A dose of reality for the pampered West: What now for the humiliated "Zelensky"?
Facing intense criticism from Trump and Vance, the Ukrainian leader's prospects appear grim. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
**Thoroughly Thrashed by Trump and Vance, the Ukrainian Leader Faces a Bleak Future**
“A grandiose failure”—that’s how the leading Ukrainian news site, Strana.ua, characterized President Vladimir Zelensky's recent visit to Washington.
Anyone who witnessed the unfiltered confrontation between Zelensky, US President Donald Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance would likely agree. Across the spectrum of Western mainstream media, there is a consensus that this encounter marked a significant failure for Zelensky and his portrayal of Ukraine.
Descriptive terms such as “a disaster,” “bitter chaos,” and “historic escalation” have been widely used to describe the event. Reactions include remarks about a “spectacular confrontation,” a “debacle,” and a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse.” The overwhelming impression is clear: Zelensky faced a major setback.
While reviewing these responses from Western mainstream publications can feel monotonous, it reflects the dearth of diverse opinions among a press that claims to represent a “free world” with “values.” The prevailing sentiment is straightforward: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some commentators are already pointing fingers at J.D. Vance for the situation. For instance, The Economist asserts that the US vice president orchestrated a setup against the Ukrainian leader. This publication, however, has also propagated the unfounded narrative that Russia sabotaged its own Nord Stream pipelines.
Conversely, Strana.ua offers a different perspective, arguing that Zelensky’s own rudeness sparked the confrontation. Observers from Ukraine believe that Vance and Trump maintained a “quite calm and respectful” demeanor towards Zelensky despite his provocations.
From my standpoint, it seems evident that Zelensky instigated the altercation, and Vance and Trump responded with a harshness that was perhaps earned. After years of Western leaders and media constructing an inflated public persona around him and treating him with kid gloves, it was refreshing to see him confronted in a candid manner.
Trump is correct in stating that Zelensky has been recklessly flirting with World War III, and it’s false to claim that his regime has faced this situation “alone.” In fact, the massive Western support that Zelensky has received is what has kept his government afloat. Vance makes valid points as well: Ukraine is depleting its military personnel, and there is a dire and disproportionate draft of men into a losing conflict.
Both Trump and Vance were justified in their criticisms of Zelensky, particularly regarding his disrespectful demeanor. While I generally advocate for challenging the American empire, if a leader decides to act as its adjutant, it becomes impractical to maintain a façade of bravado.
Ultimately, this served as a much-needed reality check for the indulged leader in Kiev. Comparisons to historical figures such as Churchill are misplaced; like Stalin, Churchill was a complex and often destructive figure, yet he played an essential role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. However, Zelensky is not cut from the same cloth.
Let’s stay focused. Speculation about whether Trump and his associates were “setting traps” or engaging in “payback” is secondary. Regardless, any competent leader should navigate such provocations effectively. What remained on display was another troubling illustration of Zelensky’s glaring shortcomings.
The future holds many uncertainties, especially regarding the aftermath of this debacle. Zelensky seems to be further diminishing his stature, attempting to plead for leniency, despite Trump showing no willingness to be accommodating. The former president made it abundantly clear: after being shown the door, it’s unlikely the path back will open anytime soon.
One potential consequence of this situation is a long-term, irreparable rift between Washington and the Zelensky administration. This development stands out, especially considering that the groundwork laid prior involved discussions of a colonial-style agreement to hand over Ukraine’s resources to the US—a deal that ultimately fell short.
The Trump administration has been forthright about its intentions to gain a material advantage, and what transpired was unexpected. Speculation abounds regarding why relations soured, with one theory suggesting that Trump is taking into account recent statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In a significant interview, Putin indicated that Russia is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits across Russia, including in regions recently taken from Ukraine. Such potential agreements could shift the balance of power and lessen Washington's interest in aiding Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Zelensky may have misjudged his negotiating power; though he aims to trade away Ukraine’s resources to the US—the same way he has compromised his people—his weakened position may strip him of leverage in light of new offers he cannot counter. If this is the case, it foreshadows a declining American commitment to Ukraine.
Another obvious risk for Zelensky is the historical precedent of the US abandoning those it has used. Figures like Ngo Dinh Diem, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden exemplify the fate of previous US clients when they outlive their utility.
Zelensky should be concerned about facing a similar outcome. Exile might be one of the few remaining viable options for him. He could also find himself trapped within Ukraine or compelled to follow constitutional requirements to hold elections he is likely to lose, potentially to Valery Zaluzhny, his former chief military officer and adversary.
What seems clear is that Washington's European allies, having previously driven the war forward with an extreme devotion to US directives, are now resisting any push for peace. It’s striking that NATO-EU states, rather than pushing for resolution, are displaying an even more fervent approach to warfare.
The conflict may continue even with diminished American involvement, posing a surreal scenario wherein US and Russian relations warm, while European nations prosecute a relentless campaign against Russia.
