By Camilla Braito (Russia Desk) & Vismantė Ežerskytė (European Affairs and UK Desk)
Introduction
As of today, negotiations involving the United States, Russia, and the European Union over the war in Ukraine remain ongoing but face substantial obstacles. Ukrainian and Russian delegations met again in Istanbul for a second round of peace talks focused on securing a ceasefire to bring an end to the conflict started in February 2022. This scenario highlights the vital role of leadership- the ability to make decisions, earn trust, and pursue common goals, especially in non-routine matters like war and peace. Incorporating leadership analysis into the study of negotiation dynamics enriches traditional explanations that rely solely on military power or systemic constraints. This piece examines how leadership styles influence negotiations regarding the war in Ukraine through two key frameworks developed by Margaret Hermann and Joseph Nye, as well as Ilana Zohar's work on the leadership skills necessary for effective negotiations in times of crisis.
Leadership Styles in Theory
Building on earlier typologies, Hermann identifies four leadership styles based on handling constraints, processing external information, and motivation: activist, strategic, pragmatic, and opportunist. Each includes two subtypes, from power-seeking expansionists to consensus-building accommodators, reflecting varying openness to internal challenge, context, and goal orientation in shaping leadership behaviour.
Nye’s framework defines leadership through inspirational, transactional, and contextual competencies. Leaders vary by goals (transformative or conservative), influence (transforming or directive), and power use (soft or hard). Inspirational leaders attract through vision and values; transactional ones rely on coercion. These categories often overlap as leaders adjust according to evolving environments.
For our analysis, it is also essential to understand what negotiations entail. These are voluntary processes to resolve conflicts through communication, either one-time or ongoing. Negotiations involve various tactics - brutal, time-related, authority-based, persuasive, and soft - and styles: competitive, cooperative, and integrative. Effective negotiators adapt tactics, manage emotions, and choose principled or positional approaches to seek mutually beneficial or win-lose outcomes.
Leadership and Negotiation in the Ukraine War: Trump, Putin, Macron
Since 2022, the war in Ukraine has revealed how leadership styles influence the direction of conflict and the viability of negotiation. Donald Trump, now back in office, exhibits a directive-pragmatic style in Hermann’s framework, personality-driven, disregardful of institutions, and focused on personal control over outcomes. According to Nye’s classification, he is transactional and relies on hard power, threat-making, and media optics. In his 2024 campaign, Trump stated he would end the war ‘within 24 hours’ through direct talks with Putin. When no progress was observed, he revised his position, claiming the war “belongs to Biden, Zelenskyy, and Putin.” His White House press conference with JD Vance and Zelenskyy drew significant media attention and controversy with Vance attacking the Ukrainian president while Trump stood by. Although relations were later smoothed at the Vatican, the episode showcased Trump’s preference for performance over diplomacy. He later revealed a call with Moscow, only to suggest that Putin might not want to end the war, adding to strategic ambiguity rather than offering a solution-oriented direction. His style has been viewed by some analysts as prioritising personal visibility over institutional coordination.
Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, operates with an activist-expansionist orientation, challenging domestic constraints, filtering external data, and pursuing goals often described as ideological and revisionist. Since 2022, he has instrumentalised hard power and coercive diplomacy to destabilise Ukraine and reshape European security. Though he publicly agreed to a ceasefire in 2024, Russian forces continued striking Ukrainian cities. Putin consistently denied these violations, instead accusing Ukraine of breaking the truce. His approach fits Nye’s transactional category, using strategic escalation and blame deflection to control the narrative. In one instance, Putin was onstage at a public event when informed that Trump was on the line. He calmly told the moderator he wasn’t in a hurry, signalling self-confidence and dominance in contrast to Western volatility.
Emmanuel Macron presents a starkly different model. Classified as pragmatic-consultative by Hermann, he values institutional process and contextual understanding. In early 2022, he made multiple high-profile visits to Moscow and Kyiv, attempting to keep diplomatic channels open even as tensions escalated. Though criticised for engaging with Putin too long, his efforts showed commitment to negotiation, de-escalation, and European agency. His leadership style aligns with Nye’s transformational vision—forward-looking, cooperative, and rooted in values-based persuasion. However, its effectiveness has been limited by the dominance of zero-sum postures from both Trump and Putin.

Leadership styles and negotiation tactics: recommendations based on the analysis
Different leadership styles shape negotiation approaches and can explain friction in trilateral or multilateral talks. While Trump and Putin focus on dominance and short-term gains, Macron pursues calibrated, integrative solutions, making him a diplomatic outlier.
To advance negotiations to end the Ukraine war, it is vital to tailor tactics to these leadership profiles. Putin’s coercive, revisionist style requires a mix of firm deterrents and incremental principled negotiation. Early hard measures help set boundaries, but must avoid provoking defensiveness. Active listening is key, not to legitimise propaganda but to uncover underlying strategic goals. Indirect or mediated talks, like the June Turkey talks, can reduce zero-sum dynamics and ease tensions.
Unpredictability, delays, and unilateral moves mark Trump’s transactional, anti-institutional style. Negotiations with him should combine persuasion (offering symbolic wins) with cooperative, face-saving compromises. Building a personal connection while appealing to national pride and political advantage is crucial.
In contrast, Macron’s transformative, institutional leadership supports integrative strategies grounded in shared values and multilateral legitimacy. His willingness to listen and build consensus helps counterbalance more confrontational styles.
Conclusion
This analysis shows that while Trump and Putin are both directive and goal-driven, they diverge significantly in approach: Trump’s leadership is pragmatic and transactional, shaped by optics and personalism; Putin’s leadership is often described as activist and expansionist, using centralised authority and assertive tactics, with expansionist elements. In contrast, Macron is described as a pragmatic-consultative leader who emphasises transformational goals through diplomacy, institutional cooperation, and long-term reform.
Recognising the dynamic interplay between leadership styles and negotiation phases allows for better timing and selection of moves, hopefully informing more effective crisis resolution. Especially in ongoing, high-stakes international negotiations such as those regarding Ukraine, success depends less on fixed rules and more on contextual intelligence, emotional regulation, and the strategic capability to adjust tactics according to the counterpart’s motivation and behaviour patterns beyond surface-level display of force and hardline rhetoric.