Whether playing to a script or something that played out spontaneously, Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy have set the tongues wagging across the world, many forgetting that the two are not amateurs either to television or theatrics.

And at this point of time it hardly matters if Zelenskyy walked out of the White House in a huff or Trump ordered the Ukrainian delegation to get off “his” lawn.

At least for now the damage has been done with global leaders wondering how the principals are going to walk back.

Even before Zelenskyy landed in Washington, he should have known the mindset of a President and town that is clearly weary of writing cheques to a three-year war where no end is in sight. More than this the Ukrainian President should have known where Trump is coming from: that in part he believed that a deal on rare earths could be a starting point for a ceasefire which he believed the Russian President Vladimir Putin would honour. Zelenskyy disagreed and all hell broke loose.

Stubborn stance

What is baffling to many is that a full blown spectacle took place in a room where only nice things were to be said for a few minutes before the media would be politely asked to leave. The loud shouting match showed that neither Trump nor Zelenskyy was willing to give up on their respective stances — and with Vice-President JD Vance piping in with his two cents worth.

Journalists and historians will remember that tough words and language have been used in Presidential meetings, at the Oval Office or Camp David. But these have been in private and away from the glare of the media. The language spoken at the Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson meetings too was said to be “harsh”. Now, Trump and Vance are seen as “bullying” the visiting dignitary.

Zelenskyy too could have shown some finesse in countering some of the American President’s posturing on Putin. Remember how the French President Emannuel Macron fact-checked Trump during his recent White House visit? In a friendly and disarming way.

To say that Trump or Zelenskyy went by a playbook in the showdown could be premature. But the damage has been done not just to bilateral relations but to Europe and the functioning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It is one thing for the Ukrainian leader to say “sorry”, ask for a return visit and sign the minerals deal. But it is highly unlikely that Washington under a Trump dispensation will underwrite a security guarantee to Kyiv that has a NATO ticket with it. And that does not mean Trump has fallen for Putin hook, line and sinker.

The bottomline is that Trump is a businessman and has said he is “good” at making deals. He knows that this stage of the war is appropriate to strike a deal on rare minerals.

If Putin is allowed to have his way in the conflict, Ukraine may not be in a position to withstand the onslaught and in the end Putin may not want to strike a deal with the US for the same resources Russia is eyeing.

In the meantime Zelenskyy would have to stay in a war minus American weapons that would be stopped and a Europe that may be reluctant to match words with action in the absence of Washington.

All this brings back memories of Henry Kissinger who is said to have remarked, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” Both Trump and Zelenskyy have given themselves something to think about.

The writer is a senior journalist who has reported from Washington DC on North America and United Nations