A lesson in diplomacy and etiquette – Firstpost

In the ever-complicated world of international diplomacy, the art of conversation and negotiation often plays as much of a role as political power and economic influence. A notable moment in this realm was the much-publicised recent meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump. A meeting that could have set the stage for significant political and diplomatic developments but instead provided important lessons in diplomacy and etiquette.

This meeting showcased the complex dynamics of international relations and the nuances of political decorum. Diplomacy is often seen as a delicate dance, where the nicety of etiquette, respect, and communication can make or break international relations.

The meeting between the two presidents offered a striking example of how crucial diplomatic etiquette can be in shaping global perceptions and the future of international alliances.

At the core of the Zelenskyy-Trump interaction was a difficult diplomatic balancing act. President Zelenskyy, a relatively new leader with little experience in high-stakes global diplomacy, was tasked with managing a delicate relationship with the US, a key ally in Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. On the other hand, Trump, whose leadership style often defied traditional diplomatic norms, sought to leverage his unique position on the global stage to further his political agenda.

Despite the tension, the meeting provided an opportunity for both leaders to exhibit their diplomatic abilities.

One of the key lessons in diplomacy that emerged from the meeting was the importance of reading the room and understanding the dynamics of the conversation. Diplomats, particularly in sensitive discussions, must possess the ability to navigate challenging topics with both tact and clarity.

Etiquette, a key element of international diplomacy, is more than just good manners; it is a reflection of respect, cultural awareness, and a deep understanding of the subtlety of international relations.

For Zelenskyy, the meeting with Trump presented an opportunity to demonstrate his respect for the US as a vital partner. His decorum and approach to the discussion highlighted Ukraine’s strategic interests while carefully avoiding confrontational or overtly critical statements, as much as he could. Similarly, Trump’s behaviour, though at times unorthodox, reflected his distinct political persona. His directness and, at times, brusque manner were characteristic of his broader diplomatic style, but they also made clear his interest in maintaining a transactional relationship.

An important takeaway from the meeting is how diplomacy and etiquette cannot be separated. For example, while Trump’s bluntness could be seen as disrespectful in some cultures, in his own political world, it conveyed strength and determination. Zelenskyy, meanwhile, chose to approach the meeting with a level of formality that conveyed seriousness but not subservience. In this way, both leaders adhered to the codes of etiquette that suited their political environments and individual leadership styles.

For Ukraine, the meeting with Trump was a defining moment in its relationship with the US, illustrating both the complexities of international diplomacy and the necessity of tact and careful negotiation. For Trump, it served as an illustration of his unique approach to global diplomacy, which was often unconventional but undeniably effective in advancing his national interests.

The two leaders had to cruise through complex political landscapes, where the lines between personal and political, between diplomacy and intrigue, are often blurred. Both leaders walked away with lessons learnt, and the world was given a window into the delicate art of managing international affairs.

The setting and the first impressions can either be a deal maker or a deal breaker.

Both leaders, who have held prominent positions in global politics, are known for their unconventional approaches to diplomacy. Trump, with his brash and direct style, often turned heads with his unorthodox behaviour on the international stage. Zelenskyy, on the other hand, a former comedian turned politician, tried to bring a more refreshing and personable approach, whilst still being firmly grounded in his country’s security and sovereignty.

When the two leaders met, the stage was set for a crucial conversation about Ukraine’s security, its relationship with the West, and the broader geopolitical dynamics involving Russia. However, beyond the serious discussions of arms and mineral deals, foreign policy, and economic aid, the meeting offered more valuable insights into the importance of etiquette in diplomacy.

Every handshake, every word, and every gesture in these high-stakes environments holds significant weight and can shape not only bilateral relations but also the broader geopolitical landscape.

From the outset, the body language and tone of the leaders signalled a unique dynamic. Trump, who is often criticised for his lack of decorum in formal diplomatic settings, did little to dispel that reputation during the meeting. While his handshake with Zelenskyy was firm and engaging, his overall demeanour, particularly his mannerisms and interruptions during the discussion, raised questions about his approach to building trust with foreign leaders. His tendency to dominate conversations and his often dismissive tone, even with allies, was a stark reminder of how non-verbal cues can send a powerful message in international diplomacy.

