The Oval Office Confrontation
Trump, Vance, and Zelensky’s heated exchange signals a new geopolitical reality
I spent the better part of yesterday on a 9-hour flight from London to Vancouver. The wifi was spotty, so I ended up offline for most of the flight. When I landed and pulled up my newsfeed, I saw what the rest of the world had already seen: the sight of the Trump and Vance berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, complete with accusations of ingratitude and disrespect.
The extraordinary exchange, which played out before television cameras, ended with Zelensky departing without signing the expected minerals deal, a planned press conference canceled, and Trump posting that Zelensky could “come back when he is ready for Peace.”
I watched the entire exchange on video and with every passing moment, found myself boiling up into a hot rage. We’re barely six weeks into the Trump presidency, and the pace of disruption, and the style in which it is done, has become unbearable to watch.
When I renamed this Substack to Power Shifts, I did so because I’m interested in analyzing the power shifts—big and small—that are reshaping geopolitics and public affairs. This exchange may be one of the clearest examples of these shifting dynamics.
Without a doubt, this exchange is incredible. With any other US President, it would have been unbelievable. I don't know about you, but I was saddened by the fact that none of this surprised me. I’m so numb to Trump’s “shock and awe”, reality-TV inspired approach to manufactured conflict that nothing shocks me anymore. The writing was on the wall for several weeks:
Trump entered his new term openly skeptical of continued blank-check support to Ukraine. His administration sought to “choreograph an end to U.S. support” for Kyiv by forcing a fast peace settlement.
Trump’s key point of leverage: a surprise insistence that Ukraine repay past aid with economic concessions in the form of a vague deal for the U.S. to gain access to Ukraine’s strategic mineral resources. This is no peace deal; it’s a cynical play.
The proposed minerals-for-aid agreement had few specifics about extraction or what the U.S. would give in return. It was more a political gambit than a genuine economic deal . Zelensky’s visit to Washington was hastily arranged to address this demand and attempt to salvage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship .
The incident highlights just how far Trump’s foreign policy deviates from past U.S. norms.
Typically, American presidents have maintained a united front with allied leaders in public, even if private disagreements exist. It is virtually unheard of for a U.S. president to bicker and insult a partner nation’s leader on camera; “heads of government generally do not bicker in front of the cameras,” as Council on Foreign Relations fellow James Lindsay observed.
However, the most depressing part of the ordeal was watching Trump side with Russia’s narrative in key ways.
During the tirade, Trump asserted that President Putin had “gone through a hell of a lot with me” due to accusations that the Kremlin helped Trump in 2016 – effectively sympathizing with Putin.
In the weeks leading up to this meeting, Trump called Zelensky a “dictator”, parroting a Kremlin talking point (and even though he tried to walk back that remark a day before Zelensky’s visit, the damage was already done).
He has falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war and praised Putin as “very smart” and “cunning”, making clear that his administration positioned the US alongside Russia.
This is an exceptional departure from the U.S.’s post-WWII role of staunchly backing allies against aggressors. Trump’s priority, as he stated bluntly, is forcing peace talks on his terms, even if that means strong-arming Ukraine. “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” he warned Zelensky. In other words, Washington’s support is conditional and transactional.
The realignment from the US is crystal clear: Trump is moving America’s stance from one of supporting Ukraine to pressuring Ukraine, even it if means Russia gets the upper hand. Ronald Reagan must be turning in his grave.
And none of this is shocking because it is the climax of a weeks-long campaign by the Trump-Vance team to prepare Americans for abandoning a key ally and pivoting American foreign policy in an isolationist and pro-Russia direction.
What does this mean for post-war western alliances?
America can no longer be counted on. It’s tilting toward the other side.
Just days before, the U.S. had sided with Russia and other hostile states in a controversial UN vote against a European-backed measure regarding Ukraine.
And as Germany’s opposition leader (and soon-to-be chancellor) Friedrich Merz declared, Europe may be witnessing “the death of NATO” as it currently exists.
This is the reality that seems to have been lost in the immediate aftermath of the Oval Office exchange: Do we honestly believe Trump’s America will step in and defend NATO members under Russian threat?
As Rory Stewart put it, do we think there’s any scenario in which Trump defends Estonia or Lithuania from Russian aggression? Of course not.
NATO is dead. Its members need to chart a path forward without the US. And that will involve difficult decisions, as it means these countries need to significantly increase spending on national defence at levels that will likely require cuts to other programs and services.
We’ve already seen this with Starmer’s announcement, days before his visit to the Oval Office, to cut foreign aid spending to fund an increase in military spending. Some see this as pandering to Trump. I see it as the only option the UK has to shore up its own security capabilities in light of an unreliable Washington. Others will follow suit, including Canada.
Chris Hayes makes this point with absolute clarity:
“Today, Donald Trump irreparably destroyed the 80-year-old post-World War II international order.”
The winner of this rupture? Russia.
Senior Kremlin figures openly mocked Zelensky’s humiliation. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gloated on social media that Zelensky was “an insolent pig” who “finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”
Russian state media cast Trump’s scolding of Zelensky as proof that the U.S.-Ukraine partnership was fracturing, reinforcing the Kremlin’s narrative that Ukraine would eventually be abandoned by the West.
No doubt, Putin’s government felt emboldened – if Washington is pulling back support, Moscow can seriously consider pressing its military advantage or driving a harder bargain at the negotiating table.
The other winner of this rupture? China.
Beijing has long advocated for a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war (on terms favourable to Russia) and has positioned itself as a friend to Moscow.
Trump’s quasi-alignment with Russia on Ukraine could benefit China strategically. If the US pivots to Russia, China would face a divided West.
An isolationist US is also good for China — an America that is less interested in confronting Russia may also be less interested in confronting China’s ambitions. When the US retreats, Beijing gains clout.
