Baumgartner calls on Zelenskyy to resign hours after diplomatic meltdown in Oval Office

Congressman Michael Baumgartner called on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to resign Friday, hours after a diplomatic meltdown in the White House as President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance claimed Zelenskyy was ungrateful to the administration.

On social media, Baumgartner accused Zelenskyy of backing away from what the congressman claims was an imminent agreement to trade security guarantees for Ukraine in exchange for its mineral wealth.

“Putin is a thug and it is in U.S. national interest that he not be successful in his attack on Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to have now twice reneged on signing an agreed mineral rights deal at the last minute,” Baumgartner wrote. “Whatever your view on what happened in today’s bizarre televised WH diplomatic meeting, the West needs U.S. and Ukrainian leadership trust on confronting Russia.”

“After today, that likely requires a new Ukrainian leader,” he continued. “For the good of his country, he should step down and allow an interim leader before new elections can be held.”

During a press briefing in the Oval Office Friday morning, Vance accused Zelenskyy and former President Joe Biden of chest thumping and refusing to attempt to find a diplomatic end to Russia’s invasion.

“The path to peace, and the path to prosperity, is maybe engaging in diplomacy,” Vance said.

This appeared to rattle Zelenskyy, who noted that Russia has repeatedly violated international agreements and argued guarantees were needed that his country would not be invaded at a later date.

“I signed with him the deal, I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel, we signed ceasefire,” Zelenskyy said. “But after that, he broke this ceasefire, he killed our people and he didn’t exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about?”

In a brief interview, Baumgartner suggested the morning’s fracas had happened because of Zelenskyy’s resistance to signing a mineral rights agreement.

“Twice now they’ve gone into meetings with Zelenskyy expecting him to agree to a long-term U.S.-Ukrainian economic relationship around mineral rights,” Baumgartner said. “And instead of having a happy, agreed-upon kumbaya moment in front of the cameras, it seems to have turned into a defiant confrontation.”

Asked whether the U.S. had itself gone back on its commitments by demanding compensation for aid that was freely given, Baumgartner was unequivocal.

“Be that as it may, (Ukraine has) now twice been ready to sign an agreement and twice backed out at the last second,” Baumgartner said. “And then you had this bizarre descent into public grievance, an argument in the White House in front of the American public, that’s not advantageous to either side.”

Baumgartner indicated he only had a short time for the interview and did not return a request seeking comment about whether he agreed with pulling U.S. support if a deal is not signed, as Trump suggested Friday morning

Thomas Preston, C. O. Johnson distinguished professor of political science at Washington State University, said in an interview Friday that Baumgartner’s position was “shameful” and the administration’s actions that morning were “disturbing.”

“It’s just an utterly disgraceful comment, and it seems that very few Republicans have any sort of courage or fortitude to actually stand up to what is clearly just a vile and disgraceful performance that we saw today in the White House,” Preston said.

Preston characterized the mineral rights proposal as grossly transactional – pay to use Trump’s fire hose or he’ll let Ukraine burn down – and ultimately a “smokescreen” meant to give Trump an excuse to pull out of Ukraine altogether. He argued acquiring the minerals is significantly more uncertain than Trump has claimed and that there appear to be few guarantees for the security for Ukrainians if they sign a deal.

“Even if we pretend that there’s all these rare earths and all this other stuff for the Ukrainians, you want them to give most of that resource to the U.S. with … no guarantee that there will be any protection when the Russians rearm and then come back later to finish the job,” Preston said.

“And no future NATO membership, no support from the U.S. for even peacekeepers – I mean, what sort of a deal is Trump really offering Zelenskyy?” he added. “To me, this is just a kind of smokescreen to try to move towards just pulling back support.”

Friday’s meltdown, Preston argued, was not evidence of Zelenskyy’s inability to come to the table, but of Trump’s desire to undo the post-World War II world order.

“What we’ve seen the Trump administration do is totally walk away from that, to the point where our NATO allies are questioning our commitment to NATO, to the point where he was accusing Ukraine of starting the war,” Preston added.

“I am a presidential scholar, I have been for 30 years. I have never seen a display as disgraceful as what we witnessed at that press conference today.”

Emry Dinman, The Spokesman-Review, emryd@spokesman.com(509) 459-5472