How did the recent clash between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy unfold? It was conflict in its purest form. Joint Managing Director, Family Lawyer, and seasoned mediator, Norman Hartnell, offers his perspective from a mediator’s lens.
A key role of mediation is to guide each party towards a genuine understanding of the other’s stance. When that happens, the usual roadblocks that fuel circular disputes and heighten tensions can often be broken down.
The disagreement between Trump and Zelenskyy is a prime example of miscommunication and how escalating conflict can lead to disastrous results.
From my viewpoint as a mediator, this exchange was conflict laid bare.
Trump’s stance centered on the idea that peace must be achieved in phases, beginning with a ceasefire that had no preconditions. The problem was, neither he nor Vance articulated this clearly. Instead, they increasingly pressed Zelenskyy to show gratitude for financial aid, contrasting their contributions with Ukraine’s immense sacrifices in land and lives.
At no point did Trump explicitly state that later phases would address security guarantees or additional conditions.
On the other side, Zelenskyy’s concern was that a ceasefire alone wasn’t enough. He argued that Putin had a history of violating agreements and that a temporary pause would simply give him the opportunity to regroup and launch fresh attacks. For Zelenskyy, security assurances had to be built into any ceasefire arrangement.
What Could Have Bridged the Divide?
A mediator would have pointed out that their positions were not inherently at odds. Trump needed to clarify that security guarantees in the form of an American presence would follow in subsequent phases while emphasising his immediate goal: halting the violence.
With the right guidance, Zelenskyy could have grasped that Trump’s approach aimed to leverage economic strategy as a form of deterrence. Trump, with support, might have expressed that positioning American interests on the ground long-term would provide a different kind of security. The implicit message to Putin would be clear—any attack on those interests would inevitably trigger U.S. military involvement, without the need to state it outright. In essence, America would be protecting its own people, which would naturally extend to Ukraine’s defence.
Instead of navigating their differences constructively, both sides doubled down on their initial stances, repeating themselves with increasing intensity—akin to an English speaker abroad trying to be understood by speaking louder. This led to a spectacle where Trump and Vance appeared to be verbally overpowering Zelenskyy, demanding deference in a situation where power dynamics were already uneven.
The result? No agreement. No resource deal. No ceasefire. No security.
Could Trump Have Been Encouraged to Communicate More Effectively?
If Trump had been guided toward framing his strategy differently, he might have explained his approach with a simple question: How do you neutralise an enemy? His answer would likely be, By making them dependent on you—not in a way that requires trust or friendship, but by forging economic ties that disincentivise hostility. A security framework based purely on military threats inevitably provokes a defensive reaction, increasing tensions rather than diffusing them.
That outcome—a lack of understanding, an absence of resolution—represents a serious setback for the Western world. While this might sound like an endorsement of Trump’s position, it isn’t. I was struck by the way his aggressive, domineering approach only widened the communication gap. Raising your voice and demanding submission does not foster understanding—if anything, arrogance only serves to block real dialogue.
What’s needed now is mediation. A structured, facilitated conversation that helps both leaders recognise that their interests are not just compatible but interdependent. They must move beyond posturing, actively listen to one another, and approach negotiations with mutual respect.
The same principle applies across all forms of conflict—whether between spouses, employers and employees, or even world leaders. Understanding, not volume, is what ultimately leads to resolution.
