&w=3840&q=100)
Why Zelenskyy's clothes have become talking point again... this time at Nato Summit
At the just-concluded Nato Summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared more formally dressed than usual since the war with Russia began in early 2022. He swapped his typical military-style outfit for a blazer with a military touch, dress trousers, and a shirt. Back in February, the Ukrainian leader's decision not to wear a suit during a meeting with Donald Trump created a furore read more
Zelenskyy set aside his usual military-style clothing for a blazer with a military feel, dress trousers and a shirt, though he skipped the tie. Reuters
'Why don't you wear a suit?' That was the question Volodymyr Zelenskyy faced at the White House a few months ago.
This time, at the Nato summit in The Hague, the Ukrainian president appeared in a solid black jacket and shirt, similar to a suit.
Notably, Zelenskyy was not part of the main Nato discussions but did have a separate meeting with Trump , where they discussed a list of weapons Ukraine hopes to buy.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Earlier, the attention on Zelenskyy's choice of clothes at the White House drew sharp criticism from Ukrainians, most of whom have supported him since Russia's invasion in February 2022.
But why were his clothes such a big talking point both before and during the recent Nato summit? And why doesn't he wear a suit?
Let's take a look:
Why Zelenskyy's outfit became the talking point at Nato summit
At the recent Nato summit, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy appeared more formally dressed than he has been since the war with Russia began in early 2022.
He set aside his usual military-style clothing for a blazer with a military feel, dress trousers and a shirt, though he skipped the tie.
This subtle change caused buzz online and was picked up by the Ukrainian edition of ELLE Magazine, which on Wednesday called it 'visual diplomacy of a new kind'.
This was Zelenskyy's first time wearing a suit at a Nato summit. Reuters
But caused him to change? One reason could be the weight given to this year's Nato summit.
Many media outlets described it as one of the most meaningful meetings in the alliance's 76-year history.
Key topics included defence budgets, Russia, and how committed Donald Trump remains to Europe's security, issues that, according to Euronews, made some delegates cautious about displeasing the unpredictable US president.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This was Zelenskyy's first time wearing a suit at a Nato summit, though not the first time since the war began.
Earlier in the week, he wore a suit jacket during his meeting in London with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, where they discussed defence ties and plans for joint drone production.
What happened at White House months ago?
Back in February, during a meeting with Donald Trump, the Ukrainian leader was questioned by a reporter about his choice of clothing.
'Why don't you wear a suit?' asked Brian Glenn from Real America's Voice. 'You're at the highest level in this country's office, and you refuse to wear a suit.'
He didn't stop there. 'Do you own a suit?' Glenn went on, adding, 'A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the dignity of this office.'
Zelenskyy responded briefly: 'I will wear costume after this war will finish.' The word 'costume' translates from kostyum, the Ukrainian term for a suit.
He then made a light jab at the reporter.
'Maybe something like yours, yes. Maybe something better, I don't know,' he said, drawing laughter from those present. 'Maybe something cheaper.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
After the exchange in the Oval Office, Glenn posted online, saying he had 'extreme empathy for the people of Ukraine' but claimed Zelenskyy's lack of formal dress showed 'his inner disrespect' towards the US.
The reporter who asked Zelensky if he owned a suit, Brian Glenn, is from the pro-Trump network Real America's Voice and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend. He got one of the rare Oval Office interviewer spots after the White House blocked the Associated Press pic.twitter.com/oiYOi3PMeS — Drew Harwell (@drewharwell) February 28, 2025
Supporters of the Ukrainian leader soon responded by sharing wartime photos of Winston Churchill in casual attire.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Not long after the clash, Zelenskyy was asked to leave the White House, as ties between the two countries hit a rough patch.
However, this week's meeting between the two leaders appeared far more positive. Zelenskyy also thanked Trump and the US, and spoke of his hopes for 'real peace' between Ukraine and Russia.
US President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a meeting in The Hague, Netherlands. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Reuters
'I had a long and substantive meeting with President Trump. We covered all the truly important issues,' Zelenskyy wrote on social media.