Zelenskyy’s approach was measured. He tried to showcase his listening skills by maintaining eye contact and offering responses that were diplomatic and non-abrasive. However, this wasn’t without its challenges. There were moments where Zelenskyy’s attempts at humour, often used to ease tense situations, seemed to clash with Trump’s more serious tone. These instances illustrated how humour, though a valuable tool in diplomacy, can sometimes backfire if it’s not aligned with the gravity of the conversation.

The misalignment between the leaders’ communication styles, with one being more direct and the other more calculated. It highlighted how critical it is for diplomats to remain sensitive to the moment and context.

One of the key areas where etiquette played a major role was in how each leader steered the issue of Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. Zelenskyy emphasised the importance of support from the US in the face of Russian aggression, urging Trump to continue providing military and economic aid. Here, his etiquette was evident in his firm delivery of Ukraine’s needs. He did not demand or make aggressive statements but instead presented a case for Ukraine’s role in the broader European security framework.

Trump, on the other hand, took a more transactional approach. His comments occasionally reflected a misunderstanding of the distinction of Ukraine’s position, which was at times off-putting to the Ukrainian leader. While Trump did express support for Ukraine, his tone could be interpreted as somewhat patronising, as he frequently brought the conversation back to the idea of “America First” and questioned the value of the alliance unless it benefitted US interests directly. Such an approach, while not inherently wrong, can undermine the delicate balance required in diplomatic relations, where mutual respect and understanding of each nation’s priorities are paramount. Then, on the other hand, he was only demonstrating his stature, albeit with little finesse.

One of the more interesting aspects of this meeting was the personality clash that occurred between the two men. Zelensky’s public persona of openness and engagement, forged from his background in entertainment, stood in contrast to Trump’s more combative, almost theatrical approach to diplomacy. This contrast was evident when Trump expressed frustration over aspects of the negotiation process, while Zelenskyy maintained a calmer, more diplomatic composure. The tension between these two styles underscored the fact that effective diplomacy requires not just negotiation skills but the ability to adapt one’s personal style to the context.

However, both leaders are prone to missteps when it comes to etiquette. Zelenskyy, while diplomatic in his approach, has sometimes been criticised for his occasional overreliance on humour in formal settings, potentially undermining the seriousness of the conversation. Trump, for his part, tends to alienate counterparts with his disregard for certain diplomatic niceties, such as waiting for others to speak or maintaining a sense of decorum during meetings. His tendency to veer off-topic also risks derailing important discussions, which can create rifts in communication, particularly with leaders who expect a more methodical, respectful exchange.

The physical dynamics of the meeting were also significant. The posture, gestures, and tone of voice played a role in how the two leaders communicated non-verbally. In diplomacy, these aspects can send powerful messages that either build trust or create tension. For instance, the casual tone used by Trump contrasted with Zelenskyy’s more formal approach, signalling a mix of informality and seriousness.

The meeting was heavily scrutinised by the media. Diplomacy in the modern era often happens under the public eye, and both leaders were acutely aware of how their actions would be perceived globally. Effective leaders know how to navigate the pressure of public scrutiny and use the media as a tool for diplomacy. Zelenskyy, with his background in television comedy, was comfortable in the spotlight, which helped him maintain some control over the narrative.

In diplomacy, the art of flattering one’s counterpart can go a long way. Zelenskyy knew that Trump appreciated being praised, particularly in a manner that appealed to his sense of leadership and accomplishments. This tactic, while often seen as superficial, can foster goodwill and create a more positive atmosphere for negotiations.

Both Zelenskyy and Trump were balancing national interests during the meeting. Zelenskyy was advocating for his country’s security, while Trump had to weigh US foreign policy priorities. This balance is often the crux of international diplomacy, where national interests must be defended while maintaining strong alliances.

Both leaders walked away with lessons learnt, and the world was given a window into the delicate art of managing international affairs.

While the aftermath of the meeting continues to shape the political narratives of both leaders, its value as a case study in diplomacy and etiquette remains undeniable.

The writer is an author, poet, and a member of the BJP. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.