The Trump-Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting was disastrous, and there are several reasons to support this perspective. It can be interpreted as the U.S. aligning itself alongside authoritarian regimes, breaking its historical alliance with Europe, abandoning the Ukrainian people in the face of unjust military aggression, and conducting diplomatic affairs inappropriately. In this analysis, I will argue that the meeting represents a foreign policy that will prove costly for the U.S., as it cannot be justified based on the values that the country has historically upheld and shared with other nations.

For some observers, the meeting illustrates a deplorable attitude: America's support for Russia, the aggressor. When considered alongside the Russia-US meeting in Saudi Arabia (excluding Ukraine) to discuss ending the war, Trump's previous allegations against Ukraine and Zelenskyy (accusing Ukraine of initiating the war and Zelenskyy of being a dictator), the proposal to transfer rights to Ukrainian mineral resources to the U.S., and the U.S. outrage at the UN General Assembly during the writing of the resolution condemning Russian aggression, the conclusion appears evident.1

A supporter of Trump's administration might say that there is another plausible conclusion: that there is a realistic rationale for Trump and JD Vance's position during their meeting in the Oval Office. Their position would emphasize the importance of ending the war and achieving peace. During this intense discussion, they made statements suggesting that U.S. diplomacy aims to "end the destruction" in Ukraine, while expressing concern that Zelenskyy's actions could escalate into World War III. They also noted that Zelenskyy's hatred of Putin complicates potential peace negotiations. From this perspective, it is acknowledged that the world does not always function ideally and that sometimes difficult compromises are necessary to secure peace.

Without context, this position supporting Trump's administration may appear reasonable: politics is tragic, and it is naïve to believe that we can always obtain what we think we deserve. Therefore, striving for the lesser evil might seem like the best course of action in some scenarios. However, considerations such as the agreement to transfer Ukrainian mineral resources to the U.S. or the prestige that Trump's promise of ending the war could bring make this stance appear hypocritical.

Are these actions problematic? They are, but not for the underlying hypocrisy of them. Criticizing a political actor for hypocrisy does not provide significant insight into the potential benefits or drawbacks of their actions. Those who follow politics, whether domestic or international, understand that it is not solely driven by altruistic motives and that sincerity is not always a valued trait in this arena. Nearly 500 years ago, Machiavelli advised that to achieve desired outcomes, a prince must learn how not to be good.

Furthermore, in the realm of politics where warfare and peace negotiations occur, it is uncommon to find a political actor with clean hands. Therefore, why is Trump’s conduct particularly concerning? Moral considerations aside, it is problematic because it decouples the values the U.S. has historically claimed to hold (liberty, democracy, peace, etc.) from its motives, so hitherto allies who hold these values will have no reason to share these decoupled motives and alliance with the U.S. This is neither an idealistic revolt nor an argument about realism against itself; rather, it shows that the absence of realistic foreign policy strategies could be detrimental to the United States.

The International Relations theorist, Sean Molloy, in a simple yet illustrative article, points out that a realism where the maxim that the strong do what they can and the weak endure what they must guides political behavior is not workable.2 The absence of prudence, moderation, and the alienation of allies in international relations is disadvantageous for political actors since at least the time of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC).

In addition, believing that peace will endure simply because it was negotiated by powerful actors is unrealistic. As Reinhold Niebuhr, the renowned American realist and theologian (here I am also trying to appeal to the Christian factor provided by JD Vance), emphasizes in his book Christian Realism and Political Problems (1953), it is not realistic to act according to a pure logic of power and to expect that the order thus established will be stable. Moreover, Russia's history of aggression against neighboring countries since the fall of the Soviet Union suggests that there is good reason to expect that any peace established by a potential Russian-led agreement would likely be violated by Russia itself.

In a scenario like this, Americans need to consider how their country will address the situation. Given the numerous statements by Putin that view the U.S. and its behavior as a threat to Russia, it is unlikely that the U.S. will be seen by Russia as an ally with some leverage to stop it. But it is also unlikely that it will have the same influence among its former allies to address the situation. In other words, the U.S., by seeking to play an active role in international affairs, may risk becoming isolated, but not due to a foreign policy aimed at such an outcome.

In conclusion, it appears that the United States is currently experiencing a schizophrenic moment between its motives and its values. Whether framed positively (as the America that upholds liberty, democracy, and peace) or negatively (as the America seeking to avoid World War III, the destruction of nations, and similar disasters), it seems incapable of embodying its values in its motives or demonstrating a consistent harmony between them. The problem with this is not its inherent hypocrisy but the difficulty in building the alliances necessary to effectively protect these cherished values in the future. Who will call America before a threat to these values? In just a few months, it has made efforts to remove Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Europe, Mexico, Panama, and Ukraine from the top list.

References

1 For instance, one of the most famous names to characterize America's behavior as a betrayal is Francis Fukuyama. And that was before the Oval Meeting. A Ukrainian observer, Valerii Pekar, emphasizes that the fear of Ukrainians, expressed at the beginning of the year by more than 160 people in a signed document, is becoming real: America is appeasing evil. The same Pekar characterizes the American-Russian negotiations in Saudi Arabia as a repetition of Munich 1938. On Fukuyama's position, see his article “The Ultimate Betrayal”. Pekar’s position is in his article “The United States is Appeasing Evil”.
2 Molloy, S. (n.d.). Do the strong suffer when they do what they want? Logos Journal.