On ascending the throne in 1881, Tsar Alexander III of Russia proclaimed that “From henceforth, all matters of state will be discussed quietly between Ourselves and God.” Both parts of this statement contain excellent advice for contemporary leaders. If you have a direct line to God (and several obviously think that they do), you should use it. And whether talking to the Divinity or anyone else, international affairs should be discussed quietly.
This is probably pointless advice when offered to products of democratic political systems; and in the case of President Trump he would need to experience something like a lightning bolt on the road to Damascus to follow it. Nonetheless, recent days have, or should have, offered a lesson in the folly and dangers of megaphone “diplomacy.”
The initial U.S. proposal (or demand) to Ukraine for control of its mineral reserves was indeed completely illegitimate and utterly unacceptable to Kyiv or any independent and self-respecting government on the face of the planet. However, given the weakness of Ukraine’s position and the already fragile state of his relations with the Trump administration, it was very foolish of President Zelensky to allow his officials to say things like this in public.
All Zelensky had to say was something along the lines of “very interesting proposal with positive aspects which we will consider carefully,” etc., and then leave it to Ukrainian negotiators to take a firm line with their U.S. opposite numbers in private. He’s an actor! He must know how to murmur “rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb” before a public audience without actually saying anything.
Much more foolish, boorish, undignified, ill-considered, dangerous and plain wrong however was Trump’s response, calling Zelensky a “dictator” and a “modestly successful comedian,” giving an utterly false figure of his popularity ratings and demanding that Ukraine hold presidential elections. He then made this even worse by refusing to call Putin a dictator and instructing the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to vote against a resolution including language blaming Russian aggression for the Ukraine War.
Incredibly enough, this put the U.S. in the same camp as Russia, voting against a huge majority of the U.N. General Assembly. Even China — China, for Heaven’s sake — abstained on the resolution. This kind of thing is bad for the Trump administration and dangerous for the peace process, because it allows opponents of Trump and enemies of the peace process to denounce it as “surrender” to Russia motivated by personal and ideological amity between Trump and Putin, rather than a necessary step to end a destructive war, eliminate grave dangers to the world and costs to the U.S., and respect the will of a large majority of the international community.
It is indeed crucial to moderate U.S. official rhetoric against Russia and create the necessary atmosphere for successful negotiations; but what Trump could have said calmly and reasonably is that the Biden administration’s habit of trying to negotiate with Russia and China while hurling public abuse at them was profoundly counter-productive; and that at a very delicate moment in the peace negotiations the U.S., while not necessarily disagreeing with the language of the U.N. resolution, therefore thought it better to abstain rather than risk undermining the talks. Much of the time, all leaders really need to say in public is something along the lines of, “We believe firmly in a world of universal peace and harmony and goodwill and suchlike.” Chinese diplomats used to be very good at that until they started imitating the public language of their American colleagues.
The one thing to be said for Trump is that his locker-room language seems to reflect a locker-room spirit. In other words, he hurls insults and mockery at people, but really does not seem to bear a long-term grudge if they reply in kind. However crude his language and ruthless his approach to negotiations, he is in the end interested in the actual deal — sometimes quite a reasonable one, as may turn out to be the case with the U.S.-Ukrainian agreement on minerals. And this seems to work quite well at home.
In international affairs however it can be disastrous. Not many world leaders are as pachydermous as Trump, who could give your average rhinoceros a run for its money in this regard; and above all, insults to them are very often seen as insults to their countries, which will not be so readily forgiven. Sometimes indeed Trump’s remarks are open — and utterly gratuitous — insults to countries, including some old and close allies. Trump may extract some reasonable concessions from Mexico and Canada through a mixture of negotiations and pressure. He will not do so by renaming the Gulf of Mexico and calling the Canadian prime minister the governor of the 51st U.S. state.
As to the European leaders! They remind me of Robert Burns’ mouse, when its plans for a secure and peaceful slumber were disturbed by the plough:
“Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beasties,
O, what a panic’s in yer breasties!
Ye need na run tae Trump sae hasty,
Wi’ bickerin brattle!”
From the way they talk, anyone would think that the U.S. had already withdrawn from NATO, Russian troops were at the gates of Warsaw, and BlackRock (the former U.S. employer of the next German Chancellor Friedrich Merz) had taken away Merz’s pension.
None of this hysteria is warranted. The Trump administration will not allow further NATO expansion, but it has shown no sign whatsoever of withdrawing from NATO, which is far too important as a base for the projection of U.S. power in the Middle East and support for Israel, which the Trump administration has no intention of giving up. Article 5 remains in place. Europeans are talking about a return to Yalta and the Cold War; but during the Cold War, Soviet tanks were in the middle of Germany. Today Russian ones are in eastern Ukraine. Russia has neither the ability nor the desire to attack NATO within its existing borders, unless NATO intervenes in Ukraine. Trump’s threatened tariffs notwithstanding, the U.S. and European economies are very closely linked, and — as BlackRock itself demonstrates — their financial industries are virtually joined at the hip. Merz’s pension is entirely safe. There is plenty of time for European establishments to think carefully, soberly and privately about the future of European security; and while they are thinking, not to talk so much.
