All smoke but no fire as Zelenskky emerges unbruised after Trump meet
'President Zelensky, you look fabulous in that suit,' said Brian Glenn, a pro-Trump pundit and member of the White House press corps, who had attacked him for wearing military fatigues during the infamous Oval Office meeting in February. 'I said the same thing,' Trump added.
'You are in the same suit,' Zelenskyy shot back, earning smiles and laughter from the room including the US president. 'I changed, you did not.'
Thus did Zelenskyy survive his first media appearance at the White House with Trump on Monday as the US president focused less on belittling the leader of a wartime ally than boasting – and in many cases exaggerating – his exploits as a peacemaker in world conflicts.
Zelenskyy, dressed reluctantly in a black military-style suit to appease sticklers for protocol in the White House, largely sat by quietly as Trump claimed to have hammered out peace deals in six wars including one the veteran real estate developer said had taken place in the 'Republic of the Condo'.
From Trump there was hyperbole about his ability to broker peace deals, digressions to internal US political battles over mail-in ballots, nebulous declarations about how he would end the conflict and evasions over how he would do that without negotiating a ceasefire.
But there were no explosions – which meant for Zelenskyy it probably went as well as it could have.
Luckily, Zelenskyy had some help, as he was joined by the UK's Keir Starmer and the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Finland and the European Union in order to keep the discussion on track and to prevent a similar meltdown as took place in February.
It was billed as a European summit at the White House on Monday, but it might as well have been an intervention.
The European leaders were all smiles as they arrived at the White House on Monday afternoon, but they were there to steer Trump away from being sweet-talked by Vladimir Putin into a bad deal on Ukraine and Europe.
Before Trump rolled out the red carpet (literally) for Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week, he said that he would know within two minutes of meeting the Kremlin leader whether it would be possible or not to negotiate with him.
But within two minutes of meeting Zelenskyy, Trump sent a message when he was asked early in a press conference whether Russia or Ukraine 'had the better cards'.
'I don't want to say that,' said Trump, who in February directly told Zelenskyy that he 'didn't have the cards to negotiate'.
Then, he went back and played the classics: 'Look, this isn't my war. This is Joe Biden's war.'
The Ukrainian leader's arrival at the White House on Monday had potentially threatened the kind of political fireworks – or some could say depth charges – that scuttled the Ukrainian leader's last visit to Washington in February.
Then Trump and vice-president JD Vance teamed up for a brutal takedown of Zelenskyy during which Trump told him that he was 'playing with world war III'.
But on Monday, Zelenskyy found a far more hospitable welcome from both Trump and Vance, and he kicked off the meeting with some high-level flattery, thanking Trump profusely for his efforts to end the conflict and praising Melania Trump for sending a letter to Putin about abducted Ukrainian children.
There was little detail about the peace deal that Trump wanted to hammer out, except for the fact that he wanted to skip past a ceasefire – too difficult to actually negotiate – and go straight for a peace deal.
And yet it appeared that all – or at least most – sides were keen to smooth over their differences in order to prevent Ukraine as being seen as the main obstruction to peace and of throwing the ball back to Putin.
The EU's most substantive pushback (in public at least) came as the leaders all sat around a table and Germany's Friedrich Merz and France's Emmanuel Macron both called for a ceasefire before talks over territory or a peace deal moved forward.
Trump didn't appear to take umbrage although he had ruled out a ceasefire earlier – and doubled down after Merz again called for a halt in the fighting.
But the most white-knuckle moment of the introductory remarks came as Zelenskyy began to delve into detail on Ukraine's priorities for ending the war, all good points that Trump appeared to have little interest in discussing in depth.
As the minutes ticked by, Macron's face grew dour. Trump tried to break in but Zelenskyy continued to speak.
Then suddenly, as though coming to, the Ukrainian leader straightened up in his seat and quickly wrapped up his remarks. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of Nato, quickly jumped in and, as soon as possible, said the main words that Trump wanted to hear: 'Thank you.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
New pics of Trump holding court in Oval Office branded ‘embarrassing' as world leaders sit around his desk: ‘Like schoolchildren'
New pictures showing Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office in front of major world leaders has been criticized as an "embarrassing" power play by the president, in what should have been a display of global unity. Some on social media noted that the set up, with Trump behind the Resolute Desk and his European counterparts on chairs opposite him, presented the president as hosting a bunch of 'unruly schoolchildren.' The president was joined for the photo-op by leaders including British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanual Macron, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb. Also in attendance were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Another photo showed a smiling Trump posing with a new golf club, gifted to him by Zelensky. However, the meeting of the circled leaders drew the ire of social media users, with some commenting that the staging and White House mantra of of 'peace through strength' was 'deeply disrespectful to U.S. history itself.' 'Permenant peace is never truly obtained through strength. It may hold for a while under pressure, but it won't last,' wrote one user. 'What a breathtakingly rude, narcissistic asshole,' another said. 'Instead of a conference table where everyone can meet equally, Chump lined them up like unruly school children in a row with himself as the authority figure. Chump can just f*** all the way off.' Others questioned how the leaders, who came to Washington D.C. as 'equals' had allowed such a belittling set up. 'Embarrassing,' wrote one user, with another going further, writing 'I cannot believe they let Trump seat them like a bunch of schoolchildren. 'Do none of these 'leaders' have any testosterone whatsoever or PR teams that can approve/reject seating arrangements. Most embarrassing thing I've ever seen for the EU.'
