I have read your impassioned critique of the recent Oval Office meeting between former President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While I appreciate your concerns about the state of diplomacy, your analysis leans too heavily on sentiment rather than the hard realities of power dynamics.

You lament the “death of diplomacy,” but diplomacy was never about mutual kindness; it has always been about interests, leverage, and power projection. The very foundation of international relations is built on the Machiavellian principle that “it is better to be feared than loved” if one cannot be both. The Oval Office meeting was not the aberration you paint it to be—it was a brutally honest display of power asymmetry in a world where morality is often a mere cloak for interests.

1. Humiliation is a Tool, Not an Accident

You compare Trump’s treatment of Zelenskyy to a street altercation or a gang member bullying a subordinate. While the optics were unflattering, humiliation is a calculated diplomatic tool, not a reckless outburst.

Consider Charles de Gaulle and Franklin Roosevelt in World War II. Roosevelt constantly belittled de Gaulle, refusing to recognize him as France’s legitimate leader, forcing him to negotiate as if he were a mere rebel leader. Why? Because the U.S. sought to control France’s post-war reconstruction, and diminishing de Gaulle’s legitimacy was a means to that end.

Or take Richard Nixon’s “madman theory”—he intentionally acted unpredictably to keep adversaries like the Soviet Union off balance. Humiliation, unpredictability, and controlled chaos are long-standing tactics in high-stakes diplomacy.

2. Ukraine’s Vulnerability is the Real Problem

The real tragedy is not the theatrics in the Oval Office—it is that Ukraine lacks bargaining power. You invoke Henry Kissinger, and rightly so, but you fail to recall his fundamental doctrine: “No policy, however well-intentioned, will succeed unless it is based on a realistic assessment of power.”

Ukraine’s leadership made a strategic error by placing all its bets on unconditional Western support. A truly strategic leader would have hedged their position—engaging with China, leveraging neutral states, and negotiating from a position of flexibility rather than dependence.

Contrast Ukraine with Finland during the Cold War. Despite being geographically next to the Soviet Union, Finland never fully alienated Moscow nor fully embraced the West. This ensured its security while maintaining sovereignty. Ukraine, however, chose a path of total alignment with NATO, a decision that left it vulnerable to the very spectacle you decry.

3. Allies Are Not Equals—They Are Transactions

You speak of alliances as if they are sacred bonds. But alliances are contracts of convenience, not lifelong friendships. Nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.

Consider how Britain abandoned Poland in 1939 despite guarantees of military support. Or how the U.S. abruptly withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving its allies scrambling. International relations is a chessboard where pieces are sacrificed for greater strategic goals.

Even within NATO, member states prioritize their own security over ideological commitments:

Germany hesitated on supplying weapons to Ukraine due to economic ties with Russia.

France has openly suggested negotiations with Putin rather than endless military aid.

The U.S. Congress has debated cutting aid, proving that Ukraine’s security is not an absolute priority but a conditional investment.

Zelenskyy failed to grasp this. His assumption that Ukraine’s suffering would eternally bind Western nations to its cause was a naïve reading of history.

4. The West’s Waning Influence and the Rise of Multipolarity

You argue that the Oval Office episode signals America’s diplomatic decline. But rather than blame Trump’s behavior, consider the broader global shift:

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has made major inroads in Africa, Latin America, and even Europe.

India has adopted a neutral stance on the Ukraine war, refusing to condemn Russia outright.

The BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is growing, offering alternative economic alliances.

The U.S. is adapting to a world where unipolar dominance is eroding. If Washington appears harsher in its dealings, it is because the luxury of diplomacy built on unquestioned American supremacy is fading.

5. What Zelenskyy Should Have Done

Let’s step away from the sentimentality of “how he was treated” and focus on how he should have acted.

1. Speak in Ukrainian, Not English – Language is a power tool. Putin never speaks English in diplomatic engagements, even though he understands it well. Zelenskyy’s choice to speak English only reinforced his subservience.

2. Walk Out Instead of Begging – When Charles de Gaulle faced hostility from Roosevelt, he did not grovel. He threatened to withdraw French troops, forcing Roosevelt to soften his approach. Zelenskyy should have sent a signal of Ukrainian agency, rather than pleading.

3. Engage China and India – The West is tired. Ukraine’s best move now is to start working on parallel alliances, just as Israel does with both the U.S. and China.

Conclusion: Power Respects Leverage, Not Sentiment

Your argument mourns the “death of diplomacy,” but diplomacy has not died—it has only shed the illusions of courtesy. The real lesson here is that Ukraine’s weakness is not in how it was treated, but in how it positioned itself.

Diplomacy is not a dinner party—it is a battlefield of calculated moves. If Zelenskyy wants Ukraine to be treated with respect, he must not rely on Western pity, but on strategic leverage. Otherwise, this will not be the last time Ukraine is humiliated—not just in the Oval Office, but on the global stage.