Psychological Analysis of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky Following Their Epochal Interview

Context: A contentious face-to-face meeting on Feb. 28, 2025, between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky devolved into a shouting match over the Russia-Ukraine war . Both leaders clashed publicly, with Trump threatening to cut off U.S. support and accusing Zelensky of disrespect, while Zelensky implored Trump to “make no compromises with a killer” (referring to Putin) . Understanding this confrontation requires insight into each leader’s personality. We analyze Trump and Zelensky using the SoulMatcher accentuation structure, which scores three core traits – Narcissism (N), Borderline (B), and Empathy (E) – to profile personality tendencies . Below, we revise their psychological profiles with SoulMatcher scores (Trump: N=7, B=3, E=3; Zelensky: N=5, B=5, E=1) and examine supporting evidence and expert analyses that align with these ratings. We retain the original structure of analysis, including direct quotes from the meeting and Zelensky’s post-meeting remarks, and bolster the discussion with multiple reputable sources and psychological expert opinions.

SoulMatcher Accentuation Framework Overview

The SoulMatcher framework is a psychological model that identifies dominant personality “accentuations” across three axes: Narcissism (self-focus and ego-driven traits), Borderline (emotionally volatile and impulsive traits), and Empathy (compassionate, relationship-oriented traits) . Every individual’s profile can be represented by a two-letter code indicating the dominant and secondary accentuation (e.g., “NB” for dominant Narcissism with secondary Borderline) . This structure, originally developed for relationship matching, provides insight into interpersonal dynamics by highlighting which traits drive a person’s behavior. In SoulMatcher terms:

• Narcissistic (N) accentuation – Characterized by egocentrism, grandiosity, and a drive for admiration. High-N individuals are “focused on themselves and often objectify others, preferring adrenaline-fueled experiences” . They tend to seek power and validation, showing entitlement and impaired empathy for others’ feelings .

• Borderline (B) accentuation – Marked by emotional instability, reactivity, and sensitivity to perceived slights. High-B personalities experience intense, rapidly shifting emotions and “do not tolerate displeasure well”, sometimes becoming destructive or impulsive under stress . They may display black-and-white thinking and an acute fear of abandonment, leading to dramatic gestures or outbursts.

• Empathic (E) accentuation – Defined by compassion, interpersonal warmth, and stability. High-E individuals are “compassionate, kind people” who excel at understanding and responding to others’ needs, capable of building long-term, trusting relationships . They derive satisfaction from cooperation and tend to regulate emotions calmly.

Under this framework, Trump and Zelensky can each be assigned a dominant and secondary accentuation based on their scores. Trump’s profile (N=7, B=3, E=3) suggests a dominant Narcissistic orientation with a secondary Borderline component – an “NB” type in SoulMatcher terms. Zelensky’s profile (N=5, B=5, E=1) indicates roughly equal Narcissistic and Borderline tendencies with minimal empathic traits, consistent with a “BN” type (dominant Borderline with secondary Narcissism) . The table below summarizes their revised accentuation scores and inferred SoulMatcher types:

Person	Narcissism (N)	Borderline (B)	Empathy (E)	SoulMatcher Type (Dominant-Secondary)
Donald Trump	7 (High)	3 (Moderate)	3 (Low)	NB – Narcissist/Borderline (Self-focused, volatile)
Volodymyr Zelensky	5 (Moderate)	5 (Moderate)	1 (Very Low)	BN – Borderline/Narcissist (Emotionally reactive, low empathy)

(Higher numeric scores indicate stronger trait accentuation on a scale; lower scores indicate weaker presence of that trait.)

Interesting observation—Volodymyr Zelensky demonstrated even less empathy than Donald Trump, despite being in a situation where empathy could benefit him significantly more.

Below, we delve into each leader’s profile – first Trump, then Zelensky – examining how these traits manifested in their Oval Office confrontation and in their general behavior, drawing on meeting transcripts, post-meeting statements, and expert psychological evaluations. Each profile is supported by multiple sources, including direct quotes and scholarly or expert commentary, to ensure a well-rounded analysis.

Donald Trump: SoulMatcher Profile “NB” – Narcissistic with Borderline Tendencies

SoulMatcher Scores: Narcissism 7 | Borderline 3 | Empathy 3. Trump’s dominant trait is extreme narcissism, paired with a moderate level of borderline-style emotional reactivity and low empathic capacity. In SoulMatcher terms, he fits the “NB” (Narcissist–Borderline) profile: “People focused on themselves and often objectify others, preferring adrenaline… prone to frequent changes of emotion” . This means Trump’s behavior is driven largely by ego gratification, entitlement, and impulsive emotional outbursts – a combination that has been widely noted by psychologists and commentators.

