Zelenskyy bristled at his berating by Trump and Vance. After three years of war, what did they expect?

According to Nick Paton Walsh's analysis, the sky over Kyiv seems torn apart. In the past ten days, drones and airstrikes have claimed the lives of 47 civilians in Ukraine. Now, this war has reached many "mosts": the most impactful moment since the Russian invasion; the most unpleasant conflict between a 48-year-old comedian-turned-wartime leader and a septuagenarian billionaire-turned-American president; and the most important turning point in European history since 1989, or even 1945. These escalating factors are significantly shaping the geopolitical landscape.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was rebuked in a live television broadcast by U.S. President Trump and his Vice President, JD Vance, for "lack of gratitude." After three years of Russian bombing and barbarism, Ukraine seems immediately caught in a dilemma: on the one hand, they are angered by the accusations of wealthy American elites; on the other hand, they have to seek to repair relations with this ally they may not be able to leave. The situation requires careful navigation and strategic decision-making.

Ukrainian military Telegram channels angrily stated that they would rather die standing than beg on their knees. Kyiv officials showed solidarity. However, the rug was suddenly pulled out from under them. A senior U.S. official told me, "There's nothing we can do about it," adding that resolving the issue must be done by Zelenskyy. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump "whisperer," speculated that Zelenskyy should resolve the issue as soon as possible, or he should step down. American politicians are used to their words having a huge impact, but today, their words have affected the established norms of European security and made the continent, which had just recovered from the terrible shock of the past ten days, buckle up again. This highlights the weight and consequences of political rhetoric in international relations.

Zelenskyy's task was originally simple and almost complete, with a draft agreement on a key mineral deal awaiting signature. The atmosphere of the talks was originally harmonious, and did not even derail because of his tough remarks about Putin. A U.S. official told me that the wartime leader's choice of clothing—the black long-sleeved shirt he always wears—may not have been to Trump's liking, but it did not spoil the situation. And Vance—who often attends Trump's international meetings but rarely speaks at them—did just that. This seemingly trivial detail underscores the complexities of diplomatic interactions.

Disinformation is often a luxury of the privileged. To enjoy the privilege of spreading or believing lies, one must have the basic necessities of life—electricity, food, and water. When Zelenskyy faced a rebuke from a vice president on Russian diplomacy—which since 2014 has openly advanced almost only Moscow's military goals in Ukraine—he retorted. Well, he tried to retort. When Trump later told him "you have no cards to play," Zelenskyy replied, "I'm not playing cards." Ukrainians are not playing cards, but dying, at a death rate lower than the illusory numbers Trump constantly cites, but a death rate of hundreds per week is terrible enough, and they also want peace. The stark contrast between rhetoric and reality underscores the urgency of the situation.

This is the terrible divide between the two sides in the Oval Office. On one side is a country where the facts of war are personally relevant, because they have relatives and friends who will never return, and homes they can never return to. On the other side is the American right wing, who feel slighted because the aid they provide—at no cost to American lives to defeat a decades-long adversary—is not appreciated enough. "You're not grateful enough. This is not a good thing," Trump said, as if the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives was not some sign of gratitude. The differing perspectives highlight the emotional and political complexities of international aid.

Zelenskyy later said in an interview with Fox News that he did not feel he owed Trump an apology, but that he believed the relationship could be salvaged. Trump and Vance have never personally experienced war, but still feel disgusted by it. They seem to feel that Zelenskyy, who has been steeped in the horrors of war for three years, needs to receive a lecture on peace, when anyone who has experienced war would crave peace. The wealthy and ignorant loudly rebuke the weary and experienced. The irony underscores the disconnect between privilege and lived reality.

Where do we go from here? Zelenskyy may have experienced the most decisive moment of his presidency. He will either miraculously bridge this divide, or somehow survive without the United States, or step down and let someone else try—the last option perhaps being the easiest. However, as Moscow hopes, stepping down could trigger a crisis on the front lines, weaken political clarity, and undermine the legitimacy of the Kyiv government, as parliamentary procedures or flawed wartime elections are unlikely to produce a clean successor. The potential consequences highlight the precariousness of the political situation.

There are no good choices ahead, no certainty of victory. However, one thing has been comforting since I returned to Kyiv. After three frustrating weeks in which the Trump administration questioned democracy and alliances across the continent, European security—viewed from the comfortable perspective of London, Paris, or Munich—seemed to be in crisis. Somehow, after three years in Kyiv, the doubts seem lessened. Drones swarm every night, but the city adapts, the people endure, and the lights stay on. This resilience offers a glimmer of hope amidst the ongoing challenges.

This resilience makes it easier to understand Zelenskyy's annoyance at Vance's rebuke of the sacrifices and dangers his country has faced. As one Ukrainian civilian summarized last night: "Dignity is also a value. If Russia can't destroy it, why does America think it can?" This poignant statement encapsulates the core of the issue: the importance of respecting national sovereignty and the unwavering spirit of the Ukrainian people.