Suits you: ‘Fabulous' Zelensky outfit wows Trump
WASHINGTON : The fates of nations have rarely, if ever, been decided by sartorial choices.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was certainly hoping that a spot of fashion diplomacy Monday could get US counterpart Donald Trump to help his country reach a peace deal with Russia.
Despite the life-and-death matters unfolding in Ukraine, much of the speculation among the White House press corps was about whether Zelensky would wear a suit.
In February, Ukraine's wartime leader was ridiculed by a right-wing US reporter for wearing military-style garb instead of a business suit when he visited the Oval Office.
That mocking exchange set the tone for an astonishing blow-up a few minutes later when Trump and vice president JD Vance proceeded to berate Zelensky for not being 'grateful' for US support against Russia's invasion.
What a difference six months makes.
'I can't believe it, I love it!' said Trump, 79, as he admired Zelensky's smart black jacket and collared black shirt upon the Ukrainian leader's arrival at the White House.
'It's the best I had,' joked Zelensky, a former television comedian before turning president.
'You look fabulous!'
The light-hearted appreciation for the 47-year-old's outfit continued inside the Oval Office itself – the scene of Zelensky's earlier humiliation.
'President Zelensky, you look fabulous in that suit!' said Brian Glenn, the reporter for Real America's Voice who had asked the original question back in February.
Trump joined in, saying 'I said the same thing' – and telling Zelensky that 'that's the one that attacked you last time.'
'I remember,' deadpanned the Ukrainian, before adding to the American reporter that 'you are wearing the same suit' as six months ago.
Zelensky also turned on the charm for Trump – a billionaire who is rarely seen in anything except one of his trademark tailored blue suits – in other ways.
He brought a letter for Melania Trump from his wife Olena thanking the US first lady for writing to Putin and urging him to save children's lives.
The focus on Zelensky's outfit – instead of the nitty-gritty of peace negotiations to end a war that has killed tens of thousands of people – may seem bizarre to some.
But it also underscores the extent to which foreign leaders have had to woo a notoriously capricious US president.
'Do I look ok?'
Zelensky in particular has had to work hard to win over Trump, who has long been skeptical about US support for Ukraine and its multi-billion-dollar war cost.
Trump has also openly expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, not least during their extraordinary cordial greetings during their summit in Alaska last week.
The US leader had also echoed several of Putin's talking points about the war, including in recent days on the need for Ukraine to give up Crimea and its ambitions of joining Nato.
Hence the multi-pronged diplomatic offensive at the White House on Monday – beginning with Zelensky and his black jacket, and followed up with a posse of European leaders.
The Europeans paid homage to what they said were Trump's efforts to reach a peace deal, but their visit was also designed as a show of support for Kyiv against any call for too many concessions.
The Ukrainian was reportedly given training on how to deal with Trump by European leaders, especially Finnish President Alexander Stubb – who himself wore a double-breasted suit and won praise from the American president for his youthful vigor.
Zelensky was notably less pugnacious than in February – and even thanked Trump for a map that showed how much territory Russia had taken from Ukraine.
Nato chief Mark Rutte meanwhile made light of the debate about Zelensky's attire.
'Do I look OK?' the Dutchman said to Trump's protocol chief with a laugh as he buttoned up his suit jacket on arrival at the White House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
India test-fires nuclear-capable ballistic missile
NEW DELHI: India said Wednesday (Aug 20) it had successfully test-fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile which, when operational, should be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to any part of China. The Agni-5 missile was successfully launched in India's eastern Odisha state, with authorities saying it "validated all operational and technical parameters." India and China, the world's two most populous nations, are intense rivals competing for influence across South Asia and relations plummeted in 2020 after a deadly border clash. India is also part of the Quad security alliance with the United States, Australia and Japan, which is seen as a counter to China. India's bitter rival Pakistan has nuclear weapons as well and the two countries came to close to war in May after militants killed 26 people in Indian-administered Kashmir, an attack New Delhi blamed on Islamabad. But Pakistan denied any involvement. Caught in global trade and geopolitical turbulence triggered by US President Donald Trump's tariff war, Delhi and Beijing have moved to mend ties. Last October, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping for the first time in five years at a summit in Russia. Modi is expected to make his first visit to China since 2018 later this month to attend the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) -- a regional security bloc. Ties between New Delhi and Washington, meanwhile, have been strained by Trump's ultimatum that India end its purchases of Russian oil, a key source of revenue for Moscow as it wages its military offensive in Ukraine. The United States says it will double new import tariffs on India from 25 per cent to 50 per cent by Aug 27 if New Delhi does not switch crude suppliers. The Agni-5 is one of a number of indigenously produced short- and medium-range Indian ballistic missiles aimed at boosting its defence posture against Pakistan, as well as China. - AFP
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says
