Why Trump and Vance looked weak and Zelensky looked strong

Below is the transcript of a live conversation I had on March 3, 2025 with David Storey, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Boston College. Lightly edited for clarity.

Amiel Handelsman: Let’s talk about the Oval Office meeting on Friday. Many people I know are outraged and ashamed at how Trump and Vance treated Zelensky, the courageous leader of a country under attack from Russia. I’m right there with them. Yet, the first thing you shared with me was how pumped up you felt after watching it. Let me read to you the text message you sent me Friday night:

I am ecstatic about the days events. I fantasized about Zelensky doing something like this on Wednesday night when reading about the minerals deal — him standing up to trump in front of the cameras and tearing up the agreement. I think we got the equivalent of that. That kind of show of moral courage is unbelievable. Defying the emperor in the middle of the coliseum. Gladiator type shit. Not bending to Machiavellian Hobbesian realpolitik pressure, defying that action logic in real time, effectively saying no, “I will not let us — all of us in the western world — live in Putin’s RED world. Fuck you. No. Never. We would rather perish at Russia’s hands than submit to you. No.” I haven’t felt this patriotic since Biden’s election

Unlike everyone else I know, you said nothing about the shameful behavior of Trump and Vance. Why is this?

David Storey: Because when I saw Trump and Vance with Zelensky, I didn’t think “shameful.” I thought, “weak.”

Amiel: What made them look weak?

David: They came in thinking of Zelensky as one of the last sources of resistance — he and the EU and European centrists. They thought they had him in a position where he’d be bending the knee, and they’d be taking Ukraine’s minerals and giving Putin his way.

Amiel: But that didn’t happen.

David: No, not at all. Zelensky would not give in. It was as though the whole free world was speaking through him: No, no, no. We are not in a postliberal world. We are not regressing to the nineteenth century with spheres of influence and the strong man having his way. We are not giving in to the poisonous postliberal narrative that Fukuyama was wrong, that we should stop believing in and respecting international institutions and laws and norms and stop standing up for liberal democracy. No, no, no.

Amiel: Zelensky held the line. They wanted him to enter their headspace and do their bidding. He wouldn’t go for it.

David: Not at all. He wouldn’t be bullied. In fact, my wife, who is from Ukraine, pointed out to me something that Zelensky said under his breath in Ukrainian while Vance was berating him. It translates to “Come the fuck on” or “Are you fucking kidding me?”

Amiel: Wow. I haven’t heard anyone comment on that.

David: And they seemed weak. They were inching toward him, bullying him.

Amiel: What makes these actions weak?

David: They did this on camera. Look. Zelensky is in a desperate situation. He needs American support. Yet, it is Trump and Vance who are frustrated. They get irritated by his question and with him continuing a conversation they thought would be over quickly. Zelensky is the one in a desperate situation, yet they are desperate to get a deal. That’s weak.

Amiel: Right, and it raises a question. If Trump held all the cards, as he kept saying to Zelensky, why was he so in a hurry, and why did he get so frustrated when things didn’t go his way? As I think about it, if we take Trump to be a mafia-type leader by temperament and worldview, what he did in that conversation is what the mafia boss does when nothing else works. It’s not the first move the boss makes. When you know you have the upper hand, and you when know the other person knows you have the upper hand, you don’t lose your cool. You calmly state your demands. And you don’t get histrionic. Losing your temper is a sign that you don’t have the upper hand.

David: Trump and Vance seemed surprised that Zelensky wasn’t bowing and scraping to get a deal. Why wasn’t he doing these things? He said it directly to them. Ukraine and Russia had agreements before, and Putin broke them. That’s why he said he needed clear security guarantees from the United States before signing a new deal.

Amiel: Because he knows that Putin’s promises aren’t reliable.

David: Putin is not a reliable partner. Zelensky tried to explain this to them. He tried to tell them that they were operating by Putin’s logic. But they couldn’t acknowledge this because they were operating by Putin’s logic.

Amiel: So, here was a fundamental failure of Trump and Vance and anyone who advised them going into this meeting. They couldn’t put themselves in Zelensky’s shoes. Didn’t want to or, more likely, didn’t have the capacity to. They’re just not mature enough developmentally — don’t have the perspective-taking — to have that capacity. So, they weren’t able to say to themselves ahead of time, “You know, Ukraine has been burned by Putin in past agreements. He’s not a reliable partner. We can’t expect Zelensky to walk right in here and sign a new agreement with security guarantees. Pressuring him won’t work, because he has nothing to lose. If he capitulates, then Putin will still eventually break the agreement. If he holds firm, there is no agreement to begin with. Same result in both instances, but if he holds firm, he’s stood up for his people.” Trump and Vance couldn’t see this.

David: Right. Because they were operating by Putin’s logic, by the brute force power drive worldview: the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

Amiel: That sounds like a very old quote. Who said that?

David: Thucydides

Amiel: Got it

David: They figured Zelensky was operating by this, too.

Amiel: Or assumed this unconsciously. They probably weren’t sitting around sizing up his worldview. They were just locked into the mindset that this is how the world works, might makes right, we have the cards, so of course he’ll bend the knee.

David: Which is why they couldn’t address the substance of what he was saying about past history with Putin. The worldview they’re in is all about the moment. Showing right now in this second who’s in charge. It’s ahistorical.

Amiel: Meaning that when they’re in the room with him, they aren’t thinking about the history of past deals. All they’re doing is focusing on being the alpha male right now.

David: And that’s why they have a whole entourage around them egging them on. Like that guy who made fun of Zelensky for not wearing a suit.

Amiel: That was quite a moment. Zelensky was the top comedian in Ukraine. I gotta think he had a dozen responses up his sleeve that would have made that guy look like a fool, just torn him to shreds as though he were a heckler in the front row of a stand-up comedy showcase. That’s not the time to mess with the headliner. Just keep your mouth shut.

David: Right

Amiel: So, I got to say: thank you, David. I think I understand much better now why you came away from that video with the interpretation that you did. Zelensky walked into a hostile room surrounded by a group of gangsters and neither shrank physically nor folded. The person shrinking in the room, literally sinking down on the couch, was Marco Rubio. Not Zelensky. Zelensky came in upright and left upright.

Weary of the pointless prickly polarization? Ready for more fiercely nuanced stands? I can help.

Receive my free bimonthly updates straight to your inbox. There’s no need to choose between hope and despair. You can be cheerfully real.

Listen to “How My View Grew.”

We are about to begin season three of How My View Grew, the show that dives deep into humanity’s challenges by looking at big thinkers who have changed their minds. We explore climate, democracy, Ukraine, the Middle East, and more.