Her Campus Online Magazine Article: Commentary on Trump’s Oval Office Meeting with Zelenskyy

The meeting between former President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28, 2025, presents a profound ethical dilemma, one that can be analyzed through the lens of international relations theory. As a student deeply engaged in global diplomacy, human rights, and the preservation of democratic values, I find this encounter emblematic of the ongoing tension between transactional politics and the moral imperatives that should ideally govern international relations. The dissonance between the two leaders is stark: one represents populist authoritarianism, while the other symbolizes democratic resistance to autocratic aggression.

Zelenskyy has emerged as a symbol of national resilience, embodying the struggle for Ukraine’s survival in the face of Russian aggression. As Ivan Krastev aptly asserts, “The fight for Ukraine has become a fight for the future of Europe, and by extension, the world” (Krastev, 2022). His leadership, underscored by an unwavering commitment to democratic principles and human dignity, contrasts sharply with the policies of Trump, whose presidency was characterized by an inclination to favor autocratic regimes over democratic allies. This historical context complicates the notion of any meaningful diplomatic rapprochement between these two figures. From a realist perspective, Trump’s transactional foreign policy, which often prioritized personal gain over broader international cooperation, raises serious ethical concerns when juxtaposed with Zelenskyy’s efforts to preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic institutions.

The ethical ramifications of this meeting extend beyond personal ideologies to broader international implications. Trump’s previous dealings with Ukraine, particularly the 2019 impeachment for withholding military aid in exchange for political favors, underscore his transactional approach to diplomacy. As Robert Kagan argues, Trump’s “America First” doctrine not only distanced the United States from its traditional allies but also facilitated the rise of authoritarian influence globally (Kagan, 2018). Trump’s apparent disregard for Ukraine’s plight during the height of the Russian invasion in 2019, coupled with his continued affinity for autocratic leaders like Vladimir Putin, suggests that his current engagement with Zelenskyy is motivated less by a genuine concern for Ukraine’s long-term security and more by a pursuit of political self-interest. This aligns with realist theory, which emphasizes power dynamics and national self-interest over ideals such as human rights and democracy in international relations.

This meeting raises questions about the ethical obligations of global actors in times of humanitarian crisis. Ukraine, in its struggle against Russian aggression, has faced immense human suffering–thousands of civilians displaced, lives lost, and a nation at the brink of existential collapse. When viewed through an ethical lens, as articulated by Martha Nussbaum, the crisis demands empathy: “imagining the plight of others, understanding their suffering, and recognizing our shared humanity” (Nussbaum, 2001). From a constructivist viewpoint, diplomacy should be driven not just by strategic calculations but by a recognition of the human values that bind states together. The question arises: Can a leader like Trump, whose administration often exhibited indifference to the humanitarian needs of refugees and marginalized groups, genuinely engage in diplomacy rooted in empathy for Ukraine’s plight?

Furthermore, this meeting has broader implications for the international order. The ongoing struggle between democracy and autocracy is now unfolding in real time, with the international community at a critical juncture. In this context, diplomatic engagements must reflect a commitment not only to political pragmatism but also to the foundational principles of international law, such as respect for human dignity and sovereignty. Trump’s diplomatic style, which often leaned toward appeasing authoritarian regimes, stands in opposition to the democratic values that Zelenskyy defends. In this regard, the encounter between Trump and Zelenskyy highlights a tension between the preservation of democratic norms and the pragmatics of international relations.

In light of these considerations, one must question the real outcomes of this meeting. Was it a genuine effort by Zelenskyy to secure support for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, or was it simply a political maneuver by Trump to rehabilitate his global image, despite his checkered history with international diplomacy? Trump’s approach to foreign policy, often reduced to strategic calculations aimed at bolstering his personal standing, casts doubt on whether any meaningful shift in the dynamics of the Ukraine conflict or any substantive contribution to Ukraine’s plight is likely to emerge from this meeting.

This encounter serves as a stark reminder of the ethical dilemmas that characterize contemporary global politics. As a scholar committed to empathy, justice, and the preservation of democratic values, it is difficult to reconcile these ideals with the realities of engaging diplomatically with a figure such as Trump. This meeting symbolizes not a constructive dialogue aimed at resolving a global crisis but rather the continuation of a political narrative in which self-interest takes precedence over the collective good. In this light, one must ponder whether the international community is advancing toward a more just and empathetic future or regressing into a world where power, rather than principle, dictates the course of international relations.

References:

Kagan, R. (2018). The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World. Knopf.

Krastev, I. (2022). The Revenge of the Real: Politics for a Post-Pandemic World. Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.