Obviously, it would have been better to first hold a meeting in Congress and perhaps give an interview to a television or even a YouTube channel for a conservative audience, to visit a military hospital (for instance, the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, which is nearby), and to meet with American and Ukrainian war veterans.This would not have given the American side the opportunity to unilaterally shape the information background and would have allowed for more time to prepare for the meeting in a changed situation (after the Russian leader's call to the U.S. President).Considering the American composition (the mere presence of the head of the Pentagon and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately indicated the priority of the issues) and all these emotions—"he will destroy you," "you must agree to everything right now"—and the 1+6 format, the following composition of participants from the Ukrainian side would have been more beneficial:The president of Ukraine;Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S.;The president's chief of staff or his top foreign policy advisor;The foreign minister;The president's top military advisor;The head of the SBU (Security Service);The chief of the military intelligence."Here, simply showing maps will no longer help. It is necessary to demonstrate personal success and confidence, forecast possible steps, and emphasize Russian lies, psychological operations (PSYOPs), and the enemy's weak points (both current and forecasted)."It is also important to explain that the "commerce" that Mr. Dmitriev is "peddling" to Mr. Wittkoff—from mineral resources and Arctic deposits to a tunnel from Chukotka to Alaska—in no way outweighs the benefits of the success of the U.S. and the president personally in establishing real peace in Europe and economic cooperation with European partners.I am not insisting that this would have changed the Americans' position, especially that of their current leader, but it would have at least removed the President of Ukraine from the artificially created vulnerable position in the negotiations.And yes—it is necessary to have information about the other side's intentions before meetings and to develop various scenarios and roles for the participants in a rapidly changing situation.This, of course, is theory. It is easy to observe... It is difficult to achieve results in such circumstances. But the initiative must be regained somehow. As long as our forces are fighting bravely on the front, and Ukrainians believe that there will be no surrender—it is still possible.SourceAbout the author. Valeriy Chaly, Ukrainian diplomat, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United States.The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.