By Juan Larrosa, March 3, 2025
Today’s piece is about last Friday at the White House during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski’s visit to Donald Trump. It is an unusual and unprecedented scene that signals a shift in diplomacy and political communication.
After several negotiations, the United States proposed an agreement to Ukraine that, while unfair and imbalanced, was framed as a step toward peace in Europe. The condition was that Ukraine would allow the U.S. to extract rare minerals from its territory. With little room to maneuver, Zelenski traveled to Washington to sign the agreement.
What followed broke all diplomatic protocols. In a meeting in the Oval Office, attended by Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and several journalists, the conversation started formally but quickly deteriorated. Trump and Vance demanded greater gratitude from Zelenski toward the U.S. and criticized his reluctance to sign the agreement. They clarified that he had no bargaining power and had to accept the terms imposed.
“You have no cards to play,” Trump said.
“I’m not playing cards,” Zelenski replied.
The Ukrainian president, visibly irritated, insisted on the need for security guarantees to prevent another Russian invasion and stressed the importance of a fair negotiation. Trump, showing no willingness to engage in dialogue, abruptly ended the meeting—not before remarking that the scene would make for great television. U.S. officials then asked Zelenski to leave the White House, after which he traveled to the United Kingdom to seek support for a new peace agreement with France and other European powers.
This episode is a clear example of how political arenas, in Gosselin’s terms, function as symbolic spaces where political actors deploy their strategies. In these arenas, leaders do not just negotiate concrete outcomes; they also seek to dominate public perception. In this case, Trump used the media spectacle to pressure Zelenski and to project strength to his allies and adversaries on the international stage.
Typically, even when unjust and aggressive agreements are negotiated, both teams work privately to prevent tensions from spilling into the public eye. Preliminary meetings define the terms and avoid public confrontations. However, Trump broke this protocol. In front of national and international media, he escalated the discussion, introduced new demands, and humiliated Zelenski, turning a private negotiation into a media spectacle.
Beyond its impact on Zelenski’s image, what happened at the White House sends a clear message: the United States may be redefining its foreign policy. Instead of unconditionally supporting its European allies, it seems to be exploring a more ambiguous stance toward Russia.
The consequences of this shift remain to be seen. However, it is clear that diplomacy, as we once knew it, has been reshaped by this new form of political communication—one based on open confrontation and public spectacle as a battleground.
Meanwhile, we continue living in a world shaped by the politics of chaos, public communicative abundance, and techno-bros’ ideology.