'I thank Mr President, I thank the United States. We discussed how to achieve a ceasefire and a real peace. We spoke about how to protect our people.'
Why Zelenskyy doesn't wear a suit
Zelenskyy's clothing choice is meant to reflect his role as Ukraine's commander-in-chief and a visible gesture of unity with the country's armed forces.
Elvira Gasanova, the designer behind the Damirli brand, often seen on Zelenskyy, told Politico, 'When world leaders see Zelenskyy in military style, it is a signal — 'Ukraine is at war and I am part of this fight'.'
She said that his look is a commitment, even when meeting someone like Trump. It shows support for both civilians and soldiers caught in the war.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In times of peace, suits are usually a symbol of diplomacy, routine meetings, and political normalcy. But Ukraine, Gasanova said, is still in crisis.
'The president shows that the war is still going on, that the country is still in a struggle,' she said.
His decision to stick with his wartime outfit during the White House visit received strong backing at home, according to The Kyiv Independent.
Military attire also carries a deeper meaning. As Euronews reported, uniforms are often linked to strength and leadership. Worn by generals, war veterans and statesmen, they can convey a sense of credibility and authority.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
15 minutes ago
- First Post
What will happen to over 500,000 dogs after South Korea's meat ban?
As South Korea phases out its dog meat industry by 2027, over half a million dogs and thousands of livelihoods hang in the balance. The new law reflects shifting public attitudes, but its implementation has triggered fears of animal abandonment. Farmers demand clearer support as shelters struggle to accommodate the fallout read more Dogs look on from their cages at a dog meat farm in Hwaseong, South Korea, November 21, 2023. File Image/Reuters Last year the South Korea's National Assembly ended a centuries-old practice by unanimously enacting legislation to abolish the dog meat industry. The sweeping law, which targets every stage of the trade — from breeding and slaughtering to sale and consumption — grants a three-year grace period, with full enforcement set for February 2027. The move was aimed to align with changing societal views that increasingly recognise dogs as household companions rather than livestock. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This transformation in perspective is especially visible among younger generations. According to Gallup Korea, the percentage of citizens who reported eating dog meat dropped from 27 per cent in 2015 to just 8 per cent in 2023. A separate government survey conducted in 2024 found that only 3.3 per cent of respondents planned to continue consuming dog meat once the law comes into effect. For animal rights advocates, the shift reflects growing national and global support for compassionate treatment of animals, particularly canines. Activists such as Chun highlight this evolution. 'With time, people's views on dogs have evolved. They are no longer seen as food, but as family,' she told the BBC. Nonetheless, the transition has triggered a crisis involving both animals and the humans who once depended on this trade, the report by BBC has reported. What happens to over half a million dogs? As of 2022, South Korea's Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries estimated that more than 520,000 dogs were being raised on over 1,100 farms across the country. These dogs — many of them large breeds such as the Tosa-Inu — were intended for human consumption. Today, their fate is uncertain. While the government has pledged that local municipalities will accommodate surrendered animals in shelters, the reality is proving far more difficult. Rehoming large-breed dogs has become a serious logistical challenge, especially because such breeds are often categorised as 'dangerous' under South Korean law. Urban households typically prefer small pets, and concerns persist about health issues and behavioural trauma among dogs raised in meat farms. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Although the dog meat ban has passed, both the government and civic groups are still grappling with how to rescue the remaining dogs,' Lee Sangkyung of Humane World for Animals Korea (Hwak) told BBC. 'One area that still feels lacking is the discussion around the dogs that have been left behind.' Rescue efforts are underway, but the scale of the problem is overwhelming. A limited number of dogs are being transported overseas for adoption, yet these efforts barely make a dent in the overall population. Humane Society International Korea's JungAh Chae described the legislation as 'history in the making,' but highlighted the need for urgent implementation strategies to ensure that dogs don't end up neglected or worse. According to Cho Hee-kyung, head of the Korean Animal Welfare Association, the consequences of inaction could be tragic. 