Negotiating With Style

Negotiation Stories

Negotiation Stories

The Trump-Zelensky Negotiation: A Tactical Analysis

The Trump-Zelensky Negotiation: A Tactical Analysis The conversation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky was a textbook example of a power-imbalanced negotiation. This is not a discussion of morals, politics, or geopolitics. Instead, let’s examine it purely through the lens of negotiation strategy. Context: The Power Imbalance At the time of their conversation, Ukraine was in a position of weakness. Zelensky needed U.S. support to maintain resistance against Russia while simultaneously seeking leverage in negotiations for a peace treaty. The challenge? Trump’s worldview does not align with Ukraine’s framing of the situation. While Zelensky attempted to argue that U.S. support was in America’s own interest, this strategy failed because Trump did not share that perspective. It was a high-risk gamble that did not pay off. The Public Nature of the Negotiation One of the critical miscalculations in Zelensky’s approach was the setting of the negotiation. This was not a closed-door discussion where candid exchanges and tactical persuasion could unfold. Instead, it was a public performance. Trump was speaking to U.S. taxpayers. His vice president and secretary of state were present, reinforcing the idea that this was a staged conversation, carefully orchestrated for an American audience. Meanwhile, Zelensky was addressing his own people and European allies, which created a disjointed dynamic. The Tactical Misstep Zelensky held his ground impressively, but his chosen tactics were not suited to the context. His approach assumed that Trump would act as a conventional leader balancing interests. However, Trump was not playing the role of a statesman—he was acting as a “tank” negotiator, a style focused on dominance and winning at all costs. Tanks are relentless. They don’t seek compromise; they seek to establish superiority. How to Handle a Tank Negotiator When facing a “tank” negotiator, a frontal attack can only succeed if you match their strength—an option that was unavailable to Zelensky. The more effective strategy, especially in public negotiations, is to use a psychological disarmament tactic: write your counterpart’s victory speech for them. Instead of direct confrontation, Zelensky could have reframed Trump’s involvement as a win for Trump himself. In Aesop’s fable, the sun defeats the wind not by force, but by warming its opponent into submission. Compliments and strategic positioning could have led Trump to believe that supporting Ukraine was a demonstration of his own power and deal-making prowess. The narrative should have been shaped to align with Trump’s self-image, turning Ukraine’s needs into an opportunity for Trump to claim victory on the global stage. How Other Leaders Managed Trump This is something that foreign leaders have increasingly understood when dealing with Trump. As Fareed Zakaria recently pointed out, leaders such as Justin Trudeau and King Abdullah II of Jordan have developed an effective approach: lavish Trump with praise, announce a symbolic but minimal concession, and let him claim a win. For instance, when Trump asked Jordan to take in 2 million Palestinian refugees from Gaza, King Abdullah responded with, “Because of your wisdom and your leadership and your foresight, we’re going to take 2,000 children to treat them medically and send them back.” Trump beamed at this—convinced he had won. In hindsight, Zelensky might have benefited from studying such tactics. This is not to suggest that anyone could have done better in his position, but rather to acknowledge that the situation got out of hand partly because the negotiation approach did not align with Trump’s negotiation psychology. The Broader Context: Negotiating in the Age of Spectacle We must also acknowledge that the 19th-century salon-style negotiation is no longer applicable in the current U.S. administration. Why? Because they want us to believe that nothing should be handled behind closed doors. We are living in Guy Debord’s Société du Spectacle, where political interactions are shaped by public perception rather than private deliberation. Zelensky likely did not anticipate such a negotiation setting, as Biden and other European leaders do not operate in the same manner. The situation spiraled out of control, not necessarily due to Zelensky’s missteps, but due to the fundamental shift in how negotiations are conducted in the modern political arena. Key Takeaways Understand Your Counterpart’s Perspective – Persuasion fails when it does not align with the other party’s worldview. Trump did not see Ukraine’s survival as a necessity for U.S. security, making Zelensky’s argument ineffective. Recognize the Public vs. Private Negotiation Dynamic – Trump was playing to a domestic audience, while Zelensky was addressing his own. This created a mismatch in strategy. Adapt to the Negotiation Style of Your Counterpart – Fighting a tank head-on without equal force is a losing battle. A strategic alternative is to shape their perception of victory in your favor. Write Your Opponent’s Victory Speech – The best way to influence a strong-willed negotiator in public is to provide them with a narrative that allows them to see themselves as the winner while giving you what you need. Acknowledge the Changing Nature of Negotiations – In an era where spectacle often overrides substance, understanding the performative nature of political discourse is crucial. Private diplomacy is becoming rare, and leaders must adapt accordingly. Learn from Precedents – Other world leaders have effectively managed Trump by letting him believe he secured a great deal. Zelensky may have benefited from a similar approach. Zelensky fought hard, but the setting and tactics worked against him. In high-stakes public negotiations, understanding both the power dynamic and the psychology of your counterpart is critical to success. Tags: #Negotiation #Leadership #Reputation #ConflictResolution #Trump #Zelensky #StrategicThinking #HighStakes About the author Constantin Papadopoulos is a negotiation consultant, trainer, and author of Negotiating with Style. He helps sales professionals, founders, and leaders turn high-stakes conversations into lasting agreements. His work blends strategy, psychology, and storytelling — because in the end, how you negotiate shapes how you’re remembered.

