by Gennady Shkliarevsky
Tempers are still flying in the aftermath of the storm that broke up last Friday. Articles and online messages are flooding the media on both sides of the ocean. The message that most of them convey is that President Zelensky and President Trump must find the way to mend their fences and move forward.
The eruption in the Oval Office last week sent European leaders scrambling for solutions.
The rush to formulate their own peace plan for Ukraine offers very limited time for careful consideration and planning that are necessary to come up with a workable solution. The result is ad hoc improvisations to prevent further damage.
The emerging plan discussed by the European leaders is vague and contradictory.
It relies on contingencies and conjectures, rather than on solid predictions. Many details are still missing, and major lacunas are yet to be filled. What has emerged so far does not augur well for the plan’s prospects. Uncertainties do not constitute a good foundation for a durable peace.
The plan calls for a truce between Russia and Ukraine as the first step toward concluding peace. This call is a non-starter. The Russian government has repeatedly indicated that it would not entertain a temporary solution that would simply provide a breathing spell for the exhausted Ukrainian armed forces. The planners offer no indication of how they will overcome Russia’s resistance.
The plan also calls for a deployment of NATO peacekeepers—the proverbial boots on the ground. However, it does not specify how many troops will be involved and for how long, which makes one wonder whether this force will be sufficient to perform its difficult mission. To provide security guarantees for Ukraine, the European leaders propose to create a Coalition of the Willing. This reliance on voluntarism does not inspire much confidence in the success of the enterprise.
The plan ultimately pivots on bringing the U.S. on board. The planners clearly spell out this condition. Prime Minister Starmer has stated: “We cannot accept a weak deal . . . Instead, any deal must be backed by strength.” And “strength” in this context means American backing and commitment, including possible involvement of American troops—a possibility that the American government, both under Biden and Trump, has already rejected on numerous occasions. The plan appears to be little more than a ruse to involve American armed forces—if not by hook, then by crook—into the war in Ukraine.
Obviously, the plan is still very much a work in progress that may never be completed. Some creases can be ironed out, but there are fundamental differences that cannot be resolved easily, if at all. Zelensky, for example, denies that there are substantive differences between the government of Ukraine and the U.S. government. However, when it comes to proof, he offers little more than platitudes and sloganeering.
There is obviously an underlying problem that has caused the Oval Office debacle. Solving a problem requires understanding its source. One would think in the wake of the disaster, Ukrainian leaders and their supporters would try to identify and analyze this source. However, there is no indication that they have undertaken such efforts. Most commentators agree that the problem is fortuitous and can be fixed. In the interview with Fox News after his visit to the White House, Zelensky stressed that American people “helped save our people… we wanted very much to have all these strong relations, and where it counted, we will have it.” However, despite his expressions of gratitude to the American side, Zelenskyy refused to accept the responsibility for the blow-up. As Fox reported, he “was not sure we did anything bad.”
The agreement on rare earth minerals was in the center of the storm that broke out in the Oval Office. Supporters of Ukraine recommend that the two sides should go back and sign this agreement. (Just for the record, Democratic lawmakers advised Zelensky not to sign the agreement.) Zelensky has expressed his willingness to complete the deal. He has even stressed the urgency of this move after the American government announced the suspension of shipments of lethal weapons to Ukraine. There are no indications that anyone who now advocates speedy reconciliation, including Zelensky, really understands the problem that caused the rift.
The subject of the agreement came up in the interview that Zelensky gave to Fox News after his departure from the White House. In this interview, Zelensky explained that he viewed the agreement as the first step toward security guarantees that were essential for a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine. Bret Baier immediately pointed out to Zelensky that there was nothing in the agreement about security guarantees. Zelensky conceded the point but kept on insisting that his view logically followed from the agreement and that was how the agreement must be understood.
This brief, almost passing exchange during the interview has not attracted attention that it really deserves. Yet, this exchange points to a significant and even fundamental difference. It shows that Zelensky brings into the agreement something that is not explicitly in the text. He brings in his own interpretation, and a very imaginative one at that, and presents it as a fact. There is nothing in the agreement that warrants such interpretation. Yet Zelensky has nevertheless brought it in his discussions with President Trump without any prior consultations. In a way, he ambushed President Trump, and he did so intentionally and against explicit advice not to do so. According to the NYTimes, Senator Lindsay Graham, a long-time supporter of Ukraine, told Zelensky before the meeting: “Don’t take the bait . . . don’t get into arguments about security agreements.”
Zelensky ignored this advice. He came to the meeting with one expressed desire to sway President Trump to his own view. Instead of focusing on the details of the agreement, Zelensky brought pictures of Ukrainian POW who were supposedly abused by Russians. He wanted President Trump to be on his side. President Trump has repeatedly stated that in any future negotiations he wants to position himself in the middle, between Russia and Ukraine. Zelensky’s move to sway President Trump to his side, to change his position, was impolite, offensive, and very disrespectful.
