An extraordinary diplomatic spectacle unfolded at the White House, leaving much of the world struggling to make sense of what had happened. What was meant to symbolize the strengthening U.S.-Ukraine relationship instead descended into a public confrontation between Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Volodymyr Zelensky, played out before the press. Zelesnky was told to immediately leave the White House and the planned launch afterwards was canceled.
Speculation remains over whether the clash was orchestrated, with Trump’s team denying any intent to ambushed Zelensky. Yet, evidence suggests otherwise. Julia Davis, a columnist for The Daily Beast, claims, that the setup began when Trump abruptly shifted his tone, feigning surprise at his own past remarks labeling Zelensky a dictator. "The Trump administration and the Russians knew in advance it would turn ugly," she wrote. Whether premeditated or not, the incident underscored the increasingly fraught dynamic between Kyiv and Washington.
A CNN poll showed, that the confrontation, led by Vance, has left most Americans viewing Trump as in the wrong. World leaders took to social media to express their support for Ukraine, further isolating Trump on the global stage. Feeling the pressure, the White House responded by releasing a statement showcasing domestic allies reposting commentary—seemingly a coordinated effort, with Republicans appearing to follow a memo in defense of Trump’s actions.
The Trump team sought to frame its aggressive stance toward Zelensky as a display of strength, claiming it was putting America’s interests first. Promoting this sentiment, Fox News host Jesse Watters has announced: "We run the world. This is America's world. It’s our proxy. It will end when we say it's over."
A key moment in the confrontation came when JD Vance attempted to lecture Zelensky on Ukraine’s battlefield struggles, echoing Kremlin talking points and accusing him of ingratitude after Zelensky warned against a ceasefire with Russia, citing its repeated violations of past agreements. In response, Zelensky challenged Vance, asking if he had ever been to Ukraine. Vance admitted he hadn’t, saying he had only seen “a little” of what was happening from “stories.”
Senator Chris Murphy described the meeting as a deliberate setup, with Trump attempting to either humiliate or provoke Zelensky on live television. When Zelensky didn’t take the bait, Vance seized the moment to ignite the conflict, ensuring that the meeting turned into a spectacle of Trump-aligned figures pushing Moscow’s narrative.
These questions highlight the uncertainty surrounding the Trump-Zelensky confrontation and the broader implications for what happens next:
- Why did Vance go after Zelensky so aggressively? His attack may have been a calculated effort to align with Trump's transactional approach to Ukraine, reinforcing the idea that Kyiv owes the U.S. deference in return for aid.
- Should Zelensky have stayed silent? While some may argue that confronting Trump risks worsening relations, silence could have signaled weakness and made Ukraine more vulnerable to a dictated settlement.
- Would appeasing Trump have changed anything? Even if Zelensky had complied, Trump’s broader policy direction suggests that Ukraine would still face a forced peace deal, likely on Putin’s terms.
- If Trump brokered a deal with Putin, how would it be enforced? Without credible security guarantees, enforcement would be questionable, as Russia has repeatedly violated past agreements.
- How could Ukraine trust that Putin wouldn’t simply rearm and invade again? Given Russia’s history of aggression, any deal without robust military deterrents would risk being merely a pause before another attack?
Trump seems determined to secure a quick deal, no matter the terms, with Putin offering the easiest path—through appeasement. Following his public clash with Zelensky, Trump escalated his attacks, criticizing the Ukrainian leader for his consistent opposition to Putin.
The issue of security guarantees for Ukraine remains the most contentious, with few willing to confront it directly. Supporting Ukraine would only complicate negotiations, making a swift agreement far less achievable. Frustrated by Zelensky’s defiance, Trump appears increasingly motivated to push for his replacement, as he has been attempting to do in recent weeks.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski offered a rare condemnation of the administration’s handling of Ukraine, expressing alarm over its shifting stance on the war. She noted that the week began with officials refusing to acknowledge Russia’s role as the aggressor and ended with a shocking Oval Office confrontation and reports that the White House may cut all U.S. support for Ukraine. Murkowski warned that the administration appears to be abandoning allies and embracing Putin, a move she described as a direct threat to democracy and U.S. values.
The Lead Up
As if echoing the Kremlin’s talking points in the past few weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump said“It’s been a long time since Kyiv had an election. Zelensky has a 4% approval rating.” Trump continued, stating, “We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law.” Trump also called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator without elections and stating“Ukraine needs to hold an election... That's not a Russia thing. That's something coming from me.”
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was elated following Trump's attack on Zelensky. “‘A dictator without elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.’ If you had told me just three months ago that these were the words of the U.S. president, I would have laughed out loud,” wrote Medvedev.
