One of the most striking historical examples of a diplomatic meeting that deteriorated into a resounding failure is the 1961 Vienna Summit between U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. A young and inexperienced president, Kennedy arrived at the meeting unprepared and projected insecurity. Khrushchev, noticing this, attacked him on sensitive issues for both sides, such as the German question. The result was disastrous: Khrushchev concluded that Kennedy was weak and inexperienced, which led to a political escalation that culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis a year later. A leader’s poor handling of a single meeting can dramatically alter the international landscape.
A recent example of diplomatic failure is the meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House. This meeting may significantly impact the course of the war in Ukraine. Zelensky arrived intending to secure U.S. support against Russia but made every mistake possible.
From the very first minutes, it was clear that he was unprepared to face Trump, who was dominant, media-savvy, and had calculated body language. Zelensky, dressed in his signature simple style—a black work shirt and worn-out pants—created a stark visual contrast with Trump. This choice did not earn him any points with Trump, who is known for his appreciation of status symbols, appearance, and the symbolic power of attire—he even perceived it as disrespectful. The visual gap between them only emphasized the imbalance in their positions.
Zelensky’s problems extended beyond his appearance; his body language conveyed insecurity. He failed to maintain direct eye contact with Trump, his posture was weak, and he kept his arms folded in a defensive stance. From the very beginning, he struggled to take control of the conversation, showing Trump distressing images of Ukrainian prisoners, effectively disrupting Trump’s agenda for the meeting. Ultimately, the meeting turned into a humiliating public confrontation, ending with Zelensky being dismissed from the White House.
The immediate impact was a severe blow to Ukraine’s standing in Washington. Trump, already opposed to military aid for Ukraine, may use the meeting as proof of Zelensky’s inability to manage his country’s foreign relations, strengthening his argument for ending U.S. support and pushing for a swift resolution to the war. If Zelensky now wants to restore American backing, he will have to make significant concessions—possibly even negotiating a deal with Putin, which would weaken Ukraine’s position in the struggle against Russia.
If Ukraine fails to secure American aid, it will have to turn to Europe. However, Europe does not have the resources that the United States can provide. Without American support, Ukraine may find itself internationally isolated. Trump, who has shown admiration for Putin, could use the meeting as justification for moving U.S. policy closer to Russia.
What Should Israel Learn from This?
This pivotal meeting could influence U.S. foreign policy toward smaller nations. Trump, who has always championed an “America First” approach, might use it to justify reducing involvement in international conflicts. As a close U.S. ally, Israel must recognize that Trump operates based on business interests. Therefore, it must present itself as a strategic partner that offers benefits rather than just a country reliant on U.S. support.
The main lesson from the meeting is the critical importance of advisors, diplomats, and thorough preparation—especially when engaging with dominant leaders like Trump. Israel must understand the president’s vulnerabilities and interests and adjust its strategy accordingly, exuding confidence and engaging in discussions based on mutual benefits for both the United States and Israel. Moreover, it is crucial to avoid public confrontations that could harm Israel’s diplomatic standing.
Ultimately, in the Trump era, politics is no longer measured solely by ideological principles but also by business and strategic interests. Israel must present a new comprehensive approach, framing its relationship with the United States through a business-oriented lens of shared interests, particularly in competition with global players like China and Russia.