• High Narcissism (7/10) – Grandiosity, Entitlement, Attention-Seeking: Psychologists have repeatedly described Donald Trump as a textbook narcissist. Harvard’s Dr. Howard Gardner flatly stated Trump is “remarkably narcissistic”, and clinical psychologist George Simon even quipped that Trump is “so classic [a narcissist] that I’m archiving video clips of him … there’s no better example” . Narcissism involves an exaggerated sense of self-importance, fantasies of success, requiring constant admiration, and a lack of concern for others’ feelings . Trump displays all of these: he regularly touts his own achievements and superiority, demands loyalty and praise, and shows “failing to recognize others’ feelings” — a hallmark of narcissistic personality disorder . During the Oval Office meeting, his narcissism was on full display. For example, when Zelensky tried to explain Ukraine’s position, Trump interrupted with “You’re not in a good position… With us, you start having cards”, implicitly asserting U.S. supremacy and his own role as powerbroker . He expected deference; when he felt Zelensky wasn’t sufficiently deferential, Trump bristled. After the meeting, he blasted Zelensky on social media, saying Zelensky “disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office” and unilaterally declaring, “He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” . This reaction underscores Trump’s grandiosity and sense of ownership over the situation – he cast himself as the one who will decide when Zelensky is worthy of another audience. Such entitlement and need for personal respect align perfectly with a high-Narcissism profile.

• Moderate Borderline Traits (3/10) – Reactive, Aggressive, Sensitive to Insults: While narcissism dominates, Trump also exhibits features consistent with borderline personality traits, though to a lesser degree. Clinical experts have noted that Trump’s personality is not “pure” narcissism; it includes a mix of “sociopathic and borderline features,” according to one psychiatric assessment . Borderline traits include instability in mood, impulsive anger, and hypersensitivity to perceived slights. Trump’s infamous thin skin and erratic anger when challenged reflect this. His own niece, psychologist Dr. Mary L. Trump, has observed his fragile ego and need to be bolstered “every moment” because any perceived criticism threatens his self-image . In the Oval Office clash, these borderline-like tendencies emerged the moment Zelensky failed to simply acquiesce. Trump’s mood went from cordial to enraged quickly – a sudden flip that matches the “dramatic/emotional/erratic” cluster of personality traits . Witnesses noted Trump “raised his voice” and grew increasingly combative when Zelensky held firm . At one point Trump snapped, “You’re in no position to dictate… Your country is in big trouble”, cutting off Zelensky brusquely . This kind of furious, disproportional reaction to feeling contradicted is characteristic of borderline rage. Indeed, Trump’s pattern of impulsivity, irritability, and aggressiveness in confrontational settings has been documented by mental health professionals . Here, his impulsive decision to “abruptly end the meeting” and order Zelensky’s delegation out  shows a lack of emotional regulation – consistent with borderline volatility.

• Low Empathy (3/10) – Empathy Impairment and Emotional Detachment: Trump’s SoulMatcher empathy score is very low, and ample evidence supports his deficient empathy. Narcissistic personalities typically have an “empathy impairment”, meaning they struggle to genuinely care about or even recognize others’ emotions . As The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols pointed out, Trump “extends [empathy] rarely, if ever, to anyone”, especially if it conflicts with his own interests . During the meeting, Trump showed virtually no empathy for Ukraine’s plight. Zelensky spoke about civilians being killed and his nation’s suffering, yet Trump’s focus remained on what he wanted. He coldly told Zelensky, “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out… if we’re out, you’ll fight it out and I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.” . This blunt ultimatum – essentially threatening to abandon Ukraine to an ugly fate – illustrates an almost transactional view with little compassion. Even when Zelensky implored him by saying “God bless, you will not have war” (trying to evoke understanding of Ukraine’s suffering), Trump snapped back, “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel… You’re in no position…” , dismissing the human appeal entirely. Such responses align with expert assessments that Trump “rarely, if ever” feels for others . Instead of empathy, he exhibits strategic emotional detachment – note how he later told reporters that Zelensky “needs to realize he is losing the war… He’s got to say ‘I want to make peace’”, effectively blaming Zelensky for the continued conflict . Trump’s inability or unwillingness to empathize with Zelensky’s perspective (that conceding to an aggressor is unacceptable) underscores his low E-score. Psychologically, power can dampen empathy – research shows a “strong relationship between having power and having less empathy” . Trump’s power magnified his empathy deficit: he saw the situation only through his own lens (desire to broker a deal and claim a win), with little evident concern for Ukrainian lives or Zelensky’s feelings.

In summary, Donald Trump’s profile as a high-Narcissism, moderate-Borderline, low-Empathy individual (NB type) is well-supported. He exhibits grandiose self-focus, demands adulation (and reacts angrily when he doesn’t get it), and struggles to show basic empathy. Psychologists have labeled him a “pathological narcissist” with “entitlement, exploitation, and empathy impairment” , and even “malignant narcissism” in its extreme form . The added borderline flavor – reflected in his impulsive anger and sensitivity to “disrespect” – makes his behavior even more erratic. This toxic mix was on full display in the Oval Office confrontation: Trump felt slighted and immediately lashed out, prioritizing his ego and America’s dominance over any collaborative problem-solving. As one clinical professor noted, “Trump couldn’t care less about the fate of Ukraine beyond [its] impact on his own fortunes” – a statement that captures how low empathy and high narcissism shaped Trump’s stance. The SoulMatcher NB framework thus effectively captures Trump’s persona: self-aggrandizing, emotionally volatile, and lacking in compassion, which in turn had profound consequences for the tenor and outcome of the meeting.