Russia has used the issue of frozen elections in wartime as a propaganda tool, with Vladimir Putin labeling Volodymyr Zelensky “illegitimate” since his presidential term has technically expired.
The Institute for the Study of War noted, that Putin's claims about Zelensky’s unpopularity aim to divide Ukraine’s government, military, and population. He has repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy after Ukraine, following its laws, postponed the 2024 elections—part of Russia’s effort to justify avoiding negotiations. Yet, Putin implicitly acknowledged Zelensky as Ukraine’s legitimate president and a future negotiating partner while simultaneously launching an information operation to destabilize Ukrainian society and its military from within.
However, as of early February, 57% of Ukrainians trust Zelensky, a five-point increase since December, according to a Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) poll published on Feb. 19. The survey, conducted Feb. 4-9, was released shortly after Trump claimed, without evidence, that Zelensky had a 4% approval rating. This is also the same president that Russia attempted to assassinate.
A February 2025 KIIS survey found that 69% of Ukrainians believe Zelensky should remain in office until elections can be held after martial law ends, while another poll reportedthat 63% oppose holding any national votes until the war with Russia is over. Furthermore, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasized, that attacks on Zelensky and his legitimacy have likely only strengthened him politically.
Under martial law imposed in February 2022, elections are constitutionally suspended, with Ukraine’s government prioritizing national security over wartime electoral processes. On February 25, Ukraine’s parliament reaffirmed this stance, passing a resolution, stating that elections will only occur after a "comprehensive, just, and sustainable peace" is secured.
Trump vs Zelensky
Ian Bremmer, a political scientist and founder of the Eurasia Group, commented on social media: "whether or not you’re a fan of president zelensky, the united states trying to force an election in a foreign democracy during wartime is unacceptable," he wrote. “it can’t be held safely and securely–against most ukrainians’ wishes (including much of zelensky’s opposition) and in violation of the ukrainian constitution is unacceptable.”
Trump’s transactional approach to Ukraine became even more apparent when his administration has introduced, that Ukraine grant the U.S. 50% ownership of its rare-earth minerals, believing them to be worth around $500 billion. Zelensky rejected the offer, outright, calling the proposal unserious and stating, “I can’t sell our state.” Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Moscow Direct Investment Fund, allegedly suggested that Trump demand $300 billion in "compensation" from Ukraine, falsely attributing it to U.S. losses from exiting the Moscow market.
"It was a scene straight out of The Godfather," wrote Thomas L. Friedman. Treasury Secretary Bessent slid the paper across the table, urging Zelensky to sign. When Zelensky hesitated, Bessent pushed it closer, warning that "people back in Washington" would be upset if he refused. Zelensky took the document but did not commit.
This rejection reportedly angered Trump, leading him to believe that if Zelensky refused to comply, he should be replaced— reflecting Trump's mafia-style tactics in his attempted shakedown of Ukraine.
Despite the tensions, Ukraine has agreed to a revised minerals deal, though details remain undisclosed. Axios statedthat Kellogg played a key role in easing tensions over the minerals deal, preventing a deeper rift between Trump and Zelensky, following his Kyiv visit.
However, on February 27th, Trump softened his recent criticism of Zelensky during a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, walking back his earlier remark calling Zelensky a “dictator with elections.” Trump signaled a willingness to work with Zelensky as the U.S. and Ukraine finalize a minerals deal.
Despite his diplomatic shift, Trump reiterated skepticism about Ukraine joining NATO and suggested he could trust Russian President Vladimir Putin in potential ceasefire talks, emphasizing a “trust and verify” approach.
Impact of Forcing Elections
Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg previously acknowledged that Ukraine has not held elections since the outbreak of war due to martial law, which constitutionally prohibits voting during wartime. Meanwhile, Russia sees this as an opportunity to push for the installation of a puppet government in Kyiv as part of a potential peace deal or, at the very least, to stall held talks.
A late 2024 poll showedthat 21% of Ukrainians would emigrate if borders were open, citing limited development opportunities, war-related risks, and insufficient state support. Among those considering emigration, 33% are aged 18-29.
U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick countered Russia’s attacks on Zelensky, highlighting: “Putin is now asking for a new election in Ukraine, conducted in a specific manner that he can influence, so that he can install his puppet and accomplish that which he couldn’t militarily. Nice try, Vladimir. Try holding a free and fair election in your own country first without imprisoning your opponents.”
