In the twilight of the Qin Dynasty, around 206 BCE, Chinese history recorded one of its most famous political traps—the Hong Men Banquet. Military leader Xiang Yu invited his rival Liu Bang to a feast, intending to assassinate him. Though forewarned of the plot, Liu Bang chose to attend, navigating the deadly situation with cunning diplomacy. His escape from this trap ultimately enabled him to defeat Xiang Yu and establish the Han Dynasty, forever altering China’s imperial trajectory.
On February 28, 2025, in the Oval Office of the White House, a modern version of this ancient drama unfolded—but with crucial roles reversed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, like a latter-day Xiang Yu, walked into what many observers believe was a carefully orchestrated diplomatic trap.[1] President Donald Trump, embodying Liu Bang’s strategic calculation rather than his vulnerable position, had prepared the ground: a minerals agreement devoid of security guarantees, public criticism of Zelensky as a “dictator,” and alignment with Russia’s narrative of the war. What followed was an unprecedented confrontation that ended with Zelensky departing without signing any agreement, while Trump declared on social media: “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”
Unlike the ancient banquet, however, this modern version unfolds with a fundamentally different power dynamic. Zelensky, despite his principled stance, lacks the military might and political leverage that Xiang Yu possessed in his time. Trump, meanwhile, commands not only the world’s most powerful military but also substantial control over the global narrative and Ukraine’s future. This asymmetry creates a perilous situation for Ukraine—one where the consequences extend far beyond a single diplomatic failure.
The Historical Parallel: Trump as Liu Bang, Zelensky as Xiang Yu
The original Hong Men Banquet represents one of history’s most renowned examples of political gamesmanship. In its traditional telling, Xiang Yu stood as China’s dominant warlord—a military genius who had decisively defeated the Qin forces and controlled the larger, more powerful army. He invited his emerging rival Liu Bang to a feast under the pretense of celebration and reconciliation, while secretly planning his assassination. Fan Zeng, Xiang Yu’s advisor, repeatedly urged him to eliminate Liu Bang immediately, recognizing the existential threat he posed. In a critical moment of hesitation, Xiang Yu’s resolve wavered. Liu Bang, having been forewarned of the plot, managed a dramatic escape through a series of clever diplomatic maneuvers and the intervention of his loyal follower Fan Kuai. This escape proved historic—Liu Bang would eventually outmaneuver and defeat Xiang Yu, establishing the Han Dynasty that would shape Chinese civilization for four centuries.
In the modern reimagining of this ancient drama, the roles stand provocatively reversed. Trump assumes the mantle of Liu Bang not as the target of assassination but as the strategic architect who sets the trap. Like Liu Bang, who ultimately outmaneuvered his militarily superior opponent through cunning and patience, Trump has carefully constructed a situation designed to force Zelensky into an impossible choice: accept terms that many Ukrainians would view as capitulation or face the consequences of American abandonment. The contours of this trap became evident in the evolution of the minerals agreement, which began with demands Ukrainian officials characterized as “barbaric” and eventually excluded the security guarantees Zelensky deemed essential.
Zelensky, meanwhile, embodies Xiang Yu’s tragic nobility rather than his military dominance. Like the ancient warlord who refused to kill Liu Bang when presented with the opportunity—a decision born of personal honor rather than strategic calculation—Zelensky has consistently chosen principle over expedience. His refusal to accept terms that would effectively surrender Ukrainian sovereignty, even when facing overwhelming pressure, mirrors Xiang Yu’s fateful hesitation. Both leaders, separated by over two millennia, demonstrated a commitment to certain values that transcended immediate political advantage.
Yet this historical parallel reveals crucial differences that make Zelensky’s position far more precarious than Xiang Yu’s ever was. Unlike the ancient Chinese general who commanded the larger army and held the superior military position, Zelensky leads a nation whose very survival depends on foreign support—most critically, American weapons and financial assistance. His military strength derives not from internal resources but from the continued goodwill of allies who may withdraw that support at any moment. This fundamental vulnerability creates a power dynamic utterly unlike the original banquet scenario.