Volodymyr Zelensky: SoulMatcher Profile “BN” – Borderline with Narcissistic Tendencies

SoulMatcher Scores: Narcissism 5 | Borderline 5 | Empathy 1. Volodymyr Zelensky’s profile suggests a blend of moderate narcissistic and borderline traits, with extremely low empathic orientation. In SoulMatcher terms, he aligns with a “BN” (Borderline–Narcissist) type: “people [with] changing emotions to the opposite, but overall [who] are considered emotionless, lacking empathy and sensitivity”, often thriving on adrenaline-charged experiences . This may seem counterintuitive for a leader widely praised for rallying global empathy for Ukraine’s cause; however, it points to a strategic, hard-driving personality behind Zelensky’s public image. His outgoing ambition and emotional intensity coexist with a pragmatic lack of sentimentality. Multiple analyses of Zelensky support this mix: he is charismatic and courageous, yet also dramatic, bold, and unwavering, sometimes to the point of seeming unyielding. Let’s break down his traits:

• Moderate Narcissism (5/10) – Confident, Ambitious, Charismatic: Zelensky exhibits a healthy dose of ego and self-assurance, which has been essential in his rise from comedian to wartime president. A personality study using the Millon Inventory (MIDC) found Zelensky’s primary traits include “Ambitious/confident” and “Outgoing/congenial” patterns . In practical terms, “ambitious” leaders are self-confident, competitive, and skilled at winning others over , while “outgoing” leaders are dramatic, attention-seeking, and thrive as the center of attention . These descriptions mirror narcissistic qualities – not in a pathological sense, but as a strong self-oriented drive. Zelensky has consciously cultivated a heroic image on the world stage: he often wears military-style attire, speaks in stirring moral terms, and positions himself as the embodiment of Ukraine’s resistance. This reflects a degree of grandiosity and performative instinct. Indeed, commentators have noted his flair for the dramatic. The New York Times’ Kyiv bureau chief, Andrew Kramer, described Zelensky’s approach as a “dramatic personal style” that was crucial in rallying support during the war . This dramatic flair can be linked to narcissistic needs for recognition – as a former actor, Zelensky knows how to capture an audience. His bold self-confidence was evident in the Oval Office clash: he did not shy away from directly challenging a much more powerful counterpart. At one point Zelensky retorted to Vice President Vance, “Have you ever been to Ukraine to see what problems we have? Come once.” – a pointed, somewhat defiant invitation. He also firmly told Trump to “make no compromises with a killer” regarding Putin , implicitly positioning his own moral stance as superior. Such assertiveness in that high-pressure context signals a leader with considerable personal conviction and even pride. While Zelensky’s narcissism (as scored) is not as extreme as Trump’s, it manifests as high self-assurance and a refusal to appear weak or submissive. This trait served him well in inspiring Ukrainians and others; as an expert profile noted, the combination of charisma and confidence gives Zelensky a “courageous charismatic leadership style” . However, it also means he expects his position and his country’s sacrifices to be respected – he carries himself as the brave protagonist of the story, which can put him at odds with anyone treating Ukraine as a pawn.

• Moderate Borderline Traits (5/10) – Emotional Intensity, Black-and-White Resolve, Fear of Betrayal: Alongside his ambition, Zelensky shows signs of emotional reactivity and all-or-nothing thinking characteristic of borderline accentuation. This doesn’t mean he has a clinical disorder, but he does display passionate, sometimes impulsive responses under stress. Observers have seen Zelensky grow more “unyielding” and dramatic in his appeals as the war has dragged on. His emotional intensity was palpable in the meeting. When pressed to consider diplomacy that might favor Russia, Zelensky’s tone became urgent and fiery. He folded his arms and, in a voice described as challenging, asked “What kind of diplomacy are you talking about, JD?” after recounting how prior talks with Putin failed . This confrontational stance – literally folding his arms in defiance – suggests sensitivity and frustration boiling over. Borderline tendencies often include a hypersensitivity to the threat of abandonment or betrayal. In Zelensky’s case, the prospect of the U.S. abandoning Ukraine triggered a strong emotional reaction. Indeed, Zelensky’s main objective for the meeting was to “press Trump not to abandon his country” in its hour of need . The intensity of his pleas (“please do not side with the killer,” etc.) indicate a near fear of abandonment by his ally, a classic borderline fear. The result was a “shouting match” because Zelensky could not calmly acquiesce to Trump’s pressure – his emotions ran too high to hide his alarm. There is also an element of black-and-white thinking: Zelensky frames Putin as a pure evil “killer” with whom one cannot negotiate at all . This morally absolute stance, while understandable in war, reflects borderline-like dichotomous thinking (all evil vs. all good). Even Andrew Kramer’s analysis (cited in The Atlantic) suggested Zelensky’s dramatic, uncompromising style “now looks more like a monkey wrench” in dealing with Trump . In other words, Zelensky’s emotionally-charged insistence on principle – once an asset that unified support – became a liability in the face of Trump’s demands. Still, this trait stems from Zelensky’s deep conviction and emotional investment in protecting his nation. When cornered, he reacts with fervor rather than tact, a behavior consistent with a Borderline accentuation that “does not tolerate displeasure well” and can lead to conflict . Notably, after the clash, Zelensky did express some regret, indicating he can reflect and self-regulate once the emotional surge passes. He told Fox News, “I think this kind of spat is not good for both sides”, acknowledging the fallout , and maintained that he respects President Trump and the American people even though he wouldn’t apologize for defending his position . This shows Zelensky coming down from the emotional high and trying to stabilize the relationship – a hint of the self-awareness that can accompany borderline traits when managed.

