Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in an intense discussion in the Oval Office– Skrevet af Simon Vester Christensen

Som så mange andre har jeg været chokeret over hvad der skete i det Hvide Hus fredag den 28. februar. Jeg sad fortvivlet og usikker klistret til min skærm og så til mens Trump og Vance gik igang med at sige op til flere ting til Zelensky, som jeg ikke havde troet jeg skulle opleve i en pressekonference. Nok havde jeg en anelse om, at Trump kunne finde på at udtrykke sig på en måde, som ikke opfylder mine behov for forståelse og klarhed, men så længe han kun brugte det til indenrigspolitik, kunne jeg blot føle mig undrende og mystificeret over, hvordan de fleste mennesker i USA kunne finde på at stemme på ham. Nu hvor han direkte sad og udbredte sin klare kommunikationsmangler overfor Zelensky, fik jeg et meget mere direkte indblik i, hvor farligt og fremmedgørende Trumps sprogbrug er. Jeg fik straks en inderlig længsel efter at vise andre, at sprog kan være vinduer eller døre med et konkret og aktuelt eksempel. Klokken var mange og jeg ville i seng snart, men jeg ville gerne være hurtig til at formidle mit budskab, så jeg besluttede mig for at få hjælp fra ChatGPTs nye funktion “Grundig research”.
Jeg optog samtalen på Youtube, transskriberede den med Transkriptor og instruerede ChatGPT:

You are an expert speaker of NonViolent Communication developed by Marshall B. Rosenberg. I want you to translate what was said in this conversation into giraffe language. Give suggestions to how all the people could have been truly honest with each other and connecting with their feelings and needs and still getting the message across.

For at få mest ud af omskrivningen vil jeg anbefale dig at se videoen på Youtube, hvis du ikke allerede har gjort det:

Trump gets into irate screaming match with Zelensky in Oval Office

Her er ChatGPTs omskrivning. Jeg er meget imponeret. Det har hjulpet mig meget med at håndtere mit chock og min forfærdelse. Min mor og jeg lyttede til teksten oplæst og efterfølgende fik vi en givende snak om, hvordan vi selv udtrykker os. Jeg håber det også kan give dig noget indsigt og styrke til at håndtere dine smertelige følelser:

Rewritten Conversation (Using NVC Principles)

Volodymyr Zelensky: (calmly) I want you to know we all desire an end to this war. At the same time, I feel worried about the idea of a simple ceasefire right now. We’ve had ceasefires in the past that didn’t hold, and I’m concerned because I need a real, lasting peace, not just a pause that lets the fighting start again. So, yes, I want the fighting to stop, but I also hope you understand why I’m cautious about a ceasefire without solid terms.

Donald Trump: (reassuring tone) Thank you for explaining that, President Zelensky. I hear that you’re cautious about a ceasefire, and I’d like to share my perspective. When I see the violence continuing day after day, I feel a strong urge to find a way to stop the bloodshed as soon as possible. I need to save lives—yours, Ukrainians, even Russians—as quickly as we can. That’s why I’m proposing a ceasefire with guarantees. I imagine you might fear a ceasefire could be exploited by the other side, and I want to address that. Would you be willing to tell me more about what safeguards you’d need in a ceasefire so that you’d feel comfortable with it?

Volodymyr Zelensky: I appreciate you asking that. Honestly, if you ask the people of Ukraine about a ceasefire, many would voice distrust based on past experience. We had truces that were broken, so a lot of Ukrainians are afraid a ceasefire would just give the enemy time to regroup. We need trust that any pause in fighting won’t be used against us.

Donald Trump: I understand. Those past ceasefires happened under previous leadership, and I wasn’t involved then. I’m not looking to repeat mistakes. Please know, I’m not aligned with President Putin or anyone who wants war. I feel committed to the United States and, truly, to peace for the world. My goal is simply to end this conflict in a way that protects everyone’s interests. I do sense a lot of pain and anger on both sides of this war — which is completely understandable given what’s happened. I worry that if we lead with that anger alone, it might be harder to find a solution. For example, I know some people expect me to talk very tough about President Putin. Believe me, I feel anger about the invasion, and I could use the toughest words imaginable. But I fear that might close doors to negotiation. So my approach is to stay firm but keep communication open. Does that make sense? I want you to know I’m dedicated to helping end the war, not siding with Putin.

