In the Oval Office, a leader simply disrespected America. It wasn’t Zelensky”. The editorial staff at the Kyiv Independent, one of Ukraine’s top media outlets, came to that conclusion regarding a remarkable incident that occurred on February 28, 2025.
The “quarrel at the highest stage” was described as a political failure by the online magazine German Pravda, but it is still not” a catastrophe.”
Some Ukrainians I have spoken to since the turbulent face, during which Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy was constantly hectored by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have certainly characterized it as devastating for the region. However, for some, the affair has been tempered by accepting it as the new reality in US-Ukraine relationships.
Zelensky has received some inquiries, some of which have been directed at him. Did he consent to being duped into making an argument with potential effects? Should he have remained passive? However, the treatment of Ukraine’s chairman by Trump and Vance has largely had an ostensible unexpected side: It has united a disgruntled Ukrainian populace.
There hasn’t been this degree of recruitment and nationalism in three years, as one companion who has been displaced by war from the now held capital of Nova Kakhovka told me.
This unification is seen in the response across Ukraine’s political break. Petro Poroshenko, the leader of the opposition party Western Solidarity and a frequently outspoken Zelensky foe, stated on March 1 that he will not condemn Zelensky’s White House performance.
In the videos posted on X, he said,” The country needs unity, not censure.”
Interestingly, even those Russians who did not vote for Zelensky have told me that activities in the Oval Office made them feel more sympathetic of Zelensky.
However, the shifting attitude of the US administration is giving off a sense of authenticity. Many Ukrainians have lower expectations that the White House can bring about a rapid and enduring peace because of Trump’s expressed confidence in Vladimir Putin and his cordial remarks about Russian aggression, including his refusal to acknowledge Russian combat crimes.
However, as Inna Sovsun of the opposition party Holos noted,” It was difficult to watch a leader who’s been a victim of Russian aggression being attacked by the leader of the free world”.
Setting the bar high
Following weeks of increasingly severe Trump language toward Zelensky, the US and Ukrainian officials met on February 28.
Since being inaugurated on January 20, Trump has called the Ukrainian president a “dictator without primaries”, claiming – wrong – that Zelensky had 4 % approval ratings. He further claimed that Ukraine was responsible for the Russian troops ‘ war in February 2022.
According to the most recent polls, these remarks had now caused Ukrainians to rally behind Zelensky, who has a respectable 63 % approval score.
The unpleasant scenes in the Oval Office could discover a more gathering around Zelensky, especially if he can properly identify his position in the dispute as that of defender of his people. Doing so would serve to stifle growing public animosity over the new US government’s evident unwillingness to appreciate Russian war crimes.
The US and Russia voted against a UN resolution that condemned Russian aggression in the days leading up to the Zelensky-Trump meet, as well as the language of a document G7 statement that portrayed Russia as the offender.
Zelensky’s criticism to Trump’s claim that Russian President Putin is a man of his word sparked the ominous markets in the Oval Office, which appeared to have been sparked by Zelensky’s furious markets.
That rejection to visit out Putin– who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court – angers Russians who have suffered Soviet anger for three times. Zelensky brought that message home by putting images of tortured and abused Russian prisoners of war back in the Oval Office for Trump and other people.
65 % of Ukrainian polled early in the fight said their biggest regret would be “impunity for Russian acts,” according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Nobel Prize winner for human rights in a speech on February 17.
Three years of conflict will have only hardened that mood – but the U. S., under Trump’s management, looks increasingly willing to allow Putin off the wire.
Since February 28, a significant portion of Russian media has depicted the president as a keeper of both his country and the reality, both customarily pro and anti-Zelensky.
He was forced into the difficult position of having to set the record straight and issue false statements in real time in front of the relatively hostile head of the world’s largest economy, whose aid has been important in Ukraine’s effort to fight the invading Soviet army.
To some, keeping silent would have been tantamount to capitulation, but others have questioned Zelenskyy’s approach.
Some Ukrainians have suggested that Zelenskyy’s emotional tone in the Oval Office was unfavorable despite still claiming that his key message was accurate.
Given that the stakes were so high, opposition lawmaker Oleskiy Goncharenko suggested in an interview with CNN that Zelenskyy should have been more diplomatic and” calm.”
Meanwhile, there were also those who questioned the decision to hold such an important conversation in front of the press, especially without the use of professional translators who potentially could have tamped down the rhetoric and slowed the pace of the exchange.
Some things may “have been lost in translation,” according to Tymofiy Mylovanov, the adviser to the president’s office and head of the Kyiv School of Economics.
Where do Zelensky’s relationship with the US and Ukraine with the Oval Office dispute end?
In the aftermath of the dispute, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham– who has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine – suggested that Zelensky should resign, the implications being that his relationship with Trump was so broken that his presence is now counterproductive for Ukraine’s priorities.
It is a phrase that hasn’t had a positive impact in Ukraine. Holos’s leader, Kira Rudyk, responded that it was up to the Ukrainian people to choose their leadership and future.
Moreover, to many Ukrainians the barrier to harmonious Ukraine-US relations is not Zelensky, but Trump.
In a social media post, Mustafa Nayyem, a member of Zelensky’s government, claimed that the Trump administration “does not just dislike Ukraine.” This is what many Ukrainians are aware of. They despise us. The” contempt is deeper than indifference, and more dangerous than outright hostility”, he added in the February 28 post.
unintentional repressurization
Serhii Sternenko, a Ukrainian activist lawyer and blogger, described the Oval Office spat as an intentional provocation on behalf of Trump to discredit Ukraine as an unreliable partner in the peace negotiations.
Sternenko is not the only one who has weighed in. According to journalist Vitaly Portnikov, the conflict was caused by Trump’s untimely commitment to end the war as soon as the reality emerged that perhaps Russia does not want to make any concessions.
The thinking here is Putin has shown no indication that he will bend on his war goals, so for Trump, framing Zelensky as” not ready for peace” allows the US president to walk away from his campaign promise without accepting defeat.
Beyond the headlines and initial reactions from Ukrainian politicians, journalists and civilians, there is also another sentiment that is emerging: resignation to the new reality.
Most Ukrainians want an end to the war, but in a way that safeguards their sovereignty and ensures future security. That was previously shared by the occupiers of the White House.
It is becoming increasingly clear to many Ukrainians that, in regards to the war in Ukraine, the US will play a different role under Trump– meaning Ukraine will increasingly look to European leaders as primary partners.
The outcome of the Oval Office conflict was best summarized by Goncharenko, the opposition member of the Ukrainian Parliament, as Goncharenko might have put it best:” Putin was the winner, not Ukraine, the United States, who won.”
Lena Surzhko Harned is a political science associate professor at Penn State.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the article.