Similarly, Gabrielius Landsbergis, former foreign minister of Lithuania, criticized the situation, commented "Putin is not on the ropes, he is on a roll, his dreams are being realized by his former enemies. NATO stayed out of Ukraine, believed the nuclear threats and allowed the shadow war to escalate. Trump can now add Ukrainian neutrality, elections and territories to the list."
Russia’s Aims
Kellogg, who is seemingly seen as having a more hawkishstance compared to others in the Trump administration, appears to have been sidelined or never given real authority. His absence from Trump’s social media post detailing the discussions with Russia suggests he is not playing a central role in shaping the administration’s Ukraine policy. This was further reinforced as U.S.-Russia talks on ending the Ukraine war began in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 18, with Trump's special envoy for Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, seemingly sidelined from negotiations.
The U.S. and Russia were discussing a three-stage peace proposal during talks in Saudi Arabia. The plan reportedly includes a ceasefire, followed by elections in Ukraine, and culminating in a final agreement to end the war.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also said, that the "legitimization of Ukraine's leadership" is a prerequisite for any conflict resolution agreement, implying that elections must either take place before a peace deal or be made a condition of it.
"We must fully understand what is happening. Our analysis, which has been repeatedly articulated by President Putin, indicates that Mr. Zelensky has significant legal problems regarding his legitimacy, but despite this, the Russian side remains open for negotiations," noted Peskov.
Serhii Plokhy, director of the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard, stated“The idea that this is all about territory and that you have to make a deal, somehow drawing the border in the right place… is based on not understanding what this war is about.”
Yet, Russia’s actions reveal that its ambitions go far beyond territorial control. If Russia were only after land, it would not be pushing for elections. Instead, Moscow hopes to achieve its original goal—removing Zelensky and installing a pro-Russian leader who would help turn Ukraine into a vassal state. Putin blamed Zelensky for standing in the way of peace between the U.S. and Russia. The Kremlin likely believes that if Russia can force an election on its terms, it could achieve its original aims.
This strategy is not new. In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, Putin actively interventedto sway the election in favor of the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Zelensky’s landslide victory over Poroshenko in 2019, fueled by a campaign promising peace with Russia in Donbas, briefly raised Putin’s hopes of drawing Ukraine back under Moscow’s influence. However, after a failed Paris summit brokered by Emmanuel Macron, Putin began preparing for war.
In a recent interview, Putin stated his plans for the future, remarking, that he will put “his own people” in charge of Ukraine, suggesting that this is part of the agreements with Trump. A Russian newspaper reinforced this narrative, claiming, that “Putin and Trump are close in ideology and values” and calling Putin “his natural ally.”
What Trump Wants
Trump, by contrast, wants a more compliant Ukrainian leader, making it easier to pressure Ukraine. However, Zelensky has shownthat he is well versed in handling bullies. Trump assumes he can potentially force negotiations if needed and end the war quickly, assuming Putin merely wants land and a neutral Ukraine—despite the fact that Ukraine was already neutral before Russia’s first invasion in 2014.
According to Treston Wheat, Chief Geopolitical Officer at Insight Forward and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, the Trump administration is likely pushing for elections in Ukraine to install a more compliant leader. "Zelensky had previously taken a hard stance on negotiations, though that seems to be shifting with his Kursk announcement," Wheat said. "Trump likely wants someone in power who is willing to negotiate with Putin and make territorial concessions for peace."
However, Wheat noted that there is also a broader American belief that democracies should hold elections even in wartime. "The U.S. has a history of conducting elections during difficult wars, including the 1864 election during the Civil War and the 1944 election in World War II," he explained. "A fundamental principle of Western democracy is civilian control of the military, which requires that elected leaders represent the will of the people."
Wheat also pointed to divisions in Western governments when it comes to Ukraine policy. "There is no singular view on Ukraine in any Western government, and that's the core problem in forming an effective long-term strategy," he said. "Some conservatives support Ukraine, others lean toward Russia—and the same divisions exist within liberal parties. Without a shared vision, it’s difficult to build a unified approach to the war."
Internal Politics
However, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has strongly opposed holding elections in Ukraine during wartime, arguing that doing so would weaken internal unity and benefit Russia. As the leader of the European Solidarity party, Poroshenko believes initiating the electoral process amid ongoing conflict would serve only Moscow’s interests.
His remarks, made during a meeting at the French Institute of International Relations, appear to be a direct response to calls from Donald Trump’s team – particularly special envoy Keith Kellogg – who suggested that Ukraine should hold presidential and parliamentary elections as a condition for peace talks with Russia. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has labeled Volodymyr Zelensky an "illegitimate" leader and refuses to negotiate with him.
