Zelensky: The perils of personal charisma
This article is authored by Sunoor Verma, coach and mentor, strategic and crisis communication and president, The Himalayan Dialogues.
Leadership communication is a high-stakes game where miscalculations can turn into global embarrassment. The recent Oval Office showdown between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and United States President Donald Trump exemplifies what happens when a leader misreads power dynamics, fails to adapt, and allows personal branding to overshadow strategic diplomacy. The meeting spiralled into an awkward spectacle, with some arguing that Zelensky appeared naive and others accusing Trump and vice president JD Vance of outright hostility. But the more profound lesson here is about communication—how leaders misinterpret the room, fail to adjust their tone, and disregard essential elements of persuasion.
Zelensky came to power as disruptors, challenging traditional politics with a mix of charisma and outsider appeal. But over time, his trajectory has led to personality-driven operations, surrounded by advisors who echo their beliefs rather than challenge them. Zelensky has been buoyed by the unwavering praise and cheering of European Union (EU) leaders, elevating his status but making him less flexible in negotiations. This was evident in the Oval Office, where he misjudged the room's tone. Instead of adjusting to Trump and Vance's combative stance, he remained rigid, defensive, and seemingly oblivious to the need for strategic humility.
Visual presentation is an underrated but critical component of leadership communication. Zelensky has leaned into wartime branding with his ever-present camouflage attire. While this symbolises resilience, it failed in the Oval Office, where power is projected visually. Sitting at the edge of a cavernous chair across from the towering Trump and Vance, Zelensky looked more like a student receiving a reprimand than a leader shaping international policy. Contrast this with French President Emmanuel Macron and Jordan's King Abdullah, two shorter in height leaders who occupied the same chairs days earlier. Macron countered Trump's imposing body language with deliberate 'manspreading,' while Abdullah used slow, measured speech and expansive arm gestures to project confidence. A formal suit and more assertive posture would have given Zelensky a fighting chance at altering the optics of that meeting.
Beyond appearance, knowing when to speak—and in what language—is a critical skill in diplomacy. Zelensky's decision to conduct the conversation in English rather than using an interpreter exposed him to unnecessary risks. His lack of fluency led to awkward moments, such as his misinterpretation of Trump's phrase 'Russia has the cards,' to which he quipped, 'I'm not here to play cards,' weakening his position. Another misstep came when questioned about his attire. His response, 'Next time, I will come in a costume,' might have made sense in a Slavic context (where costume means suit) but sounded bizarre in English, making him seem flippant.
Perhaps the gravest mistake in leadership communication is threatening when negotiating from a position of need. Zelensky's ill-advised remark in the Oval Office—warning Americans that they would soon 'experience war firsthand'—was a textbook diplomatic blunder. Threats rarely work in diplomacy, especially when directed at a superpower holding all the leverage. Instead of asserting strength, Zelensky's comment came off as desperate and petulant, giving Trump and Vance the perfect excuse to shut him down. Compare this to how experienced leaders handle tough conversations: They frame discussions around mutual interest, leaving ultimatums as a last resort.
If there is one simple yet powerful lesson in leadership communication, it is this: Gratitude is an easy way to win goodwill at the start of any conversation. Zelensky ignored this entirely in the Oval Office. Instead of opening with appreciation for past US support, he jumped straight into demands, prompting Vance to snap back and reminding him that Ukraine had already received substantial aid. This is an elementary error. Leaders who master communication—such as Barack Obama, who almost always starts speeches with a note of thanks—understand that humility at the outset makes an audience far more receptive. When leaders sound bitter from the outset, they risk losing their listeners before getting to the point.
Leadership communication is more than just speaking; it is about reading the room, setting the tone, and understanding when to listen rather than speak. It is about acknowledging that a technique that worked in one setting may fail in another. Zelensky's mistakes in Washington demonstrate that even the most charismatic leaders can collapse if they refuse to change. Politics, like theatre, requires a keen sense of scenario and setting. Those who master this thrive; those who ignore it, no matter how popular they were previously, will be reduced to background noise in rooms where true power is at stake.
This article is authored by Sunoor Verma, coach and mentor, strategic and crisis communication and president, The Himalayan Dialogues.
