In a made-for-TV political smackdown in the White House between two uneasy allies, a flood of recriminations followed the incendiary face-off between President Donald Trump's team and the visiting Ukrainian delegation. The fear that the pending Ukrainian peace plan had already gone off the rails haunted world capitals.
But beyond political gasping and the rhetorical fistfights in the media over who started what, when and why, belied the point: on the surface, Ukraine's pugnacious President Vlodomyr Zelensky and the Trump team weathered a tumultuous weekend of political sparring and infighting. Nonetheless, the Western alliance supporting Ukraine seems to have held firm after massive interventions by America's allies.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said somberly, "We stand on the crossroads"; that's not only a rhetorical flourish but a clear call for a reality check by all sides. So what went wrong and who threw the first punch?
The Build-up
The run-up to the Trump/Zelensky meeting went smoothly. First, French President Emmanuel Macron and later Mr Starmer visited the White House for preliminary talks with Mr Trump. All went smoothly in preparation for the meeting with Mr Zelensky, which was expected to seal the deal for American investment in Ukraine's mineral sector. Mr Trump's plan all along has been to settle the three-year war first through a ceasefire, then follow-up negotiations for a comprehensive peace plan with Russia. Part of the deal is to offer the US access to key mineral mining rights in Ukraine.
The whole mineral deal rests on security; but the US is not going to send American forces to Ukraine; this would negate the central principle of Mr Trump's MAGA policy not to expand military commitment nor to enter into foreign conflicts.
The Flare-up
After Mr Zelensky arrived at the White House Friday, the pieces seemed in place for the first steps in a long peace plan. Indeed, the White House meeting went well for the first 40 minutes. But what should have been a closed-door session was held before the media in public and quickly unravelled into recriminations. Mr Zelensky did not read the room well and was a bit too cocky with his American hosts. JD Vance expressed offence. Feathers flew.
Mr Zelensky was expected to agree but had been briefed earlier by some key Congressional Democrats not to sign Mr Trump's mineral plan. Thus, his switch came on the stage of a live meeting with a media looking for blood. And for the third time, Mr Zelensky rejected Mr Trump's plan.
The Oval Office dustup was a made-for-TV face-off fracas which benefited both sides, especially on their domestic fronts. Mr Zelensky, the mendicant Messiah was able to later claim being the victim to a largely swooning audience of Europe's political class. Mr Trump and Mr Vance had another "I told you so moment" as it appeared the ungrateful Ukrainian president was scuttling the US peace plan inside the White House and was now sent home crying.
Following the Oval Office fight the only people smiling were in Moscow. Mr Trump doubled down by pausing US aid to Ukraine. Given there's no ceasefire, Vladimir Putin may be tempted to use the late spring/early summer weather for a renewed military offensive as to seize more territory.
The Clean-up
Enter the Europeans and swooning global media feeling Mr Zelensky had been wronged. Even otherwise conservative British news outlets such as the Daily Telegraph were critical of the US. Mr Starmer seemed to stop the political haemorrhage of transatlantic trust and pull the West out of the tailspin. A high-stakes London conference attended by top European allies, among them France, Italy, Germany and Poland, underscored the need for unity in confronting Russia's aggression but significantly also solidarity in facing the threats to transatlantic unity.
Mr Starmer intoned, "This is a once in a generation moment for the security of Europe and we all need to step up." Italy's Giorgia Meloni stressed the "importance of the Transatlantic Alliance in consenting shared challenges." She added, "The West must not be divided."
So where do we go? Can Nato's economically prosperous but militarily weak members alone supply enough weapons, money and possibly troops for Ukraine? The answer is clearly no. The strategic fulcrum thus turns to the Americans. Still there's no ceasefire as Mr Trump has pushed for. Will America weigh in? Either way, Ukraine's fate emerges as a Pyrrhic victory for either Kyiv or Russia.
John J Metzler is a United Nations correspondent coven diplomatic and defence issues.