In a string of recent diplomatic parleys, U.S. President Donald Trump appeared remarkably cuddly with NATO. He leaped into deep, wonky discussions about what it might take to achieve peace in Ukraine. After an unprecedented bilateral summit in Alaska, Trump released a shocking roadmap for peace. Critics say it is unduly influenced by Russian interests. This subtle shift in diplomatic posture has alarmed many observers as to what that could mean for Ukraine and for the larger geopolitical chess board.
Trump’s remarks about NATO were notably warmer than usual, signaling a shift in tone that surprised many observers. He came out of the Alaska summit with very ambitious and exciting proposals. These concepts align closely with the Kremlin’s wishlist, like rejecting an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and calling for ceding unconquered territory to Russia. This development has sparked debates about Trump’s susceptibility to Russian disinformation and his willingness to indulge narratives that elevate Russia’s status as an equal power in the global arena, aside from its nuclear capabilities.
During his presidency, Trump has shown an odd affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Although his patience has waned at times, there has been no departure from the Trump line that serves Russian interests. His support for a peace template that includes no censure of Russia’s violently expansionist moves makes this dynamic even worse. This has led many observers to argue that Trump’s narcissistic personality, combined with a deep-seated dislike of institutional constraints, largely drive his foreign policy.
In June, a NATO summit featured member state after member state parading their new national defense budgets. They characterized these increases as at least one means of thanking Trump for his decisive leadership on defense issues. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, notably referred to Trump as “daddy,” expressing gratitude for Trump’s role in encouraging European nations to invest more in their own security. As many critics have pointed out, this rhetoric implies that European leaders are taking on the role of supplicants and vassals in the presence of U.S. power.
On August 18, the same day European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, were meeting with Trump at the White House. This open door session revealed the complex geopolitical chess game now playing out between Washington and Brussels in wake of continued aggressions from Russia. Trump’s treatment of Zelenskyy is the focus of much of the firestorm that resulted. In February, he brandished the Ukrainian leader like a prop, then completely embarrassed and demeaned him in front of TV cameras – a moment that made very uncomfortable watching for many.
Second, and connected to the first point, Trump’s public interactions with foreign leaders are further illustrative of his diplomatic style. And he was genuinely blown away by Finnish President Alexander Stubb’s golf course technical skills on the fairway earlier this year. This visit underscored Stubb’s love of informal environments to build rapport. But these social engagements do nothing to lessen the gravity of his harmful policy decisions.
Trump is creating a new communication channel with Putin. He refers to it as a “higher frequency,” one that allows them to communicate directly and bypass usual diplomatic customs and channels. This relationship raises questions about transparency and accountability within U.S. foreign policy, particularly concerning Russia’s aggressive maneuvers in Eastern Europe.
As leaders navigate the complexities of international relations, Trump’s approach suggests a willingness to prioritize personal rapport over established diplomatic norms. His obsession with “making America great again” often manifests through authoritarian measures that challenge conventional governance structures.