Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance meet in the Oval Office Feb. 28. While the meeting began peacefully, it descended into chaos. (Graphic illustration by Emily Paschall).

“Frustrated, angered, disgusted.”

“Depressed, hysterical, tired.”

“Unsurprised, despondent, exasperated.”

When The Oracle sent eighth through 12th grade students a survey on how they felt about the recent Oval Office meeting, the majority of responses reflected profound discontent.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President of the United States Donald Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance met in the Oval Office of the White House Feb. 28. The plan for the meeting was to sign the minerals agreement, giving the U.S. rights to rare minerals in Ukraine. However, this did not happen; the initial handshakes and smiles descended into chaos. As tensions increased, Trump and Vance repeatedly interrupted Zelensky, criticizing that he was not wearing a suit and chastising him for not thanking the U.S., although Zelensky said that he had done so several times. Zelensky shared his concerns regarding Vladimir Putin’s refusal to compromise for a ceasefire deal. The meeting ended abruptly without any clear conclusion for Zelensky, and the U.S. decided to suspend military aid for Ukraine. Aid was restored March 11, following Ukraine’s agreement to a proposed 30-day ceasefire.

An article by White House correspondent Zeke Miller stated the meeting was significant, as it revealed Trump’s desire to stop Russia’s invasion even if he does so in a way that does not align towards Ukraine. It also emphasized “the profound ways Trump feels emboldened to redirect U.S. foreign policy priorities toward his ‘America First’ agenda.”

The Oracle conducted a Zoom interview with Ukrainian citizen Kateryna, who did not want her last name shared for privacy reasons. Kateryna has lived in Kyiv, Ukraine, her whole life. She was 12 years old when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and she was 20 years old when the conflict turned full-scale in 2022 when Russian bombs targeted her city. Today, Kateryna’s family lives abroad as refugees and immigrants, but she still lives in Ukraine, working for non-governmental organizations to support teenage education.

Kateryna said she has not watched the full footage of the recent Oval Office meeting because it would negatively affect her mental health. However, she was unsurprised and frustrated by what she has heard and read about the meeting, describing it as cynical and childish. Many Archer students shared her sentiment, including Vivianne Arnold (’26).

“[Trump and Vance] were treating [Zelensky] like he was a child. They were holding their hands up to him and shushing him and talking over him. And we’ve seen this from Trump before in the race with Hillary Clinton — he would just talk over her and not let her get a word in, which is just not how you treat fellow political figures,” Arnold said. “That shows a lot of disrespect for any viewpoints that are not his own, [for] any people who do not just completely agree with everything he was saying.”

On the other hand, history teacher Nicholas Graham said he feels Zelensky did not properly read the room during the meeting. He said he believes his opinions on the interaction likely contradict a lot of what the majority of the Archer community feels.

“The problem is that Volodymyr Zelensky has had adulation and praise heaped upon him by Western governments, by Congress, of course. [Like in] almost 2024, when he gave an address to Congress, and people were speaking in the most glowing terms about him, and I think it’s gotten to his head,” Graham said. “I think that he seemed to think that he could go into that room and call the shots … There came a point when [Vance and Trump] simply snapped.”

Graham said he did feel some sympathy for Zelensky because of the language barrier and the surrounding right-leaning press, such as Fox News.

“When Trump says ‘You don’t hold the cards,’ it’s unfortunate because Zelensky, I don’t think he understood that because English isn’t his first language,” Graham said. “I have a modicum of sympathy for Zelensky in that English is not his first language, and he’s in the lines [of] the press that was assembled there, … but he was not blameless in the kind of reaction that came about.”

Arnold pointed out a moment from the meeting where Trump interrupted Zelensky, saying “but you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on.” She described her thoughts on the integrity of his statement.

“Trump can say it’s about transparency if he wants to, but what terrifies me is that some people are going to believe him,” Arnold said. “It’s not transparent when you start restricting which news organizations have access to the White House, which is something that Trump administration has started to do.”

Trump, Vance and Zelensky used the word “diplomacy” several times during the meeting, whether it was Vance stating that engaging in diplomacy is “what makes America a good country,” or Zelensky asking, “We signed the exchange of prisoners, but [Putin] didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?”

Diplomacy is “the established method of influencing the decisions and behavior of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation and other measures short of war or violence,” according to Britannica. The majority of important political decisions take place behind closed doors with political diplomacy.

History Department Chair Elana Goldbaum said successful diplomacy is complicated, but it ultimately requires respect. She described how Archer’s history department prioritizes productive, respectful dialogue and how the Oval Office interaction did not exemplify either.

