** Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky: a diplomatic dance on the razor thread **
The international diplomatic arena lives a moment of high intensity, with Donald Trump at the center of the scene. The recent telephone exchanges between the former American president and the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, raise crucial questions about the direction that global diplomacy could take, in particular in such a loaded geopolitical context. Trump’s statement, which argues that negotiations are “on the right track”, could seem optimistic, but it hides more nuanced diplomatic complexity.
The interactions between Trump and these two leaders draw a painting that is both intriguing and tense. On the one hand, we have a Russian leader, Putin, often perceived as a calculating strategist, and on the other, a Ukrainian president, Zelensky, who sails between the anxiety of military aggression and the need to maintain solid diplomatic relations. In this context, Trump’s optimistic sentence on the progress of negotiations may seem more a wish than a reality.
### Negotiation psychology: beyond words
Analysis of Trump’s statements cannot be dissociated from his tumultuous public figure. The negotiations he leads are marked by a “Crazy Like A Fox” style diplomacy, oscillating between the threat and the promise, a style that was successful in his previous terms. Richard Werly, from the Swiss daily *Fatshimetrics *, underlines that Trump “needed to get out victorious” from these discussions, thus revealing an underlying psychological pressure. This need for victory can push him to accentuate expectations, bringing us back to an essential question: what is the impact of such a strategy on international peace and security?
A recent study by The Brookings Institution reveals that negotiations carried out in an intense psychological tension climate can often lead to catastrophic results. The obligation to prove a certain power can hinder the ability of a leader to be flexible, essential in any negotiation process. If Trump, in his quest for personal and political success, was to increase the pressure on Putin, this could exacerbate tensions instead of gathering wills.
### Supporting statistics: the delicate art of diplomacy
To add weight to this discussion, consider the statistics surrounding American diplomatic interactions. According to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, around 70% of international negotiations fail when a party passes to coercive measures instead of adopting cooperative approaches. In addition, the report reports an increasing anxiety among the nations that feel threatened, triggering this infernal cycle of distrust. If Trump decided to operate on this path, we could enter a period of accentuated tensions, thus losing sight of the initial objective of these talks: reducing hostilities and building a bridge towards sustainable resolution.
### An alternative approach: the “Win-Win” model
An alternative approach to such negotiations could be to be inspired by conflict resolution practices observed in other contexts. For example, the “Win-Win” model, often associated with the work of Fisher and Ury, recommends a way of negotiating which emphasizes beneficial solutions for all stakeholders. In the case of the current situation between Russia, Ukraine and the United States, a model centered on cooperation rather than on the Coerce could potentially promote a favorable outcome, both for regional security and for the international perception of the United States.
### The impasse of the ego: towards a new diplomacy
In the end, the dilemma faced by figures like Trump, Putin and Zelensky does not only reside in the content of the negotiations, but also in the ability to transcend the need to assert its personal power and embrace a more inclusive and reflective model of diplomacy. By placing less weight on the need for a personal victory, the world leaders could promote discussions that embody a real will of peace.
While the world observes these exchanges, both fascinating and worrying, it is appropriate to remember that the success of a negotiation should not be measured by the speed of the results, but by the sustainability of the peace it generates. With a context as loaded as this one and global issues at stake, let us hope that these dialogues will be able to move towards a real diplomatic advance, transcending personal ambitions to embrace a future where cooperation takes precedence over the conflict.