Why Volodymyr Zelensky Should Seek Good Personal Relations with Donald Trump, and Why He Can Succeed

Personal relationships are vital in diplomacy and international relations. After the U.S. presidential elections, the personal factor may be crucial in making U.S.-Ukraine relations beneficial to both sides. Both Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky have the potential to establish a strong personal relationship that helps shape positive relations between the two countries.

In the current tumultuous geopolitical climate, robust ties between the United States and Ukraine can greatly influence the global landscape. However, realizing mutual benefits requires understanding the goals of such a collaboration and the possible outcomes. And this will largely depend on how the presidents of the United States and Ukraine conduct their dialogue. 

Ukraine’s Experience

Ukraine already has experience with good personal relations between presidents radically changing the bilateral relationship for a long time. 

When Ukraine became independent, cooperation and friendship between Poland and Ukraine remained more a formality than a reality for some years. 

A radical shift took place after Aleksander Kwaśniewski was elected president of Poland in 1995. As a result of his vision of Ukraine as a strategic partner and of good personal relations with Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, Poland became one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters in Europe.

This approach might also work with respect to future U.S.-Ukraine relations if the importance of bilateral cooperation and fostering good personal relations at the presidential level is recognized.

For both states, their counterparts can play a huge role in foreign affairs and security. The United States has been a crucial ally for Ukraine in its war against Russia. Kyiv recognizes that maintaining a solid partnership with the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, is essential for its defense against a formidable military power such as Russia. Therefore, Ukraine's foreign policy should focus on building and maintaining strong ties with the United States.

How Ukraine’s war ends may shape the future global order. If global powers neglect the illegal annexation of territories, it will demonstrate to states with poorly supported territorial claims that they can unleash wars. The unfolding scenario involves a key U.S. competitor, China, and China’s relations with Taiwan.

For Washington, it is imperative that how the war in Ukraine ends does not compromise the United States' global leadership. Many U.S. citizens do not pay much attention to foreign relations compared to domestic problems, including the economy. But a country cannot be great in the modern world without being a global leader. Global leadership and a strong economy are intrinsically linked.

Changing Perspectives on Ukraine

Many in Ukraine are worried about a potential change in the U.S. posture toward Russia and Ukraine and whether the change of administration will lead to Ukraine's defeat. However, Russia has now aligned with North Korea and Iran, presenting a danger to the entire democratic world, including the United States. As a result, the attitudes, narratives, and strategies previously employed against Russia's aggression in Ukraine are no longer viable.

In the past, some miscues on the part of U.S. presidents had the effect of threatening Ukraine’s national security in favor of Russia. Just weeks before Ukraine became independent in 1991, President George H. W. Bush urged Kyiv not to exit the USSR. Despite 92 percent of Ukrainians voting for independence in a referendum a few months earlier, President Bush warned against what he termed "suicidal nationalism.” 

President Clinton promoted Ukraine’s denuclearization. Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. A significant number of nuclear weapons were sent to Russia. Thirty years later, Bill Clinton expressed regret over this decision.

In 1994, Eduard Shevardnadze, the last foreign minister of the USSR, believed that possessing even a single nuclear missile would be sufficient to ensure Ukraine's independence from Russian strategic considerations. In 2010, during Barack Obama’s administration, Ukraine transferred the last batch of enriched uranium to the United States, enough to produce two nuclear missiles. 

When Russia annexed Crimea and started a war in the Donbas in 2014, Obama’s cabinet feared escalation and avoided supplying weapons to Ukraine. Later, even President Joe Biden criticized Obama’s weak response. 

In contrast, Donald Trump, during his previous administration, was the first U.S. president to allow weapons supplies to Ukraine. These supplies included Javelins, portable anti-tank missiles, which were very helpful in combating Russian troops during the initial weeks of the invasion. 

Everyone is guessing what Trump’s policy on the Russia-Ukraine war will be. Donald Trump has frequently proclaimed that the war would not have started had he been president and that he could end it very quickly. Naturally, Kyiv is concerned that this resolution not come about at Ukraine’s expense.

A Dialogue Based in Understanding

Both sides need a fruitful dialogue between presidents, one based in deep mutual understanding. Such dialogue is necessary for both states to benefit from collaboration. 

Both Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy have dialogue experience as the leaders of their countries. However, in 2019–2020 the context was different. Now Russia is waging a full-scale war in Ukraine and has allied with Iran, North Korea, and China.

Both presidents share more similarities than might at first appear. Each became president without prior political experience, following a career in business and management. Each faced competition from established professional politicians. Their opponents regarded their views with skepticism. It appears that both are natural winners.

Another feature common to both presidents is their use of personal relationships in diplomacy. This may stem from their histories of previous involvement in business.

All this suggests the potential for a dialogue between the presidents in which they discover how bilateral cooperation can be a win-win for both countries. Kyiv will seek good relations with Washington, and Ukrainian diplomats should heed this personal relations bridge. Trump’s policy toward Ukraine during his first presidency may provide a good foundation for a strong personal relationship and a fruitful dialogue between the two countries.

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.