“What we saw between Donald Trump and Zelenskyy were the most unbelievable series of events that we’ve experienced in the diplomatic life. I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Bhattacharyya remarked. He further emphasised that while valuable lessons had been learnt from the exchange, the broader implications for global diplomacy remains significant.
Bhattacharyya further pointed out that the US was actively seeking a resolution to the conflict but at a potentially steep cost to Ukraine.“What we did see, I think, at the first level was that Trump and JD Vance and the US side were very keen to have an understanding with the Ukrainians to change track towards peace rather than the continuation of war,” he stated. “Unfortunately, what this also meant was that the peace that would be extracted would probably be somewhat costly to the Ukrainian side.”
With European allies offering their continued support, Ukraine appeared unwilling to accept terms that could compromise its sovereignty. Despite this divergence, Bhattacharyya noted that the recent developments suggest efforts are underway to recalibrate diplomatic engagement.
While Bhattacharyya refrained from characterising the exchange as a total failure, he acknowledged the uncharacteristic nature of such a heated discussion in formal diplomatic settings.
“In any diplomatic situation, neither side is expected to lose their cool, and they should not,” he remarked. “But I think this was an unprecedented development and, in some ways, I hope it does not get repeated in diplomatic exchanges in the future.”
Despite the acrimonious Oval Office exchange, President Zelenskyy has expressed his willingness to move forward. He stated his readiness to sign a minerals deal with the US and insisted that his dispute with Trump should be “left to history.” Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson suggested that the clash demonstrated Ukraine’s reluctance to pursue peace.
European leaders, led by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, convened in London over the weekend to explore a roadmap for ending the conflict. While proposals, including a one-month truce plan, were put forward by France and the UK, no final agreement was reached.
Edited Excerpt from the Discussion:
Bhattacharyya: What we saw between Donald Trump and Zelenskyy was the most unbelievable series of events in diplomacy. I’ve never seen anything like this, but it teaches us many lessons that diplomats and politicians must remember. And these lessons have already been learnt, and I think steps are afoot towards setting the track right.
At the first level, we saw that Trump, Vance, and the US side were very keen to have an understanding with the Ukrainians to change the track towards peace rather than the continuation of war. Unfortunately, this also meant that the peace that would be extracted would probably be somewhat costly to the Ukrainian side. Perhaps the Ukrainians, with the support of the Europeans, believed that they could continue the struggle for their sovereignty more deliberately and obtain assurances of UN security. However, the game plan differed slightly from that of Washington’s.
Q: Do you get the sense that Zelenskyy lost in this meeting because there are leaders in Ukraine who are saying that this meeting has led to complete failure of US support for Ukraine? Or do you feel Donald Trump won or Zelenskyy won? How would you describe the meeting?
Bhattacharyya: So far as this meeting is concerned, they both lost. In diplomacy, if there is a win in a negotiation, both sides should leave the table happy. If just one side leaves the table happy, there may be a risk of it not being durable and certainly not sustainable. So, in this particular instance, both sides lost.
But I will also wish to add that I would have expected that there would have been a greater understanding and desire for bringing peace, for saving the lives of the Ukrainian citizens, many of whom are dying in the battlefield. And I think to me, as a person who believes in diplomacy, in the progress of pushing for peace, we should have advocated that in a much more concerted manner.Q: How would we describe Zelenskyy’s reaction and how he cross-questioned JD Vance? Do you think JD Vance should have lost his cool in this manner?
Bhattacharyya: In any diplomatic situation, neither side is expected to lose their cool and should not. But this was an unprecedented development, and in some ways, I hope it will not be repeated in diplomatic exchanges in the future.
It is also a function of your stakes for that particular objective. And on the US side, they wanted Europe to assume greater burden-sharing and for Ukraine to fall in line to accept the path of peace. However, on the Ukrainian side, they probably found that the cost of peace was perhaps too high, as advocated. So, I do not wish to see this as winner and loser, because I see both sides have lost. But as I said, I think the follow-up steps that have unfolded in the last couple of days have indicated that we are probably getting back on track.
Q: President Trump tweeted later, calling it a productive meeting, saying they could understand each other’s views and that Zelenskyy could return to the White House whenever he wanted to talk peace. Does this indicate that the US President wants to put things back on track? And what do you think will be some of the next steps after that? I ask this because one also gets a sense that Zelenskyy was being mocked in the White House. A reporter asked him, “Do you own a suit, why are you not wearing a suit?” JD Vance laughed at that question.
