Israel, facing critical foreign policy challenges with key allies, must draw lessons from the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The primary takeaway? Diplomatic discourse no longer follows the same rules as in the past.
On Friday, Trump and Zelensky met in Washington for discussions that ultimately collapsed. Zelensky left the White House without signing the agreement that had been expected. The tense interaction between the two leaders provided a stark lesson in negotiations.
The first rule of negotiation is understanding the nature of the conversation. Zelensky approached the meeting from a moral and ideological standpoint, emphasizing justice and values. Trump, in contrast, framed the discussion as a business transaction. He sought—and succeeded—in redefining the diplomatic framework: No more traditional alliances, only mutual interests.
Zelensky misread the dynamics. He failed to grasp Trump’s broader strategy—reshaping US foreign relations to prioritize pragmatic and transactional engagements over historic alliances. Trump views the world through the lens of deals and leverage.
Under this approach, if the US provides assistance, it expects a clear return. Transactional agreements replace alliances. If Ukraine wants American support, it must provide something tangible in return.
Zelensky’s approach misaligns with Trump’s foreign policy
Zelensky, however, did not approach the meeting as a negotiation. He saw it as an appeal to shared values, viewing international relations in terms of justice, fairness, and moral obligations. He tried to convince Trump that Ukraine serves as the last line of defense for Western democracy, expecting unconditional support. However, his approach was misaligned with the realities of Trump’s foreign policy.
For Trump, the idea that the US serves as a moral guardian of democracy is obsolete. His administration prioritizes American interests above all else. While President Joe Biden may have seen Ukraine as a strategic partner, Trump sees it as a debtor with an outstanding balance. His goal is to rewrite the geopolitical rulebook—no longer positioning the US as the “leader of the free world” but as a nation that operates solely in its own interest.
At its core, this meeting represented a battle over narratives. Trump’s stance is that US aid must come with a price. Zelensky attempted to frame Ukraine’s fight as a broader struggle for democracy, but this approach failed to resonate in a transactional framework.
The key lesson? Zelensky needed to speak Trump’s language. Instead of focusing on democracy and values, he should have presented Ukraine’s case in terms of American interests—economic, strategic, and geopolitical.
He should have used business terminology: Return on investment (ROI), deals, and competitive advantage, rather than aid and moral obligations. He could have framed Russia and China as competitors for Ukraine’s resources, emphasizing that Trump could secure a better deal for the US.
Israel must take note. As it navigates complex foreign policy challenges, it cannot assume that traditional diplomatic norms remain intact. Just as Zelensky engaged in a discussion about values while Trump sought a negotiation based on interests, Israel must recognize that in a world where alliances are increasingly transactional, gratitude is not a currency, and moral arguments do not always outweigh strategic calculations.
In a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, Israel must ensure that it provides tangible value to each strategic partner—whether through technology, intelligence, or geopolitical advantages. If even Ukraine, a nation at war, is expected to offer something in return for support, Israel cannot afford to assume that it will receive unconditional backing indefinitely.
Jesus Christ is King