J.D. Vance: (speaking earnestly) Mr. President Zelensky, I share President Trump’s desire to end the war through dialogue. Over the past years, I’ve seen that harsh rhetoric alone didn’t prevent conflict. For example, we had a U.S. administration that talked tough about Putin, yet Russia still invaded Ukraine. When I think about that, I feel concerned because it seems just shouting or threatening didn’t stop the violence. I need a strategy that truly protects Ukraine, and I believe engaging in diplomacy is key to that. In my view, America shows its strength through effective diplomacy – through actions that lead to peace, not just words. I feel hopeful seeing President Trump take this approach of direct engagement. It tells me we’re focusing on practical steps to help Ukraine rather than just making statements.

Volodymyr Zelensky: (acknowledging) Thank you for explaining, Senator Vance. May I share some history from our side? In 2014, Russia occupied big parts of Ukraine – Crimea and parts of the East. That was under President Obama’s term. The conflict simmered for years, through different U.S. administrations. No matter who was President here – Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden – Putin wasn’t truly stopped. My people have been suffering since 2014. A lot of Ukrainians were killed or displaced over those years. (voice wavering slightly) I feel anguished remembering that, because year after year, we hoped for more help or a solution that never fully came. I’m not blaming any single person or country; this is just our reality. I am hopeful, though, that now with renewed attention – and if, God willing, President Trump and the U.S. focus on this – we can finally stop Putin’s aggression. I need you to understand the depth of our pain and why we are so desperate. This war isn’t just since last year for us; it’s been almost nine years of struggle.

Donald Trump: (gently clarifying) I hear you. Just to be clear, I wasn’t in office in 2014 when Crimea was taken, but I absolutely understand your point — the conflict has spanned multiple administrations.

Volodymyr Zelensky: Yes, I know. I didn’t mean it was your fault personally. It’s been a long ordeal that outlasted several U.S. presidents. That’s exactly why we’re so exhausted and eager for a real end to it.

J.D. Vance: (nods) Exactly. The situation persisted through different leaders, and I get why you’re highlighting that.

Volodymyr Zelensky: Let me add what I did when I became President. I earnestly pursued diplomacy with Russia. In 2019, I sat down with President Putin — with the help of President Macron of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany — and we signed a ceasefire agreement. We also arranged a prisoner exchange and even signed a gas transit contract. I truly believed in those diplomatic efforts. But (sighs softly) those agreements were broken. The ceasefire didn’t hold; our soldiers were attacked and killed despite the deal, and many prisoners who were supposed to come home never did. I felt betrayed and heartbroken when that happened. It was like all my hope in diplomacy was shattered at that time. So, when you speak of diplomacy, J.D., I hope you can see why I sound skeptical. *(looking at Vance) *I’m not against diplomacy – I want it to work – but my experience was painful. I’m genuinely asking: What kind of new diplomacy do you have in mind that might work this time? I’m open to hearing it, because I truly want to end the destruction, but I need to know how it would address those past failures.

J.D. Vance: (leaning forward empathetically) Thank you for sharing that, truly. The diplomacy I’m talking about is one that ends the destruction of your country — a solution where the killing and suffering stop. Hearing how your past attempts were betrayed, I feel a deep concern and sadness. It shows just how difficult this is, and it makes me even more convinced that we have to find a way to make any new agreement solid.

(pausing, then continuing in a respectful tone)

Mr. President, I also want to share something about how this meeting feels from our side. When you express your frustrations so directly here in the Oval Office, especially in front of the media, I have to admit I feel a bit uncomfortable and defensive. I respect your passion, and I can only imagine the pressure you’re under, but some of your words earlier felt like criticism of the U.S. efforts. The United States has been supporting Ukraine extensively, and when you challenge us publicly, I start to feel unappreciated and even disrespected. For instance, you mentioned how Ukraine has had to conscript soldiers because of manpower issues. I recognize that’s true – you’re fighting for survival and every country in war struggles – but hearing it framed like a fault, I felt uneasy. I think it triggered me because I care so much about helping you end this war that I expect we’d treat each other as close partners, with gratitude on both sides. (hands open in a conciliatory gesture) My need here is for mutual respect and understanding.

