves is due to set out day-to-day spending limits for other government departments on June 11 which will run through to the end of March 2029 — almost until the end of the Labour government’s expected term in office.
Britain has held periodic government spending reviews since 1998, but this is the first since 2015 to cover multiple years, other than one in 2021 focused on the COVID pandemic.
The non-partisan IFS said this spending review could prove to be “one of the most significant domestic policy events” for the current Labour government.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement in February that defense spending would reach 2.5 percent of national income by 2027 had already used the room for further growth in public investment created in Reeves’ October budget, it said.
“Simultaneously prioritising additional investments in public services, net zero and growth-friendly areas ... will be impossible,” said Bee Boileau, a research economist at the IFS.
Non-investment public spending is intended to rise by 1.2 percent a year on top of inflation between 2026-27 and 2028-29, according to budget plans which Reeves set out in October — half the pace of spending growth in the current and previous financial year.
The IFS sees no scope for this to be topped up, as Reeves’ budget rules leave almost no room for extra borrowing and tax rises are now limited to her annual budget statement.
This forces Reeves and Starmer to choose between the demands of the public health care system — plagued by long waiting times and a slump in productivity since the COVID-19 pandemic — and other stretched areas.
In past spending reviews, annual health care spending has typically risen 2 percentage points faster than total spending.
If that happened this time — equivalent to an annual increase of 3.4 percent — spending in other departments would have to fall by 1 percent a year in real terms, the IFS forecast.
Raising health care spending at roughly the same pace as other areas — a 1.2 percent rise — would only just keep pace with an aging population and not allow any reversal of recent years’ deterioration in service quality, the IFS said.
Spending cuts could be achieved by scaling back services provided by the state, reducing public-sector employment or real-terms cuts in public-sector pay, it added.
But it warned the government needed to be specific about how it planned to make cuts, or risk financial markets losing confidence in its ability to keep borrowing under control.
The review does not cover spending on pensions or other benefits, which the government is tackling separately.


Britain plans at least six new weapons factories in defense review

Britain plans at least six new weapons factories in defense review
Updated 01 June 2025
Follow

Britain plans at least six new weapons factories in defense review

Britain plans at least six new weapons factories in defense review
  • The 1.5 billion-pound ($2.0 billion) investment will be included in the Strategic Defense Review, a 10-year plan for military equipment and services

MANCHESTER, England: Britain will build at least six new factories producing weapons and explosives as part of a major review of its defense capabilities, the government said on Saturday.
The 1.5 billion-pound ($2.0 billion) investment will be included in the Strategic Defense Review, a 10-year plan for military equipment and services. The SDR is expected to be published on Monday.
The Ministry of Defense added that it planned to procure up to 7,000 long-range weapons built in Britain. Together, the measures announced on Saturday will create around 1,800 jobs, the MoD said.
“The hard-fought lessons from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine show a military is only as strong as the industry that stands behind them,” Defense Secretary John Healey said in a statement.
“We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries and make the UK secure at home and strong abroad.”
The extra investment will mean Britain will spend around 6 billion pounds on munitions in the current parliament, the MoD said.
Earlier on Saturday, the MoD said it would spend an extra 1.5 billion pounds to tackle the poor state of housing for the country’s armed forces.