ANALYSIS: Trump Says He Has a Very Good Relationship with Zelensky

A signal sent even before the summit

According to reports, Trump had a phone call with Zelensky the day before their in-person meeting in Ankara, a conversation he described as “very positive.” This detail is far from trivial. A preparatory call deemed positive ahead of a face-to-face meeting suggests that the two presidents’ teams had already coordinated certain messages before the NATO summit took place in the public eye.

Modern diplomacy rarely operates through pure improvisation in front of the cameras. Symbolic gestures, such as a warm handshake or a flattering statement, are, more often than not, the result of discreet preparatory work. This preliminary phone call is the most tangible indication of this in this case.

Trump Says He Believes a Resolution Is Possible

Trump also indicated that he believes both Zelensky and Putin want a resolution to the conflict. Taken on its own, this assertion would warrant strong skepticism, given that both leaders have, on multiple occasions, demonstrated positions that are difficult to reconcile regarding the conditions for a lasting ceasefire. But it at least indicates that Trump continues to position himself as a player who wants to influence the outcome of the conflict rather than turning a blind eye to it.

This columnist remains cautious about any promises of a quick resolution. The recent history of this war is littered with optimistic statements that have not stood up to the test of reality. But Washington’s repeated rhetorical commitment does have a value that goes beyond the symbolic when it is accompanied—as was the case in Ankara—by concrete decisions on military aid.

I am deeply skeptical of announcements of imminent peace. I have seen too many of them fall apart. But I refuse to dismiss this displayed optimism as mere theater as long as no facts on the ground contradict it.

“Great lands, great assets, great people”

Beyond his personal relationship with Zelensky, Trump was keen to praise the country as a whole, referring to Ukraine’s “great lands, great assets, great people.” This phrase, typical of Trump’s vocabulary—which readily blends admiration with material interest—reveals an often-overlooked aspect of the U.S. stance: Ukraine is not only viewed in Washington as an ally to be defended on principle, but also as a country endowed with resources and capabilities that the United States regards with an openly acknowledged strategic interest.

This dual perspective—both humanitarian and transactional—has permeated Trump’s entire foreign policy since his return to the White House. It would be naïve to ignore it, but it would be just as simplistic to view it solely as cynicism. Converging interests can forge strong alliances, even when they are not based on absolute moral purity.

The contrast with past criticisms

It is important to remember that this same Trump has, in the past, questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, called into question the scale of U.S. aid, and cast doubt on his commitment to defending Ukraine. The journey from those tense episodes to the praise from Ankara illustrates an evolution that deserves to be documented with precision rather than dismissed out of hand as cynicism.

This columnist maintains a clear editorial stance: the defense of Ukraine and support for its sovereignty are non-negotiable. When Trump acts in this vein—even if imperfectly or out of self-interest—it should be noted with the same rigor as when he is criticized on other issues, whether regarding U.S. domestic policy or his tensions with certain NATO allies.

I unreservedly take a pro-Ukraine stance. That does not prevent me from acknowledging Washington’s mixed motivations: geopolitics is never pure, and to claim otherwise would be to lie to my readers.

A Tense Forum

The NATO summit in Ankara was not limited to the Trump-Zelensky meeting. Other sensitive issues were discussed simultaneously, notably the tensions sparked by Trump’s territorial ambitions regarding Greenland, which irritated several allied leaders. This juxtaposition is telling: the same summit that saw Trump publicly cozy up to Zelensky also saw him alienate certain European partners on other fronts.

This coexistence of tensions and rapprochements within the same summit illustrates the complexity of the current U.S. stance. Washington does not speak with a single, coherent voice on all issues, and it would be a mistake to portray the Trump administration as monolithic, whether for better or for worse.

Ukraine at the Center of Western Discussions

The fact that Zelensky was able to secure such sustained attention from Trump—at a summit fraught with competing priorities—attests to the place the war in Ukraine still holds on the Western agenda. After more than four years of conflict since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, international attention might have waned. This is clearly not the case, at least not in Ankara.

This continued diplomatic attention should be welcomed without naivety. It does not guarantee a favorable outcome to the conflict, but it keeps Ukraine in a position where it continues to benefit from the political and material clout of its main Western supporters, starting with the United States.

I continue to believe that Western attention, however imperfect it may be, is infinitely better than indifference. Ankara confirms this: Ukraine has not become a secondary issue, despite war fatigue elsewhere.

