The Subtext and Context of the Incident in the Oval Office
The public dispute between Trump and Zelensky should not be seen merely as a clash of personalities. While there may be an element of personal tension in the episode, that aspect is of little interest to us. Our task—along with that of all thinking individuals outside the United States and Ukraine—is to analyze the subtext and broader context of this event and, if possible, draw lessons from it.
“Trump was angered by Zelensky’s outfit,” “Zelensky was summoned to the Oval Office to be humiliated,” “Trump has sided with Putin”—such explanations seem overly simplistic to me.
First, we must remember the primary reason behind the Ukrainian president’s visit to the U.S.: the signing of a mineral deal worth several billion dollars. When leaders sign such high-stakes agreements, is it conceivable that the terms are finalized just 30 minutes before the signing? Of course not. Such deals are meticulously negotiated over months, at expert and departmental levels.
Read also
Zelensky refused to sign the deal because he sought additional security guarantees from the U.S.—primarily in the form of military assistance. But could such assurances realistically be secured in real-time, during a press conference? Clearly not. Even setting aside Trump’s arrogance, eccentricity, disregard for diplomatic protocol, and lack of decorum, no U.S. president would make such commitments in that setting.
However, the deeper context is crucial. Trump is engaged in negotiations with Putin and Xi Jinping (and likely other world leaders) to establish a “new architecture” for Europe and the world. It’s easy to argue that this new order will not be fair, that its internal contradictions are glaring. But demanding “justice” in international politics is often a sign of naivety—particularly for nations like ours. The post-Yalta order established 80 years ago was also “unjust,” and the contradictions between Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt were evident. Yet that system, for better or worse, functioned for several decades. Today, it is breaking down, and these three global leaders are searching for new solutions. Thanks in part to Trump, this process has advanced significantly. I suspect this new global structure will be driven primarily by economic and technological considerations, with Trump and Musk playing key roles.
Can Zelensky resist this shift, given that it will likely be unfavorable for Ukraine—at least in terms of territorial concessions? The answer is quite clear. Expecting Trump to publicly declare, “Putin is a scoundrel,” is therefore unrealistic.
One might argue that Europe is standing firmly with Zelensky, as evidenced by the strong statements following the Oval Office incident. This suggests a temporary rift between the U.S. and Europe. But does Europe possess independent military capabilities, outside of NATO, that could make Ukraine’s resistance to Russia more effective? I have serious doubts.
Predictably, reactions in Armenia split into two camps. The opposition said, “Two showmen clashing—both will meet the same fate.” But no, Pashinyan is not like Zelensky. Zelensky, despite his mistakes and failures, has at least managed to organize resistance against a foreign invasion. Meanwhile, pro-government voices argued, “See? Zelensky is not pragmatic, whereas our Pashinyan is.” Again, no. Pashinyan is not pragmatic. A truly pragmatic leader would not have entered into direct confrontation with Russia.
Finally, a key detail from the video itself: Vice President Vance mockingly imitated Zelensky, saying, “You came here, went to Pennsylvania, and were essentially campaigning for our opponents.”
This should serve as a warning—challenging the global power structure is dangerous, and those who do so often find themselves erased from history.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
