The Yelling Was in English, the Message Was in Hebrew
Maariv, Israel, March 1
It is quite conceivable that what the Russians could not achieve against Volodymyr Zelenskyy during three years of conflict, the US president and his vice president managed to accomplish in just 30 minutes within the confines of the Oval Office. This catastrophic public confrontation ignited a flurry of reactions, predominantly in Moscow, where they celebrated, deeming the task of the “righteous” to have been accomplished by others.
It is fair to assert that such a direct confrontation between the leaders of two countries, broadcast live to America and the world, is unprecedented since World War II. The evolution of diplomacy into public diplomacy since then has introduced elements of publicity and public relations into traditional diplomatic practices. This new form of public diplomacy thrives in the networked world.
Trump, for his part, established a personal social network to facilitate a broad, unrestricted dialogue with both US citizens and the global audience. Open dialogues between world leaders, usually framed by media statements before and after high-level meetings, are integral to this approach, aimed at showcasing achievements and proposing new initiatives, or at least maintaining a facade of unanimity.
The events that unfolded in the White House represent a diplomatic calamity, exacerbated by its public and live nature. Following the broadcast, the confrontation spilled over to social networks. Zelenskyy scrambled to mitigate the damage and expressed gratitude toward the US, while an unmoved Trump extensively tweeted his stance.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
To Trump, the Biden-Zelenskyy alliance was trivial. Guided by a principle of opposition to Biden and the Democrats since his return to office, Trump has navigated the Ukraine-Russia war as his second major conflict, having previously dabbled in Middle Eastern politics—proposing unrealistic solutions in Gaza before leaving the decisions to Netanyahu.
The crises in the Middle East and Ukraine, while similar, pose different levels of risk to global peace. Trump’s approach to these crises, which he alarmingly labels as the precipice of World War III, seeks resolutions at any cost. His European allies worry that any concession to Russia might embolden Putin’s encroachments on democratic Europe, particularly in former Soviet bloc countries. Europe, while standing with Ukraine, cannot match the American investment in the region.
The undercurrents of Trump’s presidency suggested an inevitable clash with Ukraine, from his initial overtures to Putin to excluding Ukraine from peace talks. Yet, the US proposed a new strategy: a minerals deal leveraging Ukraine’s rare natural resources as an alternative to China’s supply, envisioning a lucrative partnership potentially worth half a trillion dollars. The public discourse in the White House, however, has likely scuttled this deal.
Zelenskyy, unprepared and grappling with language barriers, angered both the president and vice president. Even optimal conduct might not have swayed the outcome. In their first month in office, Trump and Vice President Vance had not faced such defiance. They expected gratitude, not the fervor of a resolute leader. Zelenskyy, in challenging his hosts, sealed his fate in a display that left no room for intervention.
Trump’s blunt ultimatum—“Either you take [the deal] or you leave”—led to Zelenskyy’s expulsion from the White House, with his subsequent thanks on Twitter coming too late. Russia, unexpectedly gifted by these developments, now watches as discussions in America shift toward Zelenskyy’s successor. As military support and international backing dwindle, partly influenced by the US’s shifting stance at the UN, Zelenskyy’s downfall seems imminent.
From this, we must learn quickly: avoid public confrontations with Trump, exercise patience with his temperament, and recognize his unforgiving nature and fluid stances. Trump’s presidency will continue to challenge global norms for his term, and we must adapt. Israel, while enjoying robust US support, lacks the commodities Trump values, emphasizing the need for other forms of appreciation.
The video of this meeting will serve as a historical lesson on the limits of presidential interactions, reminding us that such diplomatic missteps are seldom afforded a second chance.
Nachman Shai (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