So, can I make a request? Could we maybe acknowledge the support the U.S. has given and agree to discuss any disagreements more privately or constructively? I’m not asking you to hide your truth, just perhaps to recognize that we are on your side. It would help me – and many Americans – to hear your appreciation for what we’ve done, and in turn, we’ll absolutely listen to your concerns and see how we can address them. Does that sound fair?

Volodymyr Zelensky: (sincerely) Senator, I hear what you’re saying. I apologize if my approach here felt disrespectful – that was not my intention. I’m just under such intense pressure to defend my people that I sometimes speak bluntly out of desperation. But I do recognize and deeply appreciate everything the United States has done for us. You’re right; I haven’t explicitly said “thank you” in this meeting yet, and I’d like to do that now. (turning toward Trump and Vance) Thank you – truly – to the United States, to you, Mr. President, and to your administration, and the American people. Your support has been critical for our survival. In the very beginning of this full-scale invasion, we felt almost alone against a much stronger enemy. When your aid started coming – the weapons, financial support, and humanitarian aid – we gained hope and strength. We are grateful, and I apologize for not saying that clearly earlier. If I seemed ungrateful, please understand it’s because I’m intensely focused on conveying the urgency of our situation, not because I don’t value your help. I absolutely value our partnership.

Regarding the public setting: I understand your concern about airing disagreements in front of the media. I can agree that we should strive to present a united front. I will do my best to keep our discussions respectful. My passion is driven by fear for my people’s lives, not lack of respect for you. Maybe we can continue some of these difficult conversations in a more private setting after this. I’m willing to do that if it helps.

J.D. Vance: (smiling gently) Thank you, President Zelensky. I really appreciate you saying that. Hearing your gratitude directly means a lot to me. And I do understand the immense stress you’re under. (softening his tone) I apologize as well if I came off too harsh or accusatory earlier. It’s only because I care – I care about finding a way to save your country and I maybe got a bit carried away. I have tremendous respect for Ukraine’s bravery. Believe me, I want the same outcome you want: peace and safety for your people. Let’s both forgive any misunderstandings and move forward as partners.

Volodymyr Zelensky: (nodding) That sounds good to me. Thank you.

(Zelensky takes a breath, then speaks thoughtfully.)

I also want to say one more thing about the bigger picture: This war, if not stopped, could have consequences beyond Ukraine. You mentioned earlier, Senator Vance, that the U.S. is supporting us and maybe not feeling the war as directly because you have the Atlantic Ocean separating you from the conflict. That’s true – and I’m glad America is safe. But I worry about the future. If Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine, who knows how far they might go, or how unstable things could get globally? Even the United States could feel the effects eventually – whether through economic turmoil, refugee crises, or even being drawn into a wider conflict. (looking at both men earnestly) I’m scared of that possibility, and I don’t want anyone else in the world to suffer what we are suffering. So when I speak loudly about the war, it’s partly because I’m trying to prevent a larger tragedy. I want you both and the American public to understand that ending this war quickly is in everyone’s interest, not just ours.

Donald Trump: (speaking calmly with empathy) President Zelensky, I hear your fear about the war’s potential to spread, and I want to assure you, we share that concern. Nobody here wants this conflict to extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. When you say that even a country protected by oceans might feel the war’s impact eventually, I understand you’re warning us out of concern, not threatening us. And you’re right – history shows that unrest can ripple outward. We are absolutely motivated to prevent that.

I’ll admit, when you first mentioned that earlier, I felt a bit defensive, because it almost sounded like you were predicting we will definitely experience this pain. But hearing your explanation now, I get that you meant it as a caution born from fear and caring. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that.

Let me reassure you: We are taking this very seriously. I wake up every day focused on how to resolve this war before it grows. The United States remains strong and secure, and part of our strength is using it to help ensure this war doesn’t escalate further. So yes, we absolutely see that stopping Russia in Ukraine is critical for global stability. We are on the same page with you there.

Volodymyr Zelensky: (with relief) I’m glad to hear that, Mr. President. And I appreciate your honesty about feeling defensive earlier. I’m sorry my comment caused that reaction. I truly only meant to express my own fears, not to presume what you do or don’t understand. I respect the efforts you and your country are making to solve this.

