When it is poorly executed, face-to-face diplomacy reinforces hostility, erodes relationships and makes diplomatic successes even harder. That is exactly what happened during the now notorious White House meeting on February 28 between the US president, Donald Trump, the vice-president, J.D. Vance, and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Instead of a productive diplomatic exchange, the meeting descended into a highly unusual public spectacle.
Instead of culminating in the signing of a deal that would offer Ukraine some measure of security, the meeting left Zelensky shaken and isolated, and US support for Ukraine looking even more uncertain than it had done before. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, was handed a clear political win.
When leaders meet in person, it is possible for them to gain a deeper understanding of each other’s intentions, constraints and red lines – things that don’t always come through in official statements or diplomatic cables. This kind of direct engagement has historically played a key role in defusing tensions, clarifying positions and opening the door to future negotiations.
The best example was in the Reagan-Gorbachev summits of the second half of the 1980s. This handful of meetings between the two leaders deepened their personal relationship, playing a key role in ending the cold war.
Diplomatic meetings, particularly high-stakes ones, should serve at least one of three purposes. First, they should be opportunities for each side to clarify its intentions, priorities and bottom lines – even if no agreement is reached.
There might be openings for future engagement, keeping diplomacy alive. And, at the very least, face-to-face diplomacy should enable parties to prevent escalation or any deterioration in relationships.
By these measures, the meeting between Trump and Zelensky was a failure. Rather than probing positions and potential paths forward for ending the war in Ukraine, Trump and Vance used the meeting to publicly berate and belittle Zelensky.
“Have you said thank you once?” Vance demanded, framing Ukraine’s survival as a matter of gratitude rather than strategic interest. Meanwhile Trump bluntly told Zelenskyy, “You’re not winning this”, dismissing Ukraine’s resilience and reinforcing doubt about the war effort.
He went on to belittle the Ukrainian president further, saying, “You’ve talked too much” – a deliberate move to undercut Zelensky’s standing in the moment.
These were not the words of partners working toward a resolution or seeking common ground. This was a power play, an example of what some have termed a “domination ritual” – designed to make clear that Ukraine is in no position to set terms.
Zelensky is not the first leader to walk out of a face-to-face meeting with a brutally clear sense of the reality ahead. A historical parallel comes from a summit in 1961 between the then US president, John F. Kennedy, and the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna.
Kennedy later admitted that Khrushchev “beat the hell out of me”, leaving him convinced that tensions with the Soviet Union would escalate. “It’s going to be a cold winter,” he remarked afterwards.
Sure enough, within months the two superpowers were embroiled in a crisis over Berlin, and then a year later, Khrushchev tested Kennedy’s resolve by deploying medium-range ballistic missiles to Cuba, triggering the most dangerous confrontation of the nuclear age so far.
But there was a crucial difference: Kennedy and Khrushchev’s bruising exchange happened behind closed doors. Zelensky was forced to experience his own Vienna moment in front of the cameras. Trump and Vance ensured that their disdain for Ukraine’s position was publicly performed, making it even harder for Zelensky to recover politically – both at home and abroad.
The diplomatic fallout: a gift to Russia
Meetings like this don’t just shape the dynamics in the room – they send signals to allies, adversaries and the international system. And in this case, the biggest winner was Putin.
This was a propaganda victory for the Russians, which will have given the Kremlin the encouragement that Ukraine is losing support from its most powerful western backer.
For Ukraine, this was a major strategic setback. Zelensky desperately needed reassurances about a US security guarantee – instead, he left the meeting publicly weakened, making his already difficult job far harder in Kyiv and across Europe.
But it was also incredibly damaging for US diplomacy. America’s credibility as a reliable ally has taken an enormous hit at a time when its reliability was already being questioned by its friends in Europe and Asia. If the US treats a wartime partner, what message does that send to other allies who might someday need Washington’s support?
Face-to-face diplomacy still matters
Interpersonal meetings, especially ones that are broadcast to the world, shape relationships in ways that extend far beyond policy. They can build – or erode –trust, define power dynamics and send signals that can strengthen or weaken alliances.
Kennedy left Vienna shaken, but at least he left with clarity about Khrushchev’s view of him. Zelensky, too, now understands the new reality of US support. But unlike Kennedy, he was humiliated on live television, which will make it harder to rebuild relationships.
Face-to-face diplomacy is one of the most powerful tools world leaders have – when used correctly. But it only works when they use it to solve problems rather than, as we saw with Trump and Vance, perform for the cameras.
What happened in the Oval Office was not diplomacy – it was a spectacle. And the world took notice.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
