The media had their narrative all teed up before Zelensky even set foot in the White House: Trump was going to “ambush” him, humiliate him, throw Ukraine under the bus, and cozy up to Putin. That was the story they wanted to tell. The only problem? Reality got in the way.
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz put that nonsense to rest during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union, making it clear that the meeting didn’t fall apart because of anything the Trump administration did. It fell apart because Zelensky, for reasons still unclear, showed up looking like a man who did not want to end this war. His body language, his attitude, his flat-out refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations—it all pointed to a leader who still believes that endless blank checks from the West are somehow a viable strategy.
Let’s be real here: Zelensky had a golden opportunity in that Oval Office meeting. He could have walked out of there with an actual deal—one that included security guarantees from Europe, an economic partnership with the U.S. that would have tied Ukraine’s future to America for generations, and a real step toward ending a war that has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Instead, he sat there, arms crossed, shaking his head, acting as if he was being forced into some kind of betrayal. Sorry, but what exactly was the problem? Was it the part where he might have had to negotiate rather than demand?
Trump and his team made their stance clear: Ukraine will always be welcomed back to the table—when it’s actually ready to talk peace. The issue wasn’t that Trump or Waltz or Rubio were unwilling to help Ukraine; the issue was that Zelensky didn’t seem willing to take that step. And that’s a problem, because as Waltz pointed out, if Ukraine’s own leadership isn’t even willing to sit down and talk about conditions for peace, then what exactly is their plan? To keep bleeding their country dry in a war they cannot win? To keep demanding “security guarantees” from the U.S. while refusing to make any effort to reach an agreement with Russia? At some point, the fantasy has to stop.
National Security Adviser @MikeWaltz47 says it’s “absolutely false” that the Trump-Zelensky blowup was “some type of ambush,” telling @DanaBashCNN, “It was not clear… whether he shared our goal of ending this war.” pic.twitter.com/b564BAMzd9
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) March 2, 2025
And let’s just get something else straight: this was not an ambush. Waltz made it clear that the economic and minerals deal—one of the biggest points of the meeting—had already been negotiated weeks in advance. It was done. Finalized. Ready to be signed in the East Room. This wasn’t some last-minute trick to back Zelensky into a corner. It was a genuine opportunity for Ukraine to secure its future. And yet, somehow, the guy who’s spent the last three years begging for Western support suddenly didn’t want to sign on the dotted line? That’s not on Trump. That’s on Zelensky.
#CNews #CNN#Selenskyj #Ukraine #Washington pic.twitter.com/Af0s60W609
— Lilly (@LillySanni2222) March 1, 2025
The real problem here isn’t that Trump or Rubio or Waltz are taking a hard-nosed approach to Ukraine—it’s that the left and their media lapdogs can’t stand the fact that Trump is actually doing what they spent years pretending they cared about. Ending wars, securing America’s interests, and negotiating from a position of strength. They’ve been so used to a weak, compliant U.S. foreign policy under Biden that the idea of actual diplomacy—not just empty promises and reckless spending—seems foreign to them.
So, Zelensky can come back when he’s ready to talk. Until then, the Trump administration is moving forward with or without him. And the left can keep whining about “ambushes” all they want—because the only thing that actually got ambushed here was their phony narrative.
