The Oval Office Hodown: Zelenskyy vs. Trump and Vance—Who Really Won?

Victory in the infamous Oval Office clash depends on whom you ask. Trump’s supporters will claim their man triumphed, while Zelenskyy’s backers insist he was right to push back. But for those who prefer to stay above the fray, the spectacle revealed a great deal about the personalities involved.

The moment that stole the show? Zelensky allegedly muttered “suka blyat”—a Russian phrase translating roughly to “f*****g bitch”—under his breath at J.D. Vance. The phrase is often used to vent frustration, akin to “f*****g hell” in English, but whether he actually said it is debatable. From the recordings, all I can discern is a vague hissing sound. Still, given Zelenskyy’s belligerent demeanour, it’s not a stretch to assume an insult was involved.

That, in itself, is astonishing behaviour for a head of state. All Zelenskyy had to do was sit back, thank the American people for their support, and say as little as possible. Instead, he fanned the flames.

The controversy kicked off when a reporter asked why he hadn’t worn a suit to show respect, given that he was in the Oval Office. His response, presumably meant as humour, came across as a sneer—likely due to cultural differences but a sneer nonetheless. In America, the Oval Office is sacred ground, and appearing dismissive of it is, to many, a form of desecration.

Then came the real fireworks. When J.D. Vance suggested it was time for a diplomatic approach to end the war, Zelenskyy launched into a tirade, revisiting the history of Russia’s invasion since 2014 and declaring that nobody cared about Ukraine back then. He accused Putin of breaking past agreements, implying that diplomacy was a dead-end. When Vance pushed back, Zelenskyy sneered that Vance knew nothing about the conflict, and from there, the confrontation spiralled.

What did the debacle prove? Zelenskyy possesses the diplomatic skills of a box of rocks. His decisions—both on and off the battlefield—have been reckless. He bears as much responsibility for prolonging the war as Putin and NATO.

Let’s be blunt: Russia has lost this war. Ukraine has lost this war. Military experts now describe it as a “war of attrition,” a phrase curiously absent from most TV news bulletins. What does it mean?

A war of attrition is a war fought until one side runs out of soldiers. Victory isn’t about strategy, but about who can throw more bodies into the grinder. World War I, the most catastrophic conflict in human history, produced c. 40 million casualties because both sides were locked in a bloody stalemate. The same is now happening in Ukraine.

Zelensky is prepared to sacrifice every last Ukrainian soldier for a war he cannot win. Russia, unable to back down without humiliation, is equally committed to endless bloodshed. And by the brutal arithmetic of attrition, Russia will prevail—eventually, at the cost of millions of lives. Trump and Vance understand this reality. They want to end the war not out of charity but out of cold, hard realism.

The Irish Lesson

There is a historical precedent for a pragmatic approach to unwinnable wars. The Irish had to accept partition rather than fight a doomed war of attrition against the British. The Korean War, technically still ongoing, ended in a ceasefire to avoid a similar fate.

But here’s where Ireland’s own leadership stumbles into absurdity. The Irish government, led by the ever-ineffectual Micheál Martin and his predecessors, abandoned neutrality to become a cheerleader for Zelensky—an act of geopolitical buffoonery. Even Israel has rebuked Ireland’s foreign policy blunders.

A neutral country has immense diplomatic power. It can act as an honest broker, manoeuvring warring factions toward peace. Instead, Ireland’s leaders have postured on the world stage, making enemies instead of friends, mistaking self-importance for significance.

Martin, in particular, has been writing cheques in blood—Ukrainian and Russian blood—without any moral or strategic right to do so. He wants to appear as a statesman but merely comes off as an amateur.

The Verdict?

Zelenskyy, a former comedian, has proven to be a showman but not a statesman. Even Biden did not trust Zelenskyy, who even swore at him during a phone call—an unconventional way to express gratitude, to say the least. His ego, seemingly boundless, blinds him to the reality that Ukraine is locked in an unwinnable war, one he is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian.

Trump and Vance, for all their flaws, understand that diplomacy—not bravado—is the only way to end an attritional war. The real question is whether anyone will listen before the body count reaches the millions.

EJ