More Support for Trump Administration’s Pursuit of Peace in Ukraine

On February 28, 2025, what was meant to be a productive meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky descended into an unprecedented public confrontation in the Oval Office. The Trump administration subsequently released a collection of supportive statements from officials and commentators. This analysis examines the factual accuracy of these claims against verified reporting of the incident. Yes. We’re doing this again in less than 24 hours. Let’s go…

Before addressing specific claims, it’s important to establish what actually transpired during this “historic” diplomatic encounter. What began as a cordial meeting quickly deteriorated after about 30 minutes when the discussion shifted to security assurances and diplomatic approaches toward Russia. Vice President Vance, performing an action no previous Vice President would have lowered themself to, initiated the confrontation by suggesting that “the path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy”.

Zelensky responded by questioning what kind of diplomacy Vance meant, citing Russia’s history of violating previous agreements. “Putin broke the ceasefire. He killed our people,” Zelensky noted, asking, “What kind of diplomacy are you talking about JD?”. This factual challenge from Zelensky prompted Vance to accuse him of being “disrespectful” for “litigating this in front of the American media”.

The situation escalated dramatically when Trump joined in, telling Zelensky, “You’re not in a good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position”. Trump ultimately declared, “You’re gambling with World War Three! You’re gambling with World War Three! And what you’re doing is very disrespectful. Disrespectful! To the country. This country. That’s backed you. Far more than a lot of people said”.

Following this exchange, Trump’s team effectively expelled Zelensky from the White House. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz “went out of the Oval Office, walked to where Zelensky was sitting, and told him to leave”. The planned lunch, press conference, and signing of the minerals deal were all canceled.

Let’s take a look at round 2 from Trump’s sycophants…

“America being taken advantage of and disrespected”

Speaker Johnson’s claim that “the days of America being taken advantage of and disrespected are OVER” fundamentally mischaracterizes Zelensky’s approach. PolitiFact has documented numerous instances where Zelensky publicly thanked the United States both before and after the contentious meeting. On February 12, after speaking with Trump about negotiations, Zelensky posted on social media expressing his gratitude, stating “I am grateful to President Trump” and “I appreciate his genuine interest”. Even after being unceremoniously ejected from the White House, Zelensky posted, “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit”.

The “Russian-provoked war” framing

While the press release characterizes the conflict as “Russian-provoked,” Trump himself has previously made the demonstrably false claim that Zelensky “started the war”—a statement PolitiFact rated as “Pants on Fire” false. This severe inconsistency undermines the administration’s credibility on this issue.

The mineral rights deal characterization

The press release presents the minerals agreement as an “extraordinary partnership proposal,” yet reporting indicates Ukrainian officials were “furious that Trump tried to force what was initially a deeply lopsided deal on them at a time when the U.S. was already leaving them out of talks with Russia about the future of Ukraine”. Far from being simply generous, the deal was described by Ukrainian officials as potentially failing “to sufficiently address Ukraine’s long-term security against Russia and only prioritizing American interests”.

“The only person actively trying to bring an end to this conflict”

Secretary Rubio’s claim that “the only person on the planet who is actively trying to bring an end to this conflict is named Donald Trump” ignores significant diplomatic efforts by European leaders. European nations have been actively involved in peace efforts, with France and the UK indicating willingness to send troops to support a peace agreement. French President Emmanuel Macron met with Trump earlier in the week specifically to discuss establishing a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

“It’s not clear that Zelenskyy truly wants to stop the fighting”

National Security Advisor Waltz’s assertion contradicts Zelensky’s clearly stated position. Zelensky has consistently maintained that he seeks peace, but with appropriate security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression. In his Fox News interview after the White House incident, Zelensky explicitly stated, “We seek just and lasting peace”. His position is not opposition to peace, but rather that “any ceasefire or peace agreement must include security commitments from European nations and the U.S. to arm and protect Ukraine from further Russian aggression”.

The “World War III” accusation

Director of National Intelligence Gabbard’s claim that “Zelensky has been trying to drag the United States into a nuclear war with Russia/WW3 for years now” is unsupported by evidence. Zelensky’s warnings about potential wider conflict represent standard strategic concerns about regional security, not attempts to provoke global war. His caution that “without Ukraine’s resistance, Putin would eventually target NATO’s eastern flank in the Baltics” reflects mainstream security analysis, not warmongering.

“All Zelenskyy had to do was put on a tie, show up, smile, say thank you, sign the papers”

CNN contributor Jennings’ reductive characterization ignores the substantive issues at stake. While Trump was reportedly irritated by Zelensky not wearing a suit (though Zelensky wore “a more formal black outfit with Ukraine’s national symbol”), the real points of contention were about security guarantees and diplomatic strategy, not dress code or etiquette.

“There was no ambush”

While a White House official insisted “the explosion in the meeting was not a premeditated ambush”, Democratic Senator Jack Reed characterized the meeting as a “political ambush” that favored Putin. The fact that the minerals deal—ostensibly the purpose of the meeting—remained unsigned and Zelensky was asked to leave suggests, at minimum, significant diplomatic mismanagement.

The International Response and Broader Implications

The international reaction to this diplomatic incident was swift and largely unified. European leaders voiced strong support for Zelensky and Ukraine without directly criticizing Trump. French President Emmanuel Macron stated, “Ukraine is an honor: fighting. There is a victim: Ukraine… They are fighting for their freedom, their sovereignty, and the security of Europe”. Friedrich Merz, Germany’s likely next chancellor, asserted, “We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war”.

The confrontation left diplomatic observers stunned, with former national security advisor John Bolton describing the incident as a “catastrophe for the United States”. BBC News reported that the Financial Times described the meeting as one that “could not have gone worse,” noting you can “picture Vladimir Putin watching in the Kremlin, rubbing his hands in glee”.

The Trump administration’s press release presents a highly selective and often misleading portrayal of what occurred during the February 28 meeting with President Zelensky. The claims of Ukrainian ingratitude, disrespect, and warmongering are contradicted by substantial reporting and the documented record of Zelensky’s public statements. The characterization of Trump’s approach as solely peace-oriented overlooks legitimate Ukrainian security concerns and the complex realities of ending a war of aggression.

REFERENCES

• 2025-03-19: US suspends some efforts to counter Russian sabotage as Trump moves closer to Putin | Reuters — The Trump administration has suspended coordinated efforts to counter Russian sabotage, disinformation, and cyberattacks, easing pressure on Moscow as it pushes Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Several U.S. national security agencies have halted their work on this initiative, which was established under the Biden administration to monitor Russia’s escalating hybrid warfare campaign against Western nations.
• 2025-03-17: US to Pull Out of Task Force Probing Russian Aggression in Ukraine | Newsweek — The U.S. is withdrawing from the International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, signaling a shift under the Trump administration away from Biden-era efforts to hold Vladimir Putin accountable for war crimes. This decision, coupled with reduced support for Ukraine’s war crimes investigations, reflects a broader policy change aimed at restoring ties with Moscow and pursuing a swift peace deal.
• 2025-03-01: Norway fuel giant ‘refuses to fill US submarines’ after Trump-Zelensky clash | World | News | Express.co.uk — Norwegian petroleum giant Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will stop providing fuel to all American forces in Norway, declaring “No fuel to Americans!” in response to Donald Trump’s treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. The company made this decision after witnessing what they called “the biggest s***show ever presented live on tv” during a meeting between Trump and Zelensky that ended in a heated exchange.