A Welcome Public Recognition

For Volodymyr Zelensky, securing such a warm public acknowledgment from Trump represents a tangible diplomatic victory, regardless of its immediate practical impact. The Ukrainian president has spent months navigating an unstable relationship with Washington, oscillating between moments of strong support and episodes of openly expressed doubt by certain U.S. officials regarding the appropriateness of continued aid.

This public recognition, delivered before international cameras at a NATO summit, has value that goes beyond the symbolic. It sends a message to the American public, to European allies, and above all to the Kremlin: the relationship between Washington and Kyiv, despite its ups and downs, remains functional at the highest levels of government.

The Long-Term Diplomatic Gamble

Since the start of this war, Zelensky has been playing a diplomatic game of patience, nurturing his relationships with every Western counterpart despite occasional humiliations—of which the one in the Oval Office remains the most memorable. This ability to weather tensions without burning bridges has yielded a tangible result in Ankara in the form of Trump’s laudatory statement.

This columnist continues to view Zelensky as a leader whose political courage deserves to be commended—not out of complacency, but because the facts have demonstrated this since February 2022. His ability to maintain Western support despite headwinds from Washington is an integral part of this resilience.

In my view, Zelensky remains one of the most courageous leaders of this decade. Seeing him weather Washington’s mood swings without ever breaking off dialogue commands respect, even from a columnist who is wary of any easy enthusiasm.

What Words Do Not Guarantee

It would be unwise to treat Trump’s words as a guarantee of future policy. Warm statements made on the sidelines of an international summit, however sincere they may be at the time they are uttered, do not automatically translate into lasting commitments. The history of the Trump-Zelensky relationship has had enough twists and turns to warrant methodical caution rather than hasty optimism.

This columnist refuses to give in to the temptation of triumphalism after a single favorable statement, just as he refused to give in to fatalism after the most tense episodes between the two men. Editorial consistency demands this same rigor in both directions.

The Test of Future Actions

The true test of this relationship lies not in the words spoken in Ankara, but in the actions that follow. The fact that this meeting coincided with a concrete announcement regarding missile defense production is an encouraging sign, but a single gesture is not enough to establish a lasting trend. The coming months—with budget decisions, arms deliveries, and upcoming diplomatic negotiations—will reveal whether this “very good relationship” touted by Trump stands the test of time.

Journalistic vigilance demands that we continue to document every development—favorable or unfavorable—without succumbing to either blind enthusiasm or systematic cynicism. It is this rigor that this columnist intends to maintain throughout this war.

I always prefer to wait for actions before celebrating words. But I also refuse to dismiss a positive sign simply because it comes from a man whom I otherwise criticize on other issues.

When Egos Shape Geopolitics

The Trump-Zelensky relationship illustrates just how much contemporary international diplomacy remains shaped by personal dynamics—sometimes even more so than by abstract strategic calculations. The fact that a U.S. president describes his relationship with a foreign counterpart as “hard to believe” because it has improved so much shows just how much egos, wounded pride, and personal reconciliations weigh on decisions that affect millions of lives on the ground in Ukraine.

This personalization of diplomacy carries obvious risks. A relationship that depends so heavily on the mood and subjective perception of a single man remains inherently fragile. But it also presents an opportunity: when that relationship improves—as Ankara seems to suggest—tangible benefits can follow quickly, as demonstrated by the announcement regarding the Patriot interceptors that came in the wake of this meeting.

The Art of Flattery as a Diplomatic Tool

Over the months, Zelensky has learned to adapt to Trump’s communication style, relying on public recognition and measured praise rather than on the confrontation that had gone so badly during their first highly publicized exchange. This strategic adaptation, far from being a compromise, is a necessary diplomatic pragmatism when dealing with a partner whose support remains indispensable to his country’s survival.

This columnist sees no weakness on Zelensky’s part in this adaptation. On the contrary, the ability to adjust his communication without ever giving up on his fundamental demands—particularly regarding armaments and missile defense—demonstrates a political maturity that deserves recognition.

I refuse to view Zelensky’s diplomatic adaptation as a compromise. Adapting to one’s counterpart to achieve concrete results is not a sign of weakness; it is a strategy.

