Mere minutes after the release of a 40-minute discussion between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Trump administration in the Oval Office, a familiar wave of outrage swept across America. Here was President Donald Trump belittling a man who had lost his morale in the face of travesty, formally considered resignation if it meant peace, and now vowed to not wear a suit until the violence and brutality plaguing his country had come to an end.
Once again, with Vice President JD Vance at his side, Trump was cast as the villain in another carefully crafted media narrative.
Yet, the reality is far from a simple dichotomy. The Trump administration did not merely refuse to give Ukraine the aid they “needed”—they challenged the narrative by asking all the right questions.
Since the start of the war in 2022, the United States has given Ukraine over $175 billion dollars in aid. The United States remains the largest single donor, with Europe’s total contributions surpassing U.S. aid by only $20 billion. Moreover, a significant portion of U.S. assistance has been provided as grants, while the majority of European nations expect repayment once the conflict subsides. And yet despite the substantial monetary backing, as Russia continues to advance, Ukraine appears to be losing ground.
Thus, Vance may have been right to say, “The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.”
To this, Zelenskyy responded furiously: diplomacy is not on the table.
The harsh reality is that without diplomacy, the only alternative is more casualties—primarily on Ukraine’s side. Ukraine cannot win this war, and it must come to terms with it sooner or later. Zelenskyy chooses the latter. In late 2023, one of the president’s closest aides told TIME Magazine, “He deludes himself. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” In April 2024, after leaders of Ukraine’s military intelligence announced that they believed Ukraine was losing momentum and should aim to merely gain the upperhand in negotiations, a large portion of them were fired.
Three years into war, and the story has not changed; Zelenskyy believes in creating the narrative of being a war hero but he does so at the cost of millions more lives.
More significantly, in the process, Zelenskyy has degraded the reputation of America and the new administration. On February 2, 2025, the president publicly announced that he had only received $75 billion of the granted $175 billion the United States had pledged to Ukrainian aid. Despite the public uproar, the full $175 billion were well accounted for. A significant portion of the designated aid is not directly spent in Ukraine. Instead, it covers domestic weapons manufacturing, equipment replacement, additional costs for U.S. forces, financial support to Ukraine via the World Bank, and funding for U.S. agencies involved in less visible efforts of enforcing sanctions and securing critical materials. Claiming, “I don’t know where all the money is,” serves as a red herring, deliberately crafted by Zelenskyy to push a biased narrative—one that portrays the United States as failing to uphold its promises, despite being the largest financial contributor to Ukraine’s cause.
Painting media narratives, however, is nothing new for Zelenskyy. As early as 2019, the year Zelenskyy entered office, reports surfaced of state propaganda portraying success while his newly introduced policies visibly faltered. That same year, he drafted legislation to tighten control over the media and suppress press freedom. After facing heavy criticism, he diluted the bill in an effort to meet NATO’s membership requirements and signed a law that gave the National Council on Broadcasting, a government entity, authority over audiovisual, print, and digital media. Ukraine moved one step closer to authoritarianism, with none other than Volodymyr Zelenskyy leading the charge.
Zelenskyy has also often used the media to conceal the corruption within his administration, even as his approval ratings appear to seemingly soar. While Zelenskyy’s entrance into office was marked by an anti-corruption platform, these practices continue to hold Ukraine back. In 2023, the Corruption Index still listed Ukraine as 103rd out of 180 countries, far worse than the rest of its European counterparts. That same year, Ukrainian reporter Yuri Nikolov published numerous stories exposing the inflated food and catering costs for combat troops, ultimately leading to the resignation of two defense ministers. While Zelenskyy publicly hailed that “any pressure on journalists is unacceptable,” Nikolov faced backlash by anonymous government officials and physical intimidation, with footage of the threats later uploaded to pro-Zelenskyy media pages. “These channels are very close to the office of the president,” Nikolov asserts.
In the tense exchange in the Oval Office, President Trump warned President Zelenskyy that his actions risked igniting a world war and contended that he had no more cards left to play. Moreover, as of March 3, 2025, Trump has officially suspended all U.S. aid to Ukraine. With Europe rallying behind Zelenskyy and the U.K. pledging $2.8 billion in aid, Trump’s decision is sure to cast him as the villain.
Each day brings new revelations of deceit and corruption within Ukraine’s government. Yet, the irony remains–while everyone around Zelenskyy appears to rot in corruption charges, Zelenskyy stands apart, wearing the halo of a leader set out to save his country.
Trump was mistaken in one regard. Zelenskyy still does have one card to play—the ability to shape the narrative.
