In this second part of our short analysis we will focus on video diplomacy from a different angle, examining diplomatic meetings that are now streamed live rather than held behind closed doors as in the past. Obviously the most is still said behind closed doors, but increasing parts of the debate happen in front of the cameras and/or are directly divulgated by some leaders themselves on their social network profiles. This new trend imposes new communication strategies, transforming not only how leaders interact but also how diplomacy is perceived by the public. To gain a deeper understanding of how the televised meetings impact diplomatic communication, we conducted an interview with Dr.Rania Karchoud, a political communication specialist and lecturer at Panthéon-Assas University in Paris. Her insights shed light on both the opportunities and challenges presented by this evolving form of diplomacy.
In recent years, diplomatic meetings have increasingly been televised or streamed live, marking a new stage in diplomatic communication. As Dr.Karchoud explained, this shift serves as a deliberate strategy: by broadcasting summits or encounters in real time, leaders aim to counter fake news, shape the narrative, and add credibility to their diplomacy. What the public sees live is meant to inspire trust and convey openness.
However, the expert also pointed out the limits of this apparent transparency. A televised summit is not raw reality, but rather a carefully scripted show. Cameras capture what leaders want to project, not what is really at stake behind closed doors. In this sense, video diplomacy in the form of live broadcasts raises a paradox: it gives the impression of transparency, while in fact filtering and staging the truth. Citizens may feel closer to the process, but they only access fragments of a controlled narrative, not the full picture of negotiations.
Donald Trump vs Vladimir Zelensky as a case study
The Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in February 2025, broadcast live, exemplifies how video diplomacy can project a carefully staged image of power rather than genuine transparency. While the televised format suggested openness, the entire scene was orchestrated to highlight Trump’s dominance and Zelensky’s subordinate position.
The tone of the two presidents reflected this imbalance. Trump spoke with assertiveness, often interrupting and framing the discussion around his own decisions. His language was performative, designed for the cameras: declarative statements, broad claims, and the repeated assertion of the United States as the decisive actor in global politics. At one point, he declared to Zelensky: “You did not show gratitude for what we did for you and for your country.” His words carried not only reproach but also a reminder of who held the leverage in the relationship. Trump then turned to the cameras and asserted: “Americans need to see this,” underlining that the true audience was not Zelensky but the American public, to whom he wanted to display his authority and “generosity”.
Zelensky’s tone, by contrast, was more restrained and defensive, limited to brief interventions. His attempts to stress Ukraine’s needs were overshadowed by Trump’s rhetorical control of the conversation, reinforcing the impression of dependence.
Body language amplified the message. Trump leaned back in his chair, expansive in his gestures, exuding authority and confidence. He often pointed or gestured toward Zelensky in ways that placed him in the role of a subordinate. Zelensky, seated slightly angled toward Trump, appeared more tense and reserved, his hands clasped or resting on his knees. This posture suggested caution and a lack of space to manoeuvre, contrasting with Trump’s physical ease.
These non-verbal cues reveal the paradox of live-streamed diplomacy. The performance claimed transparency, yet what was shown was not a balanced dialogue but a choreographed spectacle of hierarchy. Viewers were not invited to witness the substance of negotiations but to consume a narrative: the United States, embodied by Trump, as the commanding power, and Ukraine, represented by Zelensky, as dependent and constrained. Far from offering the “whole truth,” the broadcast reduced a complex diplomatic encounter to a symbolic show of dominance, illustrating how visibility can mask as much as it reveals.
The later meeting of August 18, 2025, also broadcast live, revealed how Zelensky had internalised the dynamics of his February encounter with Trump. If the earlier session had exposed him to public reproach for not showing enough gratitude, in this second meeting his rhetorical strategy shifted. Zelensky repeatedly thanked Trump for American aid, stressing his appreciation for U.S. military and financial support at every opportunity. This was not merely politeness; it was a calculated adaptation to the televised stage. He has learned the lesson the hard way!
Whereas in February Zelensky’s silence and restrained posture had made him appear defensive and almost chastised, by August he had learned to perform deference more visibly. His tone was warmer, even effusive, and his body language—slight forward leans, open-handed gestures—conveyed attentiveness and acknowledgment. Trump, for his part, adopted a more indulgent tone than before, appearing satisfied with Zelensky’s repeated gratitude. The asymmetry remained, but the interaction looked smoother, as if both leaders had understood the rules of this new “video diplomacy” performance.