Europe is watching cautiously

European capitals are closely monitoring every signal coming out of Washington regarding Ukraine, as their own stance often depends on the tone set by the United States. Such a positive statement from Trump toward Zelensky reassures, at least temporarily, European allies who feared a gradual U.S. disengagement from the Ukrainian issue.

This European caution, however, remains tinged with skepticism built up over the Trump administration’s past about-faces on several issues, including the Greenland matter, which directly irritated several leaders at the same summit in Ankara. Europeans have learned not to read too much into a single favorable statement.

Moscow and How It Reads the Signal

From the Russian perspective, such a statement cannot be ignored. The Kremlin constantly monitors the state of relations between Washington and Kyiv to calibrate its own strategic calculations, particularly regarding the pace of negotiations and the intensity of military operations. A public rapprochement between Trump and Zelensky—especially if accompanied by a concrete commitment to missile defense—complicates Russia’s position, as it may have hoped to capitalize on past tensions between the two Western leaders.

This columnist remains unequivocal on this point: any development that strengthens Ukraine’s position in the face of Russian aggression deserves to be reported positively, without excessive reservations about the motivations of those who make it possible.

I have no sympathy for the Kremlin’s calculations, and I openly welcome anything that complicates its position. On this point, my editorial stance remains unchanged.

Remembering the Oval Office

It is impossible to analyze this statement without recalling the tense episode that marked the Trump-Zelensky relationship in the Oval Office, where public exchanges had turned confrontational in front of cameras from around the world. For a long time, this episode seemed to define the relationship between the two men, fueling doubts about Washington’s ability to maintain consistent support for Kyiv.

The journey from that episode to Ankara’s praise illustrates a trajectory that deserves to be followed closely rather than dismissed with cynicism. Diplomatic relations, like human relationships, can evolve, and it would be unfair to freeze Zelensky and Trump in the image of their worst shared moment.

A Memory That Must Remain Alive

That said, this memory of tension must not fade completely in favor of a temporary optimism. This columnist believes it is essential to recall these past episodes precisely to accurately gauge the extent of the shift in tone observed in Ankara. Without this point of comparison, Trump’s current statement would lose some of its significance.

Journalistic rigor requires holding onto both ends of this story simultaneously: yesterday’s tensions and today’s praise, without erasing one in favor of the other.

I reject selective memory. Recalling the Oval Office does not diminish Ankara’s significance; on the contrary, it brings it into full relief.

A Signal That Goes Beyond Diplomacy

Beyond diplomatic circles, a statement like Trump’s has a tangible impact on morale in Ukraine itself—both among the troops fighting on the front lines and among civilians living under the constant threat of Russian strikes. Knowing that the country’s main military ally is publicly demonstrating a strong relationship with their president reinforces the sense that Ukraine is not facing Vladimir Putin’s Russia alone.

This kind of signal, even if purely rhetorical for the time being, helps sustain the resilience of a population that has been living for more than four years under the constant pressure of a conflict whose outcome remains uncertain. The psychological dimension of this war must never be underestimated.

The Risk of Dashed Hopes

Conversely, this columnist remains aware of the risk posed by excessive hope followed by disappointment, as has happened repeatedly throughout this conflict. Every positive statement from Washington must be met with measured optimism—enough to boost morale, but not to the point of creating unrealistic expectations for a swift resolution of the conflict.

This is a difficult balance to strike, both for Ukrainian leaders and for columnists covering this issue. This columnist chooses to document the facts accurately, leaving it up to the reader to gauge their own level of hope.

As I write these lines, my thoughts are sincerely with those who are living through this war day in and day out. Their hope deserves to be nourished by solid facts, not empty promises.

Criticizing Without Exaggerating

This columnist has maintained a clear editorial stance since the start of this war: unconditional support for Ukrainian sovereignty, consistent opposition to Russian aggression, and persistent skepticism toward Vladimir Putin’s attempts to portray his actions as defensive. This stance does not preclude a nuanced assessment of Donald Trump, whose foreign policy combines elements that are open to criticism on the domestic front with positive steps regarding Ukraine’s defense.

Rejecting this nuance would amount to oversimplifying an issue that is already complex enough. This columnist prefers to acknowledge the complexity rather than force a binary interpretation that would distort the reality of the facts reported.

