據多家媒體報導，2025年10月中旬在白宮舉行的一場美烏領導人會晤，據稱現場氣氛十分緊張，甚至數度演變為激烈的口角。報導指出，美國總統唐納德·川普在會中多次以粗言怒斥烏克蘭代表，並一度將烏方帶來的前線地圖拋到一旁。川普直言，如果俄羅斯願意，「就能摧毀烏克蘭」，同時強烈建議烏克蘭接受普京提出的領土讓步方案，特別是交出頓巴斯地區，以換取停火或停戰的結果。

媒體形容此次會談為「多次爆發的嚴重口角」，消息來源稱，川普在會中反覆援引與普京通話中獲得的訊息，主張以現有戰線停火，並以嚴厲口吻要求烏方接受某種形式的領土讓步。同時，他對反覆出現的戰況地圖表達厭倦，甚至當場丟掉地圖以示不耐。

烏克蘭總統澤連斯基此行的核心目標之一是爭取美方提供長程攻擊性武器，如戰術飛彈或Tomahawk類型系統，以加強對遠端目標的打擊能力。然而，媒體普遍認為，在此次會談中，烏方未能立即獲得完整承諾，部分議題未達成預期成果。

值得注意的是，對於媒體所描繪的「互罵與丟地圖」場景，澤連斯基本人及其團隊的公開說法相對克制。澤連斯基在公開場合表示，多輪討論在他看來仍是「正面」的，雙方就停火與防禦合作等議題仍有對話空間，試圖以正面訊息安撫國內外盟友的關切。

此次會晤在華府與北約盟邦中引發強烈關注。歐洲官員與媒體評論指出，如果美國高層推動類似俄方的領土交換或讓步論述，可能削弱烏克蘭談判立場，並在盟友之間引發信任與政策連貫性的疑慮。會後，有關情報分享、武器支援與聯合防禦承諾的未來走向，也成為各方密切觀察的焦點。

綜合來看，主流媒體披露的內部消息與烏方公開說法存在落差：媒體描繪的會談充滿情緒激烈的粗口與戲劇性行為，而烏方則以務實和正面的口吻回應。無論真實細節如何，這場會晤已在國際社會引發關於美國政策連貫性、盟友信任以及對烏克蘭軍事支持未來方向的廣泛討論。

According to multiple media reports, a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in mid-October 2025 reportedly turned tense, with several instances of heated exchanges. Sources indicate that Trump repeatedly used coarse language toward the Ukrainian delegation and at one point threw a frontline map aside. He reportedly stated that if Russia wished, it could “destroy Ukraine” and strongly urged Ukraine to accept territorial concessions proposed by Putin, specifically ceding the Donbas region in exchange for a ceasefire or peace agreement.

Media outlets described the meeting as a series of “serious verbal confrontations.” According to insiders, Trump repeatedly referenced information from his communications with Putin, advocating for a ceasefire along existing frontlines and demanding Ukraine accept certain forms of territorial compromise. He also expressed frustration with the repeated appearance of maps, reportedly tossing one aside in exasperation.

Zelensky’s primary goal for the visit was to secure long-range offensive weapons, such as tactical missiles or Tomahawk-style systems, to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to strike distant targets. However, media reports suggest that Ukraine did not receive full commitments during the meeting, and several issues failed to meet Ukrainian expectations.

Notably, Zelensky and his team offered a more measured public account, emphasizing that the discussions were “constructive” in his view. He noted that dialogue on ceasefire and defense cooperation remained open, attempting to reassure both domestic and international allies.

The meeting drew significant attention in Washington and among NATO allies. European officials and commentators warned that if senior U.S. officials publicly or privately promoted positions akin to Russian territorial concessions, it could weaken Ukraine’s negotiating stance and raise concerns over trust and policy continuity among allies. Post-meeting issues such as intelligence sharing, arms support, and future joint defense commitments also became focal points for international observers.

In summary, there is a clear discrepancy between media reports, which depict a highly emotional and dramatic meeting with vulgar language and thrown maps, and Ukraine’s public statements, which emphasize a pragmatic and constructive dialogue. Regardless of the exact details, the meeting has sparked broad discussion in the international community regarding U.S. policy consistency, allied trust, and the future of military support for Ukraine.