How Trump leverages the conflict with Zelensky for his own benefit: An interview with American expert Alexander Kraev.

The public spat between Trump and Zelensky has sparked considerable debate. Some believe that the confrontation was premeditated, with Donald Trump and his Vice President JD Vance deliberately pressuring the Ukrainian president, turning the Oval Office negotiations into a diplomatic spectacle.

To what extent is such a scenario plausible, what could have saved Zelensky in the Oval Office, will Europe assert its geopolitical independence and increase support for Ukraine, and will the US halt its assistance — read in the interview with Alexander Kraev, an Americanist and expert at the Foreign Policy Council "Ukrainian Prism," conducted by hromadske.

Could the scandal in the Oval Office have been a planned provocation by the Trump administration to find a reason to withdraw military support from Ukraine?

In my opinion, the public dispute between Trump and Zelensky was pre-planned. Trump and Vance knew exactly what they were doing. Everything was orchestrated to perfection. I believe this scandal benefited Trump significantly.

Why was Trump pressing Zelensky? A day before the Ukrainian president's visit to Washington, the American outlet Politico and many others reported that the new mineral agreement was far more advantageous for Ukraine than for the United States. Donald Trump understands this too and cannot sign such an agreement. It undermines his image as a strong and successful businessman.

Trump begins to pressure Zelensky. If Zelensky gives in, they sign the agreement on different terms. In this way, Trump reinforces his reputation as a strong politician defending US national interests. If Zelensky does not yield — which ultimately happened — Trump positions himself as a peacemaker, striving to unite all parties, despite the fact that the Ukrainian president allegedly refuses to compromise.

At the same time, the Russians see that American negotiations with the Ukrainians have failed and attempt to establish contacts with Trump. They promise to sell their rare earth resources to America at better prices and terms than Ukraine. Therefore, Trump wins here as well.

Ultimately, after the conflict between Trump and Zelensky, Europeans are more willing to provide Ukraine with more weapons. This is precisely what Trump wanted — to shift the burden of assistance to Ukraine onto Europe. The quarrel with Zelensky may yield the very results Trump anticipated.

Did Zelensky behave appropriately in this situation?

This is a complex question. Many say Zelensky should have been more restrained, but we know who Trump is and how he negotiates. Trump's principle is "attack, attack, and attack again." Trump respects those who stand their ground.

Recall the first draft of the neocolonial-style mineral agreement brought to Kyiv by the US Treasury Secretary. The Americans wanted to receive 100% of the revenues, while Ukrainians were to bear the responsibility for it. Kyiv refused to sign this document. Trump saw that we demonstrated strength. As a result, the agreement was revised. I have doubts that Trump would have continued to cooperate with us if we had yielded back then.

I don’t know if it was wise for Zelensky to engage in a dispute with Trump and Vance before the cameras. It seems to me he was not prepared for such a turn of events. As insiders reveal, preliminary negotiations between Zelensky and Trump behind closed doors had taken place in a rather positive tone. They agreed to sit down together and have a proper conversation — to sign the mineral agreement and move forward.

I think that in the Oval Office, Zelensky could have been saved by the presence of a translator. It is clear that he speaks English, but a translator during such meetings is not always about language proficiency. A translator provides a pause. As speakers say, before saying something important, one should inhale twice and exhale twice to calm down.

The issue is not about being submissive. I think Trump needed to be allowed to express himself first, and then Zelensky could have voiced his opinion, defending his position. A translator would have given Zelensky those 20-30 seconds before responding. Perhaps that would have helped. However, this is just speculation.

Trump greeted Zelensky with the words: "He dressed up today," obviously hinting that the Ukrainian leader arrived at the White House again without a suit and tie. What does such a humiliating tone indicate?

Trump behaves this way with all politicians. His meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron were telling. After their first meeting in Paris, they almost had a falling out. And when they met for the second time in the White House, Trump pointed out on camera that Macron had dandruff on his jacket.

Trump cannot behave differently. That is his style. At 78, it is too late to change. Not all politicians conduct themselves with restraint. For instance, Boris Johnson once commented that Muslim women look like letterboxes.

Clearly, Zelensky did not pay attention to Trump's joke and failed to grasp the tone of the ensuing conversation because he overestimated Trump's attitude towards him. He might have thought that everything was going well for him, that he had established contact with Trump, and that they would sign the mineral agreement and cooperate.

I believe Zelensky overestimated the level of his relationship with Trump and tried to behave as if he were coming to talk with a highly valued partner. However, the reality turned out to be quite different.

During their last meeting in New York in September last year, Trump referred to Zelensky as "Iron Man," and the Ukrainians as "brave warriors." Despite all his anti-Ukrainian narratives, Trump's relationship with Zelensky did not seem hopeless.

A day before Zelensky's visit to Washington, the United States announced the extension of sanctions against Russia for another year. On the very day of his meeting with Zelensky, Trump stated that American weapons would continue to flow into Ukraine because it would help in negotiations with Russia. The preparations for Zelensky's meeting with Trump indeed looked positive. I think all this relaxed our president and led to such results.

Can Trump use the conflict with Zelensky to completely exclude him from the negotiation process regarding peace in Ukraine?

I think Trump might try to use this as a bargaining chip. He can extract better conditions in the mineral agreement and compel Europeans to invest more in Ukraine's defense. However, he certainly cannot sign a peace agreement with Russia without Zelensky. It is impossible to conclude or suspend a war of such magnitude without the involvement of one of the parties to this war — Ukraine.

What can Ukraine do to improve relations with the Trump administration?

Firstly, Ukraine needs to re-establish personal contacts between the President’s Office and the Trump administration. There are people there with whom there is much to discuss. Secondly, Kyiv should develop a common negotiation strategy with Europe.

Once Kyiv truly understands what Europe is prepared to do for our support, it can move forward in its contacts with Washington. It is easier for Trump to ignore the voices of thirty states than to ignore the voice of a united Europe. A meeting of European leaders in London could be the first decisive step in developing a common security strategy for the European continent. This will help us in future negotiations with the USA.

Will Europe be able to consolidate around Ukraine and strengthen support for Kyiv?

Europe simply has no other choice. I mean not so much the European Union as the so-called coalition of the willing, that is, a group of European states ready to do more. This includes most European countries, except for Slovakia and Hungary.

If Europe does not demonstrate its geopolitical sovereignty now, does not show the world that it is ready to defend its interests and is brave enough to protect its priorities, it will lose for decades to come. No one will take such a Europe seriously — neither China nor the USA.

If the USA wants to reduce its presence in Europe while China seeks to exert even more pressure on the West, Europe has no other way but to rely solely on its own strengths. Why not start doing this now? Why not support Ukraine and thus demonstrate its geopolitical weight? I believe that supporting Ukraine is a question that determines the future of Europe. Europeans have been talking about this for the past two years. In reality, they have already done a lot for us.

This is not about whether Europe wants to support Ukraine or not. If Europe does not demonstrate its leadership now, we can forget about it as a significant geopolitical player.

After Zelensky's meeting with Trump, is there a chance that the USA will stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?

The United States is already threatening this. And they will continue to threaten this. I do not rule out that the Trump administration might suspend arms supplies temporarily or impose some restrictions. However, in my view, a complete halt to arms supplies to Ukraine would mean that Trump failed the peace negotiations.

If Ukraine speaks from a position of weakness, Russia wins the war. If Russia wins the war, Trump loses and misses the chance for peace negotiations. In that case, in the eyes of China — a key American opponent — Trump will appear weak. He is certainly not interested in that.