The first thing that comes to mind when listening to Zelensky is that he was trying to pull a fast one on President Trump. However, there is another possible interpretation. Zelensky
Seems to be completely lacking a human sense of respect for the position of another person, in this case President Trump. He also seems to be totally oblivious to the difference between what he wants and believes, on one hand, and reality, on the other. In the episode that took place in the Oval Office, Zelensky refused to accept the view of another person as legitimate and worthy of serious consideration. Such wishful and egocentric thinking is a characteristic feature for Zelensky and his war party. Such wishful thinking and egocentrism do not bode well for future dealings with Zelensky. They make him a very unreliable partner. There are important questions that need to be answered: Does Zelensky have knowledge and experience? Can he act in good faith? Unfortunately, Zelensky offers no answers.
The stakes involved are extremely high. They are about lives of hundreds of thousands of people. They are about the stable world order. Finally, last but not least, they are about the reputation of President Trump who wants this peace to be an important part of his legacy.
President Truman once perceptively remarked: “The business of America is business.” Business is what made America. Business is about deals; and there is no part of a deal more important than contracts and agreements.
Contracts are integral to American life. Ordinary Americans sign many contracts during their lifetime. Few have patience to go through a long laundry list of points included in contracts, particularly those in small print. That is why Americans have an army of lawyers who are paid to do this job, and particularly read the fine print. Lawyers know well that if they do not do their job properly, the contract they fail will be the last one they will ever read.
There is no reason why Zelensky should know all this. After all, agreements are for professionals. But there is absolutely no reason why Zelensky should not have someone in his entourage who understands the importance of contracts for Americans and for their President. Contracts are binding. They sanctify good faith of the contracting parties. They show respect for those who sign contracts. This last point is particularly important for Americans who respect each other’s autonomy—the right to have one’s own view. The fact that there is no one in Zelensky’s camp who can understand and respect Americans and their President is deeply disturbing.
There is something even more alarming that has transpired since the incident in the Oval Office. There are enough signs that Zelensky has not learned anything from his experience last Friday. After several days of hesitations Zelensky has finally apologized–sort of. According to Newsmax report, he has acknowledged that the meeting in Washington “did not go the way it was supposed to be.” “It is regrettable,” he added, “that it happened this way . . . It is time to make things right . . . We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.” has acknowledged that the meeting in Washington “did not go the way it was supposed to be.” Yet, these regrets do not amount to apology and the acceptance of responsibility.
His statements and comments that he has made since his meeting with President Trump show that he really has not seriously thought about the incident and has learned nothing. His “conciliatory” statement, for example, includes the following conclusion: “Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format statement concluded . . . We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively” (emphasis added).
The statement expresses hope that President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will restore the paused minerals deal that was pulled off the table after Friday’s meeting. He gives no indication that he understands the problem, that it is precisely the way he interprets the agreement that has cause the rift. As one reads through Zelensky’s ambiguous statement and online comments, one wonders whether he is sending this message intentionally or is simply stupid—and one is not sure which is worse.
In his interview with Fox, Zelensky said: “I just want to be honest, and I just want our partners to understand the situation correctly, and I want to understand everything correctly. That’s about us not to lose our friendship.” He does not seem to realize that by putting his own interpretation into the agreement he is anything but honest and open. His statements and comment after the meeting are just as ambivalent and ambiguous as what he said at the meeting. This inability to learn does not inspire confidence.
In all fairness, however, President Trump did use the word “security” with respect to the agreement. However, he used it in the context and in the sense of security in exchange for American assistance in rebuilding Ukraine, not in the sense of committing of American forces in guaranteeing security for Ukraine. No doubt, security guarantees are important, and they must be discussed. But this discussion is separate from the agreement on rare earth minerals. Security guarantees are not in the text of the agreement and are not relevant to it. The agreement is essentially a business deal between the United States of America and Ukraine.
Indeed, interpretations are a legitimate part in diplomatic discussions. But they have no place in diplomatic documents. Agreements should be clear and unambiguous. The two sides may not see eye-to-eye. They may differ in interpretations. However, there should be no leeway in interpreting the agreement once it is agreed upon and signed. Agreement is a contract; and contract should be concluded in good faith to inspire respect and trust of all sides. To consider interpretations of an agreement, particularly as gratuitous as what Mr. Zelensky proffers, to be part of the agreement is a prescription for troubles ahead.
Anyone who deals with the United States must understand these rules. Russians understand these rules. They have dealt successful for decades with the American government and have concluded numerous agreements that held. President Nixon, who was a lawyer and a sharp diplomat, knew this about Russians. He had no illusions about Russia. He knew very well that Russia is an opponent and a dangerous one. He warned on numerous occasions that Russians would try very hard to find a loophole and use it to their advantage. But once they agreed to a deal, they would keep their end of the bargain and would follow an agreement to a letter. Nixon successfully led American foreign policy to detent with Russia that gave the world almost a decade of peace. All SALT agreements held until their term expired in 1985.
All sides that are in one way or another involved in the Ukrainian situation and the entire world regret the debacle in the Oval Office. No one regrets it more than President Trump. He has been sincerely moved by the number of casualties and the amount of destruction caused by this war. He wants this peace to be part of his legacy. However, he also understands that agreements and compliance with agreements are important. They can translate desires for peace into reality. Zelensky and European leaders must understand this about President Trump: if they want to deal with this President and be successful, they must act in good faith.
~~~
Gennady Shkliarevsky is Professor Emeritus of history at Bard College.
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