Donald Trump: (with a small nod) Thank you. We’re good.

Now, I want to address something else directly: Ukraine’s current situation on the battlefield. From everything I’m seeing, your country is in a very tough position right now. There are reports of heavy losses and dwindling supplies. (voice gentle but grave) I feel very worried and heartbroken when I think about this, because I care about Ukraine’s survival and I hate to imagine what you’re going through. I need to be candid: it seems like right now, militarily, you’re under immense pressure. I imagine you might feel nearly overwhelmed, fighting such a larger force for so long.

This is a big reason why I’m so insistent that we explore a ceasefire or some negotiated pause. It’s not to undermine your fight; it’s because I don’t want to see Ukraine lose any more of her people or territory if there’s a way to halt things even temporarily. I also fear that if the war keeps escalating, it could spiral into something even more catastrophic – none of us want to even think about a wider war. That fear – of a potential World War or a total collapse of Ukraine – really drives me. I need to do everything I can to prevent those outcomes.

Volodymyr Zelensky: (quietly) Mr. President, you’re correct – our situation is extremely difficult. We’ve been fighting hard since the invasion, and yes, (sighs) we have suffered tremendous losses. Sometimes it does feel overwhelming. But please know, our spirit is still strong. We are determined to defend our country to the end. We will continue to stay as strong as we can. However, I acknowledge how grave things are. We don’t have unlimited soldiers or weapons, and every day is a struggle to keep going. (looking down briefly, then back up) I appreciate you recognizing this and caring about it. It means a lot that you’re thinking about how to save Ukrainian lives.

Donald Trump: I do care, very much. And I want to add: The United States has stood by Ukraine in extraordinary ways. We have provided, roughly, $350 billion in aid and extensive military equipment so far. We’ve sent advanced weapons like the Javelin missiles, which I know your brave soldiers have used effectively to defend your homeland. (smiles faintly) Your troops have fought with incredible courage, and I’m proud that our support has helped them. Sometimes I shudder to think what might have happened if we hadn’t offered this support – you mentioned earlier how alone you felt at first. Without that aid, I fear Kyiv might have fallen, maybe within weeks, and (swallows) so many more lives would have been lost. I feel relief that we were able to help prevent the worst early on. And hearing you acknowledge that support and express gratitude really reassures me that our efforts have been worth it.

Volodymyr Zelensky: (smiles gently) They absolutely have been worth it. I cannot overstate how important your aid has been. You’re right, at the start of the full-scale invasion, many expected Ukraine to collapse in a matter of days. In fact, President Putin boasted that he would capture our capital in 3 days. That didn’t happen – and it’s largely because Ukrainians fought tooth and nail, and because we received crucial support in time. I feel proud of my people’s resilience, and grateful for the help that allowed us to defy those expectations. Without those Javelins and other assistance, the story might have been very different.

Our soldiers and citizens have shown remarkable bravery – and we’ve done so with the understanding that we’re not entirely alone. We know (places hand on heart) we have friends like you. So yes, thank you. Every bit of aid has literally saved lives and our independence up to now.

Donald Trump: Your courage is inspiring, President Zelensky. Honestly, I respect you and your people immensely for standing strong. This partnership – your country’s bravery and our country’s support – is what has kept Ukraine in the fight. And we want to continue that partnership.

(All three pause for a moment, feeling the weight of what’s been said.)

Donald Trump: Now, even though this conversation has become much more understanding, I realize we still have some differences to work through – especially on how to achieve peace. It might be challenging to reach an agreement quickly, but I’m optimistic after hearing all of us express our needs so openly. If we keep listening to each other like this, I think we can find a path.

J.D. Vance: I agree. We’ve made a lot of progress in understanding one another today. It’s clear we all want the same end result – a free, safe Ukraine and a peaceful world. We do have some disagreements on the approach, and that’s okay. Perhaps now is a good time to involve our broader teams or continue this discussion in a more private, detailed setting. We don’t have to settle every detail in front of the cameras. (looks to Zelensky and Trump for agreement) Maybe we can convene our advisors and start drafting out what a possible ceasefire agreement or peace plan would look like, incorporating the concerns and needs we’ve shared. How does that sound?

Volodymyr Zelensky: That sounds reasonable to me. I’m open to that.

