Dissecting a diplomatic disaster

The heated exchange in the White House on February 28 between US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shocked the world.

- WANG SON-TAEK

The meeting was supposed to be a routine diplomatic event where national leaders exchanged opinions using calculated expressions and sophisticated language. However, what transpired shattered every fundamental element of diplomatic communication.

Given the significance of this failure, a thorough review should be meaningful. We must examine what went wrong, where the meeting unravelled, and who bears responsibility. If we can conduct an accurate analysis, we can extract valuable lessons for the future.

The dialogue in the Oval Office lasted about 50 minutes. Until the 40-minute mark, it appeared a standard diplomatic discussion. However, the conversation suddenly became heated between Zelenskyy and Vance, eventually drawing in Trump. While most commentators focused on the final 10 minutes, carefully reviewing the entire meeting reveals crucial moments leading up to the collapse.

When Zelenskyy arrived at the White House and was welcomed by Trump, the prospects seemed favourable. Preparatory negotiations between the two sides had been de facto completed. The meeting was set to be a mere formality, a "done deal."

Trump's welcoming remarks included a mention of a signing event and a luncheon following the meeting.

The first symptom occurred at the 10-minute mark when Trump emphasized that US assistance to Ukraine was substantial while criticizing European nations for contributing less. Zelenskyy nonchalantly countered, asserting that Europe had provided significant support and remained a strong partner. Trump insisted that European contributions paled compared to US aid, to which Zelenskyy responded, "No." Though both leaders laughed it off, Zelenskyy had unknowingly struck a sensitive nerve - Trump detests being fact-checked in real-time. This moment created an opening for Vance, who possesses a debater's instinct and saw an opportunity to raise a sense of existence.