Before departing from London, where he participated in a European summit focused on Ukraine’s security and ending the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made it clear that he does not intend to apologise to US President Donald Trump. Nor does he see any reason to express regret over the events that transpired in the Oval Office during their recent meeting.
Zelenskyy described his visit to the United States as a gesture of respect, rejecting the notion that he should seek another meeting with Trump. He highlighted the significant effort it took to attend the meeting, travelling by train for 12 hours and then flying for another 11. He considered the invitation to the White House as a sign of respect from the US but reiterated that he is ready to sign an agreement concerning natural resource exploitation, which he stated is prepared for signing.
Pressure from the Trump Administration
Several senior US officials within Trump’s administration have reportedly suggested that Zelenskyy should apologise as a precondition for continuing US-Ukraine relations. This was publicly stated by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. However, the expectation of an apology appears to be more about the internal political culture of Trump’s administration than a foreign policy issue.
High-ranking officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, have consistently demonstrated strong deference to Trump, even in meetings with foreign representatives. Republican senators and congressmen have also largely defended Trump following his discussions with Zelenskyy in the White House.
Despite the political pressure, Zelenskyy’s statements suggest he seeks to move past the controversy surrounding the White House meeting. His remarks to journalists before leaving the UK indicate an attempt to ease tensions. Notably, British journalists pointed out that Zelenskyy conducted the interview in Ukrainian through an interpreter rather than speaking in English, suggesting his desire to articulate his position precisely.
European Initiatives and Ceasefire Proposals
During his visit to London, Zelenskyy responded positively to the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s plan for ending hostilities in Ukraine. He acknowledged being informed of the joint initiative by Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, which proposes a temporary ceasefire in the air, at sea, and on infrastructure targets. This initiative was presented immediately following the European leaders’ summit in London.
However, while Zelenskyy confirmed his awareness of the proposal, he refrained from expressing his stance on the matter. The extent of US involvement in this European initiative remains uncertain, with President Trump yet to issue a response. Although European leaders have attempted to maintain dialogue with Trump following his White House dispute with Zelenskyy, his administration’s position on the initiative remains unclear.
Future of US-Ukraine Relations
Trump, who is returning from his Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago, is expected to consult his key advisers, including Rubio and Waltz, on the future course of US-Ukraine cooperation. Following the White House meeting, several senior administration officials warned that the US might entirely halt military aid to Ukraine.
A significant issue in the bilateral relationship is the proposed natural resource agreement, which Trump sees as a mechanism to justify continued aid to Ukraine before his domestic audience. The failure to finalise the deal during Zelenskyy’s visit has reportedly strengthened the position of those in Trump’s administration advocating for reducing support to Kyiv.
Crucially, neither Trump nor his officials have provided clear security guarantees to Ukraine should the agreement be signed. They have only suggested that the presence of US companies involved in resource extraction would serve as an implicit deterrent against further aggression. However, this argument lacks historical or strategic precedent, particularly given Trump’s previous statements downplaying US commitments to Ukraine’s defence.
Trump has also repeatedly indicated that the US would not intervene to protect Ukraine or, by extension, the American companies that might be involved in resource exploitation in the country. This raises questions about the credibility of US security assurances should the agreement be signed.
Read also:
Europe Unveils Peace Plan for Ukraine Amid Tensions with Washington
