American Leadership Diminished

The perils of a reality TV presidency

This week’s Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy raised serious concerns about the conduct of American diplomacy. What should have been a respectful discussion between allies instead displayed several deeply troubling elements:

• The transformation of serious diplomacy into reality TV entertainment
• Public humiliation of the leader of a nation fighting for its survival
• False equivalence between Putin (the aggressor) and Zelenskyy (the defender)
• Dismissal of factual information about Russia’s history of breaking agreements
• Demands for gratitude instead of substantive policy discussion
• Disrespect toward a former U.S. president during an official diplomatic meeting
• Prioritizing performative dominance over addressing the human cost of war
• The normalization of authoritarian communication styles in American leadership
• Abandonment of America’s traditional diplomatic protocols and moral leadership

These elements combined to create a disturbing picture of where American foreign policy may be heading.

Bullying the defender, enabling the aggressor

The most disturbing aspect of this exchange was how it positioned the parties in this conflict. Trump insisted on moral parity between Putin, the aggressor who ordered the invasion of a sovereign nation, and Zelenskyy, whose country was invaded.

When Zelenskyy attempted to explain Putin’s pattern of breaking agreements, Trump and Vance treated these factual points as unhelpful obstacles to their preferred narrative.

The dynamics of the meeting resembled schoolyard bullying more than statesmanship – two powerful figures ganging up on the representative of a nation fighting for its survival. When Trump told Zelenskyy, “You don’t have the cards right now,” and that he should “take a ceasefire right now… so the bullets stop flying,” he effectively advocated for accepting terms that would likely benefit the aggressor at the expense of the defender.

The absent figure of Putin emerged as the tacit beneficiary of this exchange. His repeated violations of previous agreements were brushed aside, his aggression implicitly justified, and his victim publicly humiliated in what should be the dignified center of American democracy.

A history forgotten or ignored

To understand the true gravity of this exchange, we must recall the facts:

Russia under Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, occupying Crimea. As a candidate in 2016, Trump demonstrated no awareness of this critical geopolitical development. Even now in 2025, Trump contradicted Zelenskyy on the date of the initial Russian aggression, only conceding the point when corrected by someone else in the room.

The conflict escalated dramatically on February 24, 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion after massing troops on Ukraine’s border. For three years and four days since that date, the Ukrainian people have fought to defend their homeland from aggression and preserve their sovereignty.

The international community responded with sanctions on Russia, while under President Biden’s leadership, NATO provided financial support, intelligence, and military equipment to Ukraine.

What Putin predicted would be over in three days has instead stretched into its fourth year, with Russian forces suffering significant losses.

Yet instead of acknowledging these realities, the Oval Office meeting featured Trump insisting on moral equivalence between Putin the aggressor and Zelenskyy the defender, dismissing what he characterized as Zelenskyy’s “hatred” toward the man who ordered the invasion of his country.

A witness to diplomatic degradation

As a viewer watching this extraordinary exchange unfold, I experienced a profound sense of helplessness. There was something deeply unsettling about witnessing a leader whose country is fighting for survival being berated in the Oval Office while the cameras rolled. It evoked the disturbing sensation of watching bullying occur without being able to intervene – a feeling of being complicit through silence.

The discomfort I felt was not just political disagreement but a deeper moral unease. This wasn’t merely unconventional diplomacy; it was a public humiliation that made me feel dirty watching it – like I was standing by with no recourse to stop. The scene had a dystopian quality that was all the more disturbing for being not fiction but reality playing out in what has traditionally been the dignified center of American government.

Market reaction: economic consequences in real time

The ramifications of this diplomatic breakdown weren’t limited to political concerns – financial markets reacted immediately. The Cboe Volatility Index, widely regarded as Wall Street’s “fear gauge,” spiked to 22.40 at one point during the exchange, its highest level since January 27.

This wasn’t just a symbolic reaction. As investor Jim Lebenthal of Cerity Partners noted on CNBC’s “Halftime Report”: “I’m disturbed by what I just saw. If the policies in foreign affairs are now to empower Russia and Vladimir Putin, I don’t think that’s good for the stock market. I don’t think that’s good for the global economy. I find it hard to make a case otherwise.” [1]

The market’s response underscores that this isn’t merely about diplomatic niceties or political theater. When American foreign policy appears to shift toward empowering Putin’s Russia at Ukraine’s expense, investors recognize the potential for serious economic destabilization. 

This is a reminder that erratic diplomacy carries concrete costs that extend far beyond the Oval Office.

An American reckoning

Will this disturbing display force Americans to confront a fundamental question about our national direction?

The treatment of Zelenskyy—a democratically elected leader whose people are dying daily to defend their freedom—reveals troubling impulses in our political culture.

How many Americans watched this exchange with horror, and how many with approval?

Are we collectively witnessing—or worse, enabling—a transition away from democratic principles toward a style of governance where public humiliation replaces respectful engagement?

When our treatment of an ally fighting for survival against an authoritarian aggressor begins to mirror the tactics of that very aggressor, we must question where this path leads.

The contrast between Zelenskyy’s dignified restraint and the behavior he faced was stark. Many viewers might have understood if Zelenskyy had responded more forcefully to such treatment. Instead, he maintained composure while being berated in front of the world.

There is something profoundly unsettling about this moment in American diplomacy. It suggests not just a different approach to foreign policy, but a different conception of America’s role in the world and the values we stand for. As we process this troubling incident, we must ask ourselves: Is this who we want to be? And if not, what are we prepared to do about it?

The White House’s Jerry Springer moment

What unfolded in the Oval Office resembled less a diplomatic meeting than a seedy talk show. Trump and Vance berated Zelenskyy in a display that would have been more at home on daytime television than in the seat of American government. All that was missing was a crowd of chanting supporters in the background.

When Zelenskyy attempted to provide accurate historical context—explaining that the conflict began under Obama, continued during Trump’s first term, escalated into full-scale war under Biden, and persists today—his factual account was dismissed. He recounted past diplomatic efforts with Putin, who repeatedly agreed to prisoner exchanges and ceasefires that he subsequently violated.

Rather than engaging with these substantive points, Vance interrupted to demand expressions of gratitude, saying, “Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting?”

The meeting reached a particularly low point when Trump referred to President Biden as “not a smart person,” abandoning even the pretense of respecting his predecessor. Facts and historical accuracy were swept aside in favor of performative dominance, revealing a profound lack of seriousness about the human cost of this war.

Considerations for the future

As the world reflects on this incident, it’s worth considering what approach to international diplomacy best serves our national interests and values.

Should diplomatic exchanges be conducted primarily for public consumption, or should substantive discussions take place in more measured settings? Are our relationships with allies strengthened by public demands for gratitude and assertions of leverage, or by mutual respect and recognition of shared objectives?

The Ukrainian people have shown remarkable resilience in defending their homeland. They represent a nation seeking to preserve its sovereignty against an aggressor. This fundamental distinction between aggression and defense has traditionally informed American foreign policy positions.

Regardless of one’s view on the appropriate level of assistance or engagement with Ukraine, there is value in maintaining a diplomatic approach that respects the dignity of foreign leaders and recognizes the serious nature of discussions about war and peace.

Traditional diplomatic practices have evolved over centuries precisely because international relations have lasting consequences beyond any momentary public impression.

[1] Source