• Extremely Low Empathy (1/10) – Strategic Detachment, Focus on Goal over Feelings: Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Zelensky’s profile is the very low Empathy score, especially for a leader often portrayed as empathetic. It’s important to clarify that a low empathy accentuation in SoulMatcher doesn’t mean a person is cruel or uncaring; rather, it indicates that empathic, compromise-oriented behavior is not a driving force in their personality compared to other motivations. In Zelensky’s case, his empathy score of 1 suggests that logic, strategy, and his own nation’s needs utterly outweigh any impulse to empathize with opponents or even allies’ perspectives. Indeed, Zelensky has shown he is single-minded in pursuing Ukraine’s interests. He is capable of great compassion toward his people (he frequently comforts war victims), but when it comes to negotiating or dealing with adversaries, he shows a striking lack of sentimentality. A study of Zelensky’s wartime communications found that while he invokes a “narrative of compassion” to the world, he personally “refuses to immerse himself in the grief” of Ukraine’s losses, instead using a firm, impassioned tone to urge resistance . In practice, Zelensky rarely indulges in visible sorrow or empathy on the international stage; he projects steely resolve. This aligns with SoulMatcher’s BN description that such individuals are seen as “lacking empathy and sensitivity” and prefer action (adrenaline) over emotional expression . During the Oval Office meeting, Zelensky’s low empathy was evident in how he handled Trump’s grievances. He did not cater to Trump’s ego with excessive thank-yous or flattery, even though such empathy might have eased tensions. (Trump and Vance harped on the fact that Zelensky hadn’t said “thank you” enough for past U.S. aid .) Zelensky, for the most part, stuck to his points about justice and security guarantees, showing little concern for Trump’s political pressures or feelings. This made him seem “disrespectful” in Trump’s eyes , though Zelensky likely saw it as honesty. After the meeting, Zelensky’s public response was measured but notably impersonal: he thanked the American people and Congress on Twitter, but pointedly did not apologize to Trump . He stated, “I respect the president… but I’m not sure that we did something bad”, emphasizing principles over placating Trump’s emotions . This confirms that Zelensky’s priority was defending his country’s position, not empathizing with Trump’s perspective. Psychologically, leaders under existential threat may suppress empathy as a “luxury” they cannot afford – focusing instead on survival and victory. Zelensky embodies this: he channels all his emotional energy into fighting for Ukraine’s cause, and has little left for understanding an antagonist’s viewpoint. As leadership experts note, power and crisis can inhibit empathetic behavior , and Zelensky in wartime is intensely zeroed in on his objectives (perhaps to a fault in diplomatic situations). Thus, his empathy accentuation is low: he appears warm when consoling his people, but in negotiation he is unyielding, even cold about others’ demands if they conflict with Ukraine’s goals.

In summary, Volodymyr Zelensky’s profile as a moderate Narcissism, moderate Borderline, and very low Empathy individual (BN type) captures the duality of his wartime leadership. He is heroically confident and passionate – traits which rally others to his side – yet he can also be stubborn, emotionally charged, and unempathetic to opposing views. This profile is supported by expert observations: a political psychology study found Zelensky is “Outgoing and Ambitious” (attention-getting and self-assured) with a “Dauntless” streak (adventurous, risk-taking) , all of which feed a bold, aggressive leadership style. At the same time, his public communications are disciplined and focused rather than emotional, indicating a calculated approach rather than an empathic one . In the Oval Office confrontation, these traits meant Zelensky was unwilling to bend or show vulnerability in the face of Trump’s pressure. His Borderline accentuation drove him to meet fire with fire (resulting in the shouting match), and his low Empathy meant he placed principle over personal rapport. While this earned him respect from those who value his steadfastness – for example, Polish PM Donald Tusk sent Zelensky a message after the clash: “You are not alone” – it also contributed to the conflict with Trump, who expected a more conciliatory approach. Zelensky’s SoulMatcher BN type, described as prone to “adrenaline emotions” and lacking sensitivity , is fitting: he rose to the occasion with adrenaline and moral conviction, but at the cost of empathetic diplomacy.

