How Trump is using conflict with Zelensky to his advantage: view from Kyiv
Trump-Zelensky conflict
The recent public confrontation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office has sparked widespread public debate. Some experts believe the conflict was premeditated, with Trump’s administration using it to further its own interests. In an interview with Hromadske, American affairs analyst Oleksandr Kraiev examines the possible motives and consequences of the incident.
According to Kraiev, Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, deliberately engaged in an open dispute with Zelensky to turn the situation to their advantage. One of the main sources of tension was an agreement on mineral resources, which, according to U.S. media, was more beneficial for Ukraine than for the United States. Eager to maintain his image as a strong leader and skilled negotiator, Trump sought to pressure Zelensky into modifying the deal. However, the Ukrainian president refused to concede, allowing Trump to portray himself as a peacemaker facing an uncooperative partner.
The expert also notes that the situation could have played into Russia’s hands. The failure of negotiations between the U.S. and Ukraine might have encouraged Moscow to seek closer ties with Trump by offering Washington more favorable terms for the sale of rare earth metals. At the same time, the conflict could have strengthened European support for Ukraine, as Trump aims to shift the primary burden of aiding Kyiv onto the EU.
Discussing Zelensky’s approach, Kraiev believes he could have handled the situation differently. Trump is known for his aggressive negotiation tactics and respects those who firmly defend their positions. However, Zelensky may not have fully anticipated the format of their meeting. Kraiev suggests that having a translator could have given the Ukrainian leader extra time to formulate responses and defuse tensions.
Regarding future prospects, the expert is confident that Trump may use the conflict with Zelensky as a pressure tool. However, he will not be able to exclude Ukraine from the peace negotiation process. A war of this scale cannot be resolved without the participation of one of the key parties. Kraev argues that Ukraine must strengthen its ties with Trump’s administration and develop a joint strategy with Europe, which could become a decisive factor in negotiations with Washington.
On European support, the expert highlights that EU countries have no choice but to rally around Ukraine. If Europe fails to assert its geopolitical sovereignty now, it risks losing its status as a significant player on the global stage. Under current conditions, European nations must demonstrate their willingness to defend their own interests and act as an independent force.
As for U.S. military aid, Kraiev believes that the threat of its suspension will persist, but a complete halt is unlikely. Trump’s strategy is focused on extracting maximum benefits from negotiations, but fully cutting off military assistance to Ukraine could weaken his international standing, particularly in relation to China. Therefore, while U.S. support for Ukraine will continue, it may come with certain limitations.