Negotiation Stories

Write Your Counterpart’s Victory Speech

Write Your Counterpart’s Victory Speech Why the real art of negotiation begins after you get what you want. When negotiations go to court, everyone has lost — except the lawyers. On April 9, 2025, Real Madrid lost 3–0 in the Champions League quarterfinal. It was a humbling night, and one that raised questions about the form of a club newly reinforced by its star signing, Kylian Mbappé. One day later, Mbappé’s former club, Paris Saint-Germain, secured a 3–1 victory in their own quarterfinal match — a performance that gave fans a reason to believe this might be their year. But the real drama wasn’t on the pitch. That same day, Mbappé’s lawyers obtained a court order to seize €55 million from PSG’s bank accounts. The claim: unpaid salary and bonuses, including what’s called an “ethical bonus.” His legal team initiated proceedings on civil, criminal, and labor grounds, after a year of failed mediation attempts. Mbappé might be within his rights. But one can’t help but wonder — is he winning the public opinion battle? Because legally, he may win. Narratively, he might already be losing. This isn’t just a contract dispute. It’s the final act of a power struggle that began in the summer of 2023. That’s when PSG tried to pressure Mbappé into extending his contract. When he refused, he was sidelined, left out of preseason tours, and treated as a liability. The message was clear: play by our rules, or don’t play at all. Mbappé called their bluff. He accepted the pressure, stayed for the season, and left on a free transfer. To many, that was the ultimate triumph. He got what he wanted — freedom, fitness, and a seat at the Bernabéu. Which leads to the real negotiation question: Was €55 million the price he paid to have a quiet final season in Paris? Maybe. Probably. That figure, while excessive on the surface, may well have been the unspoken cost of keeping tensions out of the headlines and out of the dressing room. The cost of walking away without burning everything down. But now, with PSG’s accounts frozen and lawyers on all sides, the question is no longer about fairness. It’s about framing. And when a negotiation reaches that point, the damage extends beyond balance sheets. PSG’s image has taken a hit, but they may emerge as the institution that kept its cool while a former star demanded more. If they continue their Champions League run, they write their own redemption arc. Mbappé, by contrast, risks a different narrative — that of a player who got everything he wanted, and still wasn’t done fighting. This could have ended differently. Imagine, instead, a private conversation. A proposal that reframes the dispute: “Let’s agree in principle that this money was earned. But let’s use it to fund something lasting — a youth academy, a foundation, a cause both sides can support. Let’s show Paris, and the world, that this is how professionals part ways.” Not as adversaries, but as legacy-builders. Because when a negotiation reaches the courts, it’s not about winning anymore. At best, it’s win-lose. Often, it’s lose-lose. And the cost isn’t measured in euros alone — it’s measured in trust, perception, and future leverage. Mbappé already won. He left on his terms. He’s wearing the shirt he dreamed of. But in any negotiation, there’s a moment where you have to ask: is there a version of this where both sides get to say, “We ended well”? That’s the art of writing your counterpart’s victory speech. It’s not about generosity. It’s about control. It’s about foresight. It’s about knowing that in high-stakes negotiations, the real win isn’t just walking away with what you want — it’s helping the other side walk away with their dignity, too. Because the story lives longer than the score. Tags: #Negotiation #Leadership #Reputation #ConflictResolution #Mbappe #PSG #StrategicThinking #SportsBusiness #HighStakes About the author Constantin Papadopoulos is a negotiation consultant, trainer, and author of Negotiating with Style. He helps sales professionals, founders, and leaders turn high-stakes conversations into lasting agreements. His work blends strategy, psychology, and storytelling — because in the end, how you negotiate shapes how you’re remembered.

