Can Ukraine-US relations be repaired?

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy veered dangerously off-script last week, thanks, in large part, to goading by U.S. Vice President JD Vance.

In doing so, the Ukrainian leader left the White House empty-handed and U.S.-Ukrainian relations in tatters — much to the delight of MAGA loyalists, like former strategic adviser Steve Bannon, who told POLITICO it was the “perfect outcome, and now we can wash our hands of him.” Ukrainians, though, were aghast at the spectacle, and remain deeply upset by what they see as Trump and Vance’s failure to understand that they are the wronged party who have suffered egregiously at the hands of a revanchist Russia, even enduring documented war crimes.

Counseled by his American friends and advisers, as well as his powerful chief of staff Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy had been careful to avoid antagonizing America’s prickly President Donald Trump since his reelection. “Play along” was the advice, and considering the bad blood between Trump and Zelenskyy going back to 2019 — when the Ukrainian leader wouldn’t accede to Trump’s demand for an investigation into former U.S. President Joe Biden’s son — following that advice was crucial.

Until Friday, the strategy was clear: The Ukrainian leader needed to be seen as constructive, leaving Russian President Vladimir Putin to exasperate Trump by being recalcitrant and the first one to say “nyet.”

Keeping to that was always going to be tricky — although no one could have predicted just how spectacularly it was driven off a cliff. Question is, can the damage be undone?

Here in Kyiv, the surreal and tempestuous Oval Office brawl is largely being blamed on Vance — a longtime critic of U.S. involvement in Ukraine. He’s being accused of purposefully setting out to provoke Zelenskyy, possibly to sink a deal that would allow the U.S. greater access to Ukraine’s minerals.

A Republican foreign policy expert, who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely, sees it the same way: Vance wanted to kill the mineral deal, recognizing “it would strengthen the pro-Ukraine lobby in the administration. Zelenskyy just took the bait.”

However, the Republican expert also noted the Ukrainian leader was at fault for not solely focusing on the deal. “Zelenskyy failed before Friday to recognize the significance of the minerals deal … It’s important not because of the minerals — it’s all about giving Trump a political win,” he said.

White House officials have since publicly insisted there was no scheme to ambush Zelenskyy or derail the minerals deal. Quite the reverse. They argue both Trump and Vance were frustrated by Zelenskyy questioning the point of negotiating with Putin, and felt he was trying to wreck U.S.-Russia talks — a point Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized in an interview on Sunday.

Following the incident, strenuous efforts are under way to try and repair some of the damage and get Zelenskyy and Trump on the phone to try and salvage the relationship. European leaders are also urging and seeking to engineer a call between the pair, during which the Ukrainian president would express regret for how the meeting unfolded — but fall short of an apology.

“The trip to Washington, Mr. Zelensky’s first since President Trump was sworn into office, was always going to be a difficult mission,” wrote Chatham House’s Jonathan Eyal. However, there were still hopes that all might turn out well, with prospects brightening after earlier trips by France’s Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s Keir Starmer. Surely, they had managed to pave the way.

“Diplomats assumed that his American host would be less prickly when President Zelensky made the same journey to Washington,” Eyal said. And Trump telling journalists he couldn’t recall describing Zelenskyy as a “dictator” was another hopeful sign.

Still, there were worries before Zelenskyy even landed in Washington: For one, continuing fallout from an early February encounter between Zelenskyy and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared to be rankling Trump, who publicly complained that Zelenskyy had disrespected Bessent by lecturing him on the futility of negotiating with Putin. Moreover, MAGA’s political outriders have been making waves with a hue and cry about continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine and want all aid stopped completely.

Speaking to a group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Washington before his sit-down with Trump and Vance, the Ukrainian leader had made clear he would press Trump to agree to security guarantees for a postwar Ukraine, but was cautioned by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, among others, to tread carefully and avoid focusing on disagreements. In short, give Trump the win.

Yermak also urged Zelenskyy to stay rigidly focused on the minerals deal — security guarantees could follow later. But irked by Vance, Zelenskyy strayed off course, leading to what Ukrainian opposition lawmaker Oleksiy Goncharenko described in one simple word: “catastrophe.”

Watching the events unfold from afar, Russian opposition leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky — who knows a thing or two about sitting across the room from a strongman — was also dismayed: “I understand President Zelenskyy’s pain — his frustration at being powerless against a superior aggressor. But business teaches a harsh lesson: Your problems are your problems. If you want a counterpart to engage, forget about your own troubles and focus on theirs … And not as you see them, but as they do. Show them that you’re the solution to their problems,” he told POLITICO.

“President Zelenskyy failed in this. He spoke about justice and Europe, publicly, ignoring how Trump’s electorate perceives the situation. I hope the American president has the wisdom and ability to respond to events with clarity and pragmatism,” he added.

Despite the uncertainty, however, the Ukrainian leader is getting broad support at home for standing his ground. Even lawmakers who’ve been highly critical of his leadership are publicly rallying around him — although privately some say he failed to adjust his language to the new U.S. administration. But all see him as faithfully reflecting Ukrainian public opinion, passionately advocating for their brutally assaulted nation and expressing the alarm felt across the country over the possibility of a cease-fire that leaves them vulnerable to repeated acts of Russian aggression.

“It really was a battering of one man by the leader of a much bigger country — one that was supposedly a friend. It was bullying,” said opposition lawmaker Lesia Vasylenko. “Zelenskyy came out quite strong.”

Lawmaker Mykola Kniazhytskyi bewailed the incident. “The meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump should not have failed. We are committed to cooperation with America and hope that emotions will subside, allowing the dialogue to return to a constructive course. Ukrainians, more than anyone else, want peace. We are ready for negotiations, but they must come from a position of strength, not capitulation,” he told POLITICO.

The big question is whether the damage is irreparable. Some on the Ukrainian side are pinning their hopes on Trump’s subsequent reaction as he headed for his Florida resort. “He was not foaming at the mouth. And I’ve had some folks in the administration pointing that out to me. Trump’s feeling seems to be that Zelenskyy is not in a favorable psychological state because of the stress of the last three years,” the Republican foreign policy expert told POLITICO.

“I can tell you this, though, without the minerals agreement, there’s no way in hell Trump will, or can, go to Congress to ask for more money for Ukraine. That’s what this was all about. And without it, there’s a probability of zero.”