Leaders and Flattery: The Intricate Dance with Trump

In a politically charged atmosphere, leaders from around the globe find themselves navigating the delicate landscape of international relations, particularly with former US President Donald Trump. During a recent NATO pre-summit news conference in The Hague, Trump likened Israel and Iran’s confrontations to "children fighting in a schoolyard," suggesting they eventually need to be separated. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte playfully chimed in, insinuating that "Daddy" sometimes needs to use strong language. These moments of levity highlight a broader and more complex dynamic at play: the interplay of flattery and strategy in diplomatic relations.

Flattery as a Diplomatic Tool

The question arises: how sincere are the compliments and flattery that world leaders direct toward Trump? Does such flattery genuinely improve bilateral relations, or is it simply a tactic to manage him? Leaders like Rutte, while employing flattery, have their motivations scrutinized, especially in tense geopolitical climates like the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Rutte’s claim that Trump was essential for dialogue with Putin underlines a familiar narrative, one echoed since Trump took office. However, many leaders have since retreated from dialogue with Russia, believing it counterproductive post-invasion of Ukraine. Scholz faced criticism for even attempting a phone conversation with Putin, while Orban and Fico’s visits to the Kremlin branded them as somewhat collaborationist.

The UK’s Strategic Engagement: Keir Starmer

In the wake of Trump’s administration, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer adopted a flattering tone during his visit to the Oval Office. Commending Trump for potentially paving paths toward peace in Ukraine, Starmer even presented an invitation from King Charles III for a forthcoming state visit to Windsor Castle. Starmer’s respectful approach, peppered with admiration, resulted in a moment of genuine surprise and praise from Trump.

Yet, the effectiveness of this flattery was put to the test soon after, as Trump announced a freeze on military aid to Ukraine, provoking criticism from the UK and other allied nations. This duality raises eyebrows: does flattery genuinely sway Trump’s policies, or are leaders merely playing a game of perception?

Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and the Quest for Alliance

Similarly, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni employed strategic admiration during her interaction with Trump, again focusing heavily on the conflict in Ukraine. By echoing Trump’s priorities—combatting Fentanyl and expressing a desire to "Make the West Great Again"—Meloni sought to align Italy’s interests with those of the American presidency.

Despite her efforts to charm Trump, the anticipated state visit to Rome has yet to materialize. This highlights a disconnect; while flattery may momentarily engage Trump, it does not guarantee tangible outcomes or reciprocation in diplomatic gestures.

Canada’s Mark Carney: Balancing Praise with Firmness

In an interesting juxtaposition, the newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney took a more balanced approach when engaging with Trump. By calling him a “transformational president,” Carney both acknowledged Trump’s clout and subtly rejected any ambitions to annex Canada. This mix of praise and respectful refusal stood in stark contrast to the tensions that characterized Trump’s relationship with Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau.

However, even Carney’s tempered strategy did not shield Canada from escalating trade disputes, as Trump threatened additional tariffs shortly afterward. This situation embodies the complexities of dealing with Trump: flattery may soften immediate interactions, but the underlying disputes remain contentious.

Contrasting Meetings: Macron and Zelenskyy

Not all meetings have been wrapped in flattery. French President Emmanuel Macron faced a defensive Trump during a February discussion, as tensions around Ukraine loomed large. Macron criticized the narrative that prioritized surrender over peace—a sentiment likely to clash with Trump’s own perspectives.

In a similar vein, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy encountered turbulence during a meeting when Vance chastised him for perceived ingratitude toward the US military aid. This encounter sparked public tension and underscored the intricacies of trying to engage Trump when stakes are at their highest.

Ramaphosa’s Weigh-in and the Limits of Flattery

Contrarily, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa navigated a tumultuous meeting, where Trump accused his nation of “genocide” against white farmers based on spurious claims. Ramaphosa’s composed response emphasized mutually respectful dialogue over flattery, though the meeting itself underscored the unpredictability embedded in Trump’s diplomatic style.

Flattery: A Double-Edged Sword

Many analysts argue that flattery might temporarily shield international leaders from Trump’s unpredictable impulses but does little to alter fundamental U.S. policies. Minor victories in saving face often merely push substantial issues to the back burner, leaving leaders in a precarious position.

While some believe respecting Trump’s ego might foster smoother relations, it often does not lead to meaningful changes in policy or diplomatic outcomes. As scholars like Andrew Gawthorpe note, summits focused solely on appeasing Trump ultimately fall short if they avoid difficult discussions.

The Importance of Respected Firmness

Interestingly, firm and respectful stances can sometimes yield better outcomes than outright flattery. Carney’s assertive refusal to consider Canada as a U.S. state marked a turning point—indicating that clarity can be more effective than hollow compliments. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen similarly adopted a firm stance regarding military agreements, successfully navigating the complexities of Trump’s ambitions.

The paths of diplomacy are intricate, with fluctuating dynamics often rendering flattery a mere stopgap. The real test remains whether world leaders can engage effectively while balancing respect, firmness, and genuine strategic interests.