It’s as if Zelensky has two dads . . . who just don’t understand him

What a difference regime change makes.

The Biden administration was an impenetrable bank of fog in which nothing was visible — not even Biden.

With Donald Trump, even questions of war and peace are now reality TV.

The Oval Office shouting match between two heads of government — Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky in one corner, our own President Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the other — televised for the horror and delectation of the world, has been universally described as “unprecedented.”

It was that.

Presidents, one would like to think, probably spend a lot of time shouting at each other, but rarely face to face, and never in public.

The event began as a typical Washington ritual involving a patron and a petitioner.

Trump and Vance were ungracious patrons.

They bragged about their power and derided their opponents.

But Zelensky was a catastrophically inept petitioner.

He seemed to think he was doing the United States a favor by taking our money — not a sound approach to negotiations in general, but a bizarrely misguided tactic when dealing with Trump.

From the hipster attire to the body language and the interruptions, Zelensky got the art of petitioning pretty much 100% wrong.

The visit took place at Zelensky’s request, against the advice of American negotiators who feared — correctly, we can now say — the combustible potential of too many volatile personalities in one room.

The stated purpose of the summit was to sign an economic agreement that would grant the United States mining rights in Ukraine worth $500 billion.

It was a clever way for the Ukrainians to sink their hooks into Trump, a man who measures most interactions by profit and loss.

Although Zelensky had agreed to the deal, he twice declined to sign and finally demanded a Washington setting for finalizing it.

He seemed to be up to something.

The dispute that erupted in front of the cameras has been interpreted in Machiavellian terms.

Some maintain that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky to be rid of a troublesome ally; others hold that Zelensky provoked the quarrel for domestic political reasons.

Yet the appropriate reference may not be Machiavelli but Dostoyevsky: In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” conversations always start with polite formalities but soon deteriorate as private demons take hold of the speakers and they blurt out what should never be said.

In his remarks, Trump emerged as the least undiplomatic of the three men, something I’m sure had never happened before in his life — and, given the outcome, will never happen again.

As is his style, the president praised himself to the skies, berated his predecessor, and frequently wandered off topic.

But he was pursuing something that fully engaged his interest: not peace through strength, but peace through deals.

First, the deal for “digging, digging, digging” rare earths from Ukraine, which would provide a protective American screen against Russian incursions.

Second, a deal for a permanent ceasefire that would guarantee his place in history — “I mean, I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker,” Trump confessed.

Vance, who has apparently been appointed president of the MAGA Debating Club, took offense over Zelensky’s strange behavior before Trump did.

The meeting had already gone sideways, but it might have been rescued without his intervention.

I’m a huge fan of “Hillbilly Elegy” and think Vance is a brilliant human, but he has yet to learn the supreme vice-presidential virtue: silence.

Zelensky showed up at the White House with a serious case of attitude, and I can find no rational explanation why he thought this approach would help his cause.

He constantly corrected and contradicted his host.

He contrasted American assistance unfavorably with that of Europe.

He insisted, against Trump’s strong denial, that Putin had broken his word to the president during his first term.

He demanded security guarantees that no American president, Joe Biden included, could offer — the United States isn’t going to risk war with Russia over Ukraine, ever.

In the bit that finally exhausted Trump’s patience, he intimated that Americans should be thankful to pay for Ukraine’s war because “everybody has problems, even you, but you have a nice ocean and don’t feel [it] now, but you’ll feel it in the future.”

And all of this was accompanied by a series of smirks and gestures that expressed an almost adolescent exasperation with his interlocutors.

It was as if Zelensky had two dads — and they just didn’t understand him at all . . .

Ultimately, Trump cancelled the festivities and booted him out of the White House, while remarking, in a rare understatement, “This is going to be great television.”

If the objective was to torpedo the peace talks, Zelensky could have accomplished this without leaving Kyiv.

All he had to do was to phone in, “No deal.”

If he imagined he could appeal to American public opinion over the head of the just-elected Trump, then he was dangerously deluded.

