[In his meeting with US president Trump and vice-president Vance in the White House]Ukraine and President Zelensky did not have a single chance—I repeat, not a single chance—of receiving real support.
...
Because it is absolutely clear—crystal clear—that in this war, Trump has firmly, unequivocally, and completely taken Putin’s side. I emphasize: firmly, unequivocally, and completely. And now, this has simply become evident. Now, there is a certain clarity.
...
Since Zelensky had arrived, the goal was to ensure that the meeting ended in a grand scandal. And this scandal was skillfully orchestrated.
...
It was obvious that the nature of this pre-negotiation negotiation [which was done publicly in front of the press] was designed to publicly corner Zelensky—humiliating him in front of the press, forcing him into a situation where he had only two choices: either figuratively kneel or respond in a way that would immediately escalate tensions. And as soon as that happened—boom—the scandal would erupt, and Zelensky would be blamed for ruining the negotiations
...
Vance’s role was clear—he was the designated provocateur. From the very start, he threw out baseless accusations against Zelensky, claiming that he had campaigned against Trump in Pennsylvania—complete nonsense, a blatant lie. This was a long-circulating narrative meant to discredit Zelensky, even though his visits to various U.S. states were solely to secure support and persuade lawmakers to back Ukraine [...] first, Vance provoked Zelensky, then Trump jumped in. And what they were saying.
...
The most famous exchange [...] was when Trump mocked Zelensky, saying he had no cards to play, to which Zelensky shot back: I didn’t come here to play cards. That remark hit a nerve, triggering visible outrage. From there, things spiraled out of control. After the heated argument, both sides retreated to separate rooms. Then Trump made his final move—he ordered the Ukrainian delegation to leave the White House.
...
He [Trump] blamed Ukraine for everything that had happened. His logic? You allowed yourselves to be in a bad position—as if Ukraine was at fault when Putin invaded on February 24, 2022 [...] This is a textbook example of victim-blaming—a classic rhetorical trick. The victim is made out to be responsible for their own suffering. And Trump took it a step further, even reviving his old narrative that Ukraine itself started this war and was therefore to blame [...] Next came another familiar tactic—accusing Ukraine of ingratitude. Over and over again: We helped you, and you should be grateful. But you’re not. You don’t show enough appreciation.
...
When Trump and his team openly humiliated Ukraine, Zelensky had to respond. This was all part of a calculated strategy—to push the narrative that without the U.S., Ukraine would have collapsed in days, as if Ukrainian resistance were meaningless. The claim of one million dead, the insistence that Ukraine has no more soldiers left, all of it was designed to strip Ukraine of its dignity and portray it as a helpless beggar. But if Zelensky had simply accepted this humiliation and stayed quiet, he wouldn’t just have lost the war—he would have lost the trust of the Ukrainian people.
...
It’s clear now that Ukraine must win its own peace—with real allies.
...
The most important outcome of yesterday’s events is the clarity that has emerged—now that the rare-earth fog has lifted. Clarity is always better than uncertainty [...] And that [...] is the one positive takeaway from this situation.