Post-Meeting Dynamics and Conclusion

Both leaders’ accentuation profiles help explain why their meeting went so poorly. Trump’s high Narcissism/low Empathy meant he interpreted Zelensky’s steadfastness as personal disrespect and saw the encounter in zero-sum terms (his way or no way). Zelensky’s Borderline-Narcissistic drive and minimal Empathy meant he could not feign submission or emotionally placate Trump – he approached the meeting as a moral battle to be won, not a negotiation of personalities. The result was a clash in which neither truly understood the other: Zelensky’s approach engendered “not empathy but hostility” from Trump , and Trump’s approach engendered alarm and defiance from Zelensky.

It is telling that after the meeting, Trump declared Zelensky “not a man who wants to make peace” , while Zelensky asserted “we are ready for peace but we need to be in a good position” . Trump’s narcissistic lens cast Zelensky as simply obstinate (because Zelensky wouldn’t concede to Trump’s plan), whereas from Zelensky’s viewpoint, informed by his intense survival instinct, peace without justice is worthless. Each man’s psychology thus colored their definition of “peace.”

From a psychological studies perspective, Trump’s profile aligns with what Dr. Dan McAdams called “the Mind of Donald Trump” – marked by grandiose narcissism and aggressiveness – which historically is associated with both success and great risk (interestingly, research on U.S. presidents finds narcissism correlates with perceived greatness and with likelihood of impeachment) . Zelensky’s profile, on the other hand, is that of a charismatic, risk-tolerant leader who thrives under threat but may struggle with compromise. A defense of Zelensky in The Atlantic noted he “mostly played weak hands wisely” against Putin, but that his insistence on Ukraine’s agency “irritated” Trump . In other words, the very personality that served Zelensky well in war – courage, moral clarity, refusal to be a victim – clashed with Trump’s personality that demands personal credit and dominance.

By examining these leaders through the SoulMatcher accentuation framework, we gain a structured understanding of their motivations and behaviors. Trump’s “NB” (Narcissist-Borderline) profile highlights his self-aggrandizing, mercurial nature, supported by numerous expert diagnoses of his narcissistic disorder and volatile temper . Zelensky’s “BN” (Borderline-Narcissist) profile illuminates his impassioned, uncompromising style and relative lack of empathetic flexibility, which is reflected in analyses of his leadership and communication strategy . Both profiles are extreme in their own ways, and the meeting showed how such personalities can collide.

Ultimately, this case illustrates a broader point found in leadership psychology: when two leaders high in dominance and low in empathy interact, conflict is likely. Trump and Zelensky each believe firmly in their own narrative – one driven by personal ego and deal-making, the other by national survival and righteousness. Neither readily steps into the other’s shoes. As a result, their historic Oval Office encounter became a tense standoff rather than a productive dialogue. The SoulMatcher framework, backed by psychological research and contemporary reporting, thus proves useful in explaining the accentuated traits that fueled this confrontation. Understanding these traits not only sheds light on that meeting, but also helps anticipate how such strong personalities might behave in future interactions: Trump will continue to seek adulation and push for outcomes that glorify him, while Zelensky will likely stand firm on his principles, even if it ruffles powerful feathers. In the end, both men are products of their accentuated psyches – and their clash demonstrates the profound impact of psychology on world affairs.

Sources:

• SoulMatcher accentuation framework descriptions

• Transcript and accounts of the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office meeting (Feb 28, 2025)

• Zelensky’s post-meeting statements (Fox News interview and social media)

• Expert psychological analyses: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (2017) and related commentary on Trump’s narcissism and empathy deficits ; Dr. Mary Trump’s assessment and Dr. Zebra’s synthesis diagnosing Trump with narcissistic and borderline features ; Atlantic profile of Trump’s personality by Dan P. McAdams ; Academic personality profile of Zelensky (Immelman et al., 2023) using Millon inventory ; Media analysis of Zelensky’s communication style and its emotional tone ; Tom Nichols in The Atlantic rebutting criticism of Zelensky’s approach and noting Trump’s lack of empathy . These sources and others are cited in-line above to substantiate the traits and behaviors discussed.

Trump–Zelensky Oval Office Meeting (Formatted Transcript)

Summary of Key Takeaways

• Heated Exchange on War Strategy: A planned Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — intended to showcase a U.S.–Ukraine mineral rights deal — devolved into a shouting match over how to end the war in Ukraine. Trump emphasized diplomacy and indicated he could be “tough” on Russia but preferred to strike a peace deal, while Zelensky stressed the need for strength against Russian aggression, noting past diplomatic efforts that failed to stop Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

• Debate Over Gratitude and Military Aid: U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance accused Zelensky of showing “disrespect” by pressing his case forcefully in the Oval Office and not expressing sufficient gratitude for U.S. support. Vance claimed Ukraine was conscripting soldiers due to manpower issues and should thank President Trump for attempting to end the conflict. Trump and Vance repeatedly reminded Zelensky of the massive U.S. military aid (citing $350 billion and advanced weapons like Javelin missiles) and suggested Ukraine would have been overrun without American support. Zelensky acknowledged U.S. help but argued that Ukraine had essentially been “alone” in the fight and had thanked the American people many times, which led to contentious back-and-forth about whether he had been appreciative enough.

