How to negotiate with Trump: forget principles; learn to speak business language  

LONDON: In any negotiation, understanding your counterpart’s style is paramount. The Ukraine conflict, and especially the heated discussion between presidents Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office recently, has revealed a critical disconnect between the two administrations.

Volodymyr Zelensky later called the fiery showdown with President Trump and vice-president J D Vance “regrettable” and wrote to Trump to say he was ready to negotiate.

But the Ukrainian president and his European allies have approached talks from a principles-based position.

Zelensky says lasting peace with Russia ‘achievable’

In terms of negotiating style, this means they tend to emphasise multilateral mechanisms, such as collegial decision-making, long-term relationship-building and cultural sensitivity.

Trump is a businessman and operates from a fundamentally different negotiation paradigm.

Unfortunately, this misalignment has significant implications for Ukraine’s strategic position and for European security.

Research my colleagues and I conducted, comparing US and Italian negotiation styles, has shown that US negotiators typically use a more competitive, transactional approach.

They might appear unilateral or domineering but are also adept at connecting different parts of a deal and trading concessions across issues to achieve their goals.

Trump, however, combines this with highly competitive tactics and emotional rhetoric.

Unlike typical US negotiators who are thought to avoid emotional expression, as shown in our study, Trump uses anger and confrontation to dominate discussions and control narratives.

He frames negotiations in zero-sum terms, where every deal must have a clear winner and loser. This reinforces his public image as a strong leader.

And most importantly, Trump appears to negotiate selectively. He enters discussions only when he believes he holds the stronger position.

Our study shows that Americans prioritise bottom-line outcomes and use competitive tactics when they perceive themselves to be in positions of power.

Trump exemplifies this approach but adds his own distinctive elements – emotional pressure, public posturing and an unwavering commitment to his positions until a more favourable alternative emerges.

Zelensky’s miscalculation

President Zelensky’s primary negotiation error has been attempting to engage in a principles-based negotiation with a counterpart who favours transactional deal-making.

When Zelensky appeals to democratic principles, territorial integrity and international law, he’s speaking a negotiation language that Trump doesn’t understand.

Classic negotiation research suggests Zelensky should have structured negotiations around US economic interests rather than western unity or moral imperatives.

Trump has made clear that he will protect Ukraine and Europe only insofar as it serves these economic interests.

Zelensky is negotiating from a dependant position (Ukraine needs aid to survive). As such, the key is making the deal appealing to the stronger party while protecting his own interests.

In our study, we also found that the Italian negotiators often emphasise emotional engagement, treating counterparts as collaborators rather than adversaries.

They tend to focus on mutual interests and their approach balances technical considerations with human relationships.

It is underpinned by principles such as liberal values and adherence to international norms.

This chimes with other findings on the evolution of negotiation styles within the EU.

And this strategy thrives in such multilateral, multicultural contexts, where shared values and consensus-building are prioritised.

But this approach can be ineffective against Trump’s confrontational, power-based tactics.

Emotional engagement may be misinterpreted as a weakness, and consensus-driven approaches fail when the counterpart insists on domination.

The liberal world order appears unprepared to negotiate at Trump’s level. It still expects rational, interest-based discussions rather than emotionally charged confrontations.

The EU’s experience negotiating Brexit provides a relevant template for addressing the Ukraine conflict.

The appointment of Michel Barnier as chief negotiator, backed by a bloc of 27 nations, proved effective despite initial scepticism.

A similar approach could work for Ukraine. Appointing an authoritative chief negotiator with a clear mandate could be successful.

Barnier, economist and former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi or ex-German chancellor Angela Merkel are obvious candidates.

This structure might neutralise Trump’s preference for one-on-one, power-based deals and force negotiations on terms more aligned with European interests.

But to engage Trump, European and Ukrainian leaders need to reframe their approach.

First, proposals should be presented in terms of economic benefits.

Trump prioritises trade, jobs and business opportunities over security or moral arguments.

The negotiation landscape should emphasise the actual distribution of aid to Ukraine, highlighting that European nations collectively have provided substantial financial and humanitarian support.

Second, objective data and power-based arguments are better than moral appeals.

Economic impact assessments and strategic calculations will resonate more effectively than principles-based reasoning.

Third, competitive tactics should be matched with controlled confrontation.

Emotional engagement must be strategic, reinforcing firm but pragmatic positioning rather than appearing defensive.

Finally, win-win scenarios will allow Trump to claim victory.

Trump negotiates to win, and deals must enable him to declare personal success in front of his own supporters.

The path forward requires strategic adaptation, not ideological entrenchment.

Zelensky and European leaders must recognise that negotiating with Trump demands an understanding of his approach to international relations, perhaps favouring pragmatism over idealism.

A crucial insight from previous research on Trump’s negotiation behaviour is this: he rarely backtracks explicitly but frequently pivots to new objectives when they become more appealing.

This should inspire European leaders to develop attractive alternatives that serve both Trump’s interests and Europe’s security needs.

Deal-making may not be the most desirable approach to geopolitical negotiations, but Trump’s return to power makes it the current reality.

After decades of business negotiators learning from politicians, we now face a reversal. Political negotiators must learn from business tactics.

In the high-stakes arena of international security, understanding your counterpart’s negotiation style isn’t just good practice – it may be essential for survival.

The lessons from Trump’s first term suggest that principled stands alone won’t secure Ukrainian or European interests.

Pragmatic deal-making (underpinned with principles) offers a more promising path forward.