Raluca Niță: A Body Language Analysis of Trump and Zelensky at the Ankara NATO Summit
At the Ankara NATO Summit, Donald Trump was officially a guest, yet his nonverbal behaviour projected the role of host. Through behavioural economy, stillness, authentic left-sided movements and an upright posture, he conveyed confidence, authority and dominance. His verbal and nonverbal behaviour also remained congruent with one consistent objective: ending the war. Whether motivated by political, strategic or business interests, or by the desire to be remembered as the leader who brought peace, this objective appears genuine throughout the interaction.
Zelensky presents the opposite behavioural profile. He communicates through continuous, theatrical and often exaggerated gestures, facial expressions and posture changes, illustrating almost every argument he makes. Behaviourally, this appears to reflect a persistent need for Trump’s validation. His movements are predominantly right-sided, suggesting greater behavioural control and consciously crafted expression rather than spontaneous emotional display. His asymmetrical posture and right foot oriented toward the exit further suggest discomfort and a subconscious desire to leave the interaction. Trump communicates through stillness. Zelensky communicates through movement. This contrast defines the behavioural dynamics of the meeting.
As emphasiezed in book “The Silent Language of Power”, Trump embodies the profile of the Cartesian Coordinator—a leader driven by recognition, achievement and public affirmation. If Zelensky appears to seek Trump’s validation, Putin seems to command it without being present. Trump’s repeated references to Putin and his apparent confidence in Putin’s intentions suggest that Putin remains an important psychological reference point. I therefore propose a behavioural hypothesis of a validation chain: Zelensky seeks validation from Trump, while Trump appears psychologically/ mystically oriented towards Putin.
Trump maintains a remarkably stable behavioural baseline. Direct eye contact, reduced blink rate, prolonged jaw engagement, steeple gestures and the “Trump accordion” consistently project confidence, self-control and conversational dominance. During cognitively demanding moments, temporary deviations emerge, including downward gaze, hand clasping, thumb manipulation, lip pressing, increased blinking and occasional unilateral shoulder raises. These behaviours appear to function as self-regulatory mechanisms while preserving his dominant communication style. His prolonged jaw engagement—maintained even after finishing a sentence—stands out as one of his most distinctive behavioural signatures, reinforcing determination, authority and conversational ownership.
Before analysing the interaction, a brief methodological clarification is necessary. Raluca Niță established each participant’s behavioural baseline to distinguish habitual behaviour from meaningful deviations. The analysis then applies Paul Ekman’s Facial Action Coding System (FACS), which objectively codes visible facial muscle movements (Action Units). FACS does not identify emotions; instead, emotional interpretations are based on combinations of Action Units analysed together with behavioural clusters, baseline behaviour, paralinguistic cues and context.
Interview
Dmitry Anopchenko: A Ukrainian journalist asks Trump about Ukraine’s long-range strikes inside Russia. Before answering, Trump asks where she is from and, after hearing “Ukraine,” asks her to rephrase the question. Was this a genuine misunderstanding, a way to buy time before delegating the answer to Marco Rubio, or a subtle dominance tactic to regain control of the interaction? Which explanation is most consistent with Trump’s behavioural baseline?
Raluca Nita: This is arguably the most difficult question Trump receives during the meeting because it carries major geopolitical implications. Behaviourally, I do not believe he misunderstands it. The brief increase in blink rate, the transient activation of AU14 (Dimpler), persistent jaw engagement, the restrained index finger—suggesting inhibition of an immediate response—and, paralinguistically, the prolonged “aaa…” are all more consistent with cognitive processing than with confusion. People typically produce this vocalisation when searching for an answer, not when failing to understand the information.
Trump buys time. Asking the journalist to repeat the question allows him to formulate a strategy while maintaining behavioural control. Her hesitation and reformulation also help him re-establish the authority dynamic, reinforcing his confidence and conversational dominance. As his hands come together again and the left index finger subtly protrudes from the clasp, he seems to have found a way forward—he is recalibrated and knows how he will respond. His objective is not to dominate the journalist, but to reinforce his authority in front of the audience.
My conclusion is that this is neither misunderstanding nor hesitation. It is a deliberate behavioural reset that gives Trump time to think, regain strategic control and choose the most advantageous response.
Dmitry A: Trump immediately hands the question to Marco Rubio. Behaviourally, do you see relief, hesitation, or a calculated delegation? Once he passes the ball to Rubio, does he appear to step back and wait for the exchange to come back to him before making his next move? As Rubio explains the strategy, Trump is no longer speaking but listening. Behaviourally, do you see genuine agreement, or are there signs of tension or disagreement leaking through?
Raluca Nita: This is not a complete delegation. Trump gives Rubio the floor but remains behaviourally engaged, waiting for the exchange to return to him before deciding whether to intervene.
Throughout Rubio’s answer, Trump repeatedly directs his gaze downward, predominantly to the lower right. This appears consistent with his behavioural baseline during cognitively demanding moments: he reduces visual input to facilitate internal processing rather than disengaging from the discussion. A brief AU14 (Dimpler), commonly associated with contempt, emerges, while his lips become noticeably tense, suggesting restrained frustration or controlled anger rather than an overt emotional display. Despite these subtle emotional leakages, his jaw remains engaged and his posture stable, indicating that behavioural control is preserved.
