Trump hits back at Zelensky and brands him ‘not a good guy’ in blistering attack
Donald Trump has launched a fresh verbal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, declaring that he is “not a good guy” as tensions between Washington and Kyiv threaten to complicate efforts to bring the war with Russia to an end.
The US President’s latest remarks have intensified an already bitter dispute over how the conflict should be resolved, with disagreements over Russian energy supplies, military strategy and the terms of a potential peace settlement exposing the deep divisions between the two leaders.
Speaking in an interview with Newsmax, Mr Trump questioned whether Mr Zelenskyy genuinely wanted to reach an agreement with Moscow and suggested that negotiations would remain difficult while the Ukrainian leader continued to resist the approach favoured by Washington.
The comments represent another damaging moment in the relationship between two leaders whose cooperation has become increasingly important to the future of Ukraine’s war effort.
Mr Trump has repeatedly presented himself as the politician capable of bringing the conflict to an end through direct negotiations. However, his latest criticism suggests that he believes Kyiv, rather than Moscow, is presenting the greater obstacle to a settlement.
For Ukraine, the stakes could hardly be higher. The country continues to face the consequences of Russia’s invasion, while its government must balance the pursuit of peace against demands for security guarantees and protection against another attack.
The row also raises wider questions about the future of American support for Ukraine and whether Washington and Kyiv can maintain a working relationship despite their increasingly public disagreements.
Trump delivers a blunt verdict on Zelenskyy
During the Newsmax interview, Mr Trump was asked whether he had lost faith in the Ukrainian President.
His response was unequivocal. The US leader said he was not a fan of Mr Zelenskyy and argued that the Ukrainian leader did not genuinely want to settle the conflict, despite publicly expressing support for negotiations.
Mr Trump also claimed that the war had devastated Ukraine, using the country’s destruction as part of his criticism of its leadership.
He said: “Putin hates Zelenskyy and Zelenskyy hates Putin and when you have that kind of hatred it’s very hard to get something settled; but that’s a war that should have never started.”
The President went on to suggest that an agreement should be reached soon, adding that he believed both sides ultimately wanted the fighting to end.
Yet he offered a further indication of his frustration with Kyiv when he said he found Mr Zelenskyy more difficult to deal with than Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The remarks are significant because they go beyond disagreements over particular policies. By publicly questioning Mr Zelenskyy’s intentions, Mr Trump is challenging the Ukrainian leader’s credibility as a negotiating partner.
That creates a potentially serious diplomatic problem. Any settlement would require Ukraine and Russia to agree on difficult questions concerning territory, security, military activity and the future relationship between the two countries.
Trump has hit out at Zelenskyy (Image: Getty)
If Washington believes Kyiv is unwilling to compromise, it could increase pressure on the Ukrainian government to accept terms that it considers unfavourable. Conversely, if Ukraine believes its principal ally is giving Moscow too much influence over the process, confidence between the two governments could deteriorate further.
Mr Trump’s comments do not, by themselves, establish that Ukraine has rejected a viable peace agreement. Nor does his assessment of Mr Zelenskyy’s intentions prove that Russia is prepared to accept terms that would provide Ukraine with lasting security.
The disagreement instead highlights the central challenge facing any diplomatic initiative: persuading both sides that a settlement is preferable to continuing the war, while determining what each would have to concede.
The Russian diesel deal that sparked the latest row
The immediate trigger for the dispute was Mr Trump’s announcement that Russia would supply large quantities of diesel fuel to American and international markets.
In a post on Truth Social, the US President said he had concluded a “highly successful discussion” with Mr Putin and announced an initial shipment of more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel.
He also outlined further proposed deliveries, including 500,000 tonnes during November, followed by an additional one million tonnes and a later shipment of three million tonnes, subject to the condition of Russia’s diesel refineries.
Mr Trump presented the arrangement as an economic measure intended to reduce fuel prices, particularly for American farmers, ranchers and truckers.
Lower energy costs are an important political objective for the White House. Fuel prices influence the cost of transporting goods, operating agricultural machinery and delivering products to shops. When those expenses rise, businesses may pass at least some of the additional costs on to consumers.
The President’s argument was therefore that increasing available diesel supplies could help ease pressure on the American economy.
However, the announcement immediately raised difficult questions about the wider consequences of purchasing energy products from Russia while Moscow remains at war with Ukraine.
Mr Zelenskyy condemned the arrangement, describing it as a “gift” to Mr Putin and arguing that it could strengthen Russia’s ability to continue fighting.
The Ukrainian President warned that such a deal would play into the Kremlin’s hands by helping it sustain its war effort while undermining the pressure intended to encourage Moscow to negotiate.
His objection reflects a broader concern within Ukraine: that revenue and commercial opportunities available to Russia could help the Kremlin finance its military campaign.
The disagreement also illustrates the competing priorities confronting Western leaders. Washington must consider domestic fuel prices and economic pressures, while Kyiv views Russian energy revenues through the lens of national survival and the financing of the invasion.
Whether the proposed diesel deliveries would materially change Russia’s ability to wage war would depend on the details of the transactions, the financial arrangements and the wider restrictions applicable to Russian energy exports. The announcement alone does not establish the ultimate economic or military impact.
Nevertheless, Mr Zelenskyy’s response has turned an energy announcement into a much wider diplomatic confrontation.
Ukraine’s refinery strikes deepen the diplomatic crisis
The dispute has become more serious because of Ukraine’s decision to resume attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.