As US support becomes increasingly fickle, allies will turn to reliable partners. As the West retreats on foreign aid, and if China and Moscow step in to fill the void, it will reshape traditional alliances. Soft power matters, and it appears the West is quickly giving that power away to Russia and China.
The consequences of all of this has put me in one hell of a depression on this early Saturday morning. Because, let’s be real, the consequences are terrifying:
More regional conflicts
Aggressive moves by belligerent powers
The breakdown of the trade and security networks that kept the world relatively stable for the last 80 years.
The Oval Office incident is both a symptom and accelerator of a profound geopolitical shift. The United States, long the anchor of a rules-based international system, is redefining its role – with Trump forcefully asserting a more insular, transactional policy. Allies must recalibrate; adversaries are opportunistic; global institutions like NATO and the UN face strains they haven’t seen in decades. The last six weeks have created unimaginable damage to Western norms.
Implications for Businesses in a Shifting Global Landscape
A retreat from the old global order has several key implications for businesses in the coming years:
Rising geopolitical risk and uncertainty: Companies must brace for a world where international disputes can escalate unpredictably and great-power mediation is less assured.
The fraying of the U.S.-led security umbrella means higher risk of conflicts or flare-ups that can disrupt markets.
For example, with the U.S. less predictable, a regional war (whether in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or East Asia) might not be contained or deterred as before.
Political risk monitoring has never been more important – whether it’s gauging the stability of Eastern European supply routes or assessing exposure to potential sanctions and wars.
Take a look at the war in Ukraine: if Russia gains the upper hand, that could prolong instability in a region critical for agriculture, minerals, and other commodities, affecting prices and availability.
More protectionism and trade Barriers: The decline of the U.S.-championed liberal order goes hand-in-hand with the rise of protectionism.
American policy has already shifted toward tariffs and “economic nationalism,” and other nations are following suit.
As U.S. influence and the old free-trade ethos wane, we are seeing “higher walls at the borders (in and out)”.
Both Trump’s and even Biden’s administrations have embraced industrial policies and restrictions (e.g. export controls on tech, local content rules).
Businesses should expect more trade regulations, tariffs, and government interventions in commerce worldwide. This could mean the fragmentation of global markets into regional or political blocs – for instance, a Western tech sphere vs. a China/Russia tech sphere, each with its own standards and limits.
Companies that thrived on unfettered globalization will need to adapt to a patchwork of trade regimes. Regulatory compliance will become more complex as sanctions and export controls multiply.
Shorter, more resilient supply chains: The turmoil and uncertainty encourage businesses to reconfigure supply chains for resilience. The era of just-in-time, globe-spanning supply networks (optimized for cost efficiency) was predicated on stable geopolitics. That is now in question. We can expect a continued trend toward “shorter supply chains” – bringing production closer to home or to politically friendly countries.
This onshoring is already underway in critical sectors (semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, energy) as firms and governments worry about overreliance on potential adversaries.
Businesses operating globally will likely need to diversify their manufacturing bases and perhaps duplicate supply lines in different regions to hedge against disruption.
The stability premium might trump the cost-savings of far-flung production. For example, a company that used to manufacture entirely in East Asia might establish parallel assembly in Eastern Europe or Mexico to guard against trade wars or conflicts. This restructuring carries upfront costs but is a necessary insurance.
Regionalization of markets: In a less globally integrated world, firms may need to adopt a regional strategy. Rather than one unified global market, we could see more defined regional blocs (e.g., North America, European Union, East Asia, South Asia, etc.) with different rules and dynamics.
Businesses might standardize products within each bloc to comply with localized regulations (for instance, data storage laws, or different technical standards if East-West tech decoupling continues).
Market entry strategies will need to account for geopolitical alignment: for instance, a Western firm might find it easier to expand in India or Brazil than in China or Russia due to political climate, whereas Chinese companies might deepen ties in parts of Africa or Southeast Asia as Western presence recedes.
Defence and cybersecurity considerations: With heightened geopolitical tensions, certain industries face new opportunities and challenges. The most obvious is the defence sector – as nations rearm (Europe increasing budgets, Asia-Pacific allies bolstering defence), defence contractors and tech firms specializing in security could see increased demand.
Businesses in related fields (cybersecurity, surveillance, aerospace) may also find new markets as governments prioritize security spending.
Companies must also bolster their own cybersecurity and contingency planning, as periods of geopolitical rivalry often come with increased cyberattacks and espionage (state-backed hacking of corporate secrets, for example).
The geopolitical fragmentation can also lead to splinternets and tech bifurcation, meaning tech companies may have to align with one standard or another and deal with more government scrutiny.
Climate and energy transition impacts: Interestingly, the breakdown of cooperation could slow global efforts on issues like climate change – which in turn has implications for industries.
If great power coordination falters, global climate action may too, potentially leading to more fragmented or unilateral approaches (carbon tariffs, local content rules for renewables, etc.). Energy markets are already geopolitically charged (e.g., Europe scrambling for non-Russian gas).
Businesses in energy and transportation must navigate a world where energy security is paramount – this could both accelerate renewable investment in some places (for energy independence) but also prolong fossil fuel use in others (as old alliances shift).
For example, Europe’s push for renewable energy and alternative suppliers intensified after feeling the pinch of dependence on Russian gas.
Business is politics. Politics is business
You’ve heard me say this countless times: businesses must become more agile and politically aware.
The post-Cold War assumption that geopolitics were increasingly irrelevant to business has been upended.
Now C-suites and boards need to integrate geopolitical risk into core decision-making.
Some key strategies include: diversifying supply and markets, enhancing real-time risk intelligence, engaging in policy dialogue (corporations may lobby for stable trade arrangements or clarity on sanctions), and building redundancy and flexibility into operations.