Rubio, by contrast, appears behaviourally less prepared. His bilateral shoulder shrugs, reinforced by raised eyebrows, are classic indicators of uncertainty and limited agency as he formulates his response.
Trump delegates the answer, but not the control. Behaviourally, he remains fully engaged, evaluating both Rubio’s response and deciding when to re-enter the conversation.
Dimitry A: After Rubio finishes, Trump concludes: “It’s an escalation. But it’s also an escalation that can help lead to an end.” Behaviourally, do you see genuine conviction or carefully managed political messaging?
Raluca Nita: Trump’s body language reveals a behavioural cluster of self-regulation rather than absolute certainty. As Rubio finishes, Trump gently rocks his torso from side to side—a classic pacifying behaviour that helps regulate internal tension while maintaining cognitive focus. He then leans forward into an intention posture, adopting a low steeple, signalling readiness to re-enter the conversation while preserving confidence and evaluation.
Immediately before speaking, lip pressor (AU24) appears, indicating behavioural restraint and the conscious inhibition of an immediate response. As he concludes, “It’s an escalation. But it’s also an escalation that can help lead to an end,” the lip press briefly transitions into a lip pucker (AU 18). Unlike the lip press, the lip purse is commonly associated with evaluating alternatives rather than certainty.
Dmitry A: Asked why he believes Vladimir Putin wants peace, Trump replies confidently: “I’ll tell you, he wants it ended as soon as he can end it.” Behaviourally, does Trump appear genuinely convinced by his own statement, or do you observe signs that he is reinforcing a political narrative? More specifically, do you see evidence of genuine alignment with Putin, or behavioural cues suggesting caution, hesitation or strategic messaging?
Raluca Nita: Trump genuinely wants to believe that Putin is prepared to end the war. However, his nonverbal behaviour suggests that this remains an assessment rather than a certainty.
As he states, “I know when people want to make a deal,” Trump briefly raises only his left shoulder. While a unilateral shoulder shrug is often associated with uncertainty or incomplete commitment, in Trump’s behavioural baseline the left-sided shrug more plausibly reflects pride, superiority or self-enhancement—a subtle peacocking display. In this context, I interpret it as a sign of psychological alignment with Putin rather than insecurity.
Immediately afterwards, he returns to baseline: the jaw remains projected forward, reinforcing conversational ownership, while repeated downward gaze, increased blink rate, thumb manipulation and a left-over-right hand clasp form a behavioural cluster consistent with cognitive processing and emotional regulation. Together, these behaviours suggest that, although Trump hopes his assessment is correct, he recognises that the outcome ultimately depends on factors beyond his control.
Paralinguistically, his delivery of “He wants to end the war” becomes noticeably segmented, with brief pauses between the words. This pattern reflects careful message formulation rather than fluent conviction. A comparable delivery was observed in President Bill Clinton’s statement, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” where the segmented rhythm suggests heightened self-monitoring, as if he is carefully controlling what he says while simultaneously reinforcing the message to himself.
Dmitry A: : Instead of promising additional Patriot systems, Trump offers Ukraine a production licence, adding: “That’s pretty cool, right?… Make ’em yourself.” Behaviourally, what does “That’s pretty cool, right?” reveal? Behaviourally, do you believe Trump genuinely intends to grant Ukraine the licence, or does his delivery suggest that he has no real intention of following through?
Raluca Nita: Based on his nonverbal behaviour, I cannot determine whether Trump genuinely intends to grant Ukraine the production licence. What is evident, however, is the certainty with which he presents the proposal. His vocal delivery, stable posture and minimal gestures convey confidence, as if he were stating a self-evident and logical solution rather than opening a negotiation. The phrase “That’s pretty cool, right?” is delivered with genuine pride and an expectation of approval.
Immediately afterwards, Trump shifts his gaze away from Zelensky instead of seeking his reaction, suggesting that, from his perspective, the discussion is already settled.
Zelensky displays the opposite behavioural pattern. Lip Pressor (AU 24) indicates inhibition of an immediate response and continued cognitive evaluation, followed by a non-Duchenne smile subtly mixed with Dimpler (AU14), commonly associated with contempt. I propose the hypothesis that this reaction reflects dissatisfaction with the proposal, possibly because the issue had already been discussed previously and the outcome did not meet his expectations. Rather than openly challenging Trump, he appears to regulate his emotional response. The contrast is striking: Trump behaves as if the solution is obvious; Zelensky behaves as if the conversation is far from over.
About
Raluca Niță is the Founder and CEO of Vector Public Affairs and the author of The Silent Language of Power. She has more than 13 years of experience in public affairs, regulatory affairs, strategic communication, and behavioural analysis. Throughout her career, she has advised senior executives and international companies on stakeholder engagement, political risk, and negotiation strategy.
Dmitry Anopchenko is one of Ukraine’s leading television hosts and correspondents, with over 30 years in journalism. He now serves as Washington bureau chief for Ukraine’s Inter TV channel, covering the White House and US Congress. His work is defined less by day-to-day analysis than by a persistent drive to get to the essence of events — tracing the trends behind the headlines on US foreign policy, defense technology, and the war in Ukraine.