If a food fight in the Oval Office was exactly what he wanted, then he swims in waters far too murky for my analytical skills to penetrate.

The temptation to reduce the tussle to a game of villain and victim has been irresistible.

If you are American and especially if you’re a Republican, Zelensky is the foreign villain and Trump the victim; if you’re European or a Democrat, the values are reversed.

I prefer to take both men at face value.

Zelensky is a courageous patriot whose dream is to save Ukraine by defeating Russia.

Trump is a man of peace who wants to stop the killing while preserving Ukrainian independence.

The trouble is that neither man believes this of the other.

Zelensky is convinced that Trump will sell him out to Vladimir Putin.

Trump is equally certain that Zelensky is a profiteering warmonger.

Before any deal can be possible, one of them is going to have to act as if he’s changed his mind — and we know it won’t be Trump.

Two hard truths should frame the strategic landscape.

One, the United States is unwilling, and probably unable, to continue the “as long as it takes” subsidy of Ukraine.

Two, even with Biden administration-levels of support, Ukraine can’t win the war.

Zelensky, understandably, rejects the latter proposition.

That is all to his credit.

He dashed from Washington to Europe, where the applause for his martial spirit is always deafening.

For European leaders, he will always be the victim, Trump will always be the villain.

“Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine,” tweeted Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief.

“Today, it became clear the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take the challenge.”

Zelensky’s response to all the cheering was to ask for “at least” $250 billion in frozen Russian assets.

That was crazy talk again.

One can only hope that some brave presidential aide will enroll him in the Oxbridge School for Petitioners.

In the unlikely case that Europe “takes the challenge” and makes up the loss of US support for Ukraine, Trump will have gotten everything he first asked for and the Europeans vociferously rejected.

It almost certainly won’t happen.

Confronted with a major war in its own back yard, Europe has produced epic volumes of Churchillian rhetoric, but — except for a handful of countries like Poland — it has no stomach for a fight.

The economies of Germany, Britain, and France have flatlined for years; their military have atrophied accordingly.

The challenge was always there, from many directions, not just Russia — and it was always declined.

At the moment, the Europeans are caught between their deep loathing of Trump and their desperate need for the United States.

Yet we knew how this would end.

The Europeans don’t care much for the “free world” — they just canceled an election in Romania because they didn’t like the outcome.

But they are terrified of Putin and Russia.

They did in the end what they should have done from the first: beg Trump to show more composure and pressure Zelensky back into that awkward petitioner mode — maybe even into a suit and tie.

The Ukrainian president sent a semi-contrite letter to Trump, which the latter had the pleasure to announce, triumphantly, before both houses of Congress.

Mysteriously, out of nowhere, Prince Mohammed bin Salman got into the act, and negotiations between Russia and the United States, with Ukraine hovering in the background, are about to resume in Saudi Arabia.

Zelensky, a former comic actor, should understand his role.

Once you get past the hours of self-satisfied verbiage, US presidents are easy marks — and Trump is the easiest.

Call him the greatest peacemaker in history and he’ll eat out of your hand.

This sort of theater isn’t a new thing under the sun. It’s been performed many times before.

Winston Churchill played his part magnificently around FDR.

Benjamin Netanyahu never shouted at Joe Biden, even though Biden often shouted at him.

The Egyptians hardly even appear in person anymore, and they still collect their billions.

Should Zelensky gets a second shot at this, he must do a better job of listening to presidential pontifications, nodding his head, and following his cues.

With victory out of reach, he has only three choices before him: defeat, endless war, or Trump’s peace.

The latter would come in stages, beginning with a permanent ceasefire that largely preserves Ukraine’s integrity.

The US and EU would then assist in the reconstruction of the country and the revival of its economy.

The last stage will be a watchful waiting.

Putin is 72.

The average life expectancy for Russian men is 67.

From the perspective of history, the fall of the regime in Russia is imminent — and lasting peace will be celebrated over the dictator’s grave.