Did Trump set the stage for Zelensky’s downfall, or did Zelensky stage the set for his own diplomatic coup?

Photo: AP Images

T

he stage was set. The cameras were rolling. The world watched. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky stepped into the Oval Office last Friday, he likely expected a diplomatic negotiation. Instead, he walked into a geopolitical knife fight — only the real question is: Who was left holding the blade? Did one leader upend the other by playing him out, only to end up outplayed himself? Everyone has a theory — count me in.

For nearly an hour — an eternity in the world of diplomatic optics — the press was allowed to linger, capturing every facial twitch, every pursed lip, every shift in tone. That alone should have tipped off the savvy observer: This wasn’t a policy discussion, it was a trap.

But who laid it? Did Trump set the stage for Zelensky’s downfall, or did Zelensky stage the set for his own diplomatic coup? Did Zelensky see the key to securing Ukraine’s future and put in a strategic input to outmaneuver Putin, only for Trump to trump his play at the last moment? Will Trump’s uptake of dealmaking lead to a take-up of arms in Europe? Love them or loathe them, both Trump and Zelensky understand one thing: how to manipulate a crisis to their advantage. Could it be that the Oval Office confrontation wasn’t a miscalculation — it was a power move by two leaders playing high-stakes diplomacy on different boards?

First, let’s step back and examine Trump’s opening offer: a minerals deal. On the surface, this seemed like a straightforward business transaction — American companies securing rights to Ukraine’s vast reserves of lithium, titanium, and rare earth elements. Cue the “Trump makes the best deals — someone get this man a Nobel, a parade down Fifth Avenue, and maybe a third term” chorus. But this wasn’t just about resources; this was Trump’s alternative to NATO membership.

The unspoken deal was clear: If Ukraine gave America control over its critical minerals, then Trump could justify continued American interest in Ukraine without the need for deeper military commitments. In Trump’s view, this economic partnership alone would be enough to deter Russia — Ukraine would remain strategically valuable to the US, but not in a way that obligated military intervention.

But Zelensky wasn’t buying it. He needed more than an economic arrangement — he needed security guarantees. And in his mind, that meant NATO membership. That’s when the conversation took a sharp turn.

The NATO issue has been a ticking time bomb in the Ukraine conflict. Zelensky views NATO membership as Ukraine’s ultimate safeguard against Russian aggression. Trump, however, sees it as an unnecessary provocation, one that could trigger World War III — you know, the kind of thinking that got them into this mess to begin with. Europe, meanwhile, is content to watch from their front-row seats. They’re cheering for Ukraine while hoping Washington keeps covering the popcorn bill.

Trump, ever the dealmaker, saw a way to maneuver all three sides to his advantage. By rejecting Zelensky’s NATO demands, he reassured his voter base that he wouldn’t drag the US into another endless foreign conflict. By pushing the minerals deal instead, he positioned US economic interests in Ukraine as the primary American stake without making binding military commitments. By refusing security guarantees, he effectively forced Europe to take a greater role, ensuring that NATO countries would need to step up their own defense spending without formally extending NATO protection to Ukraine.

Then came the hammer blow: “You’re gambling with World War III.”

Boom. The confrontation was complete. Trump had set up his position. Suddenly, Zelensky wasn’t just a wartime leader trying to secure the weapons his country needed to survive — he was reckless, irresponsible, the real reason this war hadn’t ended. This wasn’t just a jab at Ukraine. This was a carefully placed landmine for NATO.

Unless… Zelensky saw the confrontation coming and weaponized it to his advantage. I mean, he knew Trump was reluctant to commit to Ukraine long-term. He knew Europe was watching, looking for signals of American wavering. He knew the Western media was ready to pounce at any sign of Trump stepping back from Ukraine. So, what if Zelensky used the meeting to force a moment of crisis?

If Trump wavered publicly, Europe would be forced to act. And that’s exactly what happened. Within 24 hours, British prime minister Keir Starmer reaffirmed his country’s full-throated support for Ukraine, Germany hinted at increasing military spending, NATO scrambled to reassure Kyiv, and suddenly, Ukraine was no longer just America’s problem — it was Europe’s responsibility.

Unless… suppose it wasn’t so well thought out? While the confrontation between Vice President J.D. Vance and Zelensky appeared to be the climax of a pre-planned shift in US policy, the final moments before their showdown suggest that the escalation may have been more reactionary than scripted.

The last two press questions for the two presidents before tensions erupted came from CNN and a reporter for a Polish radio station — both of whose questions took an openly pro-Zelensky, anti-Putin approach. This dynamic immediately put Vance on edge, fueling the suspicion that Zelensky was working in coordination with the media to push for NATO membership before Trump could react.

In Vance’s mind, this wasn’t just a diplomatic meeting anymore — it was an attempt by Zelensky and the Western press to force Trump’s hand on NATO, turning a policy discussion into an immediate political crisis. If Trump wasn’t careful, the media would take Zelensky’s words and spin them into a narrative that pressured the US into granting security guarantees.

Vance, known for his “America First, Ukraine Maybe” stance, wasn’t about to let Zelensky and the media co-author US foreign policy. If there was a table to flip, Vance was about to reach for it. That’s when the masks slipped, the script flipped, the headlines wrote themselves, and the world took sides.

Was this genius or madness? Was someone playing 4-D chess, or was everyone just kicking pieces across the room and calling it strategy? Regardless, last Friday wasn’t just a bad meeting. It was the moment the global order shifted. And someone walked out of that room thinking they had won. The only question is — who?

Unless… perhaps this wasn’t a battle at all? What if Trump and Zelensky weren’t adversaries, but co-conspirators in a geopolitical game of good cop, bad cop? Think about it. One plays the tough guy, the other plays the desperate ally, and somewhere in the middle, NATO reaches for its wallet. Meanwhile, the public spectacle keeps Putin guessing, making him question US commitment while ensuring Ukraine’s Western backing remains strong. In this scenario, the Oval Office wasn’t a clash of wills — it was theater. A well-rehearsed script designed to manipulate Europe, pressure NATO, protect Ukraine, and bait Russia into a misstep.

Unless… there was no grand scheme at all. No mastermind. No carefully crafted deception. Just two leaders, trapped in a high-stakes political storm, reacting to the winds as they blew. If that’s the case, then the biggest truth to emerge from that meeting is that nobody — not Trump, not Zelensky, not NATO — really knows where this is headed. If this was staged, Trump and Zelensky just pulled off the ultimate geopolitical hustle. If it wasn’t, then two leaders just stumbled their way into a world-changing moment. That’s the lesson.

Unless…

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1052)