Trump, conversely, wields far greater leverage over Zelensky than Liu Bang ever possessed in his confrontation with Xiang Yu. As the American president, he controls not only the flow of military aid critical to Ukraine’s defense but also America’s diplomatic position regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His ability to engage directly with Putin—demonstrated by their 90-minute phone call early in his term and subsequent talks in Saudi Arabia—grants him the power to negotiate “over the head” of Ukraine.[2] This represents a level of strategic dominance that Liu Bang, initially the weaker party in the ancient contest, could only have dreamed of possessing.
The reversed Hong Men Banquet thus presents a far more lopsided power dynamic than its historical predecessor. Where Xiang Yu committed a strategic error from a position of strength, Zelensky makes a principled stand from a position of profound vulnerability. And where Liu Bang escaped his predicament through clever tactics, Zelensky faces a trap from which there appears no clear path to victory—only choices between different forms of national compromise.
The White House Showdown: A Banquet Turned Ambush
On February 28, 2025, what was meant to be a diplomatic summit between world leaders disintegrated into what journalists present described as an unprecedented public confrontation. The Oval Office—historically a sanctum of measured diplomacy—became the stage for a modern Hong Men Banquet, with Zelensky walking into what increasingly appears to have been a carefully orchestrated ambush. Unlike the ancient feast’s hidden daggers, however, the weapons here were words and political leverage, wielded with calculated precision.
Trump and Vice President Vance berated the Ukrainian president when he continued to press for security guarantees as part of any peace arrangement. “You’re gambling with World War Three,” Trump reportedly told Zelensky, adding that seeking such guarantees was “very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have.” Vance similarly accused Zelensky: “I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.” The confrontation escalated into what one White House correspondent characterized as “yelling at each other in the Oval Office… something I’ve never witnessed in eight years at the White House.”[3]
The dramatic scene concluded with Zelensky departing without signing the anticipated minerals agreement—the supposed centerpiece of his Washington visit. Trump quickly seized this public relations opportunity, posting on his Truth Social platform: “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” The unsigned agreement provided Trump with exactly what he appeared to seek—a pretext to reduce American support for Ukraine while portraying Zelensky as ungrateful and unreasonable.
This trap functioned effectively precisely because it exploited the fundamental shift in American policy toward Ukraine. Unlike the Biden administration, which had authorized long-range ATACMS missiles to strike deeper into Russia and committed approximately $7 billion in military assistance before leaving office, Trump had signaled from the beginning his disinterest in strengthening Ukraine’s position against Russia. In fact, his administration had explicitly stated that Ukraine must abandon its “illusionary goal” of returning to pre-2014 borders—a position that aligned perfectly with Putin’s demands.[4]
The White House meeting thus represented not a genuine negotiation but a carefully staged event designed to publicly humiliate Zelensky, discredit him on the world stage, and justify an American policy shift already underway. Like the ancient banquet where Fan Zeng repeatedly signaled Xiang Yu to strike, the signs were clear—Trump’s previous characterization of Zelensky as a “dictator,” his false claim that Ukraine started the war, his 90-minute call with Putin, and high-level U.S.-Russian talks that excluded Ukrainian representatives. The trap was laid with meticulous attention to both diplomatic protocol and media optics.
Facing this situation, Zelensky confronted the same essential choice that faced Xiang Yu millennia ago: compromise principle for survival or maintain dignity at potentially devastating cost. Could Zelensky have been more diplomatic? Certainly. European officials had reportedly advised him to ignore Trump’s provocations and not reject the minerals deal too quickly. A more conciliatory approach—acknowledging American support, expressing gratitude, and seeking compromise language on security—might have avoided the public rupture.
But would such diplomatic gymnastics have fundamentally changed the outcome? The evidence suggests otherwise. Trump’s administration had already decided to pursue normalization with Russia, with Ukraine representing what political scientist Petro Oleshchuk described as “a natural obstacle on this path, which needs to be removed.”[5] No amount of diplomatic pleasantries would likely have altered this strategic calculus. Just as Liu Bang was determined to eliminate Xiang Yu regardless of the banquet’s outcome, Trump appears determined to reshape America’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict in ways fundamentally at odds with Zelensky’s core objectives.
