The full Trump-Zelenskyy conversation: Diplomatic escalation and media abridgment

On February 28, 2025, US President Donald Trump met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. This eagerly awaited meeting attracted worldwide attention - albeit often only in abbreviated form. Many media outlets reported on the scandal towards the end of the meeting, when Trump and his VP, JD Vance, clashed loudly with Zelenskyy. The first 40 minutes or so of the meeting, in which both sides spoke diplomatically and discussed constructive approaches, received little attention (Tagesschau).

This article traces the entire course of the conversation and analyzes the diplomatic escalation during the meeting on the one hand and the media distortion caused by incomplete reporting on the other. The aim is to objectively present what happened and emphasize the importance of the full context for a correct understanding.

The diplomatic escalation

Start of talks: diplomatic tones and constructive approaches

The meeting began in a polite and businesslike atmosphere. Both heads of state emphasized common goals and sought solutions. Trump struck a conciliatory tone and declared that the USA would continue to support Ukraine militarily - but with the clear desire to end the war soon. He said that they “don't want to send a lot of weapons” and rather “want to see the war end so we can do other things” (The Times of Israel).

Trump emphasized that peace negotiations with Russia were ultimately necessary. He explicitly emphasized that “you can't make a deal without concessions” and that Ukraine would “have to make some compromises” in a ceasefire (Tribune).

Trump presented this willingness to compromise as unavoidable to end the three-year war.

Zelenskyy also initially appeared willing to talk and be diplomatic. He assured that “President Trump is on our side” and implicitly thanked the US for their previous support (Tribune). Zelenskyy emphasized the urgency of security guarantees for his country: In the event of a ceasefire, there must be reliable security from the US, such as a kind of “security backstop” with an international peacekeeping force (Tribune).

This point was key for Zelenskyy to prevent future Russian aggression. In addition, Zelenskyy even invited Trump to visit Ukraine in person to get a picture of the situation - a conciliatory offer: “You have to come and see it” (Tribune).

There were also constructive approaches: both sides had negotiated the outlines of an economic agreement in advance to help Ukraine with its reconstruction. The plan was to sign a joint investment program in which the USA would gain access to Ukrainian natural resources such as rare earths, while Ukraine would receive financial aid for reconstruction in return (The Times of Israel). Trump described this resource deal as “very fair” (Tribune) - a sign that he was aiming for a constructive conclusion at the start of the talks. Zelenskyy showed interest in such agreements but insisted that concrete security commitments had to be part of the package (The Times of Israel). All in all, the start was characterized by diplomatic courtesies, joint press questioning, and the will to find common ground. Both presidents initially appeared eager to make a success of the meeting despite their differing perspectives.

Turning point: from dialog to open dispute

Although the beginning was friendly, increasingly clear differences of opinion emerged as the talks progressed - especially on the question of how peace with Russia could be achieved. The decisive turning point came when it came to dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin and possible peace terms. Trump urged Zelenskyy to engage in negotiations with Moscow and not insist on maximum victory. He presented the situation soberly: “Your country is in big trouble. I know that you will not win... You have a damn good chance of getting out of it in one piece because of us,” Trump said loudly (Tagesschau). In doing so, he wanted to make it clear to Zelenskyy that Ukraine could hardly succeed militarily without the help of the USA and should, therefore, accept America's conditions.

Zelenskyy, on the other hand, urgently warned against making hasty concessions to the Kremlin. He recalled that Russia had repeatedly broken agreements and explicitly called Putin a “terrorist” and “killer” with whom there should be “no compromises” (The Times of Israel). Zelenskyy underlined his emotional point by showing Trump pictures of Russian war crimes, such as deported Ukrainian children and atrocities committed in the last three years of war (Tribune). His appeal was clear: “Even in war there are rules”, and these must not be violated by a rotten peace (The Times of Israel). This fundamental difference in attitude - immediate ceasefire with compromise vs. uncompromising adherence to justice and security - prepared the ground for the escalation that followed.

The tone sharpened abruptly when journalists were in the room, and Zelenskyy openly expressed his skepticism. Vice President JD Vance reacted angrily at first. He addressed the Ukrainian President directly: “Mr. President, with all due respect. I find it disrespectful of you to come to the Oval Office and try to negotiate in front of the American media,” Vance reprimanded Zelenskyy (Tagesschau). He was alluding to the fact that Zelenskyy criticized Trump's ideas of peace on camera instead of discussing such differences discreetly behind closed doors. Vance also accused Zelenskyy of making demands in the face of high Ukrainian losses: “Right now, when you are forcing conscripts to the front because you have personnel problems, you should thank President Trump for trying to improve the situation” (Tagesschau). These sharp words revealed frustration on the American side: from their point of view, Zelenskyy showed too little gratitude and instead tried to put the US government under public pressure.