Sky News
20 minutes ago
- Sky News
What would US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine look like?
Promises of security guarantees for Ukraine have been lauded as "game-changing" and "historic" in the hope of bringing an end to the war with Russia. As all eyes moved from Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, the White House claimed Russia has agreed to the US providing 'NATO-style protection' when the fighting ends. Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days. What has been said so far? Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end. Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European 'coalition of the willing' and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing. The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement - until now. Two days after Mr Putin travelled to Alaska for talks with the Trump team, US special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Russia had agreed to Ukrainian security guarantees. He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US "could offer Article-5 like protection", which he described as "game-changing". Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all. This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had "discussed security guarantees", which would be "provided by the various European countries" - "with coordination with the United States of America". Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the "concrete content" of the security agreement would be "formalised on paper within the next 10 days". US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 5:57 What would security guarantees look like? Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings. Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to "frontload" the security agreement with soldiers. "They want to have boots on the ground", he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular. He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: "You have my assurance and I'm president." Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is "preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force" in the event of "hostilities ending". This was the original basis for the coalition - soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks. But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says. "This is all about credibility and I don't think boots on the ground is a credible answer," he tells Sky News. Stationing soldiers along Ukraine's 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total. The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says. Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression. "You're not even close to getting the numbers you need," Bell adds. "And even if you could, putting all of NATO's frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous - and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted." History of failed security agreements in Ukraine Current proposals for Ukrainian security guarantees are far from the first. In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside the UK, US, and Russia. The Ukrainians agreed to give up their Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of their sovereignty and a place on the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Twenty years later in 2014, however, Russia violated the terms with its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian in the Donbas region. Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were designed to bring an end to the Donbas war. Mediated by France and Germany, they promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, and local elections in the separatist-occupied Donbas, but were repeatedly violated and failed to result in lasting peace. 'Article 5-like protection' When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as "Article 5-like" or "NATO-style". Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all. It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 - by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022. NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative "Article 5-type" arrangement could be viable. The alliance's military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options. It is not clear how such a special security agreement and formal NATO membership would differ. Bell says that negotiations on this - and any surrendering of Ukrainian territory - will be the two most difficult in ending the war. But he stresses they are both key in providing the "flesh on the bones" to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far. "It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring," Bell adds. US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies. Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would "play to NATO's strengths" - as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia's, Bell says. Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a "massive strength" to any potential deterrence force, he adds. Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week. And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says. "At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability. "Because while there's a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years' time, there will be different governments and different priorities - so that has to endure."
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Poll: Trump hits lowest approval rating this year
Support for Donald Trump has tumbled as his term has progressed, with the latest poll showing his approval rating at its lowest point all year. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll of nearly 4,500 Americans found that the president is carrying a 40 percent approval rating. That level of support, the lowest of the president's second term, ties Trump's approval rating from the same pollsters just weeks ago in late July. Trump's disapproval rating ticked slightly down in the latest survey to 54 percent. The 79-year-old president's disapproval stood at 56 percent as of July 27. It is a seven-point drop in support for the president from the beginning of his term, when Trump had a 47 percent approval rating. At this point in his term, former President Joe Biden maintained a 50 percent approval rating, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken in August 2021. The slumping approval rating comes amid signs that the U.S. economy is weakening and high-stakes diplomatic negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to end their ongoing war continue. Over half of the respondents, 54 percent, including a quarter of Republicans, said they believe Trump is too closely aligned with Russia. Notably, Trump bled support among Hispanics as he oversees a sweeping nationwide immigration crackdown that has led to at least 300,00 repatriations. Just 32 percent of Hispanics in the latest Reuters/Ipsos survey approved of the president's performance. Support for Trump came predominantly from registered Republicans. Only 42 percent of respondents voiced support for the president's performance on crime, and 43 percent said he is doing a good job on immigration. Other recent polls, meanwhile, have shown more support for the president's job performance. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Trump's approval sits at 46 percent while his disapproval rating is 51 percent.