'If remaining dogs become 'lost and abandoned animals' then it's heartbreaking but they will be euthanised,' she warned in 2024. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Government authorities have denied euthanasia is part of their policy, and have instead introduced financial incentives — offering up to 600,000 Korean won (around $450) per dog to farmers willing to exit the trade early. Still, critics like Hwak say the measures remain vague and insufficient. Public shelters are already under strain, and many private facilities lack the funding or space to accommodate the expected influx of animals. What does mean for farmers who depended on the dog meat trade? For those whose livelihoods were rooted in the dog meat industry, the legislation has been deeply destabilising. Farmers, vendors, and restaurant owners now face the prospect of economic ruin without a clear roadmap for transition. Reverend Joo Yeong-bong, 60, who raised dogs for commercial purposes, is among those now trapped in a livelihood that has abruptly become unsustainable. 'Since last summer we've been trying to sell our dogs, but the traders just keep hesitating,' he told the BBC. 'Not a single one has shown up.' With mounting debts and few employment alternatives, farmers like Joo are in a precarious situation. 'People are suffering,' he continued. 'We're drowning in debt, can't pay it off, and some can't even… find new work. It's a hopeless situation.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another farmer, Chan-woo, aged 33, is responsible for around 600 dogs and faces a tight timeline. 'Realistically, even just on my farm, I can't process the number of dogs I have in that time,' he told BBC. The stakes are high: failing to comply with the new law by 2027 could result in up to two years of imprisonment. Despite investing all of his personal assets into the farm, Chan-woo says there's little assistance or coordination from either authorities or advocacy groups. 'They [the authorities] passed the law without any real plan, and now they're saying they can't even take the dogs,' he lamented. Joo echoed this sentiment, stating that many are barely holding on in the hope of policy adjustments. 'Right now, people are still holding on, hoping something might change… But by 2027, I truly believe something terrible will happen,' he said. 'There are so many people whose lives have completely unravelled.' What next for the South Korea dog meat ban? While the majority of the public now supports the ban, the decision has not been universally welcomed. Some sellers and farmers have voiced strong opposition, accusing the government of yielding to external cultural influences and infringing upon personal freedoms. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Former dog farmer Yang Jong-tae, who shut down his operations in 2023, described being emotionally moved by the kindness shown by rescue teams. 'When I saw how they handled the animals, like they were handling people, so gently and lovingly, it really moved me. We don't treat them like that. For us, raising dogs was just a way to make a living.' Nonetheless, Yang remains unconvinced about the ethical consistency behind the law. 'If dog meat is banned because dogs are animals, then why is it okay to eat other animals like cows, pigs or chicken?' In response to the growing unrest, the government has allocated around 6 billion Korean won annually to expand and support public and private shelters. The financial compensation for farmers who voluntarily exit the trade early is intended to ease the transition, but many say the funds and resources are not nearly enough to address the full extent of the upheaval. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Farmers like Chan-woo are now calling for an extension to the grace period to allow for a more gradual transition. The looming deadline of February 2027 continues to cast a shadow over those whose futures are now uncertain. With inputs from agencies
NDTV
17 minutes ago
- NDTV
'You Own Clothes, Shoes, Phones Because Of Us': BJP MLA's Remarks Spark Row