When Zelenskyy wanted to respond, Trump barely let him finish (Tagesschau). The previously smouldering conflict now erupted openly. Trump raised his voice and went on a verbal attack: He accused Zelenskyy of being “not grateful at all” (Tagesschau). In an angry tone, he declared that it would be “very difficult to do business this way” (Tagesschau) - a blatant warning that the USA would not continue to provide unrestricted assistance under these circumstances. Trump interrupted Zelenskyy several times, and a fierce exchange of words ensued (Tagesschau). Finally, Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum: “You will either make a deal or we're out”, he thundered in the direction of Zelenskyy (Tagesschau). He bluntly threatened that the USA would abandon Ukraine if Zelenskyy was not prepared to reach an agreement with Putin.

In this heated final part of the meeting, Trump escalated to further drastic statements. He warned Zelenskyy that he was “gambling with the lives of millions of people” and even risking a “third world war” with his stance (The Times of Israel). On several occasions, Trump described Zelenskyy's behavior as “very disrespectful to this country that has supported you more than many think” (The Times of Israel). From the American point of view, Ukraine was “holding the cards” in the first place thanks to the immense US aid, while without the USA, “it would not be in a good position” (The Times of Israel). Zelenskyy retorted by pointing to previous failures by the West - for example, in 2014, no one had effectively stopped Putin after the annexation of Crimea (Tagesschau). But his attempts at defense were drowned out by Trump's tirade.

The atmosphere changed completely: what had begun as a diplomatic discussion was now a public exchange of blows with mutual accusations. Eyewitnesses described the atmosphere as “icy” (Tagesschau). Trump even went so far as to predict to Zelenskyy that Ukraine could not win the war anyway and that it was only thanks to the USA that Kiev had “a chance of getting out of it in one piece” (Tagesschau). From the Ukrainian perspective, such statements must have seemed like humiliation. Zelenskyy folded his arms and appeared stunned (Tagesschau), while Trump - flanked by an approving Vice President Vance - tried to maintain the upper hand in the discussion. Finally, Trump abruptly broke off the conversation: “I think we've seen enough,” he declared brusquely and ended the meeting (Tagesschau). Looking at the cameras, he added: “This is going to be great television, I can tell you that” (Tagesschau). This remark underlined the fact that Trump was aware of the public spectacle. The meeting thus ended in open discord - an unprecedented scandal in recent diplomacy between the USA and Ukraine (Tagesschau).

Missed opportunity: How could the conversation have ended positively?

Given this outcome, the question arises as to whether and how the conversation could have ended positively. A constructive outcome was originally planned: Both sides intended to hold a joint press conference after their talks and sign an agreement (The Times of Israel). The prospect was the signing of the aforementioned investment and raw materials agreement, which could have served as a symbol of a continued partnership. If this had happened, Trump and Zelenskyy could have appeared before the press together afterward and announced progress - a conciliatory conclusion instead of a scandal.

What would have been necessary to achieve this positive ending? From today's perspective, it is obvious that restraint and diplomatic sensitivity on both sides would have been crucial. If Trump and Vance had voiced their criticism of Zelenskyy confidentially rather than in front of the cameras, the situation would probably have escalated less. Similarly, Zelenskyy could have expressed his legitimate concerns (such as no peace without security guarantees and justice) more diplomatically in public or mainly in private instead of contradicting Trump in front of the press. Both sides could have moderated the tone: Trump by being less confrontational and threatening and Zelenskyy by more strongly emphasizing gratitude for past US aid before criticizing. Trump had softened his stance towards Ukraine shortly before the meeting, after having sharply attacked Zelenskyy in the weeks before (Tagesschau). If this moderate line had been consistently maintained and not displaced by impatience or anger, the meeting could have gone more smoothly.

It would have been crucial to find a compromise behind closed doors: For example, Trump could have assured Zelenskyy that the US would seriously consider security guarantees or at least support a “backstop” solution - something Zelenskyy urged (Tribune). In return, Zelenskyy could have signaled a willingness to negotiate a ceasefire once these guarantees were in place. Such a middle ground would have allowed both to save face: Trump could present a diplomatic success, and Zelenskyy would have continued to see his country's security guaranteed. If this compromise had succeeded, the press could have been informed that agreement had been reached on key points and that they were working together on a peace solution.