Negotiation Stories

Negotiating with a Tank: Why Power Fails Against Trump

Negotiating with a Tank: Why Power Fails Against Trump Do you know the difference between positions and interests in negotiation? And are you familiar with the anchoring effect—that subtle yet powerful tactic of shaping a discussion by setting the first number on the table? Understanding these concepts is crucial, especially when facing a negotiator like Donald Trump. Now ask yourself: Why would the classic Rapport de Force strategy—meeting power with power—be a bad idea when negotiating with Trump? When I look at the international reactions to Trump’s aggressive moves—whether from markets or governments—I can’t help but wonder: Do we really understand what he’s doing? Harvard professor Deepak Malhotra once said, “There are no irrational negotiators. There are only negotiators we don’t understand.” Let’s try to understand Trump. Behind his aggressive positions—tariffs, threats, exit deals—what are his interests? Here are three likely drivers: 1. Bringing Industrial Jobs Back to the U.S. In 1980, manufacturing represented over 21% of total U.S. employment. By 2024, that number had shrunk to just 8%. That’s not just economic data—it’s a symbol of national decline in the eyes of many American voters. Trump’s push to revive industrial jobs is aimed at recapturing a sense of economic pride and restoring middle-class stability in forgotten regions. 2. Fixing the Trade Imbalance In 1980, the U.S. trade deficit was only 0.5% of GDP. Today, it hovers around 4% of GDP, reaching nearly $900 billion annually. This imbalance is particularly acute with China and the EU—two of Trump’s primary negotiating targets. While trade deficits are complex, Trump’s view is simple: deficits mean losing, and losing is unacceptable. 3. Reducing Dependence on Foreign Manufacturing Instead of wages, a more relevant metric in this trade war is economic dependence—particularly on China. In 2001, China made up just 8% of U.S. imports. By 2022, that had more than doubled to 17%. At the same time, the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit with China surged from $83 billion to over $300 billion. Trump sees this not just as an economic risk, but as a national security threat—and a narrative he can sell. This is the story Trump tells his base: “I’m bringing jobs home. I’m stopping unfair trade. I’m protecting America.” So, how should you respond to someone like Trump? Step 1: Don’t Take the Bait Do not acknowledge or immediately respond to the tariffs. These aren’t just threats—they’re invitations to negotiate. If you react emotionally or tit-for-tat, you’re already playing his game. Step 2: Focus on Empathy, Not Ego Recognize Trump’s underlying interests: He wants to bring back industrial jobs. He wants to reduce the trade deficit. He wants to reassert U.S. manufacturing dominance.   And guess what? You probably want similar things for your own country. Say so. Find common ground in shared interests—not opposing positions. This is the essence of principled negotiation. Step 3: Reframe the Anchor When the conversation turns to numbers, don’t anchor on the tariffs. Anchor on outcomes. Ask: How many jobs do we want to create—here and in the U.S.? Frame it not as a confrontation, but as a shared ambition. Use Trump’s own narrative to support yours: make him a strategic ally in your country’s reindustrialization. Final Thought: Don’t Play Chicken with a Tank This won’t be an easy ride. Negotiating with a “Tank”—a hard-charging, aggressive negotiator—is never smooth. But if you stick to your real objectives, resist provocation, and stay principled in your approach, you’ll stay in the driver’s seat. Don’t try to overpower Trump. Instead, outsmart him. Principled negotiation, empathy, and narrative control will always outperform brute force. Especially when the tank is pointing right at you. 👋 Curious to hear your thoughts: How do you think world leaders should negotiate with hardliners like Trump? Have you seen principled negotiation succeed where force failed? Let’s discuss. #Negotiation #Trump #InternationalRelations #Geopolitics #StrategicNegotiation #Leadership #Diplomacy #ConflictResolution About the author: I help leaders and sales professionals sharpen their negotiation strategies—whether they’re facing a difficult customer or a political “tank.” Co-founder of snipers.sale, speaker, and trainer on high-stakes negotiation and decision-making.  

Scroll to Top