Putin and Zelenskyy Congratulate Trump: Two Diametrically Different Diplomatic Logics

July 4 marks the 250th anniversary of the United States' founding, and nearly the entire world has extended congratulations to Trump. Among these, the most intriguing are the two congratulatory messages sent by the leaders of Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian message is barely half the length of the Ukrainian one—under 1,200 characters compared to Ukraine’s 2,200. However, Moscow compensated for the brevity in text through an extensive phone conversation between the two presidents lasting a considerable time.

The Russian message centers on historical narrative:

1. Russia unconditionally supported the North American colonists in their struggle against British colonial rule and pursuit of freedom;

2. The two countries fought side by side in both World Wars, specifically highlighting the joint effort of Russia/Soviet Union and the United States in liberating humanity from Nazi atrocities;

3. Russia and the U.S. laid the foundation for the modern international order;

4. Russia and the U.S. are the world’s two major nuclear powers;

5. Both nations bear special responsibility for global security and stability;

6. Establishing an equal, mutually beneficial, and constructive bilateral relationship between Moscow and Washington serves the common interests of the entire world.

The text explicitly states that Russia and the U.S. have never engaged in direct war throughout history. At the same time, it subtly warns that if any third party attempts to break this tradition, Russia possesses equivalent means of retaliation.

Independence Day messages follow a fixed rhetorical format and theoretically should not include references to third-party disputes. Thus, the complete absence of mention regarding the current situation in Ukraine is logically consistent. Yet unexpectedly, the message makes no reference whatsoever to the concept of a multipolar world—instead, it directly proposes that the two countries negotiate bilaterally, stating such action aligns with global interests.

Overall, the Russian message strikes a careful balance: respectful in tone, neither arrogant nor subservient, pragmatic and restrained.

Zelenskyy’s message, by contrast, unfolds entirely around values and contemporary narratives:

1. It recounts the American dream—the pursuit of an independent, free, and prosperous nation;

2. Praises America for safeguarding citizens’ rights to freedom, faith, and the pursuit of happiness;

3. Declares that America once liberated the world from tyrannical rule;

4. Highlights how America has built various alliance systems, enabling most of humanity to enjoy prolonged peace and development;

5. Ukraine’s fight for independence is driven by the same beliefs and determination as the original American War of Independence;

6. Expresses deep gratitude for American aid, emphasizing that American weapons embody American spirit, resolve, and technological prowess;

7. Calls for the U.S. to provide Patriot air defense systems;

8. Stresses that the world urgently needs the U.S. to assume leadership responsibility;

9. Wishes that the ideals of free peoples will always triumph over evil and hatred aimed at destroying freedom, and expresses unwavering faith that the partnership between the U.S. and Ukraine will ultimately achieve peace.

The contrast between the two messages is stark: Russia’s is pragmatic and calm; Ukraine’s is emotionally charged. The most visible detail lies in the number of exclamation marks—Ukraine uses three, while Russia uses none.

Yet, the Russian message addresses Trump personally as “Dear Donald,” offering private well-wishes. In contrast, Ukraine deliberately flatters Trump, stating that the whole world awaits his leadership and protection. Given Zelenskyy’s current international position, he could have adopted a servile tone, but instead chose a measured and cautious approach.

The overall narrative logic fits perfectly with American preferences: U.S. political circles and Trump himself consistently favor value-based storytelling, and openly endorsing such a framework is never wrong. Russia actually shares similar conservative values with the current U.S. administration—but chooses to say nothing about them. The reason? Russia is self-sufficient and does not need to beg for weapons from the U.S.

Comparing Ukraine’s anti-Russia resistance to the American War of Independence is cleverly crafted—but carefully avoids a critical distinction: after gaining independence, the U.S. never threatened Britain’s survival, nor did it covet British territory.

Directly requesting weapons in an Independence Day message constitutes the ultimate diplomatic maneuver by Zelenskyy.

The mention of Trump providing Javelin missiles is clearly an act of deliberate appeasement. Yet, the message completely omits Starlink and Elon Musk—likely because it recognizes the unpredictable nature of Trump-Musk relations. Otherwise, leveraging contributions from private enterprises could have enriched the discourse on shared values.

The message alludes to NATO in a subtle way, gently implying hope for Ukraine’s eventual membership—phrased so cautiously as to border on intentional understatement.

In terms of historical narrative, Ukraine deliberately avoids referencing the shared anti-Nazi history. Instead, it vaguely refers to “tyrannical rule,” implicitly pointing to the Soviet Union without equating it directly with Nazi Germany, thus avoiding ambiguity. The omission of the Soviet-German wartime alliance is also pragmatically motivated: public opinion in Ukraine toward Nazi Germany is complex and contradictory. While many view Nazis as occupiers, members of the Galician SS Division are venerated as heroes by certain segments—making this history highly sensitive and prone to domestic controversy.

Overall, Zelenskyy’s drafting team has successfully accomplished its mission: diplomatically soliciting military aid, elevating Trump’s image as a global leader, and meticulously sidestepping all sensitive historical issues. But unlike Putin, Zelenskyy himself shows little interest in history—he substitutes historical discussion with value-driven rhetoric.

Beneath the surface, the fundamental difference between the two becomes clear: when Putin congratulates Trump, he does so as an equal power leader; Zelenskyy, however, lacks any real standing for equal dialogue. This is the core distinction between the two messages.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1869984049823808/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.