Unfortunately, this opportunity was missed. When the mood changed, upcoming program items were simply cancelled. Zelenskyy left the White House early, without the working lunch taking place in the Cabinet Room - the prepared salad plates remained untouched (The Times of Israel). The planned signing ceremony and press conference were canceled without replacement (The Times of Israel). Instead of a joint communiqué, the two delegations parted in dispute. In hindsight, it is clear that a positive outcome was within the realm of possibility - but it required more diplomatic restraint and willingness to compromise from all parties. The failure of the meeting shows how fragile even high-level talks are when communication and trust break down.

Rhetorical means and strategies of the participants

Throughout the conversation - both in the quiet phases and during the escalation - Trump, Zelenskyy, and Vance used various rhetorical devices to reinforce their point of view. A look at these linguistic strategies helps to better understand the dynamics of the conversation:

- Appeal to gratitude and pressure through threats (Trump & Vance): Trump repeatedly used the rhetoric of gratitude. Early on, he made it clear that Ukraine could hardly exist without the help of the USA and escalated this to the demand, “You have to be grateful” (Tagesschau). This imperative “You should be grateful” was intended to put Zelenskyy on the defensive. At the same time, Trump made open threats to generate pressure - such as the threat to withdraw support (“Deal or we're out“ (Tagesschau) or to paint the scenario of a “Third World War” on the wall (Tribune). This alarmist rhetoric (reference to a possible world war) served to portray Zelenskyy as irresponsible and to emphasize the urgency of Trump's demands. Vance struck the same chord: his interjection “You should thank President Trump” (Tagesschau) was rhetorically formulated as a sharp rebuke, although it began with the phrase “with all due respect”. Here, Vance combined a seemingly respectful form of address with a direct rebuke - a classic rhetorical device for politely introducing criticism and then sharpening it up. Both Trump and Vance thus relied on confrontational rhetoric intended to exude authority and verbally push Zelenskyy into a corner.

- Moral arguments and emotional images (Zelenskyy): Zelenskyy, in contrast, chose a rhetoric aimed at moral principles and emotions. By calling Putin a “killer” and emphasizing that there should be “no compromise” with such an aggressor (Tribune), he placed the conflict on a moral level of good versus evil. He appealed to Trump's and the public's conscience by citing war crimes and human suffering - such as the abduction of Ukrainian children (Tribune). Showing photos and images of these atrocities is a powerful rhetorical device that creates visual evidence and evokes emotions such as outrage and compassion. Zelenskyy's statement, “Even in war, there are rules” (The Times of Israel), is an appeal to universal values and the international order. Through this moral-emotional rhetoric, he tried to build political pressure that a rotten peace with Russia would be unethical and dangerous. He wanted to brand Trump's call for quick compromises as irresponsible.

- Staging and media effectiveness (Trump): One striking rhetorical detail is Trump's deliberate attention to staging. His remark that the whole thing would be “great television” (Tagesschau) shows that he also saw the interview as a public show. Trump used pointed, sometimes ranting statements - a trademark of his communication strategy - to produce strong TV images and headlines. Sentences such as “You have a damn good chance of getting out of this in one piece because of us” (Tagesschau) are provocative and memorable, which virtually guarantees their distribution in the media. This calculated exaggeration is part of Trump's rhetoric to gain interpretative sovereignty and dominate the narrative (here: USA as savior, Ukraine as supplicant).

- Contrasting politeness and a tough message (Vance): Vice President Vance employed a classic rhetorical trick by combining his harsh criticism with a polite salutation ("Mr. President, with all due respect...” (Tagesschau). By using this form, he superficially upholds diplomatic etiquette, only to then criticize all the more clearly. This contrast between form and content is intended to lend additional weight to what is said: it sounds thoughtful and respectful, although the content is frontally attacking. In this way, Vance was able to indirectly accuse Zelenskyy of impertinence without losing his composure.

- Interruptions and volume (Trump): Another tool was Trump's constant interruption of Zelenskyy and his loudness. By barely letting Zelenskyy finish (Tagesschau), Trump demonstrated dominance in the room - a non-verbal rhetoric that shows: I'm in charge here. The increased volume and repetition of key messages (e.g., demanding gratitude) reinforced this effect. The scene thus became a kind of one-way communication in which Trump set the pace.

Overall, two different communication styles clashed here: Trump's and Vance's confrontational, pragmatic, sometimes brute negotiation rhetoric versus Zelenskyy's value-oriented, appealing crisis rhetoric. These different rhetorical approaches reflect their respective roles - one as a powerful donor, the other as a defender of his country struggling for support. Unfortunately, the irreconcilable rhetoric ultimately led to the fronts hardening instead of a compromise coming within reach.

