WASHINGTON (AP) — The current president, Donald Trump, known for his background in real estate, is showcasing his diplomatic approach early on in his new term. It resembles a high-stakes business deal, with his main objective being to emerge from the negotiation in a favorable position. This style is evident in various aspects, from his trade disputes with Canada and Mexico to his handling of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and even in his choice of the first country to visit during his second term.
According to retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who serves as the president’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Trump’s diplomacy revolves around economics as the primary driver of international relations. His approach is transactional, prioritizing leverage over camaraderie, financial gains over principles, and hard power over soft power.
The implications extend beyond mere negotiating tactics, as Trump’s actions are raising concerns about the established post-World War II global order and the perception of American leadership worldwide. His foreign policy direction appears more focused inward, emphasizing fiscal outcomes and questioning the effectiveness of traditional American soft-power tools like the U.S. Agency for International Development. Additionally, he has hinted at the possibility of not defending NATO allies who fail to meet defense spending targets set by the alliance.
While diplomacy often involves negotiation and compromise, Trump, drawing from his background as a high-profile real estate negotiator, brings a distinct “what’s-in-it-for-me” approach to his interactions with allies and adversaries alike. His inclination towards viewing deals in terms of clear winners and losers is evident as he transitions back to the White House.
Critics have raised concerns about the practicality of Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy. Edward Frantz, a historian from the University of Indianapolis, suggests that the complexities of global relations may require a more nuanced strategy that goes beyond a simplistic win-lose mentality. Frantz compares Trump’s approach to legendary football coach Vince Lombardi’s philosophy of “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing,” emphasizing the need for adaptability in diplomatic endeavors.
Trump’s decision to prioritize Saudi Arabia as his initial overseas visit for the new term, citing the kingdom’s substantial investment commitments to the U.S., further underscores his emphasis on economic interests in foreign relations. This move deviates from the traditional practice of visiting long-standing allies like the United Kingdom first, highlighting Trump’s prioritization of financial considerations in international engagements.
In his interactions with leaders like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump places a significant emphasis on power dynamics and leverage. He frequently references who holds “the cards” in the negotiation, signaling his focus on leveraging advantages in diplomatic dealings.
Overall, Trump’s distinctive diplomatic style, characterized by a transactional and economically-centered approach, is reshaping America’s role on the global stage and prompting a reassessment of traditional diplomatic norms.
Tensions simmered as efforts were made to smooth things over between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy following their recent contentious meeting in the Oval Office. Trump and Vice President JD Vance expressed disappointment in Zelenskyy for what they perceived as a lack of appreciation for the substantial U.S. aid provided since Russia’s invasion three years prior. Zelenskyy later described the meeting as “regrettable” and indicated his willingness to proceed with a minerals deal with the U.S., even without the specific security assurances sought by Ukraine.
During his address to Congress, Trump acknowledged Zelenskyy’s attempts to mend fences and announced plans to dispatch senior advisers to Saudi Arabia for discussions with Ukrainian officials. Despite this conciliatory tone, Trump soon reverted to criticizing Zelenskyy, questioning Ukraine’s ability to sustain the conflict with Russia. He suggested that dealing with Russia might be more feasible given their perceived advantage in negotiations.
Trump’s shifting focus towards Moscow and his pressure on Zelenskyy represent a departure from longstanding U.S. policy towards Russia, a departure not seen even during previous attempts at diplomatic resets by past administrations. While predecessors like Clinton, Bush, and Obama maintained a cautious stance towards Moscow, Trump’s administration has shown a willingness to engage with Putin and Russia in a more cooperative manner.
This change in approach includes a freeze on military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, a cessation of cyber operations against Russia, and the dismantling of a program targeting Russian oligarchs to penalize the Kremlin for its actions. Trump’s emphasis on a transactional approach to diplomacy, rooted in addressing trade imbalances and asserting American interests, has been a hallmark of his foreign policy strategy. This approach has led to trade tensions with key partners like Mexico and Canada, with Trump imposing and subsequently delaying tariffs on various imports in response to concerns about trade deficits and other grievances.
Overall, Trump’s evolving stance on Ukraine, Russia, and international trade reflects a departure from previous administrations and a distinct approach characterized by a focus on transactional diplomacy and economic interests.
The text could be rewritten as:
“The lumber industry remains a point of contention between the US and Canada, with President Trump vowing to take action on reciprocal tariffs to address the trade imbalance. Trump criticized Canada for unfair practices in the lumber and dairy sectors, accusing them of taking advantage of the US. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pushed back against Trump’s aggressive stance, emphasizing that his country will not back down from the trade dispute. This clash highlights Trump’s readiness to use strong measures to resolve disputes, even at the risk of straining long-standing alliances. Trudeau, normally a center-left figure, was surprised by Trump’s approach and even cited a conservative source to criticize the unnecessary trade battle. The exchange between the two leaders reflects the broader tensions in international trade relations.”