The juxtaposition of these two broadcasts highlights the paradox at the heart of video diplomacy. What is presented as transparency for global audiences is in fact a stage where leaders adapt their behaviour to avoid public embarrassment. Zelensky’s evolution between February and August demonstrates how live broadcasting can discipline leaders, forcing them to conform to the expectations of a dominant partner not behind closed doors, but in full public view.
The Trumpist School of Communication: Directness, Power, and the Americanisation of Diplomacy
The communication style popularised by Donald Trump: direct, assertive, and designed to demonstrate power and control, has left a lasting imprint on the diplomatic strategies of other world leaders. Dr.Karchoud refers to this as the “Trumpist school of communication.” At its core, it is about projecting authority, feeding the leader’s ego, and shaping public perception: diplomacy becomes not just negotiation, but performance for both domestic and international audiences. This approach has contributed to the Americanisation of diplomatic communication, emphasising media visibility, staged interactions, and assertive messaging over the subtlety of traditional protocols.
A clear illustration of this influence can be seen in Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Lebanon in January 2025. Macron openly criticised Lebanese leaders for their political inaction, asserting that “Lebanese leaders owe the truth and transparency to their population”. Both during in-person visits and in video exchanges broadcast live, Macron adopted a highly visible, assertive style that emphasised his authority and France’s leadership role. This mirrors Trump’s performative approach: the cameras amplify the leader’s dominance, the messaging is direct and uncompromising, and the interaction is as much about image and perception as it is about policy.
Through this lens, Macron’s behaviour in Lebanon can be understood as a clear example of the Trumpist communication paradigm at work beyond the United States, demonstrating how modern leaders increasingly use media-savvy, assertive strategies to reinforce power, command attention, and shape international narratives.
One of the most important points raised by our expert during the interview concerns the “Trump effect” in diplomatic communication. She observed that many contemporary politicians, consciously or not, have adopted a similar assertive, image-centered communication style. This raises a critical question: does having the same communication style among leaders facilitate or complicate diplomatic negotiations?
Our expert acknowledged that this is a fascinating question deserving a dedicated study. Her immediate response, however, emphasises that the effectiveness of diplomatic communication does not depend only on style. Instead, it is heavily influenced by other factors, particularly financial and economic considerations. In other words, while the adoption of a Trumpist, media-savvy style may shape public perception and leader-to-leader interactions, the substance of negotiations: budgets, resources, and economic leverage, remains decisive in determining diplomatic outcomes.
This insight adds nuance to the discussion of televised diplomacy: assertive communication and staged performances can dominate the media narrative, but real-world influence still depends on structural power and material resources, reminding us that diplomacy is both performative and practical.
Indeed, this nuanced pattern emerges when we compare Trump’s exchanges with Zelensky and Vladimir Putin. In the 2025 Alaska summit, Trump’s communication, while still assertive, was more measured and cautious. Unlike Ukraine, Russia possesses substantial military and economic power, which constrained the American president’s performative dominance. Similarly, Trump’s 2019 G20 summit interaction with Putin reflected this careful calibration. These contrasts reveal that the impact of assertive, media-focused communication is heavily influenced by the relative economic and military resources of the counterpart, confirming our expert’s point that style alone does not determine diplomatic outcomes.
Despite its controversies, Dr.Karchoud emphasises that video diplomacy brings significant advantages. By broadcasting meetings or exchanges live, it adds credibility, reduces the spread of rumours, and protects the public’s fundamental right to access accurate information. There is no turning back to purely traditional, closed-door diplomacy; instead, the two approaches can coexist, complementing each other. Transparency is now unavoidable: information should be directly shared by the president or politician, helping to prevent fake news and misleading narratives. That is why; to maximise the benefits of this approach, our expert stresses the importance of media education, ensuring that the public is equipped with the skills to distinguish real information from false content, verify sources, and critically assess messages. In this way, video diplomacy can be both credible and effective, reinforcing informed engagement in international affairs.
Part 2 has shown that televised diplomacy and the “Trumpist school of communication” have transformed how leaders project power and influence public perception. Live broadcasts and media-conscious performances allow politicians to assert authority and control the narrative, but as our expert highlighted, the effectiveness of communication ultimately depends on structural factors such as economic and military resources. The contrast between Trump’s interactions with Zelensky and with Putin illustrates this clearly: the same assertive style produces different outcomes depending on the counterpart’s capacity to resist or negotiate.
In this evolving landscape, diplomacy has become both a performance and a negotiation, where visibility, style, and media strategy intersect with real-world power. While performative tactics can amplify influence, the substance of international relations remains grounded in tangible resources, reminding us that communication alone cannot replace traditional diplomatic leverage.