• Clash on Ceasefire vs. Continuing the Fight: A major sticking point was the idea of a ceasefire. Trump urged Zelensky to consider an immediate ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, implying that Ukraine’s refusal to entertain a ceasefire was “gambling with World War III.” Zelensky insisted that any ceasefire must come with guarantees, reflecting deep mistrust of Russia after multiple broken agreements (e.g. the 2015 Minsk ceasefire). When pressed, Zelensky firmly stated that of course Ukraine wants to end the war, but not at the cost of surrendering territory or momentum without assurance. Trump, however, warned that without a deal, U.S. support could be withdrawn, leaving Ukraine in a “very bad position.”

• Psychological and Diplomatic Dynamics: The conversation’s tone grew increasingly confrontational. Trump adopted a brusque, transactional tone, repeatedly telling Zelensky “you don’t have the cards” and admonishing him to be “more thankful.” Zelensky, visibly frustrated but determined, tried to defend Ukraine’s position, at times speaking emotionally about his country’s suffering and even attempting to appeal to the Americans’ empathy (“you have a nice ocean… you will feel it in the future”). Vance’s interjections added pressure on Zelensky, reflecting a hardline stance that Ukraine should show humility. The psychological dynamic showed Trump attempting to dominate the exchange and assert leverage, while Zelensky struggled to maintain dignity and make his case under fire.

• Abrupt End – No Agreement: The meeting ended abruptly with Trump concluding Zelensky was “not ready for peace” on U.S. terms. Zelensky did not sign the intended agreement on mineral rights and left the White House early. Both sides later issued public remarks: Trump complained that Zelensky “disrespected the United States in its cherished Oval Office,” and Zelensky diplomatically thanked America for its support while omitting mention of the argument. The incident underscored the profound rift in their approaches to the war and foreshadowed challenges in U.S.–Ukraine relations under the Trump administration.

Full Transcript of Oval Office Meeting (Structured & Polished)

[00:00:00] President Donald Trump: “…for the good of the world.” (Continuing a thought) “I’m aligned with the world, and I want to get this thing over with. You see the hatred he’s got for Putin—it’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. He’s got tremendous hatred (for Putin), and I understand that. But I can tell you, the other side isn’t exactly in love with him either. So it’s not a question of alignment. I’m aligned with the world; I’m aligned with Europe. I want to see if we can get this thing done.

You want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you’ve ever seen. I’d be so tough. But you’re never going to get a deal that way. So that’s the way it goes.”

(President Trump indicates that while he can posture aggressively, he believes a diplomatic deal is the only way to end the war.)

Exchange on Diplomacy and War Strategy

[00:00:46] Vice President J.D. Vance: “I would respond to that, Mr. President. For four years in the United States, we had a President who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace — and the path to prosperity — may be engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the U.S. President’s words mattered more than his actions. What makes America a great country is engaging in diplomacy. And that’s what President Trump is doing.”

(Vance contrasts Trump’s diplomatic approach with prior “tough talk” that he implies was ineffective, referencing Putin’s 2022 invasion under Biden.)

[00:01:19] Reporter: “Can I ask you—?”

President Trump: “Sure, go ahead.” (acknowledging a question)

[00:01:24] President Volodymyr Zelensky: “I’d like to respond to this.” (Zelensky begins speaking directly to Trump and Vance.) “So, he occupied parts of our country… big parts of Ukraine, parts of the East and Crimea. He did that back in 2014. During all those years, I’m not just speaking about Biden—during that time it was President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, and now again President Trump. And God bless, now President Trump will stop him. But back in 2014, nobody stopped Putin. He just occupied and took our territories. He killed people.

You know what happened in 2014 and 2015 on the contact line (in Donbas)—people were dying and nobody stopped him. You know that we had many conversations with him. My own bilateral talks with Putin… When I was a new President in 2019, I signed a deal with him together with (French President) Macron and (German Chancellor) Merkel. We signed a ceasefire agreement. Everyone told me Putin would never go along, but we still signed the ceasefire. And after that, he broke the ceasefire. He killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners even though we agreed to an exchange.

So what kind of diplomacy are you talking about, J.D.? What do you mean?”

(Zelensky recounts Russia’s invasion of Crimea and Donbas in 2014 and the years of war that followed. He notes that successive U.S. presidents did not stop Putin’s aggression. He describes how Ukraine, France, and Germany negotiated ceasefires (the Minsk agreements) which Putin violated, implying that diplomatic efforts have failed in the past. He pointedly asks Vance what “diplomacy” he thinks will end the war now.)

[00:03:02] Vice President Vance: “I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country.”