Donald Trump: (nodding) Yes, that’s a good idea. We can have our teams work out specifics, making sure Ukraine’s security needs and our concerns are both addressed.

Before we wrap up here, though, I’d like to circle back to the ceasefire idea one more time, just to emphasize something. President Zelensky, I hear loud and clear why a simple ceasefire worries you – you fear it could lead to a worse situation if Russia takes advantage. Given what you’ve been through, I completely understand that fear.

My thought is: maybe we can design a ceasefire with strong conditions. For example, we could have international monitors or guarantees in place, so that if Russia violated the ceasefire, there’d be consequences and immediate support for Ukraine. The idea is to stop the killing even briefly and use that time to negotiate a more permanent peace. I feel a sense of urgency to at least get the shooting to stop, even temporarily, because every day lives are being lost. I need to do something to halt that, even if it’s just for a short time while we work on a bigger solution.

So, my request is: (looking earnestly at Zelensky) Would you be willing to consider a ceasefire proposal if we can include the kind of guarantees that would make you feel safer about it? We’re not talking about surrender or giving up your land – just a pause with conditions. If we could stop the bullets and bombs soon, even for a while, wouldn’t that be worth exploring?

Volodymyr Zelensky: (thoughtfully) Of course, I want nothing more than to stop the war. If a ceasefire truly leads to peace and doesn’t put us in a worse position, I am open to it. My main concern is what you acknowledged: we’d need firm guarantees that Russia would honor the ceasefire and not use it as an opportunity to strengthen their attack later. For instance, if we pause fighting and they use that pause to bring in more troops or fortify their positions, that could make things even more deadly when fighting resumes. That’s what I want to avoid at all costs.

So, yes, I’m willing to consider a ceasefire, but only under conditions that protect us. Perhaps United Nations peacekeepers or observers on the ground, or an agreement that if one side violates the ceasefire, the other isn’t bound to it. We’d have to work out the details. I also would need to consult my military commanders and the Ukrainian public, because this war has been felt by everyone back home. Many of our people are suspicious of any deal with Russia – for good reason. But if I can tell them that the ceasefire has solid protections, and if I can show them it’s a step toward a true peace, I think they would be more receptive.

Does that make sense? I’m not rejecting your idea; I just want to ensure any pause in fighting genuinely saves lives and doesn’t inadvertently cost us more lives later. I’m glad you’re open to figuring out those guarantees. With that in mind, yes, let’s have our teams discuss what a trustworthy ceasefire would look like.

Donald Trump: That makes perfect sense. Your caution is completely understandable, and I respect it. We will make sure to craft any proposal in a way that honors your need for security and trust. I envision, as you said, something like international oversight or mutual steps that both sides must follow simultaneously, so no one can easily cheat. We’ll work on that.

I also appreciate that you will consult with your people. It’s important that Ukrainians feel any step we take is in their interest. We want a solution that your country can embrace, not something forced on you.

J.D. Vance: Absolutely. We can reach out to our allies and partners as well to support this, so it’s not just the U.S. and Russia expecting Ukraine to trust something – it would be a broader international guarantee.

Volodymyr Zelensky: That would definitely help.

Donald Trump: (smiles and extends his hands as if to bring everyone together) So, to summarize: We all want this war to end. We’ve aired our concerns and feelings openly today, and I think we all have a much better understanding of each other’s needs now. President Zelensky, you need any peace effort to truly ensure your country’s safety and freedom. I fully respect and acknowledge that. And you’ve heard that we need to feel our support is appreciated and that any deal works for global stability too. I believe you respect that as well.

Given this understanding, I’m optimistic we can move forward together. Let’s have our teams start working out details for both a potential ceasefire framework and the longer-term peace agreement, with all these concerns in mind. We won’t rush anything you’re not comfortable with, and we’ll keep communicating honestly.

(Trump looks at Zelensky and Vance, who both nod in agreement.)

Donald Trump: At the end of the day, we’re on the same side – we all want a secure, sovereign Ukraine and a peaceful world. I truly believe that if we maintain the empathy and openness we’ve shown here just now, we can achieve that. It might not be easy, but together, we can find a way.

Volodymyr Zelensky: (with a small smile) I believe that too. Thank you, Mr. President.