The Strategic Fallout: Trump Gains, Zelensky Loses
In the aftermath of the Hong Men Banquet, history records that Liu Bang masterfully transformed Xiang Yu’s principled defiance into political leverage—portraying his rival as arrogant and uncompromising while positioning himself as reasonable and pragmatic. This strategic manipulation of narrative ultimately contributed to Liu Bang’s victory and the establishment of the Han Dynasty. Following the February 28 confrontation, Trump appears poised to execute a similar strategic maneuver on the modern geopolitical stage, with potentially devastating consequences for Ukraine.
Trump’s justification for cutting support to Ukraine has been significantly strengthened by the failed White House meeting. His characterization of Zelensky as “disrespectful” provides a compelling narrative for his isolationist base, who have long questioned America’s substantial financial and military commitment to Ukraine. This portrayal resonates particularly with Trump’s “America First” supporters, who view foreign aid skeptically and prioritize domestic concerns over international obligations. The meeting’s dramatic breakdown creates the perfect pretext for Trump to implement the policy shift he had already signaled—reducing or eliminating American support for Ukraine while pursuing normalization with Russia. Just as Liu Bang turned Xiang Yu’s honorable but politically unwise stand into ammunition against him, Trump can weaponize Zelensky’s defiance to rally political support for disengagement from Ukraine.
This strategic realignment serves Putin’s objectives with remarkable precision. The Russian president has consistently sought to fracture Western support for Ukraine, recognizing that without American weapons and financial backing, Ukraine’s resistance would gradually collapse. The visibly fractured relationship between Trump and Zelensky provides Moscow with exactly the diplomatic opening it has sought—a chance to negotiate directly with Washington while sidelining Kyiv.
For Zelensky, the strategic consequences appear increasingly dire. Ukraine currently faces a military situation where Russian forces maintain numerical superiority and have been gradually advancing along the eastern front. Without continued American weapons shipments and financial support, Ukraine’s ability to maintain an effective defense would deteriorate rapidly, regardless of domestic political unity. This vulnerability creates the conditions for potential splits within Ukrainian leadership. Historical patterns suggest that when external support wavers, internal factions often emerge advocating different strategic approaches.
The echoes of Ukraine’s past political instability grow louder as this crisis deepens. The Orange Revolution of 2004-2005 and the Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014 both represented moments when Ukrainian politics fractured along lines of external orientation—toward Russia or toward the West. The current situation risks triggering a similar rupture, with some factions potentially arguing that Ukraine must accept territorial compromises to secure peace while others insist on continued resistance regardless of Western support. These divisions could reignite the political turmoil that has characterized much of Ukraine’s post-Soviet history.
Like Xiang Yu, who found himself increasingly isolated as Liu Bang’s strategic position strengthened, Zelensky faces growing international isolation. European leaders, though supportive of Ukraine’s cause, lack the capacity to replace American military assistance. Germany’s own military support to Ukraine remains limited by production constraints and political considerations. European diplomatic concern, without corresponding material support, cannot compensate for American disengagement.
The strategic parallels to the ancient banquet’s aftermath become increasingly evident. Liu Bang, having escaped the immediate trap, methodically isolated Xiang Yu—cutting off his allies, challenging his legitimacy, and gradually eroding his position. Trump appears to be executing a similar strategy, having humiliated Zelensky on the world stage and created the pretext to reduce American support while directly negotiating with Putin. Just as Xiang Yu found his proud resistance increasingly untenable as allies abandoned him, Zelensky may discover that principled defiance has devastating strategic costs when facing an adversary who controls the resources essential to survival.
Like Xiang Yu, Zelensky chose honor over pragmatism, refusing to accept a dictated peace. But history does not judge decisions solely on principle—outcomes matter. Trump, like Liu Bang, now holds the strategic advantage. Whether Zelensky’s stand will be remembered as noble resistance or a fatal miscalculation depends on what comes next. The modern Hong Men Banquet remains unfinished.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-trump-vance-ukraine-war-b2706901.html
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-putin-call-means-ukraine-analysis/story?id=118788646
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-zelensky-ukraine-white-house-deal-b2706882.html
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/world/europe/ukraine-war-hegseth-nato.html
[5] https://www.eurotopics.net/en/334409/trump-calls-zelensky-a-dictator
