The Unlearned Negotiation Lesson

Everyone is still living through Friday’s events, namely the meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky.

And what is there to say? The conversation and the meeting turned out to be a real failure – and for both sides.

Since everyone is weighing in, I’ll allow myself to voice my opinion too – especially since I deal with negotiations in my day-to-day work. I’ve conducted dozens, if not hundreds, of meetings where I’ve negotiated all sorts of terms.Of course, negotiations at the corporate level differ from those at the state level, but the goal remains the same: to achieve the set objectives – whether they’re defined by a company or our country.

---

A Few General Remarks

Who is a good negotiator? Above all, it’s someone well-prepared for the entire process. Someone who knows who they’re sitting down with, understands the roles of the people across the table, and can identify who holds the decision-making power. Not all roles are always clearly defined, and situations can’t always be fully predicted, but the minimum is to study your counterpart – who might show up at the table and why it matters. You need to know which remarks can be ignored and which should be taken seriously.It’s crucial to recognize who deserves special attention and whose words carry the most weight. It also helps to have a general outline of the people on the other side: what they do, what their interests are, and even what their family relationships look like.This information can prove useful during negotiations, which – let’s recall – don’t last 40 or 50 minutes, as we saw here.

The negotiation process can stretch over hours, days, months, or, in the case of international matters, even years. Such data becomes invaluable then.

A good negotiator is ultimately someone who knows their goals, understands what they want to achieve, where they can compromise, and where the line cannot be crossed.

It’s also someone who has a prepared BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – the best fallback option if no deal is reached. Negotiations sometimes end in failure, but knowing this alternative helps determine what we can afford during the talks. This largely shapes the entire negotiation process and decides how far we can push.

---

Zelensky in the Oval Office
Everyone loves quoting Sun Tzu’s The Art of War – Americans, Europeans – but I get the impression that the more someone in the West references it, the less they understand what it’s about. When push comes to shove, those wise words suddenly evaporate. Yet one of the most famous lines from that treatise reads:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

So let’s look at Zelensky in the Oval Office – he gave the impression of knowing neither himself nor his opponent.

He didn’t know himself because he let himself be provoked and got drawn into an unnecessary spat, unaware of his position, what he could afford, and what goal he should pursue. If someone – in this case, J.D. Vance – managed to throw him off balance, something was wrong with his preparation.

Then there was the way the conversation unfolded. It’s clear that Zelensky – and perhaps his team, though I feel they have capable people given their past effectiveness – didn’t do their homework. He didn’t analyze the other side or absorb the knowledge his team should have provided: Who was he sitting down with? How does Trump negotiate? How do J.D. Vance or Senator Marco Rubio talk? That was missing. The result? Everything fell apart.

Instead of taking a breath, reflecting on his goal and what he wanted to achieve, Zelensky got sucked into a pointless verbal skirmish. Was he provoked? We can debate that. But even if he was, an experienced negotiator – which a country’s president should be – can’t afford that, especially on camera. That’s one problem.

The second is his English. Zelensky doesn’t speak it at a level that allows for conducting such advanced, delicate talks where every word matters. This was evident when he used phrases that Trump or Vance misunderstood, sparking a sharp reaction – Trump told him not to dictate what Americans should or will feel or think.

If you don’t speak the language perfectly, you bring an interpreter. It’s not a shame; it’s standard – even in companies negotiating million-dollar contracts, we don’t risk misunderstandings when the language isn’t native.

An interpreter isn’t just communication support; it’s strategic.

• First, it buys time – instead of responding immediately, you can wait for the translation and take a moment to think.
• Second, it provides space to manage emotions – when an irritating question comes up, you have a moment to cool off and respond thoughtfully.
• Third, if there’s a mistake, you can blame it on a “translation error” and wiggle out of it.

Zelensky deprived himself of these advantages, which, in such a critical conversation about Ukraine’s fate, was a serious misstep.

---

On the Other Side of the Table

Trump and his team played it as expected. Trump is a known short-tempered personality, Vance a critic of Ukraine (or – to be more precise: critic of U.S support for it) – nothing in their behavior should have surprised the Ukrainian side.

The question is whether it was a deliberate setup: Vance as the “bad cop” who provokes, and Trump as the “good cop” who smooths things over and claims success? Maybe. But Zelensky’s reaction to Vance’s words, and then Trump’s, derailed that plan – if it existed. Trump sided with his teammate, leaving Zelensky with little room to maneuver.

Add to that Zelensky’s body language: crossed arms, a closed posture toward Vance. These are signals the Americans surely picked up on – because, if anyone knows how to negotiate, it’s them, alongside the Chinese.

---

What Came of It?

What did Zelensky gain? Nothing.

After a failed meeting and a quick exit from the White House, he got vague assurances from European leaders – words that, for now, lead nowhere.

And Trump? He didn’t sign any “deal,” but he didn’t lose anything either. He pushed Europe into greater responsibility while buying himself time to focus on his priorities – Asia, the Pacific, China.

Will Europe send troops to enforce peace? Let’s not kid ourselves. Even if they had the courage, they lack the capability. Trump didn’t lose in this exchange. Zelensky did.

Now Ukraine will have to bend over backwards to undo this and move toward ending the conflict on fair terms. The question is whether Russia will even bother negotiating with Europe, because Putin is looking at the U.S., China, and maybe India – Ukraine and the EU are lower on his list.

---

This article was originally written and published in Polish on March 2, 2025.