In the recent negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska, it became clear once again that politics is not just a field of hard calculations; it is also an arena for leveraging an opponent’s personality traits.
Kabul 24: Putin, with years of experience in power games, knew well how to shift the conversation from reason to emotion. He simply validated one of Trump’s earlier claims: that if Trump, not Biden, were in the White House, the Ukraine war might not have escalated to this point.
This affirmation was enough to elate Trump, who openly praised this part of Putin’s remarks after the meeting, rating the negotiation a “ten out of ten.”This episode cannot be dismissed as mere rhetorical finesse. Behind it lies a psychological understanding of a personality long portrayed in the media as a classic narcissist:
someone with an insatiable need for admiration, intolerant of the slightest disregard, and prone to making major decisions based on the fleeting thrill of praise rather than long-term calculations. Such leaders, though outwardly formidable and prone to opening negotiations with bravado—like Trump flaunting warplanes and bombers—reveal a clear vulnerability at the negotiating table.Putin pinpointed this weakness with precision.
He demonstrated that to gain an advantage, one doesn’t always need hard bargaining or threats; sometimes, a single, well-calculated sentence can do the work of an army of arguments.
This tactic is not new. Putin has used this approach with other leaders, and Trump has shown himself to be a politician who, more than being swayed by logical calculations, can be managed with the language of emotion and flattery.
In 2018, Trump initially called North Korea’s leader “Little Rocket Man” and threatened “fire and fury,” but when Kim dubbed him a “wise president” and sent flattering letters, Trump’s tone shifted, and he spoke of “beautiful love letters.”
After Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, expectations were high for Trump to take a hard stance, yet he repeatedly called Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince a “great partner of America” and a “strong man,” swayed by Mohammed bin Salman’s praise of Trump’s “powerful leadership” alongside Saudi diplomatic charm.
At the 2019 NATO summit in Brussels, European leaders’ criticisms enraged Trump, but when Macron praised his “decisive leadership,” Trump’s demeanor quickly softened.The history of diplomacy is replete with instances where leaders have disarmed rivals with calculated flattery.
At the Tehran Conference, Stalin won Churchill’s favor for opening a second front by praising his military acumen. Mao Zedong, in his historic meeting with Nixon, called him a “courageous man” who broke the China taboo—a remark that so gratified Nixon’s ego that it paved the way for a historic agreement.
Even Henry Kissinger, the 20th-century master of negotiation, often invoked the historical stature and pride of his counterparts in Vietnam peace talks to weaken their resistance.The effectiveness of this approach lies elsewhere: in exploiting the emotional needs of the counterpart. When a politician like Trump experiences praise not merely as pleasant but as an existential need, targeted flattery becomes the key that unlocks closed doors.
This tool can yield striking short-term results, though in the long term, if its deceptive nature becomes apparent, trust can collapse.The Alaska story is a reminder that diplomacy is not shaped solely at the negotiating table but also in the minds and psyches of the players.
Trump is a politician tamed more by stroking his ego and relentless praise than by dry calculations; Putin, with the skill of a seasoned chess player, turned this weakness into a piece serving Russia’s interests. Yet, in politics, falling for a rival’s flattery is not everything. Recognizing an opponent’s weakness is only half the battle; the other half lies in the art of striking the right chord—one that resonates only when played with a rational and precise strategy.
