Evidence has emerged that shows Democrats were behind Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s surprise move to reject the peace deal that President Donald Trump had negotiated to end the war between Ukraine and Russia.
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and other lawmakers reportedly urged Zelensky to reject the possibility of a peace deal without so-called “security guarantees.”
Zelensky had reportedly met with Democrats shortly before his now-infamous meeting with Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in the Oval Office last week.
Zelensky’s visit to Washington was expected to focus on discussions regarding continued U.S. support for Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia.
However, the meeting took a contentious turn when the Ukrainian president publicly dismissed the idea of a ceasefire.
The shift in tone raised questions about what influenced Zelensky’s approach ahead of the meeting.
As Slay News reported, Zelensky started complaining about the deal in front of the media despite previously agreeing to it.
The Ukrainian leader started demanding that Trump and Vance agree to challenge Russian President Valdimir Putin’s “aggression.”
Trump warned Zelensky he was “gambling with World War 3” before kicking him out of the White House.
According to a social media post by Murphy, the senator met with Zelensky and other lawmakers less than an hour before the White House meeting.
In that gathering, Murphy and other Democrats had encouraged Zelensky to reject what they called a “fake peace agreement.”
This statement appeared to be a direct rebuke of Trump’s diplomatic efforts, reinforcing Zelensky’s defiant stance.
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/eaCePJ4UZr
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 28, 2025
The Oval Office meeting, which lasted approximately 40 minutes, became heated when Zelensky questioned VP Vance in front of the press.
The confrontation occurred after Vice President Vance mentioned pursuing diplomatic solutions to the war.
Zelensky rejected the notion outright, stating that a ceasefire was not an option, a response that the Trump administration viewed as an unnecessary provocation.
Following the meeting, Zelensky took to social media, doubling down on his opposition to peace talks and further straining relations between Ukraine and the new administration.
His actions raised concerns about whether outside influences, including congressional Democrats, were pushing him toward a hardened position instead of working toward potential negotiations.
Trump’s stance on Ukraine has been clear—he supports discussions that could lead to a resolution of the conflict but has not committed to the type of long-term military guarantees that some U.S. lawmakers have sought.
His administration has emphasized that any potential agreement would still allow Ukraine to make its own decisions on ceasefire terms.
Despite this, Zelensky’s approach to the meeting suggested an expectation that the White House would continue the policies of the previous administration.
Those policies involved endless funding of the war without solutions to end it, all while provoking a nuclear superpower.
However, with Republicans now in control of both the Senate and the House, Murphy and other Democrats do not hold the power to dictate U.S. foreign policy or provide military aid.
Murphy’s involvement raises questions about the motivations behind his meeting with Zelensky.
While Democrats have strongly supported continued military assistance to Ukraine, they are currently in no position to make binding commitments.
Encouraging Zelensky to reject diplomacy just before a meeting with Trump may have contributed to the diplomatic fallout that followed.
Trump has signaled that he is open to assisting Ukraine, but not in the form of indefinite military engagements or troop deployments.
If Zelensky hopes to maintain U.S. support, he may need to adjust his strategy and recognize the changing political landscape in Washington.
The path to securing American aid is still open, but it may require a different approach than what was encouraged by congressional Democrats.