Bhattacharyya: I think it’s not the suit. Mahatma Gandhi went to meet the King of England wearing his loincloth. So, it’s not the suit. When leaders represent their country, they are there for the broader objective of what they feel is their people’s need. And so, I don’t want to be led into that suit thing, although that unfortunately did become part of the conversation. I think essentially there was a mismatch in the process being adopted and the type of assurances being expected on either side.
Q: Do you feel that both sides go back understanding each other better? Here you had a President of Ukraine who was ready to sign a minerals agreement and ready for talks on a ceasefire, but with security guarantees for Ukraine. Do you think there will be a better understanding next time President Trump and Zelenskyy or the leaders of the two countries meet? Or you feel that talks have suffered this time around.
Bhattacharyya: There are three critical issues concerned. There is the question of Europe, the sense of unity in Europe, and their perception of Russia. The second issue is the key issue of the war in Ukraine, how one deals with that, and the kind of steps to take, whether one continues with the war or proceeds to cease fire and starts negotiating the next steps towards rapprochement. And the third issue, which I think is equally important, is how we structure this Transatlantic Alliance in the days and era of a mercurial leader, Trump, from Washington. And I think all these issues had their interplay, in a sense.
Now just as the interaction between the Americans and the Russians in Riyadh did not have the Europeans or the Ukrainians or the peace talks before that, which various parties, including the Europeans, engineered, did not have the Russians. This engagement was actually towards the issue of the guarantees and the cost of burden-sharing. However, this one did not have Europeans or Russians because this was supposed to be an understanding between the Americans and the Ukrainians. But it is quite understandable that the Europeans were in the room without being there. The unfolding of the scenarios that you see that happened thereafter in London, where they met to secure the future summit, is where this pans out in a much more obvious and clear manner.
Q: Would you also worry that it’s not just about the US and Ukraine, but what happened in that room? When the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was in Delhi on Friday, she made a very strong speech, how geopolitical wars are going on, countries are trying to drive a wedge between others, supply chains are being weaponised. All the direction was towards Russia and Putin over there. Keeping that angry speech in mind, do you think what happened in the White House would probably anger European countries more and make them very wary of dealing with Donald Trump and this United States administration?
Bhattacharyya: I think Europe has continued with the Cold War for much longer than it needed to have. And Russia has assumed the mantle of distrust that the Soviet Union used to have in the past. And perhaps that was not entirely justified.
There was a period when the G7 and Europe engaged with Russia. There were economic contacts apart from political and other consultations, and there was even NATO plus Russia. But I think that, in a sense, was not fully recognised by the Europeans. And so, mistrust of Russia continues greatly, not only because of what Europe feels but also because of what Russia does very often. And, to be honest, I think Russia has got to do a lot better in some of those things.
If you are at peace, you can start talking about other things. Because when you are in a stage of war, you are so caught up in that particular emotion that you cannot think about how you can have a constructive, cooperative relationship. And I believe that is indeed possible with the Russians.
But today, I am very hopeful that what came out, not out of the statements of Ursula von Leyen in Delhi, or the statement by the Secretary General of NATO in Brussels, but from the European summit in London, is much more hopeful because, after the Oval Office incident, different voices came out in support of Ukraine and Zelenskyy. The Hungarians and the Slovaks wanted to push for peace.
Italian PM Giorgia Meloni also mentioned that we need to have the Americans on the table. So, by the time they got to London, they had had this brief understanding between Macron and Starmer that they would try and prepare a draft agenda for peace. And this is, the Europeans now saying that they need an agenda for peace, which Starmer would take to Trump and see how that goes further.
So, I think in some ways, it has set off the discussion for peace within Europe. And the fact that you can engage with Russia in a non-confrontation manner without that passion of the war behind you is a welcome thing. I’m not saying it happened because of the incident in the Oval Office, but I think that realisation has come about.
The third part of it, which I wanted to mention about the Transatlantic Alliance and how the future will unveil it, is that now the question of burden sharing is assumed by the Europeans in a much more responsible way. So, on Thursday the European Council is supposed to meet to define that they need to step up their defence commitments to 2% of GDP. And what that will do is enhance Europe’s capability. And even if it does stay as a member of the Alliance, I think it’ll be more of a partnership, which is a much more vital and vibrant way to proceed in the 21st century.
