What should have Zelenskyy said?
Russia launched a war of aggression against Ukraine under false pretenses and propaganda, causing unwarranted devastation and leading to the death and injury of over 700,000 people.
In the three years since, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has largely put on a masterclass in international messaging.
From his plea to the reasonable men and women of Russia before the invasion to his speech to a joint meeting of Congress two years ago, the former entertainer rallied the international community, raising hundreds of billions of dollars and embarrassing Russia on the international stage.
I’ve never been in war. I’ve never led a country. I haven’t raised hundreds of billions of dollars.
But after over 15 years in debate, I know a thing or two about audience adaptation. And Zelenskyy, for the first time since I’ve seen him, deeply misunderstood his audience during his disastrous meeting in the oval office.
Who Was the Message For?
Zelenskyy already has plenty of strong allies in Western and Central Europe. They understand the threat of a resurgent, imperialistic Russia. While they lack the industrial capacity to match the United States, their political will is growing daily. Zelenskyy does not need to persuade these allies.
Who does Zelenskyy need to convince? American independents in Republican districts. The American will to support Ukraine has waned, moving from bipartisan support to a deeply polarized divergence of opinions. But independent voters are persuadable and important to the Republicans, who know they have the slimmest of majorities.
What Were the Complications?
Zelenskyy needed to ward off skepticism or attempts at sabotage from Vance and Trump. Vance was vocal for months leading up to the meeting about his anti-Zelenskyy bias. In 2022, he said he didn’t care what happened to Ukraine. He’s routinely decried the notion of America funding foreign wars. He’s outright refused to call Putin an enemy, while his own Republican Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to the Russian dictator as a bloodthirsty butcher. He delivered a blistering speech to European leaders during wartime without mentioning their collective adversary.
This guy, put simply, was obviously Zelenskyy’s opp.
And the President? We knew that Trump, while temperamentally inclined towards Putin, had imposed plenty of sanctions on Russia during time in office. His more recent behavior has outright aligned the US with Russia, but that wasn’t as clear prior to the meeting.
We also know from his prior meetings with Macron and Starmer that he respected gentle, respectful pushback (such as Macron clarifying that they aren’t getting all their Ukraine aid back) and being lavished with praise (like when Starmer welcomed him to return to Buckingham Palace).
Delivering the Message While Avoiding the Traps
I don’t envy Zelenskyy. He was likely jet lagged, speaking in the midst of a horrible war, in the context of the US going from mostly unconditional aid to strong arming him into giving up the nation’s natural resources (to be fair, American industry could help Ukraine access REMs their own companies might not). But he definitely could have articulated his position without provoking Trump or Vance.
Is Vance’s initial statement really THAT much of a dig at Zelenskyy? I’m not sure. He said:
“For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.”
It actually gives Zelenskyy a chance to YES-AND.
“Yes, Vice President Vance. Ukraine thanks you and President Trump for your commitment to ending Putin’s illegal slaughter of thousands. As you noted, the previous administration’s plan did not work, because Putin refused to follow agreements. We have held Russia back, through the Ukrainian peoples’ resilience and the United States’ support. President Obama and President Biden did not deter Russia from continuing this aggression. But you, President Trump, can make a deal and wield your power and responsibility to do what those other presidents could not. Now, we have a unique opportunity to end this war, provide lasting security, and win peace.”
That might feel long. But that’s shorter than what Zelensky actually said:
“OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the -es, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
It’s clear from this that Zelenskyy did not like Vance using the word ‘diplomacy.’ This argument — that Putin cannot be trusted — is most likely true. Putin is a lying, murderous dictator. But the point of the meeting wasn’t to convince everyone that Putin was evil. He is, and most Americans realize it. The point should have been to speak to the independent voter and avoid a Vance/Trump trap.
What’s the takeaway for communicators in lower-stakes public statements?
When crafting a message, prioritize who you need to persuade over who you’re debating.
Saying “Yes, and” allows you to align your argument with your audience’s preconceptions before subtly reframing them.
In any high-stakes negotiation, people respond well when framed as the protagonist in the solution.
Concise, strategic messaging is more impactful than an exhaustive historical account.
Communication is not just a soft skill. Failing to realize that can result in hard consequences.
