The American president's televised press conference with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy went off the rails but not before President Trump issued an ultimatum:
Trump: “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out – and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out.”
Since then, Zelenskyy has stated an agreement to end the war "is still very, very far away" -- a statement Trump labeled as "the worst statement" the Ukrainian leader could have said. "And America will not put up with it for much longer," the president added in a post on his Truth Social platform.
A strategy of disagreement?Chad Groening (AFN) Jenna Ellis, a radio host and former attorney for President Donald Trump in his first term, is convinced the leader of Ukraine didn't handle himself well during his now highly publicized heated conversation at the White House. 
"… If you were going to a superior – whether it's your boss, it's your parents, it's your grandmother, even asking for money or support or anything else – you go in a manner of respect; and this wasn't just about what Zelenskyy was wearing," she clarifies. "Trump made [a reference to that] as Zelenskyy was coming into the White House that he wasn't dressed that well." Ellis suggests a lot of the disagreement in the Oval Office on Friday had to do with extending the conflict. "I question whether this was the strategy all along to now have the European nations kind of involved," she tells AFN. "But everybody is pushing a lot more toward just continuing the conflict – and that's why they're pro-Ukraine." |
But is Trump’s hard stance simply bowing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and was the press conference sabotaged in advance by Democrats? Comments and a social media post from Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) make it easy to reach that conclusion.
Much of the immediate news coverage focused on Trump’s unorthodox methods, not the $350 billion so far sent by the U.S. to Ukraine or Zelenskyy’s efforts to play to the media in attendance.
There were immediate concerns that the U.S.-Ukraine mineral rights deal that Zelenskyy was there to sign – the agreement for which he keeps demanding “security guarantees” against future Russian aggression – is now in jeopardy.
But now in the wake of the failed press conference it appears the Europeans, or some of them, are ready to take on more responsibility in the conflict. The question is: Can European leaders really provide what they’re talking about? Scott Uehlinger, who has been a U.S. Naval officer and CIA agent, says no.
Uehlinger said on American Family Radio Monday that from the 1990s to 2025 he’s seen the military capabilities of most European countries reduced to roughly 30% of their former ability. Spending and emphasis on defense are a fraction of what they once were, he told show host Jenna Ellis.
“The strangest, most contradictory behavior is coming from the Europeans. These people insist on wanting a place at the table like they're real players. It’s like a midget taking on Mike Tyson,” Uehlinger said.
The weekend included new leadership from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French PM Emmanual Macron, both of whom visited the White House last week in advance of Zelenskyy.
Starmer announced on Sunday that the United Kingdom and France have agreed to send troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers. It’s a European union in miniature as other nations – Germany, Italy and Poland – have rejected the proposal.
Starmer indicates that the UK and France are ready to push on anyway.
“In other words, we’ve got to find those countries in Europe that are prepared to be a bit more forward-leaning,” he told the BBC. “The UK and France are the most advanced thinking of this, and that is why President Macron and I are working on this plan … which we will then discuss with the U.S.”
Starmer trying to get Europe going
It’s time for greater European involvement, said the British PM.
“I’m not criticizing anyone here, but rather than move at the pace of every single member, every single country in Europe, which would in the end be a quite slow pace, I do think we’ve got to probably get to a coalition of the willing now,” he argued.
Starmer spoke with Trump on Saturday, TownHall.com reported, a day after Trump threatened to remove the U.S. from the conflict. “I've always been clear that that is going to need a U.S. backstop because I don't think it would be a guarantee without it," Starmer said.
The intentions are honorable, but Uehlinger doubts the Europeans can follow through. “The British Army has as many tanks as the National Guard of Pennsylvania,” he said. "It really is pathetic if you look at the numbers."
Friday’s news was classic Donald Trump, retired U.S. Army General Jerry Boykin said on Washington Watch. “He said he's going to get out of the Ukraine, that he’s going to bring that war to an end. I think that he knows very much that the only impediment to doing that is Zelensky,” Boykin told show host Jody Hice.
Taking Boykin's comments at face value, European involvement may be the only thing that keeps the U.S. in the fight. Otherwise, the press conference would “mark the end of any kind of support from the United States,” he said.
Zelensky’s combative attitude at the press conference was a “very bad, unforced error,” he added.
Did Dems torpedo the deal?
But was it a strategy encouraged for the Ukrainian president? A number of congressional Democrats met with Zelenskyy less than an hour before he walked into the Oval Office, according to PJ Media.
Sen. Murphy posted a photo on X from the meeting in which Zelenskyy “confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants.”
Most Democrats see Russia’s presence in Ukraine as a threat to the U.S., according to Pew Research Center data.
Zelenskyy took to social media on Saturday in an attempt to clarify is Oval Office comments. In a lengthy threat on X, the Ukrainian leader expressed gratitude to the U.S., specifically mentioning Trump and Congress, and said continuing the war “will be difficult” without their continued support.
“America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that,” he wrote.
He continued his theme of “security guarantees” and said the minerals deal should move forward but that it may not be enough to guarantee peace.
Mineral deal is a security guarantee
Uehlinger disagrees.
“A lot of the areas that are mineral-rich happen to be near the line of contact where the fighting is going on. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if the Ukraine and U.S. are going to collaborate on minerals that the United States will be near the line of contact,” said the former CIA station chief. “If there are American mining companies there, that’s a guarantee that things aren’t going to get out of hand.”
Many see “security guarantees” as code for Ukrainian admittance to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but Ukraine as a NATO member would commit U.S. boots on the ground in any conflict with Russia.
“Putin understands what Trump is trying to do, and if he can be persuaded that this is in his interest, and I think he can be, then we have a deal,” Bob Maginnis, a retired Army office, told AFN. “Otherwise, as Trump has said many times, we could be headed to World War III which is not totally out of the question.”
Security is at the root of any minerals deal, Maginnis said.
“There are other places we can get these rare earth metals and the like. We don’t have to go to Ukraine,” he said, adding that many questions around the minerals are unanswered presently.
“It’s a bit of a crapshoot because we don’t know that it’s definitely there. We’re not sure that we can safely extract it and that it’s not going to take years to do it. There are a host of reasons why this doesn’t make sense.”