Poroshenko went on to criticize the U.S. stance, warning that elections during war would fracture the country. “Elections are always a struggle. And there can be no unity during elections,” he stated, arguing that only Putin would benefit from such a scenario. According to Poroshenko, Russia is prepared to exploit political divisions through disinformation and internal destabilization, making elections a dangerous distraction while the war rages on.
Instead, Poroshenko insists that Ukraine must first secure victory and a ceasefire before holding elections that meet democratic standards. Despite political tensions between Zelensky and Poroshenko, the latter’s call for unity in the face of war sends a strong message to Ukraine’s allies—reinforcing that defeating Russia remains the nation’s top priority.
Zelensky himself acknowledged dissent is growing within Ukraine’s leadership in an interview with The Economist that “There are people who are very patriotic, and there are people who are not.” He sidestepped questions about his own political future and whether he will seek re-election once elections become possible, insisting it is not his current focus—though perhaps unconvincingly.
Zelensky was also openly dismissive of remarks by Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, General Keith Kellogg, who suggested that Ukraine could hold elections during wartime. How, he asks, could elections be conducted in a city like Kharkiv, which endures daily Russian bombardment? “It’s interesting when General Kellogg thinks about elections. He’s 82 [in fact, 80] years old, and he thinks about elections in Ukraine.”
Taras Kuzio, Professor of Political Science at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, stated, "Ukraine's constitution is clear—elections cannot be held during martial law, and martial law will remain in place as long as Russia continues its war against Ukraine. While some Ukrainian politicians anticipate it may be lifted if a peace deal is signed, I remain skeptical, as both Ukraine and Europe are wary of what Trump is negotiating with Putin, which at first glance appears to be a Yalta-2 sellout."
He further added, "Zelensky is also preparing the election field, just as he was in 2020-2021, by issuing sanctions against his center-right competitor, Petro Poroshenko."
After the sanctionson Poroshenko, the former president claimed in an interviewthat Ukrainian authorities are preparing to hold presidential elections by October 2025. However, Zelensky’s party leader, Davyd Arakhamia, denied the claim, emphasizing that elections cannot be held under martial law and that all political parties have agreed elections will only take place at least six months after martial law ends.
However, former OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger warned against holding elections in Ukraine too soon, arguing that free and fair elections are impossible under current conditions due to Russian-occupied territories. Greminger warned that premature elections in conflict zones have historically led to instability rather than stabilization.
Ukraine’s Political Future
Meanwhile, speculation swirls around former Commander-in-Chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, whose book My War has sold thousands of copies, fueling discussions about his political future. Still, polls indicate that most Ukrainians prioritize winning the war over holding elections, while Russia continues to cast Zelensky as illegitimate in the absence of a vote.
But if elections were to be forced as part of a settlement, the biggest potential challenger to President Volodymyr Zelensky in a future election is former Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhnyi, who remains highly popular despite his current role as Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK. With 80% of Ukrainianstrusting in him, Zaluzhnyi’s outsider status and military leadership make him a formidable opponent, similar to how Zelensky positioned himself in 2019.
Pasha (“Bilyash”), a soldier who previously served in the 115th Brigade before transferring to the 110th Brigade and fought in battles like Siverskodonetsk, is confident in Zaluzhnyi’s electoral prospects. “He would win 200%,” said Pasha.
Previous polling suggested a close race, with Zelensky narrowly leading in a hypothetical runoff. However, the most recent polling from February 2025 indicates that Zaluzhnyi would win by a wide margin. If a ceasefire deal were implemented and elections were held, Zaluzhnyi could adopt a far more hawkish stance, further unifying the country and military against Russia. While Zaluzhnyi has not declared political ambitions, his continued engage in Ukrainian affairs—publishing memoirs critical of Zelensky, meeting with military leaders, and commenting on national issues – indicates he is far from sidelined.
Zaluzhnyi has neither confirmed nor denied a potential presidential run, stating that such a question would only be relevant if Ukrainian statehood were secure in a recent interview in February. He emphasized that for now, the priority is survival and preserving the nation, with political considerations coming later.
Regardless, any wartime elections or political transitions following a fragile ceasefire could lead to greater instability, potentially giving Vladimir Putin exactly what he wants—a weakened Ukraine divided from within. Political turmoil, fueled by internal power struggles and Russian disinformation, could erode national unity at a critical moment, making it easier for Russia to exploit divisions and help weaken Ukraine.
Author: David Kirichenko (a Ukrainian-American freelance journalist and an Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank. He can be found on X @DVKirichenko)