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: In controversial remarks, Maharashtra BJP MLA Babanrao Lonikar told a gathering that people who criticise his party and government should know they are getting "clothes, shoes, mobile, monetary benefits of schemes and money for sowing because of us". Speaking at a function on 'Har Ghar Solar' scheme in his assembly constituency Partur in Jalna district of central Maharashtra, the former state minister highlighted the BJP-led government's welfare schemes and development work, and went on to berate the critics of his party. A video of Lonikar's controversial remarks surfaced on social media on Thursday and invited strong criticism from the opposition. सोशल मीडियावर आपल्या विरोधात व्यक्त होणाऱ्या तरुणांविषयी भाजपचे आमदार @BabanraoLonikar बघा कसे बोलत आहेत ! ही या लोकांची भाषा, त्यांचा अहंकार, त्यांची संस्कृती आहे ! आमदार महोदय, तुमचे शेठ जो २५ लाखांचा सूट घालतात तो सामान्य जनतेमुळे मिळाला आहे, लाखो रुपयांचा गॉगल घालतात ती… — Adv Rohini Eknathrao Khadse (@Rohini_khadse) June 26, 2025 "There are a few people and especially the youth who criticize us and our party on social media platforms. We gave overhead water tanks, concrete roads, function halls and benefits of various government schemes in your village," he is heard telling the gathering. "Babanrao Lonikar gave salaries to mothers of those who criticize us and also sanctioned pension for their fathers. (Prime Minister) Narendra Modi gave Rs 6,000 to your father for sowing (a reference to PM Kisan Samman Nidhi). Your sister is benefiting from the Ladki Bahin Yojana. The clothes, shoes, mobile phones that you (BJP critics) have is because of us," the MLA is heard saying in the video. Shiv Sena (UBT) MLC and Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council Ambadas Danve hit out at the BJP legislator for his tasteless remarks and dubbed him as an "indigenous version of the British". Speaking such a language is not good in a democracy, he noted. "Your MLA status is because of the people. Your clothes, shoes, air tickets, leadership position, diesel in (your) car is also because of the people," Danve wrote on X while hitting out at the ruling party lawmaker. "People should remember these words (of Lonikar). Elections (of local bodies in the state) are coming," the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader further said.
Economic Times
21 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Is Europe Putin's next invasion target? Trump says it's ‘possible' the Russian President may target more countries
Live Events Sarcasm and strategy: The 24-hour war promise Putin's unexpected phone call WWIII Plans: NATO commits to higher defence spend (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel US President Donald Trump has said it is 'possible' that Russian President Vladimir Putin could pursue military ambitions beyond Ukraine. His comments came at a press conference following the NATO summit in The asked by Gray TV correspondent Jon Decker whether he believed Putin had territorial ambitions outside Ukraine, Trump said, 'It's possible. I mean, it's possible,' as quoted by the New York added, 'I consider him a person who I think is misguided.'Trump acknowledged the complexity of ending the Russia-Ukraine war, a conflict he once said he could resolve in a single day. Now, he admits it's not so simple.'Vladimir Putin has been more difficult. Frankly, I've had some problems with Zelensky,' Trump said, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 'It's been more difficult than other wars.''I know one thing: He'd like to settle, he'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him,' Trump told reporters in The Hague, reflecting on his ongoing attempts to his campaign, Trump had pledged to end the war in 24 hours. But at the summit, he clarified that the claim was not meant to be taken described the reality as 'more difficult than anyone had thought', adding that 'Putin is more difficult.' The remarks signalled a shift from his earlier confidence to a more cautious tone about future a revealing detail, Trump shared that Putin had recently reached out to him directly with an unexpected offer.'He called the other day (and) said: 'Can I help you with Iran?' I said no, you can help me with Russia,' Trump to Trump, the Russian president wanted to act as a go-between in the Middle East conflict involving Israel and Iran. But Trump redirected the offer, insisting that Putin focus on his own backyard also confirmed that he held a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the summit. He described the interaction as 'good' but shared few details about what was whether the US would supply Kyiv with more Patriot air defence systems, Trump remained cautious. 'We're going to see if we can make some available,' he said, without making any two-day summit in The Hague concluded with a major announcement. All 32 NATO allies agreed to boost their defence budgets to 5% of GDP by welcomed the decision and called it a 'big win' for the United States and the broader Western increase marks a significant shift in NATO's military posture amid growing concerns about long-term security in comments, though brief, raised pressing questions about the next phase of the Ukraine conflict — and whether Putin has his eyes set elsewhere. By framing Putin as a leader caught in a 'mess', but still 'misguided', Trump signalled both critique and NATO summit reinforced allied unity, but as Trump made clear, diplomacy with Russia remains uncertain. With vague timelines and no solid commitments, the road to peace in Ukraine — and beyond — remains wide open.
