Few events, if any, in recent history have generated such swift outrage and condemnation from the international community as the recent globally televised train-wreck interaction in the Oval Office at the White House with President Donald Trump, his Vice-President JD Vance, and the battle-weary Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

What was billed as a historic diplomatic press briefing centred on the signing of a “mineral deal” as a security guarantee to repay the United States for further military support to Ukraine in its war with Russia as a stepping stone towards hammering out a peace deal to end the conflict, quickly descended into a moment that left multiple of millions around the world questioning the dynamics in the 21st century of international politics — particularly regarding the relationship between the mega-powerful United States and war-torn Ukraine.

Power and diplomacy

Zelensky’s televised humiliation by the double-force of President Trump and Vice-President Vance calls for a revision of the meaning of power and diplomacy in international relations in the modern era.

Trump and Zelensky’s relationship have always been complicated, if not hostile, and it is this fact that set the stage for what happened at the White House. A political outsider in the true sense of the term — and a former comedian to boot — Zelensky ascended the leadership of his country in 2019 promising sweeping reforms and a more transparent Government than what obtained before. Simultaneously, Ukraine was heavily dependent on United States’ support, especially in the face of Russian aggression and the conflict in the Donbas region of the country.

Against this background, Zelensky’s visit to the White House was initially seen as a critical opportunity to solidify US-Ukraine relationship, given that maintaining strong ties with the United States was considered paramount in light of its role in providing military aid and political backing to Ukraine.

But the political climate surrounding Trump was always controversial and problematic, especially after the impeachment proceedings against him involving a phone call between himself and Zelensky in 2019. The conversation in which Trump was accused of pressuring Zelensky to launch an investigation into former US President Joe Biden’s son naturally soured the atmosphere even before the meeting between the two men. This explains why Trump and his vice-president were more interested in using the occasion to publicly assert dominance.

And days before Zelensky’s arrival in Washington, Trump had falsely labelled him a “dictator”, angering Ukrainians, only to later walk back the claim during his earlier meeting with the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the Oval Office by saying he can’t believe he said that.

But, despite Trump’s reaction of shock and regret, both he and his vice-president went on to make remarks that sought to belittle and dismiss Zelensky by painting him as subservient to United States interests. The remarks were not simply deeply politically charged, as given the profound imbalance of power between Trump and the Ukrainian president, they were, more importantly, deeply personal as well.

What is more, the imbalance of power was not simply verbal. Trump’s body language, and the way he conducted the meeting, further accentuated the power disparity, especially in the way he boisterously and menacingly spoke to, and over, Zelensky and steering the conversation in a direction that served his own political narrative. This clearly served to embarrass and remind the Ukrainian leader of his subordinate position on the global stage, notwithstanding his country’s reliance on American support.

Lessons to be learnt from this moment

To begin with, it is unquestionable that the collapse of the Trump-Zelensky White House meeting is a defining moment in US-Ukraine relations. It underscored the very complex and oft unequal nature of international diplomacy, especially when smaller nations are reliant on the political support of larger powers.

Unfortunately for Zelensky, the moment represented a painful reminder of the limits of his influence with the Trump Administration. For, despite his admirable reformist agenda at home and expectations of the Ukrainian people, the undisputed fact is that his political impact during the White House slugfest was severely constrained by his country’s dependence on US aid, military support, and diplomatic backing.

In addition, Trump’s behaviour forcefully illustrates the emerging transactional approach to foreign policy in the 21st century. Indeed, he has been consistent in declaring “America First” in international dealings with other countries placing limited emphasis on traditional global alliances and more on securing deals that benefited the United States. He considers himself, furthermore, as first and foremost a businessman, and president (of the United States) second. This world view, more often than not, explains why he adopts the idea of leverage in his interactions with other countries.

Against this background, there is very little doubt that Zelensky’s position within Ukraine is now severely affected following the White House meeting, especially in the context of the subsequent withdrawal of US aid to Ukraine, notwithstanding his support of several European counties. This has forced him to request a return to the negotiation table in Washington, while showering praise on what he describes as the US president’s “strong leadership” and expressing gratitude for his country’s military help.

Clearly, the Ukrainian leader is yet to demonstrate his understanding of what is shaping up to be the New International Political Order (NIPO) under President Trump. By all accounts, he underestimated the profoundly personal and political challenges inherent in engaging with the world’s most powerful leader, especially in front of television cameras, where he is most comfortable.

Closer to home, small-island nation states within Caricom and the larger global South would do well to note that the public humiliation of President Zelensky at the White House was not simply a personal affront to the Ukrainian leader. It was also a moment that highlighted the deep and growing unpredictable complexities of modern diplomacy and international relations in a rapidly evolving technological, climate sensitive, and artificial intelligence (AI)- driven international landscape.

It also forcibly exposed the consequential vulnerabilities of smaller nations in a world where power — defined as the ability to make definitions about oneself and follow through with action on the basis of those definitions — is increasingly distributed unevenly, and where world leaders like Donald Trump are willing to exploit the existing power imbalances for raw political gain. Respect in international politics in the modern era is now earned through the prism of power relations rather than principle.

In the final analysis, the White House débâcle may have been an embarrassment on the world stage, but it also forcibly underscored the importance of strategic diplomacy and the need for world leaders today, and those to come, to appreciate at all times going forward the broader global context in which they operate.

This, in my considered view, is why the lessons from the Trump-Zelensky White House episode will no doubt profoundly impact international relations and diplomacy for many years to come throughout the 21st century.

Everton Pryce is a former Hubert H Humphrey Fulbright fellow.