White House iconic scene -- A conflict that was premeditated or spontaneous?

According to CCTV News, on February 28, 2025, the meeting between U.S. President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Oval Office of the White House ended with a shocking public argument that stunned the world. Originally intended to showcase the unity of the two countries and sign a mineral agreement, the meeting devolved into a diplomatic incident.

After a 40-minute "chicken talking to duck" exchange, the two sides entered a 9-minute heated argument: Vance accused Zelensky of lacking gratitude, Trump repeatedly interrupted Zelensky, who ultimately announced the end of the talks, after which Zelensky and his delegation were "kicked out" of the White House.

Now, there are various opinions from the outside world: was this conflict a carefully orchestrated "warning" by the Trump administration, or an unexpected result of Zelensky's "lack of awareness"?

I. Trump's Team's "Pre-Meeting Reminder" and "Post-Meeting Reversal"

According to The New York Times, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested to Zelensky a few hours before he entered the Oval Office, "Don't be fooled."

Graham stated in an interview that evening:

I told him not to discuss security agreements.

However, ironically, just after the talks ended, Graham's attitude underwent a 180-degree turn. He told reporters outside the White House that Zelensky should "resign, send someone we can work with, or change people."

II. The Tragedy Triggered by the "Suit"?

Before the talks officially began, Trump's first words to Zelensky were, "You are dressed very formally today," referring to Zelensky's usual black military-style sweatshirt emblazoned with the Ukrainian trident emblem. Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Zelensky has abandoned suits, shirts, and ties, even in important meetings with world leaders.

However, Zelensky's insistence on wearing national attire set an unpleasant tone for the meeting from the very beginning.

Subsequently, sharp questions from reporters escalated the conflict to a boiling point. Brian Glenn, the chief White House correspondent for the conservative cable network Real America's Voice and a staunch Trump supporter, directly questioned Zelensky during the Q&A session:

"Why aren't you wearing a suit? You're in the highest office in this country, yet you refuse to wear a suit. Do you have a suit? Many Americans think you don't respect the dignity of this office."

III. Reasons for the Conflict: Different Claims

So what exactly caused the breakdown of this meeting? The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal provided different interpretations.

The New York Times believes Zelensky had certain motives. According to three insiders, Zelensky was originally expected to sign an agreement in Washington, and Trump and Vance did not want to sabotage it. However, Zelensky's actions angered the U.S. side, seemingly because he did not sufficiently thank the U.S. for its efforts to end the conflict (which is what Trump wanted to hear) and demanded U.S. commitments to Ukraine's security (which is what Trump did not want to hear) During the talks, Trump impatiently stated, "I don't care about security guarantees; I care about reaching an agreement." After being repeatedly "reminded" by reporters and Zelensky, Trump angrily replied, "You keep foolishly talking about security guarantees; security guarantees are not the issue at all!"

The Wall Street Journal proposed two possibilities.

The first points out that Vance's advisors denied that the dispute was pre-arranged by the U.S. side. Officials stated that Trump and Vance had met before and after the meeting and did not plan for the meeting to erupt into conflict. The White House East Room had already been set up, originally intended to celebrate the signing of the agreement.

The second suggests that Trump and Vance came "prepared," aiming for the subsequent U.S.-Russia talks. For weeks, Trump has insisted that Putin wants to achieve peace, and the Ukrainian side is already worried that a peace agreement will ultimately be closer to Moscow's conditions rather than their own. Analysts believe that the U.S. side may want to attempt to soften Zelensky's stance by publicly condemning him.

IV. The Cancelled Lunch and "Empty Seats" After the Talks

Although the talks ended on a sour note, it seems to have not affected Trump's and his team's mood.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump continued to enjoy the lunch originally prepared for Zelensky. His senior aides sat in the empty seats, enjoying early spring green salad, rosemary roasted chicken, and caramel pudding. Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino even cheerfully posted the menu on social media.

Moreover, after the conflict occurred, the Ukrainian delegation suggested that Trump and Zelensky try to have a one-on-one conversation, but U.S. officials were not interested.

V. Zelensky's "Remedy"

Several hours after the conflict during the talks, Zelensky appeared on Fox News, participating in a previously scheduled interview and trying to "remedy" the situation. Zelensky expressed some regret over the dispute but said he believed he could repair his relationship with Trump, stating he "does not want to lose a great partner in the U.S." and that today's conflict was not good for either side.

Importantly, on the flight to Florida, Trump also watched Zelensky's interview. This action may suggest that Trump has not completely closed the door on communication with Zelensky.

Whether this conflict at the White House was a carefully orchestrated "show of strength" by the Trump administration or an unexpected outcome due to Zelensky's failure to grasp Trump's intentions remains inconclusive. The varying interpretations from all sides make this conflict even more enigmatic. However, it is certain that this conflict will have far-reaching implications for U.S.-Ukraine relations, the Russia-Ukraine negotiation process, and the international geopolitical landscape.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

The market has risks, and investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment goals, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own risk