Media distortion of the conversation

Media coverage: Focus on the scandal

The meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy caused quite a stir, not only diplomatically but also in the media. It is striking that many media outlets focused primarily on the escalating conclusion of the conversation, while the long preceding part was almost ignored. Headlines around the world read something like “Scandal in the White House” or “Trump threatens Zelenskyy on camera”. Deutschlandfunk, for example, briefly reported that during Zelenskyy's visit, there had been “an open exchange of blows with President Trump on camera”, with Trump accusing the Ukrainian of being “ungrateful” and unwilling to make peace (Tagesschau). Television reports similarly focused on the heated minutes: Images of Trump's raised finger, Zelenskyy with his arms crossed, and Vance's heckling dominated the news broadcasts.

Many news reports omitted details of the first phase of talks. There was hardly any mention of Trump's initial promise of further support or of Zelenskyy's expression of trust and his invitation to Trump to visit Ukraine. Instead, mostly excerpts of the verbal sparring were shown - Trump's ultimatum “deal or we're out”, his scolding about a lack of gratitude, Vance's accusation of “disrespect,” and Zelenskyy's dismayed expression. These dramatic elements are, of course, ideal for media exploitation, while the sober diplomatic statements of the first 40 minutes attract less attention.

One reason for this shortening is certainly that conflicts and emotional scenes generate more resonance in the news business. Editors often choose heightened climaxes to make effective use of limited airtime or space in articles. The scandal in the Oval Office provided just that: an unprecedented open argument that was surprising and remarkable for the audience. By contrast, the quiet discussion that preceded it offered little in the way of “excitement” or clear headlines - much was technical (such as details of a commodities fund) or couched in diplomatic language. For a mass audience, such segments are harder to convey than a dramatic argument in front of cameras.

In addition, the first 40 minutes took place largely without public spectacle, although representatives of the press were present. According to ARD reports, Trump and Zelenskyy initially answered questions from journalists in the Oval Office in a relatively calm tone for around 40 minutes before the actual confidential talks began (Tagesschau). In this public part, everything was civilized - no material for sensational news. It was only afterwards that the meeting got out of hand, even before the press had left the room (Tagesschau). Many media outlets, therefore, almost automatically focused on this escalation, as this was where the news was in the journalistic sense.

Not all media completely ignored the context. More thorough analyses - for example in quality newspapers or detailed TV reports - did mention the initial situation: for example, the Tagesschau pointed out in its online article that the meeting “initially began peacefully” and explained Trump's push for peace and Zelenskyy's demand for security guarantees (The Times of Israel). International agency reports also described what was said before the dispute (Tribune). But this background information was largely lost in public perception, as most headlines and news briefs conveyed the core messages with little nuance: Trump yells at Zelenskyy, ultimatum to Ukraine, Zelenskyy unyielding.

Omission of the first 40 minutes: Reasons and consequences

There are several reasons why the first two-thirds of the interview were omitted or greatly shortened in many reports. Firstly, journalism follows the logic of highlighting the most important and recent developments. The “new” development here was the scandal - a dramatic turn of events, while the previous diplomatic statements seemed more predictable (e.g., that Trump would consider further aid, that Zelenskyy wanted security guarantees). Secondly, news factors such as conflict, personalization, and emotion play a role: a dispute between two prominent presidents fulfills these criteria much more strongly than a factual dialogue about political details. The conflict was photogenic and quotable - ideal for television, radio, and online reports.

Another practical aspect is complexity. The detailed explanations, such as Trump's arguments for a resource deal or Zelenskyy's references to peace missions, are more complex and more difficult to pack into concise reports. Editors then often decide to omit this complexity in favor of a clear main story. The result was a shortened public image of the meeting: what many people saw was ten minutes of chaos and confrontation, but not the 35 to 40 minutes of tense but diplomatic conversation that preceded it.

This abbreviation has a clear impact on the public perception of the situation and the people involved. Without the context of the first phase of the conversation, the events appear completely different:

- Donald Trump often appears in abbreviated portrayals as an impulsive head of state who rudely pressures an ally. It is indeed true that Trump threatened Zelenskyy ultimately and became loud. But without the previous context, possible motives or relativizing elements are missing - e.g., that Trump had previously held out the prospect of further aid and presented a plan for the post-war period (Chicago News).

Trump's comment that he wanted to “end the war to do other things” was also lost (The Times of Israel). The public debate was, therefore, dominated by the image of a confrontational, unsympathetic Trump forcing Ukraine into a deal. For Trump's critics, this confirmed their opinion that he has little understanding of loyalty to the alliance and morality. His supporters, on the other hand, saw the scenes highlighted by the media as evidence of Trump's “hard, clear edge” towards Zelenskyy - without knowing, however, that Trump initially wanted to continue helping (albeit on his terms). The one-sided portrayal thus tended to reinforce existing opinions instead of painting a new, more differentiated picture of Trump's Ukraine policy.

- Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also perceived one-sidedly due to the abbreviated reporting. Many viewers and readers were left with the impression that Trump called him “ungrateful” and that Zelenskyy was demanding significant concessions from the USA. This could give the impression that Zelenskyy was primarily demanding and confrontational during his visit to Washington. Very few people knew that he praised the support of the USA at the beginning and expressed confidence in Trump (Tribune). Also lost was why Zelenskyy was so vehemently opposed to a quick deal - namely because of concrete experiences with Russian aggression and the concern that a hasty peace could cause more suffering in the long term (The Times of Israel). Without these contextual elements, some observers may have seen Zelenskyy as a stubborn or even rude guest who was trying the US president's patience. Pro-Russian voices or skeptical citizens could use the abbreviated portrayal to portray Zelenskyy as an ungrateful provocateur. This view ignores the fact that Zelenskyy ultimately represented the interests of his country and found himself in an extremely difficult position.

- Ukraine policy as a whole was cast in a harsh light by the media's escalation. The images of the scandal gave the impression that the USA and Ukraine were now on the verge of breaking off relations. Many wondered: does Trump's phrase “we're out” really mean that the USA is stopping all aid? Is there a threat of an end to American support? - These were questions that caused unease in Kiev and European capitals. Trump had previously signaled that he wanted to continue to help but with conditions. This differentiation hardly went down well in public. Accordingly, perceptions came to a head: on the one hand, fears that Trump could “leave Ukraine in the lurch”; on the other, demands (especially from Trump's supporters) that Ukraine should be cut off if it did not cooperate. The domestic political debate in the USA about aid to Ukraine was also influenced by the abbreviated narrative - the camp that views further aid skeptically felt confirmed that “things are getting out of hand”. The pro-Ukrainian camp, on the other hand, feared that Trump was becoming unpredictable. Both reactions were mainly based on the emotional peaks of the meeting, not on the overall picture of what was discussed.

The media can, therefore, involuntarily shift how events are interpreted through selection and omission. In the case of this meeting, the narrative of a diplomatic debacle and personal rift emerged. For example, a major German newspaper wrote of a “diplomatic debacle” and a “shock for Ukraine” because Zelenskyy had allegedly lost a lot of trust with his behavior (Welt).

This rating shows how strongly the focus on the ten-minute dispute dominated the overall assessment. The previous diplomatic efforts - which still left some hope for an agreement - were barely mentioned in such comments.

Conclusion: The importance of the complete context

The course of the meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy impressively demonstrates the importance of a complete contextual view in reporting. Only those who know the entire conversation - from the quiet diplomatic tones at the beginning to the loud bang at the end - can form a balanced picture. In this case, the full context shows that although there was a serious disagreement, it was preceded by serious attempts at negotiation and diplomatic courtesies. Both sides had understandable motives: Trump wanted to see results and compromises, and Zelenskyy did not want to sacrifice security and justice. These motives only become clear through the whole story of the conversation.

The challenge for the media is to combine balance and comprehensibility. Of course, news must be reported concisely - no one reads an hour-long interview in full length. But at least the most important contextualizing information should not be withheld. In this case, for example, it would have been relevant to mention that Trump and Zelenskyy initially tried to find a common path before the mood changed (Tagesschau). It would also be helpful to point out why Zelenskyy reacted so allergically to demands for compromise (“no compromise with a killer”; Tribune) to classify his behavior.

Public opinion can easily be swayed in one direction or another by incomplete information. This makes journalistic diligence all the more important. Full coverage does not mean reporting every detail, but it does mean fairly presenting the core issues on both sides. In the aftermath of this meeting, analysts will certainly dig deeper and evaluate the diplomatic damage - then, all those aspects that were missing in the first news break will be discussed. By then, however, many impressions will already have solidified.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Trump-Zelenskyy case is a good example of how a shortened section of reality can create a distorted picture. If you only looked at the final phase, you might think that the entire meeting was a fiasco without any constructive moments. Only the full course of the talks reveals that both cooperation and confrontation are part of the truth. Knowing this entire truth is crucial for forming an opinion and evaluating Ukraine policy. Reporting, therefore, has a responsibility to maintain the overall picture and provide its audience with the necessary background information. This is the only way for citizens and decision-makers to form an informed opinion instead of making judgments based on headlines. In a complex world of political crises, looking at the whole context is not a luxury but a prerequisite for fair and intelligent decisions - whether in diplomacy or public opinion.