J.D. Vance: (smiling) Thank you, gentlemen. Let’s keep working in this spirit.

(The three men exchange appreciative looks, the tension from earlier now replaced with a sense of mutual respect and determination.)

Suggestions for Each Participant

For Donald Trump:

  • Express feelings and needs openly: In the original conversation, Mr. Trump often spoke in a forceful or critical way (for example, saying things like “You have to be thankful” or “You don’t have any cards without us”). To align with NVC, he could instead share his feelings and needs. For instance, rather than insisting “Have you said thank you once this entire meeting?”, he might say, “When I don’t hear any acknowledgment of America’s help, I feel unappreciated because I need to know our support is valued.” By using “I” statements and naming his feelings (perhaps frustration or hurt) and his underlying need (appreciation/respect), he would avoid blaming and invite understanding.
  • Avoid defensive or aggressive language: Mr. Trump’s original responses included defensive remarks and insults (such as calling another leader “not a smart person” or telling Mr. Zelensky “You’re in no position to dictate…”). Under NVC principles, it’s important he refrain from personal attacks or put-downs. For example, instead of retorting “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel” when feeling challenged, he could say, “When you say that, I feel defensive because I worry you think we’re unaware of the risks. I want to assure you we are very aware.” This way he communicates his discomfort without attacking the other person. Additionally, avoiding labels like “stupid” keeps the focus on issues, not personal insults. By staying curious and calm instead of raising his voice or interrupting, he would foster a more respectful tone.
  • Make collaborative requests instead of demands: Originally, Mr. Trump’s statements sometimes came across as demands or ultimatums (e.g. “Say thank you” or “You have to be thankful”). In NVC, after expressing feelings and needs, the next step is to make a clear, polite request. He could improve by inviting cooperation rather than ordering. For instance, if he wanted appreciation, he might say, “Would you be willing to acknowledge the support the U.S. has provided? It would help me feel that our efforts are appreciated.” Similarly, rather than saying “You don’t want a ceasefire” in an accusatory tone, he could ask, “Would you be open to considering a ceasefire if we can find a way to address your concerns about it?” Phrasing it as a question and request encourages dialogue and avoids cornering the other person. By asking for Zelensky’s perspective or agreement (e.g. “Can you help me understand…?” or “Would you agree to…?”) Mr. Trump would support collaboration and show respect for Zelensky’s agency.
  • Listen empathically and acknowledge the other’s perspective: At times in the original exchange, Mr. Trump spoke over President Zelensky or dismissed his points (for example, cutting him off with “Wait a minute. No, no, you’ve done a lot of talking…”). To be more NVC-aligned, he should pause and truly listen when the other person is speaking about their feelings or needs. He could then reflect back what he heard. For example, “I hear that you’re afraid a ceasefire would let Russia regroup. That sounds very scary, and I understand why you’re cautious.” This kind of acknowledgement shows he values Zelensky’s perspective and reduces the other’s need to repeat or shout their point. By demonstrating empathy first, he’d likely find Zelensky more receptive to his own ideas. In summary, staying patient, avoiding interruptions, and summarizing the other’s concerns would greatly improve Mr. Trump’s communication, making it more compassionate and effective.

For Volodymyr Zelensky:

  • Share feelings and needs instead of using sarcasm or accusatory remarks: In the original conversation, President Zelensky sometimes responded with frustration that sounded sarcastic or confrontational (for example, “you have nice ocean and don’t feel it now, but you will feel it in the future” or “What kind of diplomacy…what do you mean?” in a sharp tone). To follow NVC, he could express the same concerns in a more heartfelt way. For instance, instead of the ocean comment which felt like a rebuke, he might say, “I’m afraid that if this war isn’t resolved, it could eventually affect other countries too. I need everyone to understand my fear that this conflict might spread.” This turns a potentially sarcastic remark into an honest expression of fear. Likewise, rather than demanding “What do you mean (by diplomacy)?” in a critical way, he could ask, “Could you clarify what you envision diplomacy looking like? I ask because I feel skeptical due to past broken promises, and I need to understand how this would be different.” By openly stating his emotions (like fear, hurt, or confusion) and the needs behind them (such as security, clarity, or honesty), Zelensky would invite empathy from others instead of defensiveness.
  • Avoid defensive or generalized statements that blame the other side: Under stress, Mr. Zelensky initially responded defensively to criticism (for example, when Senator Vance mentioned conscription, Zelensky retorted, “To Ukraine that you say what problems we have?” and “everyone has problems, even you”). A more NVC-aligned approach would be to acknowledge the other’s point and then explain his situation calmly. He did this better as the conversation progressed in the rewritten version. Going forward, if someone like Mr. Vance says Ukraine has manpower issues, Zelensky could pause and reply, “It’s true we are facing manpower challenges — I feel quite strained by that, because I need more support to sustain our defense.” This response admits the issue without turning it into a confrontation. Additionally, Zelensky should be cautious about predictions or statements about what others “will feel” (such as implying Americans “will feel” the war later). While his concern might be valid, phrasing it as a prediction came across as lecturing. Instead, he could phrase it as his own worry: “I worry others might feel the impact later if this isn’t stopped.” By speaking for himself (using “I” statements) rather than making broad or pointed “you” statements, he would avoid triggering a defensive reaction from his counterparts.
  • Express appreciation and positive needs to balance criticism: In the heat of the discussion, Zelensky’s genuine appreciation for U.S. support initially got lost. NVC encourages sharing positive feelings and gratitude when honestly felt, as this builds connection. In the suggestions above, Zelensky does acknowledge the aid and express thanks, which immediately eased tension. In future communications, he could improve by leading with some appreciation before diving into criticisms or requests. For example, “First, I want to say how grateful I am for what you’ve done so far. It has saved lives. The reason I’m pressing these issues so hard is because I’m scared and I need reassurance.” This way, he frames his urgent pleas not as attacks but as coming from a place of fear and gratitude. Additionally, when disagreeing or responding to something he sees as incorrect, he should try to avoid personalizing the issue. Instead of “Remember this? (implying a past slight)” or bringing up what one President did vs. another in a blaming way, he can describe the facts and how they affected him: “In 2014, when no one intervened as Putin took Crimea, I felt very alone and vulnerable. That history makes me need stronger guarantees now.” This focuses on his feelings about events, not on accusing his counterparts of failing him. Overall, by articulating his fear, pain, and appreciation clearly, Zelensky would likely get a much more sympathetic response from others, and reduce the perception that he’s being combative.
  • Make clear, doable requests instead of vague or rhetorical questions: At times, Mr. Zelensky posed rhetorical challenges (e.g., “What kind of diplomacy…?” or “Ask people about ceasefire what they think”). Such statements, while expressing doubt, didn’t tell the others exactly what he wanted or needed from them. In NVC, after sharing feelings and needs, making a concrete request helps guide the conversation toward solutions. Zelensky could improve by asking for specific support or clarification. For instance, if he’s skeptical about a ceasefire, instead of saying “Ask Ukrainians what they think” (which put Mr. Trump on the defensive), he might request, “Could we involve some neutral observers or Ukrainian representatives in designing this ceasefire? That would help meet my need for trust.” Or, “Can you show me how this diplomatic approach will ensure Russia sticks to an agreement? I need that assurance.” These kinds of questions invite collaboration because they signal exactly what Zelensky is looking for (inclusion of his people’s voice, or concrete assurances in an agreement). By turning his doubts into actionable requests, he allows his allies to understand how they can help address his concerns. This is far more effective than rhetorical remarks, which can be misinterpreted or lead nowhere. In summary, Zelensky can align more with NVC by clearly asking for what he needs, whether it’s more information, security guarantees, or expressions of support, rather than assuming others know what he wants or using sarcasm to make a point.

For J.D. Vance:

  • Voice concerns as personal feelings/needs rather than accusations: In the original exchange, Senator Vance came across as accusatory and confrontational at times (for example, calling Zelensky’s approach “disrespectful,” mentioning campaigning for the opposition, or demanding “Have you said thank you?”). To use NVC, he should frame his concerns through the lens of his own feelings and needs, not as attacks on Zelensky. For instance, instead of saying “You should be thanking the President” (which is a judgment), Mr. Vance could say, “When I don’t hear any thanks for America’s support, I feel upset because I value appreciation for our help.” This way, he’s not directly blaming Zelensky; he’s sharing how the situation affects him. Similarly, rather than labeling Zelensky’s behavior as “disrespectful” in front of media, Vance might express, “I felt uneasy when these issues were brought up in front of the press because I need our dialogue to feel cooperative and united. I worry that airing disagreements publicly might weaken our alliance.” By doing so, he communicates the same concern (preferring private discussions) without accusing Zelensky of wrongdoing. The key is shifting from “you are doing X wrong” to “I feel Y because I need Z.” This approach would likely make Zelensky more receptive, rather than provoking defensiveness.
  • Tone down aggressive language and show empathy: Mr. Vance originally used some strong phrases (like “forcing conscripts,” “propaganda tour,” or “when you’re wrong, we know it”) that would naturally make the other party defensive. To be more NVC-aligned, he should eliminate any language that sounds derisive or superiority-seeking. For example, bringing up that Zelensky “campaigned for the opposition” in a critical way was not helpful to the immediate conflict at hand; it likely felt like a personal attack. Vance could have dropped that point entirely, or mentioned it in a non-accusatory way if it was truly relevant to his feelings (e.g., “At times I’ve felt unsure of your view of our support – like when you engaged with some U.S. politicians who disagreed with us. That made me worried and I realize I still need reassurance that we’re on the same team.”). Moreover, showing some empathy toward Zelensky’s situation would improve his communication. Instead of immediately chastising Zelensky for how he spoke, Vance might first acknowledge Zelensky’s hardship: “I can’t imagine the stress you’re under, and I respect how passionately you’re fighting for your people.” This kind of statement would assure Zelensky that Vance is an ally, not an adversary. Only after that empathy, Vance could gently raise his own concern, e.g., “Because I support you, when I hear certain comments, I get worried… (etc.)” Essentially, balancing criticism with understanding would make Zelensky more likely to listen. Reducing aggressive directives (like “say thank you”) and replacing them with empathetic requests (like “I’d appreciate hearing gratitude”) turns a potentially hostile command into a collaborative moment.
  • Turn demands into collaborative requests: In the heat of the argument, Mr. Vance issued direct orders (e.g., “Say thank you” or telling Zelensky what he “should” do). To follow NVC, he should transform these into requests that give Zelensky a choice and invite cooperation. For example, if he desires Zelensky to acknowledge U.S. help, instead of “Have you said thank you once?” (which is rhetorical and scolding), he could say, “Would you be willing to share any appreciation you have for the support the U.S. has provided? It would help our people feel valued.” This phrasing is polite and gives Zelensky room to respond positively rather than feeling cornered. Likewise, rather than saying “accept there are disagreements and let’s go litigate those elsewhere” in a directive tone, he might ask, “Can we agree that we have some disagreements and find another time or forum to work through them in detail? I request that we stand together publicly, even if we sort out details privately.” This invites Zelensky to collaborate on a solution (handling disagreements in private) instead of simply chastising him for raising them. By making requests instead of demands, Vance would reduce resistance and increase goodwill. It also shows respect for Zelensky’s autonomy — he’s asking, not ordering, which is more likely to elicit a cooperative response.

Keep the focus on problem-solving and shared goals: In the original dialogue, some of Mr. Vance’s interventions escalated the personal tone of the conflict (for instance, focusing on whether Zelensky had thanked them or not, or bringing up an unrelated political jab). To communicate more nonviolently, he could have steered the conversation back to common ground and solutions sooner. For instance, after expressing his feeling of being unappreciated, he could immediately also acknowledge, “I know we all ultimately want to save Ukrainian lives and end this war.” By highlighting the shared goal, he reminds everyone that they’re on the same team. Additionally, when tensions rose, Vance might have diffused it by proposing a break or a different approach (as he eventually did by suggesting handling disagreements privately). In general, if he noticed himself or others getting heated, he could say something like, “I think we’re all feeling tense right now, and that’s because this issue matters so much to us. Maybe we can take a step back and refocus on what we all need.” This kind of meta-communication shows empathy for everyone’s emotional state and helps pivot back to problem-solving. By being the voice of calm and reason, Vance would exemplify NVC principles – focusing on needs and solutions rather than winning an argument. In summary, grounding his comments in empathy, shared objectives, and polite requests would greatly improve Mr. Vance’s communication, making it more compassionate and constructive for finding a resolution.