By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a bilateral conversation in the Oval Office, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and President Trump both assessed their discussion as very positive. Zelenskyy highlighted security guarantees, humanitarian issues like prisoner exchanges, and the return of abducted children as key topics of discussion. Furthermore, the leaders plan to delve into sensitive territorial matters during a future trilateral meeting, which President Trump will attempt to organize. Zelenskyy also noted he provided President Trump with a detailed overview of the frontline situation.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy and Trump agree they had “very good” conversation, and this seemingly simple statement immediately sparks a cascade of considerations. The core issue here isn’t necessarily the details of the conversation itself, but the context surrounding it and the motivations that drive such pronouncements. The phrase “very good” has become a predictable refrain from Trump, used to describe nearly every interaction, regardless of the substance. This pattern, coupled with his well-documented tendency to align with the last person he speaks to, raises critical questions about the sincerity and impact of his words.
Trump’s pronounced “recency bias” is central to this discussion. He seems to readily adapt his views and pronouncements based on his most recent conversations, a characteristic that renders his statements unreliable and subject to immediate shifts. One day he might speak favorably of Putin, the next of Zelenskyy, and the day after, perhaps back to Putin. This inconsistency makes it exceedingly difficult to assess the true nature of his stance on any given issue, especially one as complex and fraught as the war in Ukraine. The concern is that this vacillation is not born of deep understanding or conviction, but of an ego that craves praise and validation.
Given this context, the agreement that the conversation was “very good” becomes a matter of political necessity rather than genuine assessment. For Zelenskyy, this affirmation is a strategic maneuver. He needs to maintain the possibility of support from the US, and to achieve that, he must avoid saying anything that could offend Trump. It’s a dance of diplomacy, where words are chosen not to reflect reality, but to cater to the fragile ego of the potential benefactor. Similarly, Trump’s assessment is driven by his need for self-aggrandizement; a “very good” conversation is simply another notch in the belt of his own perceived greatness.
The true measure of any such interaction lies not in the pleasantries exchanged, but in the concrete actions that follow. As many rightly point out, words alone do not win wars. Financial support and the provision of military assets are crucial. Until Trump’s expressed approval translates into tangible aid for Ukraine, the praise is just that: empty words and promises. The cynicism surrounding this dynamic is palpable, especially given the devastating reality of the war, the suffering of civilians, and the need for decisive action. The focus shifts from the individual statements to the underlying geopolitical implications.
The scenario lays bare a troubling reality: that an individual who lacks any deep convictions and is driven by a thirst for approval can wield considerable influence on critical matters of international security. This opens the door to manipulation by those who understand the game – in this case, both Zelenskyy and possibly Putin, who knows how to use the ego to their advantage. It also suggests that the U.S. role on the world stage might hinge more on personality and personal interactions than on firm policy or strategic long-term goals.
Ultimately, the fact that Zelenskyy and Trump both describe their conversation as “very good” is both predictable and, in many ways, meaningless. It highlights the need to look beyond the surface, to examine the power dynamics at play, and to assess the consequences of these interactions through a pragmatic lens. This means evaluating the war not on the basis of what is being said, but what is being done. And that’s the only real metric that truly matters when the stakes are global security and human lives.