President Zelensky: “Yes, diplomacy… but if you are not strong—”

(Zelensky tries to say that diplomacy without strength won’t work.)

Vice President Vance: (interrupting) “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Vance (continuing): “Right now, you guys (Ukraine) are going around forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking President Trump for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”

(Vance sharply rebukes Zelensky for pushing back publicly. He accuses Ukraine of conscripting soldiers due to heavy losses and implies Zelensky should show more gratitude instead of challenging Trump.)

Confrontation over Military Aid and Gratitude

[00:03:54] President Zelensky: “Have you ever been to Ukraine, that you say we have manpower problems?”

Vice President Vance: “I have been to—”

President Zelensky: “Come, then. Come once.” (inviting him to visit and see firsthand)

Vice President Vance: “I have actually watched and seen the stories. I know what happens: you bring people on these propaganda tours, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you’ve had problems bringing people into your military?”

President Zelensky: “We have problems (like every country at war does).”

Vice President Vance: “And do you think it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?”

President Zelensky: “(You ask) a lot of questions. Let’s start from the beginning… Sure.” (He pauses, gathering his thoughts as Vance says “Sure,” allowing him to continue.)

[00:04:30] President Zelensky: “First of all, during a war, everybody has problems. Even you (the United States). But you have a nice ocean separating you and you don’t feel it now. But you will feel it in the future… God bless, I hope you never have war on your own land.”

(Zelensky stresses that Ukraine isn’t unique in facing wartime difficulties, and subtly warns that if Russia isn’t stopped, eventually Americans “will feel it” despite the ocean protecting them. He twice says “God bless” in hope the U.S. never experiences such war.)

President Trump: “You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

Trump (raising his voice): “We’re trying to solve a problem—don’t tell us what we’re going to feel! You’re in no position to dictate that.”

President Zelensky: “I’m not telling you what to feel…”

Vice President Vance: “You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel.”

President Trump: “We’re going to feel very good, feel very strong. You, right now, are not in a very good position (Mr. Zelensky). You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.”

President Zelensky: “From the very beginning of the war—”

President Trump: “And Vice President Vance happens to be right about that.”

President Zelensky: “From the very beginning of the war, Mr. President, I was—”

President Trump: “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you could start to have cards.”

President Zelensky: “I’m not playing cards. This is not a game to me.”

President Trump: “Right now you don’t. Yeah, you are playing cards—you’re gambling.”

President Zelensky: “I am very serious, Mr. President.”

President Trump: “You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”

President Zelensky: “What do you think about—?” (attempts to interject)

President Trump: “You’re gambling with World War III!” (Trump repeats for emphasis, his voice raised.) “And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country—this country that has backed you far more than a lot of people thought we should have.”

President Zelensky: “I have all respect for your country… I’m very grateful—”

President Trump: “(We’ve supported you) far more than others would have. (Yet) have you said thank you once?”

Vice President Vance: “Have you said thank you once this entire meeting?”

President Zelensky: “I have, a lot of times—”

Vice President Vance: “No.” (dismissing Zelensky’s answer)

President Zelensky: “Even today, I’ve said it even today…”

Vice President Vance: “You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the President who’s trying to save your country!”

(Vance is referring to an incident where Zelensky was perceived as favoring Trump’s political opponents. He demands Zelensky publicly show gratitude.)

President Zelensky: “Please… do you think that if you speak very loudly about the war—”

President Trump: “He’s not speaking loudly. He’s not speaking loudly.” (Trump cuts off Zelensky’s attempt to rebut Vance.) “Your country is in big trouble.”

President Zelensky: “Can I answer?”

President Trump: “No, no. You’ve done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.”

President Zelensky: “I know.”

President Trump: “You’re not winning.”

President Zelensky: “I know.”

President Trump: “You’re not winning this.”

President Zelensky: “I know.” (acknowledges the difficult situation)

President Trump: “You have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of us!”

President Zelensky: “We are standing strong, Mr. President. We are staying in our country, fighting hard. From the very beginning of the war, we’ve essentially been alone. And we are thankful. I have said thanks in this Cabinet meeting—”

President Trump: “You haven’t been alone. You haven’t been alone.”

President Zelensky: “—and not only in this Cabinet, I’ve thanked the American people many times.”

President Trump: “We gave you — through this stupid President (Biden) — $350 billion. We gave you military equipment…”

President Zelensky: “You voted for that President.” (It was your country’s democratic choice.)

President Trump: “We gave you military equipment. And your men are brave, but they had to use our military equipment.”

President Zelensky: “What about your President?” (Possibly meaning Biden was also America’s President.)

President Trump: “If you didn’t have our military equipment…”

President Zelensky: “You invited me here to speak — let me speak.”

President Trump: “If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.”

President Zelensky: “In three days. I heard it from Putin: in three days he thought he could take us. This is something you—”

President Trump: “Maybe even less.” (shrugs)

President Zelensky: “Two weeks, three days — of course.” (Sarcastically agreeing that Russia intended a quick victory.)

