The Oval Office blowup: What went wrong and how to fix it

In a world increasingly driven by clickbait and popular narratives, societies must pay closer attention to the truths behind them.

The infamous White House meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offers a powerful case study — not only in the volatilities of personalities in the current global security landscape, but also in the dangers of manipulated narratives.

As the first victim in any war is often the truth, scrutinizing global security issues through fact-checking, objective analysis and embracing complexity is essential. Simple narratives and emotionally charged audiences pose significant threats to our democracies.

The world may have underestimated the significance of the errors made during this incident due to media reporting and an audience more interested in liking or disliking political leaders than understanding the stakes involved. Added to the distractions was the horrific display of disrespect by those in the Oval Office, including the media.

After 30 years in and out of conflict and peace negotiations — including negotiations with close associates of Osama bin Laden — I rarely encountered even in battlefields or with warlords the level of disrespect and hostility displayed that day. However, there are other critical points worth noting that seem to have escaped mainstream media.

Strategic missteps

To start, there is no doubt: Ukraine is the victim and Russia has been the aggressor, violating international laws and human rights. But amid peace and ceasefire talks, a significant misstep by Zelenskyy at the four-minute mark underscored the risks of undiplomatic rhetoric.

Just after Trump expressed respect and empathy towards Ukraine — gestures largely edited out by the media — Zelenskyy publicly referred to President Vladimir Putin as a "terrorist" in front of international media, including Russian outlets.

Most media did not cover this. While emotionally understandable, this was a strategic error that risked inflaming tensions — not only between Ukraine and Russia but also potentially escalating a broader conflict involving NATO, its allies and the CRINK alliance of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Media coverage downplayed these risks, focusing instead on the inappropriate conduct of U.S. officials.

The U.S. behavior later in the talks, though seemingly lacking in respect and empathy, was likely infused with fear — fueled by the risks of World War III — and a calculated act of diplomatic distancing. Some suggest a planned gang-up by U.S. officials; however, not having those insights, I must note it was a brutal display of diplomacy.

The real challenge now lies in repairing the damage caused by both Zelenskyy’s misstep and the U.S. brutal response — especially the emerging divisions between the U.S. and its European allies.

The media’s role

The media’s portrayal of the Oval Office incident exacerbated tensions in three critical ways.

Firstly, by criticizing the U.S. for its transactional approach, media narratives overlooked the pragmatic integration of national security and economic considerations in the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal. Economic security and national security are inseparable — something Japan understands well but Western states and media often fail to grasp.

Secondly, media narratives recklessly amplified distrust in the peace process, framing the U.S. as solely economically motivated and highlighting the relationship between Putin and Trump as solely nefarious, dismissing any value to a peace process. Real negotiations rarely succeed by avoiding bad actors.

My Canadian mentor, Gen. Romeo Dallaire, taught that engaging with adversaries is essential for achieving peace — not out of respect, but out of necessity. His experience during the Rwandan genocide emphasized that negotiations with those responsible for conflict are sometimes the only way to prevent further suffering.

Critics who oppose U.S. engagement with Russia fail to consider the alternative — a strengthened alliance between Russia and China. As a wise colonel once said during the Yugoslav wars, “Sometimes a rotten orange to a starving man is the only thing to keep him alive for another day in a war.” Reflecting on that story, perhaps it is true of the process incorporating Putin — a stark reality of war negotiations.

Thirdly, the media’s coverage led to the politicization of the peace process. In the days following the meeting, leaders from various nations seized the opportunity to exploit the situation for political gain. European and Canadian leaders were quick to vocalize support for Zelenskyy — support that was more rhetorical than practical, given their limited capacity to provide security assurances to Ukraine.

A Global conflict in the making

Days after the Oval Office incident, NATO Chief Mark Rutte publicly urged Zelenskyy to restore his relationship with the American president. This was a stark reminder of the broader stakes: the risk of a conflict that could potentially draw in Europe, North America and even the Asia-Pacific region.

The reality is that the U.S. is perhaps the only nation capable of facilitating peace between Ukraine and Russia — both in terms of diplomatic influence and military deterrence. Yet, superficial media narratives continue to obscure this reality, fostering a dangerous misunderstanding of the stakes involved.

European leaders, focused almost entirely on Russia, seem to overlook the broader threat posed by the CRINK alliance, which could destabilize not only Europe but also North America and the Asia-Pacific region. Thinking this conflict’s main threat is limited to Russia would be both naive and dangerously simplistic.

Repairing the damage

The path forward must focus on repairing the damage by embracing humility, strategic patience and a nuanced understanding of adversaries. Drawing on lessons from Gen. Dallaire and history, we must navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of 2025 with a balance of principle and pragmatism. As Nelson Mandela said, “To make peace with an enemy one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes one’s partner.”

The West must come to terms with the fact that sustainable peace will require engaging with adversaries — not ignoring them. The focus must be on building a strategic framework that integrates economic and military security, encourages humility in diplomacy and resists the simplistic narratives peddled by much of the media.

Final reflections

The tragic conduct of both parties on the world stage put their alliances at risk for further conflict. CRINK, particularly China, was undoubtedly watching with delight as two key nations in 2025’s global security environment stumbled. This may be the last opportunity for the U.S. to regain any respect from historical allies.

Regardless, both nations deserve support and it is crucial to ensure that the level of support provided is defined not by social media but by our history, long-term interests and facts. Humility, I argue, is the antidote to the current ills afflicting global leaders and nations. The escalating tensions amplified by media distortions must be countered by calmness and humility — the only paths to sustainable peace.

Japan’s culture, rooted in humility and restraint, offers a powerful model for conflict resolution — one that Western leaders would do well to emulate. In the Oval Office meeting, this attribute was glaringly absent. The blunt exchanges between Trump and Zelenskyy represented a missed opportunity to use humility as a tool for de-escalation and constructive engagement.

Reportedly, Zelenskyy is signalling he is willing to come back to the peace table. This is not only a huge sign of humility, but a commendable sign of courage. The world now awaits to see if U.S. leaders respond with the same humility and courage, accepting their own shortcomings in last week's meetings. As famous leaders have said, "it takes courage to stand strong, but greater courage to take a knee in humility." Perhaps this is a media narrative required for all participants.

While nations explore military and financial support to the European crisis, as a former peacekeeper and conflict negotiator, perhaps Japan may wish to offer participation in the peace process, where their national and cultural attributes of "respect" and "humility" could serve the warring parties and fill a significant gap among those involved.