No mineral deal: Trump’s failure in Oval Office clash with Zelenskyy

There are many ways of reading the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance in the Oval Office with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This was going to be Trump-style televised politics and thus one should expect theatre.

My own initial reading reminded me of Only Fools and Horses, the British TV sitcom about an ambitious market trader, or dealer, Derek ‘Del Boy’ Trotter and his brother Rodney. Why did I have this association? The answer can be traced back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. In these stories, Holmes always asked the following question of an event: what really happened?

What really happened in the Oval Office is that Donald Trump and JD Vance failed to conclude a deal. This was a deal designed to be worth many billions of dollars to the US. More importantly, the deal would have enhanced America’s security of supply of rare earth minerals. This was critically important for America. To Trump this deal was intended to help US taxpayers ‘get their money back’ for aid sent to Ukraine. This takes me back to Del Boy, a less than successful deal maker. Del Boy popularised the phase “Plonker” in Britain meaning a fool or an idiot. I would encourage you to ask the question “who was the Plonker in the Oval Office last Friday?”.

There are many ways of reading what occurred. Zelenskyy was a guest hosted by the American people. Was this any way to treat a guest, and especially if you wanted them to sign a major business deal? One point to remember is that Zelenskyy represents his country’s highest office and Trump, Vance and Glenn went out of their way to not respect the dignity of the post that Zelenskyy holds. It is important to note that there were two Presidents in the Oval Office last Friday.

Another way of reading this encounter between Trump/Vance and Zelenskyy is to frame this around a discussion of free speech. Zelenskyy was not permitted to respond freely and was continually interrupted by Trump and Vance. There are two points to make here.

On the one hand, Zelenskyy was at a considerable disadvantage in this encounter and both Trump and Vance were aware of this. Zelenskyy had to cope with a highly stressful encounter, but through a non-native language. On the other hand, in a poorly judged speech to the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in February 2025, JD Vance attacked America’s allies, including the UK, for decrying misinformation, disinformation and for not upholding free speech. Vance’s engagement with Zelenskyy prevented Zelenskyy from outlining his position.

One of the issues with Trump and Vance is their failure to articulate an objective account of Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are many examples of this. For example, Mike Waltz, National Security Adviser, was in the Oval Office during the meeting and he noted that Zelenskyy was “like an ex-girlfriend that wants to argue everything that you said nine years ago, rather than moving the relationship forward”.

Waltz needs to learn the importance of considering the perceptions and feelings of others. Part of Ukraine was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. One should not forget all Russia’s drone and missile attacks on civilian infrastructure including hospitals. Neither should one forget the almost 20,000 Ukrainian children who were forcibly abducted by Russia. It is important to remember that there is no free speech or even freedom in Russia and no democracy. Should all this be overlooked?

There was much to learn about Vance and Trump during this exchange in the Oval Office. Trump seems to think that war is the same as playing cards. In one exchange, Trump said to Zelenskyy "You've done enough talking. You're not winning this. You gotta be thankful. You don't have the cards”. Zelenskyy quite rightly pointed out that “I’m not playing cards.” Zelenskyy cannot be criticised for doing too much talking as he is much more about action. Moreover, we need to remember Sherlock Holmes and focus on what really happened. On Friday, Trump had all the cards on his side regarding the mineral deal and he failed to deliver. Imagine what Del Boy’s response would be to such a failure.

The final point I want to reflect on concerns Vance who stated that the war had to end through diplomacy. Really? Zelenskyy replied, “What kind of diplomacy?”. Vance gave a political answer which was “I’m taking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country”. But what does this mean? Vance then noted that “right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower (sic.) problems—you should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict”. Zelenskyy asked Vance if he had ever been to Ukraine. The answer was “I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people on a propaganda tour”. Evidently Vance has not been to Ukraine.

Vance needs to place his reading of the Ukrainian situation in context. Russia has major military labour problems, and these are to such an extent that Putin has North Korean troops fighting Putin’s Ukrainian war. Vance should tell Putin to recognise Ukrainian territory and withdraw his Russian and North Korean troops from Ukraine. Vance should also give a version of his MSC speech, but targeted at Russia where there is no free speech.

What does this mean? Trump and Vance held all the cards regarding a major mineral deal and failed to deliver a signed contract. For Putin, there is a major problem. European states are increasing the proportion of their GDP that they spend on defence. A more integrated European perspective on European security is forming that is led from Europe rather than from America. All this is bad news for Putin. It might also mean that the EU, with other European countries, emerges as a major military power and sidelines America.