President Trump: “It’s going to be very hard to do business like this, I tell you.” (Frustrated with Zelensky’s pushback.)

Vice President Vance: “Again, if you just say ‘thank you’…”

President Zelensky: “I have said it, many times, to the American people!”

Vice President Vance: “Accept that there are disagreements, and let’s go litigate those disagreements behind closed doors, rather than trying to fight it out in the American media while you’re in the wrong. We know you’re wrong on some things.”

President Trump: “But, you see, I actually think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on here — to understand this exchange. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this discussion going so long.”

(Trump implies he allowed the argument to continue in front of the press so the public could witness it.)

President Trump (firmly): “You have to be thankful. You do not have the cards. You’re buried over there (in trenches). Your people are dying.”

President Zelensky: “I am thankful. I know how terrible the situation is—believe me.”

Debate on Ceasefire and Peace Terms

President Trump: “You’re running low on soldiers. Listen to me: you’re running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing if… if you got peace. And then you tell us” (Trump switches to a mocking tone, as if imitating Zelensky): ‘I don’t want a ceasefire, I don’t want a ceasefire, I want to fight, I want this…’ Look, if you could get a ceasefire right now, I tell you — you take it, so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed.”

President Zelensky: “Of course we want to stop the war. (We want to) stop the war—”

President Trump: “But you’re saying you don’t want a ceasefire?”

President Zelensky: “I said to you I want a ceasefire with guarantees.”

(Zelensky clarifies that he’s not rejecting a ceasefire outright, but he needs trustworthy guarantees because a mere pause without terms could allow Russia to regroup.)

President Zelensky: “Ask our people about a ceasefire, ask what they think… It doesn’t matter for you—”

President Trump: “That (broken ceasefire) wasn’t with me. That was with a guy named Biden, who is not a smart person. That was with Obama.”

President Zelensky: “It was your President—” (trying to point out those were U.S. presidents)

President Trump: “Excuse me. That was with Obama, who gave you sheets, and I gave you Javelins. I gave you the Javelin missiles to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you bedsheets. In fact, as people say, ‘Obama gave sheets, and Trump gave Javelins.’ You’ve got to be more thankful, because let me tell you: you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards. Without us, you don’t have any cards.”

(Trump argues that previous U.S. leadership was weak (sending only non-lethal aid like blankets), whereas he provided lethal aid (Javelin anti-tank missiles). He is implying Putin wouldn’t dare cross him as he did Obama or Biden. Trump again insists Ukraine must show gratitude and recognize its dependence on U.S. support.)

[00:06:00] Reporter: “Mr. President, one more question—”

President Trump: “Alright, one more question to the Vice President. Make it quick.”

Reporter: “What if Russia breaks the ceasefire or pulls out of peace talks? What would you do then?”

President Zelensky: “I understand that’s a hypothetical question… Right now, we’re talking—”

(Zelensky hesitates, trying to address the hypothetical.)

Vice President Vance (clarifying to Trump): “She’s asking: what if Russia agrees to a ceasefire, but then breaks it? Or what if they stall peace talks? In other words, what if, say, a bomb drops right after you sign a peace deal?”

President Trump: “What if a bomb drops on your head right now?” (Trump responds with irritation to the ‘what if’ nature of the question.) “You can play ‘what if’ with everything. Why did they break the last ceasefire? I don’t know… They broke it with Biden because they didn’t respect him. They didn’t respect Obama. They respect me.”

President Trump (continuing): “Let me tell you: Putin went through hell with me. He went through a phony witch hunt — ‘Russia, Russia, Russia,’ all that nonsense — where they tried to blame him for the fake dossier and all the crap. Total scam. He had to put up with that, and we still didn’t end up in a war during my term. He was accused of all sorts of things he had nothing to do with. All I can say is: maybe Putin broke deals with Obama, with Bush, with Biden… but he didn’t break any with me. He wants to make a deal.

Now, I don’t know if you can make a deal, Mr. Zelensky. The problem is, we’ve empowered you to feel like a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be such a tough guy without the United States behind you. Your people are very brave, yes. But either you’re going to make a deal or we’re out (we will withdraw our support). And if we’re out, you’ll have to fight this out on your own. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. You don’t have the cards without us. Once we sign a deal, you’ll be in a much better position. But right now you’re not acting at all thankful, and that’s not nice, I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing.”

(Trump makes it clear that if Zelensky doesn’t cooperate on seeking peace, the U.S. might stop aid, leaving Ukraine isolated against Russia. He criticizes Zelensky’s attitude as ungrateful.)

President Trump (looking around to the press/American aides): “Alright, I think we’ve seen enough here. What do you think, huh?” (As if concluding the spectacle.) “This is going to be great television, I will say.” (Perhaps referencing the inevitable media coverage.) “We’ll see what we can do about this… Guys, come on.”

(At this point, President Trump ends the meeting abruptly, signaling for it to conclude. The press is ushered out, and the leaders go their separate ways.)

End of transcript.