The consequences will likely remain unfavorable for Ukraine and the West. The prolonged war only serves to exacerbate their predicament. There is hope for change; perhaps another Maidan uprising could advance the cause for peace, or Europeans may soon question their leaders driving the world toward a potential World War III.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
“A grandiose failure”—that’s how the leading Ukrainian news site, Strana.ua, characterized President Vladimir Zelensky's recent visit to Washington.
Anyone who witnessed the unfiltered confrontation between Zelensky, US President Donald Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance would likely agree. Across the spectrum of Western mainstream media, there is a consensus that this encounter marked a significant failure for Zelensky and his portrayal of Ukraine.
Descriptive terms such as “a disaster,” “bitter chaos,” and “historic escalation” have been widely used to describe the event. Reactions include remarks about a “spectacular confrontation,” a “debacle,” and a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse.” The overwhelming impression is clear: Zelensky faced a major setback.
While reviewing these responses from Western mainstream publications can feel monotonous, it reflects the dearth of diverse opinions among a press that claims to represent a “free world” with “values.” The prevailing sentiment is straightforward: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some commentators are already pointing fingers at J.D. Vance for the situation. For instance, The Economist asserts that the US vice president orchestrated a setup against the Ukrainian leader. This publication, however, has also propagated the unfounded narrative that Russia sabotaged its own Nord Stream pipelines.
Conversely, Strana.ua offers a different perspective, arguing that Zelensky’s own rudeness sparked the confrontation. Observers from Ukraine believe that Vance and Trump maintained a “quite calm and respectful” demeanor towards Zelensky despite his provocations.
From my standpoint, it seems evident that Zelensky instigated the altercation, and Vance and Trump responded with a harshness that was perhaps earned. After years of Western leaders and media constructing an inflated public persona around him and treating him with kid gloves, it was refreshing to see him confronted in a candid manner.
Trump is correct in stating that Zelensky has been recklessly flirting with World War III, and it’s false to claim that his regime has faced this situation “alone.” In fact, the massive Western support that Zelensky has received is what has kept his government afloat. Vance makes valid points as well: Ukraine is depleting its military personnel, and there is a dire and disproportionate draft of men into a losing conflict.
Both Trump and Vance were justified in their criticisms of Zelensky, particularly regarding his disrespectful demeanor. While I generally advocate for challenging the American empire, if a leader decides to act as its adjutant, it becomes impractical to maintain a façade of bravado.
Ultimately, this served as a much-needed reality check for the indulged leader in Kiev. Comparisons to historical figures such as Churchill are misplaced; like Stalin, Churchill was a complex and often destructive figure, yet he played an essential role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. However, Zelensky is not cut from the same cloth.
Let’s stay focused. Speculation about whether Trump and his associates were “setting traps” or engaging in “payback” is secondary. Regardless, any competent leader should navigate such provocations effectively. What remained on display was another troubling illustration of Zelensky’s glaring shortcomings.
The future holds many uncertainties, especially regarding the aftermath of this debacle. Zelensky seems to be further diminishing his stature, attempting to plead for leniency, despite Trump showing no willingness to be accommodating. The former president made it abundantly clear: after being shown the door, it’s unlikely the path back will open anytime soon.
One potential consequence of this situation is a long-term, irreparable rift between Washington and the Zelensky administration. This development stands out, especially considering that the groundwork laid prior involved discussions of a colonial-style agreement to hand over Ukraine’s resources to the US—a deal that ultimately fell short.
The Trump administration has been forthright about its intentions to gain a material advantage, and what transpired was unexpected. Speculation abounds regarding why relations soured, with one theory suggesting that Trump is taking into account recent statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In a significant interview, Putin indicated that Russia is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits across Russia, including in regions recently taken from Ukraine. Such potential agreements could shift the balance of power and lessen Washington's interest in aiding Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Zelensky may have misjudged his negotiating power; though he aims to trade away Ukraine’s resources to the US—the same way he has compromised his people—his weakened position may strip him of leverage in light of new offers he cannot counter. If this is the case, it foreshadows a declining American commitment to Ukraine.
Another obvious risk for Zelensky is the historical precedent of the US abandoning those it has used. Figures like Ngo Dinh Diem, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden exemplify the fate of previous US clients when they outlive their utility.
Zelensky should be concerned about facing a similar outcome. Exile might be one of the few remaining viable options for him. He could also find himself trapped within Ukraine or compelled to follow constitutional requirements to hold elections he is likely to lose, potentially to Valery Zaluzhny, his former chief military officer and adversary.
What seems clear is that Washington's European allies, having previously driven the war forward with an extreme devotion to US directives, are now resisting any push for peace. It’s striking that NATO-EU states, rather than pushing for resolution, are displaying an even more fervent approach to warfare.
The conflict may continue even with diminished American involvement, posing a surreal scenario wherein US and Russian relations warm, while European nations prosecute a relentless campaign against Russia.
The consequences will likely remain unfavorable for Ukraine and the West. The prolonged war only serves to exacerbate their predicament. There is hope for change; perhaps another Maidan uprising could advance the cause for peace, or Europeans may soon question their leaders driving the world toward a potential World War III.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