FILE PHOTO: Honduran migrants deported from the United States wait in line to board a bus at the Center for Attention to Returned Migrants, in San Pedro Sula, Honduras January 30, 2025. REUTERS/Yoseph Amaya/File Photo (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to end temporary deportation protections and cancel work permits for more than 60,000 immigrants from Central America and Nepal. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allows the government to end Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Nicaragua, Honduras and Nepal while a court challenge to that policy plays out. The three judges who signed the order did not provide legal reasoning. The order immediately ends protections for Nepalis, which expired on August 5. Protections for Hondurans and Nicaraguans will expire on September 8. U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the decision will help restore integrity to the immigration system and stop Temporary Protected Status from being used as a 'de facto asylum system.' Ahilan Arulanantham of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, criticized the court for not providing reasoning and said the decision 'simply sanctions the government's power grab.' U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson had temporarily blocked the administration from canceling the protections in a sharply worded ruling in July, where she found the government's decision was likely motivated by racial animus. (Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Stephen Coates)
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
The historical analogies that spook easy concessions to Russia: Warning to East Asian Summit — Phar Kim Beng
AUGUST 21 — The prospect of peace in Ukraine has been dangled repeatedly before the international community, yet each proposal collapses under the weight of historical memory. The idea of making concessions to Russia — by ceding territory or granting Moscow a 'sphere of influence' — is haunted by analogies that policymakers cannot ignore. The spectre of Munich in 1938 remains the sharpest warning. When European leaders surrendered Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Hitler in exchange for promises of peace, they emboldened rather than constrained Nazi aggression. The result was not stability but a total war that consumed the continent. This analogy looms large because Ukraine today embodies the same danger of appeasement. To reward Russia's invasion with territorial gain risks legitimising the very behaviour international law was designed to prevent. Vladimir Putin's insistence on annexing swathes of Ukrainian land is not simply a dispute over borders — it is a direct challenge to the rules-based order that emerged after 1945. Once borders can be redrawn by force, no smaller state is safe. That is why NATO capitals, especially Warsaw, Riga and Vilnius, recoil from any hint of compromise: they have lived through occupation, and they know that aggressors rarely stop at one victory. Beyond Munich, there are other analogies that shape Western thinking. The Yalta Conference of 1945, in which the United States and Britain allowed the Soviet Union to dominate Eastern Europe in exchange for Soviet cooperation against Japan, produced decades of division and repression behind the Iron Curtain. For Central and Eastern Europeans, any talk of 'buffer zones' or 'neutral corridors' in Ukraine carries the bitter taste of abandonment. They fear becoming pawns once again in a grand bargain between great powers, stripped of agency and sacrificed in the name of stability. Women visit a makeshift memorial to fallen Ukrainian defenders, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, at the Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine August 20, 2025. — Reuters pic The Korean War provides yet another analogy. There, a hasty division at the 38th parallel created a frozen conflict that persists more than seven decades later, condemning millions to life under dictatorship in the North. For Ukrainians, the prospect of being forced into a partition that locks them indefinitely into insecurity is intolerable. They do not want to be the next Korea — an unfinished war institutionalised into perpetual tension. These analogies weigh heavily on the Biden administration and America's European allies, even as Donald Trump presses a very different line. Trump has hinted that peace could be reached quickly if Ukraine simply agrees to territorial concessions. Yet history whispers otherwise. Easy peace is often deceptive peace, and concession in the face of aggression tends to prolong instability rather than resolve it. Trump's transactional instincts — focused on speed rather than justice — mirror the very logic that Munich taught the world to resist. In this context, Ukraine's resistance becomes not just a national struggle but a test of principle. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly asserted that no part of Ukraine can be traded away, because each concession risks legitimising Russia's strategy of coercion. This is why Kyiv insists that any settlement must be grounded in sovereignty and territorial integrity. Anything less would mark a systemic failure, signalling to autocrats everywhere that force pays. The East Asian Summit, when convened later this year, should not be insulated from these lessons. Asia has its own territorial disputes — the East and South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula — that could one day tempt aggressors to redraw boundaries by force. If Europe succumbs to concessions that normalise aggression, it will embolden those who wish to test the will of Asian states. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, as Chair, will be keenly aware that the Summit's credibility rests on upholding the rules-based order, not undermining it through selective silence. The global order today is fragile not because dialogue has ended but because the historical analogies that haunt concessions are fresh in the minds of leaders. Munich, Yalta and Korea each remind us that peace purchased cheaply usually costs more in the long run. That is why Ukraine's tragedy resonates far beyond Europe. It defines the boundaries of what is acceptable diplomacy in the twenty-first century. Asia cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. The East Asian Summit must embody the lesson that rules matter, that sovereignty cannot be traded away, and that easy concessions to aggression only sow the seeds of future wars. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