“A value that we have as a school, and something that’s important in the history department, is dialogue,” Goldbaum said. “So I was disappointed to see the highest office in our country not engaging in helpful dialogue … If the current administration cannot show that they respect other nations, then I don’t have high confidence that diplomacy will be successful.”

While there was a lack of respect towards Zelensky from Trump and Vance, Graham said he did notice how Zelensky’s responses whenever Trump brought up engaging in diplomacy did not indicate much openness to agreement.

“Every time, the word diplomacy was loose,” Graham said, “[Zelensky] seemed to push back on and he seemed to say, ‘You can’t trust the Russians. You can’t trust the Russians.’ He seemed to just respond with ‘Putin’s terrible.’ And Trump kept saying, ‘All you can say is this, but at some point they’re going to have to sit down and negotiate a settlement’ … I have to say, I’ve listened to the whole thing, and Zelensky didn’t give the impression that he was a willing peace partner. This was Trump’s talking point.”

Josephine Le Blanc (’28) shared her thoughts on the U.S.’s decision to pause all military aid.

“It kind of just shows a level of selfishness,” Le Blanc said, “and Trump and Vance not having empathy for other countries, and not wanting to use their power for good.”

Similarly, Kateryna said the retraction of military aid demonstrates a difference between past U.S. administrations and the current Trump administration. She has worked with Americans in the past, and while allies often had differing feelings on the situation, there was always a mutual understanding that everyone is on the same side and that the outcome of the war affects all countries. Kateryna elaborated on her reaction to the U.S. pausing military aid.

“Obviously, it feels like a betrayal of an ally, because we are reliant on that military aid,” Kateryna said. “We are sort of just in the way for the current administration, like they have this view of the world that they want to achieve, and we are not very convenient for it.”

In her senior seminar, Bearing Witness, Goldbaum said students did not discuss Ukraine and U.S. specifically, but dove into the concept of U.S. aid. She said one student brought up the symbiotic relationship between the way the United States interacts with and helps other nations.

“One of the things [the student] talked about was, there’s a philosophy about this spending that helps the United States internationally, and one of them is, if we’re spending to help other countries, it’s also in our nation’s best interest because it will allow people to continue to thrive in the country where they are,” Goldbaum said. “And it helps the United States maintain sustainable immigration, which I thought was a really interesting analysis.”

Russia currently occupies roughly 20% of Ukraine, after gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory during 2024. Graham expressed concern for the current situation, especially given the outcome of the Oval Office meeting.

“Anyone exploring war will tell you that Ukraine has lost. I mean, they’re having to recruit people, they’re having to lower the draft age and they’re having to send people back to the front line,” Graham said. “If the United States continues in the current position, which is suspending military aid, suspending intelligence, which is what they did [March 3, Ukraine is] really in trouble.”

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum required the U.S., among other countries, to provide assistance to Ukraine in a conflict with the possible use of nuclear technology. Kateryna said the memorandum is a primary reason why the U.S. is supposed to aid Ukraine in this conflict with Russia; Russia is one of the world’s leaders in fast neutron reactor technology, which allows them to more effectively use uranium for nuclear technology.

“I know that it can be uncomfortable to think about supplying aids, especially with American history of being involved in foreign conflict,” Kateryna said. “But this is not the same situation, because I feel like a lot of Americans think of this as a very great help, and it is, but also it’s not like we are asking something we are not supposed to already receive.”

In reading the reactions from her friends and colleagues, Kateryna said there was a mix of disappointment and feelings of isolation, but mainly a larger realization of Ukraine’s current stance and its future.

“I haven’t really seen, among my friends and colleagues, any kind of very emotional reaction because this isn’t the first time an ally pulled something like that,” Kateryna said. “There is little trust at this point, especially with the U.S., and we can’t rely on anyone but ourselves. We don’t really have a choice whether or not we are supplied U.S. weapons. We still have to fight.”

Countries all around the world have viewed America a powerful country for decades, especially due to its military dominance during the Cold War. However, the Oval Office meeting could serve as a microcosm for the future of the U.S.’s global influence and Trump’s negotiations towards other nations.

“I’m afraid this will just be the first of many instances of Trump treating the foreign leaders like they’re disposable, like their children, like he can do whatever he wants,” Arnold said. “Even if it’s financially difficult for us to help Ukraine now, what we’re fighting for isn’t just Ukraine’s territory — we’re fighting for peace in Europe, we’re fighting for democratic values and we’re fighting for freedom of [Ukraine]. If we suddenly change, completely reverse directions of who we support and what our ideals are, that creates instability, and it shows the world and American citizens they cannot trust this administration to be an American administration — it will be a Trump administration.”