Ukrainian forces struck a refinery in Russia’s Ryazan region, south-east of Moscow, after a fragile understanding over attacks on energy facilities broke down. The refinery is strategically important to Russia’s fuel industry, and Kyiv’s campaign against such installations is intended to put pressure on the Russian economy and disrupt supplies that support the war effort. <Cite refs={[“turn473648news24″,”turn473648news27”]}/>
Mr Trump condemned the renewed attacks, arguing that strikes on facilities producing diesel were damaging the interests of consumers who depend on affordable fuel.
He described the attacks as a “disgrace” and questioned why Ukraine was targeting refineries when other military targets were available. His criticism suggests that the US administration increasingly views Kyiv’s energy campaign as an obstacle to its efforts to negotiate a settlement.
Ukraine, however, has defended its strategy as a response to Russia’s continuing attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.
Mr Zelenskyy has argued that Kyiv would be prepared to stop targeting Russian energy facilities if Moscow also stopped attacking Ukraine’s own energy infrastructure. In an interview with ABC News, he said Ukraine was ready for a ceasefire and further steps towards de-escalation, provided Russia also changed its actions. <Cite refs={[“turn473648search4”]}/>
That position highlights a fundamental disagreement between the two governments. Mr Trump wants Ukraine to halt its attacks in the hope of stabilising energy markets and advancing negotiations. Kyiv insists that any pause must be reciprocal rather than allowing Russia to continue striking Ukrainian facilities without facing equivalent consequences.
The distinction matters because an agreement that is not enforced equally could leave one side with a military advantage. Ukraine has little incentive to suspend a source of pressure on Russia if it believes Moscow will exploit the pause to strengthen its position.
At the same time, continued attacks on energy infrastructure risk further escalation and could complicate diplomatic efforts to establish a broader ceasefire.
The challenge for negotiators is to develop terms that both sides can verify and enforce, rather than relying on public announcements that quickly collapse amid mutual accusations.
Could Trump’s criticism affect American support?
Perhaps the most consequential question is whether the increasingly hostile language between Washington and Kyiv will affect the practical assistance Ukraine receives.
The United States has played a major role in supplying Ukraine with military equipment and intelligence support. Any significant change in that relationship could have implications for Ukraine’s ability to defend its territory and respond to Russian attacks.
European governments are also watching the dispute closely. They have their own security interests in the outcome of the war and are concerned that a breakdown in US-Ukrainian cooperation could weaken the wider Western response.
Recent reporting has described growing concern among European leaders about the deterioration in relations, with efforts under way to preserve transatlantic cooperation while maintaining support for Kyiv. <Cite refs={[“turn473648news25″,”turn473648news27”]}/>
Mr Trump has made clear that he wants a negotiated end to the conflict. His supporters may argue that a more confrontational approach is necessary to pressure leaders into making difficult decisions and prevent the war from continuing indefinitely.
Critics, however, warn that publicly undermining Ukraine’s president could weaken Kyiv’s negotiating position while giving Moscow reason to believe that divisions among its opponents can be exploited.
There is also a difference between questioning a leader’s negotiating approach and assuming that the leader is responsible for the failure to reach peace. Russia and Ukraine have fundamentally conflicting objectives, and any agreement would need to address the issues that have kept the conflict going.
The US President’s personal assessment of Mr Zelenskyy cannot resolve those underlying disagreements. A durable settlement would require credible commitments, security arrangements and a mechanism for responding if either side violated the terms.
Trump raises fresh questions about Ukraine’s leadership
Mr Trump’s criticism has also revived the sensitive question of political leadership in Ukraine during wartime.
In separate remarks earlier in October, the US President suggested that Ukraine should have a new leader capable of reaching an agreement with Russia. He has also questioned whether elections should take place. <Cite refs={[“turn473648search2″,”turn473648search3”]}/>
Ukraine has not held a presidential election during the full-scale war, with martial law and the conditions created by the invasion presenting major legal and practical obstacles. Organising a credible national vote would raise questions about the participation of soldiers, displaced citizens and people living in occupied territory, as well as the security of candidates and voters.
Mr Trump’s comments place additional pressure on Mr Zelenskyy, but they do not determine who has the legal authority to lead Ukraine. That question must be considered within Ukraine’s constitutional framework and the circumstances of the ongoing conflict.
For Kyiv, the immediate priority remains defending the country while seeking terms that would prevent renewed aggression. For Washington, the challenge is to pursue negotiations without creating the impression that the United States is prepared to abandon a partner because its leader disagrees with the President.
The relationship between the two men is therefore about much more than personality. It is closely tied to the future of American foreign policy, European security and the prospects for ending the war.
A peace deal remains uncertain
Despite the sharp exchange, Mr Trump has maintained that the conflict should end soon and that both Russia and Ukraine ultimately have reasons to seek a settlement.
His optimism, however, contrasts with the obstacles facing negotiators. Moscow and Kyiv continue to disagree over the conditions for ending hostilities, while attacks on energy infrastructure demonstrate how quickly attempts at de-escalation can unravel.
The diesel dispute has added another layer of complexity by linking the war directly to global fuel supplies and domestic economic pressures in the United States.
For Mr Zelenskyy, the central concern is that a deal prioritising lower fuel prices or a rapid diplomatic victory could leave Ukraine exposed to future attacks. For Mr Trump, the continued fighting and rising energy costs strengthen the argument that both sides must make concessions.
Whether those positions can be reconciled remains unclear.
One thing is certain: the public clash between Trump and Zelenskyy has made an already difficult diplomatic process even more complicated. If Washington and Kyiv cannot agree on the conditions for a ceasefire, efforts to persuade Moscow to accept a lasting settlement could become harder still.
The question is no longer simply whether Mr Trump likes Mr Zelenskyy. It is whether their governments can overcome their differences sufficiently to pursue an agreement that ends the fighting without leaving Ukraine’s future security unresolved.