How we did this:

Our goal with the prompt was to get as close to the scenario and situation as possible without mentioning the parties names during question formulation to create the rubric and scoring. Our prompt was the following:

"Can you create a rubric or guide for civilly and efficiently holding a meeting between Presidents of two different nations, one nation is at war and the other is helping with some support of that war. The nation supporting is seeking to close a deal on rights to rare minerals. The supporting nation is wearing the standard political suits, while the President of the nation at war is dressed normal, more relaxed or tactical, not as professional. Consider the work and theories of the foremost psychologist and experts in communications."

The Resulting Guidelines/Rubric are as follows:

We then copied the transcript as provided via AP (https://apnews.com/article/trump-zelenskyy-vance-transcript-oval-office-80685f5727628c64065da81525f8f0cf)

We then used the following prompt to ask for an analysis and a scoring of each party and what went wrong

Results were as follows from ChatGPT:

Analysis of Diplomatic Breakdown in the Meeting

This provides an analysis of the diplomatic meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. leaders, including JD Vance and former President Donald Trump. The analysis is based on principles of negotiation, communication, and diplomacy, evaluating where the discussion faltered and how it could have been improved.

Major Failures in the Discussion

1. Failure to Establish a Shared Narrativee it went wrong:

- Vance opens with a politically charged argument rather than a neutral diplomatic framing.

- Zelenskyy challenges the premise but does so in a way that frames past U.S. policy as consistently ineffective, making the conversation adversarial.

- Trump joins in dismissing Zelenskyy’s perspective outright, creating a contentious rather than cooperative discussion.

Improvement:

- A better opening would have framed U.S. support in terms of long-term partnership rather than a transactional relationship.

2. Emotional Escalation & Power Imbalance

Where it went wrong:

- Zelenskyy gets increasingly defensive, challenging the notion of U.S. diplomacy as effective.

- Vance accuses Zelenskyy of being disrespectful for arguing in the Oval Office.

- Trump aggressively asserts power dynamics, repeatedly stating that Ukraine lacks leverage ('you don’t have the cards').

Improvement:

- The U.S. representatives should have acknowledged Zelenskyy’s perspective without dismissing his legitimacy.

- Active listening would have prevented emotional escalation.

3. Failure to Address Zelenskyy’s Core Concerns

Where it went wrong:

- Zelenskyy repeatedly asks what kind of diplomacy the U.S. envisions.

- Vance and Trump deflect rather than providing a concrete vision.

- No clear plan is laid out for securing Ukraine’s interests while pursuing a ceasefire.

Improvement:

- The U.S. side should have clearly outlined what adiplomatic resolution would look like.

- Acknowledging Ukraine’s prior diplomatic attempts wouldhave built trust.

4. Public Argument Instead of Diplomatic Discourse

Where it went wrong:

- The discussion becomes a performance for the media rather than a serious negotiation.

- Trump acknowledges keeping it going for television value.

- Zelenskyy is put on the defensive rather than treated as a strategic partner.

Improvement:

- Private diplomatic discussions should precede public conversations.

- A controlled and structured dialogue would prevent public confrontation.

5. Breakdown of Mutual Respect & Diplomacy

Where it went wrong:

- Vance repeatedly demands that Zelenskyy 'just say thankyou,' implying that gratitude should override Ukraine’s concerns.

- Trump escalates by saying Ukraine has no leverage,undermining Zelenskyy’s standing as a leader.

- Zelenskyy responds with frustration, making it clear hedoes not trust the approach.

Improvement:
- A more respectful tone from both sides would haveprevented the breakdown.
- The conversation should have been about partnership, notsubordination.

Key Takeaways & What Could Have Been Done Differently

Framing Diplomacy as a Partnership Rather than a Transaction

• The U.S. side should have started with shared goals rather than power dynamics.
• A more structured discussion on diplomacy’s limitations and possibilities would have been more productive.

Avoiding Emotional Triggers & Public Confrontation

• Demanding gratitude from a war-torn leader undermines the relationship.
• Zelenskyy, while justified in his frustration, should have remained more neutral in tone.

Providing a Clearer Vision for Ceasefire & Negotiation

• Vance and Trump never articulated what a diplomatic solution would look like.
• Acknowledging Ukraine’s past failed diplomatic attempts would have built credibility.

Keeping the Discussion Civil & Private

• Diplomatic meetings should not become a spectacle.
• Trump openly admitting it was "good television" undermined the legitimacy of the discussion.

Final Conclusion

This meeting was a failure in diplomacy, negotiation, and communication. It lacked empathy, strategic framing, and constructive dialogue.

• Zelenskyy defended his nation well but let frustration take over at points.
• Vance and Trump escalated unnecessarily, making diplomacy impossible.
• A successful diplomatic conversation would have centered on solutions rather than power struggles.