How Zelenskyy could have avoided the Oval Office fiasco – Firstpost

The 49.47 minutes long video of the summit meeting of US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28 at the White House will be closely studied by political leaders, diplomats and students of International Relations from many angles. It offers insights into basic principles that underlie interstate relations as well as the conduct of diplomacy. In both areas it profiles one fundamental lesson each. In the realm of foreign policy, it shows that countries extend assistance to another state because it is in their self-interest to do so. And, in the area of diplomacy, it shows the importance of language during the discussions and conversations of leaders behind closed doors but more so in the glare of the media. The fiasco of the meeting was because both these factors were ignored. The first—on gratitude—by Trump and Vice-President JD Vance and the latter—on the use of language—by Zelenskyy.

The conversation became increasingly contentious but Trump maintained his cool. This was despite Zelenskyy using very strong language against Russian President Vladimir Putin, though Trump repeatedly said that he had good relations with the Russian leader. This was also despite Zelenskyy emphasising Ukraine’s need for security guarantees though Trump kept downplaying their significance because, he stressed, Putin would not renege on any agreement which was done under his watch.

Around 39 minutes into the meeting a journalist, presumably from Poland, or of Polish origin, implied in his question to Trump that during the Cold War the Polish people considered the US ‘a force for the good’ but many now felt that he was too aligned to Putin. Trump denied that and said that his focus was on achieving a deal between the two countries and to get a deal he could not be negative to Putin. At this stage, when Trump said “last question please” Vance asked for the floor.

Vance said inter alia, “The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the President of the United States’ words mattered more than the President of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.”

At this stage Zelenskyy launched into a tirade against Putin emphasising that diplomacy had not worked with Putin in the past, including during Trump’s first term. That was a direct contradiction of what Trump had stressed all through the meeting; that while Putin could and had treated his predecessors with disdain he could not do so with him.

It is now that Vance had to show his loyalty. He addressed Zelenskyy thus: “Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”

As his exchange with Zelenskyy continued, Vance said: “And do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?” He went on to add these crucial words, after Trump had jumped into berating Zelenskyy, as he himself was doing, “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.” Vance also said as the Trump-Zelenskyy exchange descended into a brawl: “Just say thank you”.

Trump concluded the meeting with these words “But you’re either going to make a deal, or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position. But you’re not acting at all thankful, and that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest, that’s not a nice thing”. Zelenskyy did say after his exchange with Vance that he was grateful for US assistance.

In all the commentary that has flooded global media the one fact that has not received the attention it deserves is that Zelenskyy was visiting the White House after the Trump administration and Ukraine had agreed to cooperate on Ukraine’s rare earth extraction by the US. Indeed, Trump with evident pride indicated that this would be beneficial for US taxpayers but also because it would be one way of addressing the Biden’s administration’s folly in not getting anything back for US assistance to Ukraine. He noted that unlike the US, European countries had given loans to Ukraine.

Trump emphasised that rare earths were of vital importance to the US hi-tech industry. Clearly, if Trump was extracting a price for US assistance then why did other US leaders and he himself expect Zelenskyy to be thankful for US assistance? Trump proudly proclaimed that he was a businessperson who did deals. Hence, if Trump had made US assistance conditional to a minerals deal it had become part of a commercial transaction. And, do people doing business need to show gratitude?

There is a more fundamental question. All countries that help others do not do so for altruistic reasons but to pursue their interests. Yes, the language of friendship and gratitude is used in diplomacy but no one is taken in by it. That is why when the situation changes all the help that has been rendered till then is soonest forgotten by the receiving state or group. As an illustration, Pakistan’s current ties with the Afghan Taliban is most instructive. But for Pakistan’s help which was given for over two decades the Afghan Taliban could not have sustained themselves. However, within months of coming to power in Kabul on August 15, 2021 relations between the two began to sour over the Tehreek-e-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP). Now ties between them have virtually broken down.

There is one other point directly relevant to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Zelenskyy indicated that Ukraine while fighting Russia was contributing to European security and defending Europe. He went on to say that if Putin was not stopped he would go on to attack Poland and the Baltic States. Then, US soldiers would have to go to fight the Russians. Thus, he was articulating what is obviously a deeply held belief in Ukraine: that Europe and the US are helping Ukraine to contain Russia. They are spending money while Ukraine lives are being lost in the Russian aggression.

Gratitude may be an attribute of individual behaviour—there too it is seldom so. But it has no place in interstate relations.

Now to the significance of leaders and diplomats speaking in a language in which they are completely comfortable and understand all its nuances. Clearly, Zelenskyy has a knowledge of the English language but it is simply not adequate for conducting a conversation at the summit level. He should have relied on an interpreter who could have explained the exact meaning of the idioms used by Trump. For instance, an interpreter would have properly phrased Zelenskyy’s response when Trump told him that he did not hold any cards. Zelenskyy said that he was not playing cards! Trump was really telling him that he did not have options. Hence, Zelenskyy’s response came through as boorish.

An inadequate knowledge of a language shows up most when an individual comes under pressure. Thus, as the heat of his conversation with Vance and Trump went up Zelenskyy’s articulation became jerky. That was the time when he had to be at his smoothest. Clearly, all that he wanted to point out to the US leadership and the US public, since the meeting was before the media, was that diplomacy had not worked with Putin in the past for he had broken agreement after agreement. Hence, the need for US security guarantees in addition to that of Europe; and, the presence of US miners consequent to the US-Ukraine Minerals Agreement may not be sufficient to deter Putin. An interpreter would have phased his comments in acceptable terms and not in the combative manner that Zelenskyy held forth. That would not have given any opening to Vance to lunge into Zelenskyy.

In respect of the use of language in his interactions with foreign leaders Zelenskyy should take a leaf out of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s book. Modi’s knowledge of English makes the cut but he always uses an interpreter in his diplomatic and political interaction with foreign leaders because he is more comfortable in Hindi and is able to nuance his responses with foreign leaders. This is especially so when he is interacting with them in front of the media. This is the right approach.

The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.