From selfish politics to honour in leadership: Trump and Zelensky’s contrasting approaches to global diplomacy

Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky’s meeting was more than just a diplomatic interaction—it was a stark contrast between two distinct leadership styles and visions of power. Their encounter highlighted not only their political differences but also their opposing views on strength, responsibility, and leadership.

In late September 2024, during the U.S. presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump met with President Zelensky. The meeting aimed to discuss the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia and explore potential avenues for peace.​ During this meeting, Trump expressed optimism about resolving the conflict. He stated that if elected, Ukraine and Russia would reach “a very fair and I think, actually, a rather rapid deal.” However, he also mentioned that it was “too early” to share specific plans on how to end the war. ​Trump’s empty comments reflected his business-style confidence in deal-making and belief in swift resolution through negotiation. His assertion of achieving a rapid deal suggests an emotionless, careless transactional approach, focusing on immediate agreements without necessarily addressing or having consideration for the complexities of this three-year conflict.​ In contrast, Zelensky’s consistent emphasis has been on safeguarding Ukraine and seeking solutions for long-term peace and security for his nation. This aligns with his leadership style, which prioritizes resilience, unity, and the well-being of his people.​ 

The meeting highlighted the differing perspectives on how to approach the Ukraine- Russia conflict. Trump’s focus on rapid deal-making, seeing it as a way to gain office and popularity, contrasted with Zelensky’s emphasis on principled and sustainable solutions. This encounter set the stage for future interactions between the two leaders, underscoring the challenges in aligning their approaches and opposite personalities and priorities.

During a conference on the 28^th of February 2025, rather than addressing Ukraine’s dire situation, Trump and his cabinet fixated and laughed at Zelensky’s attire, questioning why he was not wearing a suit. He was asked if he had a suit and told Americans have problems with him not wearing one. Zelensky replied saying he had problems and would wear a costume after the war finished.

As the BBC referred to it, it was a ‘shouting match’, not a friendly diplomatic meeting. 

This seemingly trivial remark revealed Trump’s lack of focus on Ukraine’s ongoing war and highlighted their differing worldviews. This criticism, while seemingly trivial, spoke volumes about their differing worldviews. Trump’s focus was on appearing strong whilst Zelensky dressed in solidarity with his people at war. Trump cares for symbols of power, whilst Zelensky focuses on substance and protecting his country which has been at war for three years. This arguably strengthened Zelensky’s global image as a leader unwilling to be bullied. 

Trump embodies an old-school, hyper-masculine archetype—brash, domineering, and unapologetic. He equates strength with control, relying on aggressive rhetoric, physical gestures of power (such as his infamous handshakes), and relentless self-promotion. Zelensky’s leadership style is deeply individualistic, framing power as something to be wielded rather than shared. Zelensky represents a more modern, relational form of masculinity—one that emphasizes resilience, emotional intelligence, and the willingness to be vulnerable for a greater cause. His rise to prominence as a former comedian turned wartime president has showcased a different kind of strength: one that is not about personal bravado but about service, sacrifice, and unity. He is not afraid to express emotion, to seek help from allies, and to portray leadership as a collective endeavour rather than a solitary conquest. 

Trump’s approach is performative—designed to seek attention, create spectacle, and diminish Zelensky. In contrast, Zelensky’s leadership draws strength from purpose. His ability to rally his country and inspire global support is authentic and humble. He does not position himself as the singular hero but as part of a broader national struggle. His strength comes not from intimidation but from solidarity. The transactional and business-oriented Trump, versus the diplomatic and selfless Zelensky symbolises their polar opposite styles. 

Following this widely criticised meeting, Trump paused US financial aid to Ukraine. As the BBC reported, the pause could have a ‘significant effect on the war’  with analysts noting that ‘Putin ‘couldn’t be happier’ as a result of the tensions between the US and Ukraine. This exposed Trump’s approach to foreign policy, reinforcing his ‘America First’ agenda at the expense of international stability. These cuts will mean Ukraine will likely face critical shortages in essential supplies and enable Russia to progress in the war, as the US has been the key supplier so far to Ukraine. Trump’s stance towards Ukraine reflects a broader theme of his presidency, where he prioritises the wealthy and powerful, over diplomatic and humanitarian concerns. This was evident in his inauguration where tech CEO’s were given front-row seats, over politicians. His disregard for a country that has been at war for over three years serves as a stark warning of what his leadership would look like in the next four years.

Whilst the EU and NATO may be able to mitigate the damage, they are unlikely to fully compensate for the gap left by Trump, creating vulnerabilities that Russia can exploit. Ukraine now faces an even tougher battle, with a destabilizing economy and dwindling resources for repairs, supplies, and humanitarian aid for displaced citizens. This moment underscores the stark contrast between the two leaders. As Ukraine fights for its survival, the need for steadfast and principled leadership in the US has never been more critical.

Words by Maicey Navarro Griffiths