Visiting the White House in Washington is usually a wonderful experience for tourists. The architecture is beautiful, the pillars and layout familiar from television, even if the places where the real work often takes place can appear somewhat cramped, in a building created after British troops burnt down the original White House on August 24, 1814.
These awkward bits of history nowadays resurface between American and British politicians as a kind of shared historical joke. But as world leaders try to figure out how to deal with US President Donald Trump, last week we saw three very different relationships manifest.
Mr Trump's meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron meeting was cordial yet slightly awkward. The US President's meeting with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was a warm reinvention of a new kind of "special relationship". But as the world knows – and as historians will consider for decades – the unhappy meeting between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy marks a turning point in US-European relations, with some speculating that it also prefigures the end of Nato itself.
As literally hundreds of millions of viewers saw, Mr Trump and US Vice President JD Vance berated Mr Zelenskyy over his supposed lack of gratitude for American assistance against Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the background, a small bust of Winston Churchill looked down on the roughest diplomatic show ever seen on international television.
The UK government minister Douglas Alexander echoed the views of millions of British and European viewers when he suggested that in standing up to Russia, Mr Zelenskyy is the bravest European leader since Churchill himself. Mr Trump appears to take a different view.
Journalists, politicians, diplomats, historians and TV viewers worldwide are still trying to make sense of what Mr Trump’s verbal blasting of Mr Zelenskyy means for Nato, transatlantic relations and the prospect of a real peace in Ukraine. There are some obvious lessons already.
First, visitors to the White House need to understand precisely why they have been invited. Mr Zelenskyy was not invited to discuss peace or security. He was invited to sign a multibillion-dollar minerals deal benefiting the US. In the Trump administration, money doesn’t talk – it shouts.
Second, Mr Trump is playing to one audience only: American voters. Mr Zelenskyy’s audience was much wider: Americans, Europeans, and of course, the Ukrainian people.
Third, visiting leaders to the Trump White House must prepare not only for the traditional meeting between heads of state and government, but for a reality TV show in which – as in The Apprentice – Mr Trump may announce: “You’re fired”.
Some commentators analysed the Zelenskyy debacle as a kind of televised ambush, led by Mr Vance, designed to irritate the obviously tired and stressed Ukrainian leader. If that was the plan, it worked. But seen in that light, we have to understand what an average American voter (or rather viewer) – if such a person exists in this complex and very diverse nation of 350 million people – may make of the meeting.
For example, an American journalist challenged Mr Zelenskyy for wearing combat clothes saying that "a lot of Americans have problems, with you not respecting the dignity of this office". Which “lot of Americans?” How many millions of viewers had he asked? None, presumably. It was just a provocative question.
Perhaps in the White House reality TV show, this journalist did not know that in 1942, Churchill, another leader in another war, also wore the combat clothes of his day at the White House. No lack of respect was involved by either leader.
Nevertheless, for tens of millions of Americans for whom Ukraine is a far-away country, of which they know little, and perhaps care even less, what they saw was a foreign leader in this shrine to American democracy getting into an ill-tempered argument with the President and Vice President of the US over allegedly being ungrateful for American military assistance.
Whether this was a trap set by Mr Vance, who insulted Mr Zelenskyy by suggesting Ukraine stages “propaganda tours” of the war zone to encourage foreign aid, no one can say for sure. But what is clear is that large sections of the American public may find it difficult to understand why they should care about the future of Ukraine.
US Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, has been one of his party’s staunchest backers of Ukraine. But even he said: “I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again.” He called the Ukrainian leader’s behaviour in the Oval Office “disrespectful”.
Across Europe, television viewers appear to take a different message, namely that Ukraine, even if it is not part of Nato, is our frontline, too, and the Trump administration does not much care.
The most obvious question now is how far the Trump administration will – or will not – move to help ensure the survival of an independent Ukraine. But the bigger question is how far the Trump administration will also move to ensure the survival of Nato itself.
And above all, a White House meeting designed by Mr Trump to ensure a rapid move towards peace may unfortunately benefit the key player who was not present in the room: Mr Putin.