Why This Nuance Matters to the Reader

Readers deserve an analysis that distinguishes between different issues rather than a blanket judgment applied indiscriminately to all the actions of a single leader. Trump can be severely criticized for his handling of election observers or his ambitions regarding Greenland, while still being recognized positively when he takes concrete steps in support of Ukraine’s defense, such as his public display of solidarity with Zelensky in Ankara.

This analytical rigor, though more demanding to maintain than a uniform narrative, better serves the truth and, by extension, better serves the Ukrainian cause that this columnist unambiguously defends.

I refuse to take the easy way out by making sweeping judgments. A man can be wrong on one issue and act correctly on another: it is this nuance that I owe to my readers.

A More Favorable, but Fragile, Climate

If we take Trump’s words seriously, the climate between Washington and Kyiv seems more favorable today than it has been in months. This improvement could facilitate upcoming negotiations on sensitive issues, whether regarding continued funding for Ukraine’s war effort or future deliveries of advanced military equipment.

But this climate remains, by its very nature, fragile and reversible. There is no guarantee that new tensions—whether stemming from a disagreement over peace terms or an unforeseen diplomatic incident—won’t quickly overshadow this apparent thaw in Ankara. Caution remains warranted.

Focus on Upcoming Concrete Actions

This columnist will continue to closely monitor the concrete actions that may—or may not—result from this relationship, which is being presented as improved. The words spoken in Ankara will have lasting value only if they translate into tangible commitments, arms deliveries, and consistent diplomatic support in the face of Russian attempts to fragment the Western front.

It is this translation of words into actions that will ultimately determine whether we should view the Ankara meeting as merely a moment of diplomatic goodwill or a genuine turning point in the relationship between the two leaders.

I will remain vigilant, as always, regarding the gap between words and deeds. It is this gap that, historically, has most often betrayed political promises.

Teams Laying the Groundwork

No meeting of this caliber takes place without the behind-the-scenes work of diplomatic advisors and planning teams on both sides, who lay the groundwork before the two presidents shake hands in front of the cameras. The warm tone on display in Ankara didn’t come out of nowhere: it’s the result of behind-the-scenes teamwork by American and Ukrainian diplomats who, over the course of months, have learned to defuse tensions before they erupt publicly.

This behind-the-scenes work deserves recognition, even if it never makes the headlines. The negotiators, national security advisors, and ambassadors who organize these meetings bear considerable responsibility for the quality of the final diplomatic atmosphere. Without this groundwork, none of Trump’s warm statements in Ankara would have been possible.

The Influence of European Allies on the Dynamics

Nor should we underestimate the role played by the European allies present at the NATO summit, whose constant pressure for robust U.S. support for Ukraine likely helped shape the tone adopted by Trump. European leaders, aware of what is at stake, have every interest in encouraging a Trump-Zelensky rapprochement that strengthens the Western front against Russia.

This collective dynamic illustrates just how much contemporary diplomacy remains a balancing act between personal egos and broader geopolitical interests, where every actor—from the most visible to the most discreet—plays a role in the final outcome observed in Ankara.

I often think of the diplomats working behind the scenes who make these moments of public warmth possible. Their work deserves just as much recognition as the words spoken in front of the cameras.

A signal that it would be dishonest to ignore

At the end of this analysis, one thing remains certain: Donald Trump’s statement about his relationship with Volodymyr Zelensky is a positive signal that it would be dishonest to ignore—even for a columnist who has unsparingly documented past tensions between the two men. Words matter in diplomacy, especially when spoken publicly at a summit as closely scrutinized as the NATO summit in Ankara.

This columnist chooses to welcome this moment without excessive naivety, aware that personal relationships between leaders remain volatile and that only concrete actions—starting with continued military support for Ukraine—will determine the true value of this apparent thaw.

The path ahead

The future of this relationship deserves to be monitored with the same rigor applied during its moments of tension. This columnist will continue to document every development—favorable or unfavorable—with the same commitment to accuracy and the same clear editorial line: Ukraine’s sovereignty and its ability to defend itself against Russian aggression remain the top priority of this coverage.

The thread of this story does not end in Ankara. It continues in every budgetary decision, every delivery of equipment, and every upcoming meeting between the two leaders—all of which this columnist will continue to scrutinize with the same rigor.

I conclude this analysis with a deliberate sense of caution, but also with the honesty to acknowledge that Ankara marked a good day for Ukraine. Such days deserve to be counted, even by the most skeptical.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist