Dealing with Donald Trump

The return of Donald J. Trump to the White House in January 2025 did not simply mark a new presidential term. It marked the second act of an unorthodox diplomatic theatre—chaotic, transactional, ego-driven, but never boring. Foreign capitals scrambled to recalibrate their strategies: some sought flattery, others confrontation; some wagered on consistency, others on unpredictability.

We analyse how six world leaders—Britain’s Keir Starmer, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, and China’s Xi Jinping—have sought to engage with Trump 2.0. We evaluate the successes and failures of each approach and what they reveal about the shifting dynamics of twenty-first century power.

Keir Starmer: Courting Continuity from Chaos

Britain’s Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, faced the unenviable task of rebuilding Anglo-American ties after years of Conservative turbulence and Brexit fatigue. With Trump’s return, Starmer’s instincts leaned toward discretion and institutionalism. Avoiding ostentatious displays of personal rapport, he positioned Britain as a dependable partner, subtly emphasising intelligence cooperation and NATO burden-sharing, and leaned on Trump's natural affection for the United Kingdom by reason of ancestral heritage.

Starmer’s approach has been marked by:

• Low-key visits to Washington that focused on security and trade, not spectacle.

• Avoidance of ideological language, reinforcing Britain’s image as the “steady hand.”

• Quiet lobbying from British diplomats to shape Trump’s NATO messaging.

Successes:

• Preserved close intelligence cooperation through the Five Eyes network.

• Avoided the public humiliations Trump occasionally inflicts on European partners.

• Secured an accelerated UK-US trade agreement—although some terms remain ambiguous.

Failures:

• Struggled to gain traction on climate coordination and multilateral development.

• Lacked personal chemistry with Trump, diminishing Britain’s diplomatic influence.

• Saw the United Kingdom increasingly marginalised in major strategic dialogues, particularly regarding Russia and China.

Verdict: Respectable but limited. Starmer avoided confrontation and embarrassment, but Britain under Labour has yet to regain her role as America’s “special advisor.”

Friedrich Merz: Atlanticist Realism Meets Trumpian Transactionalism

Germany’s new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came into office promising to restore fiscal discipline, transatlantic alignment, and a tougher stance on China and Russia. A long-time CDU power-broker and business-friendly conservative, Merz hoped to find common ground with Trump on NATO spending and deregulation.

Merz’s strategy hinged on:

• Aligning with Trump’s call for greater European defence contributions.

• Framing Germany’s arms exports and industrial support to Ukraine as mutually beneficial to US arms producers.

• Avoiding moral rhetoric, focusing instead on transactional diplomacy.

Successes:

• Managed to raise Germany’s defence spending to 2.2% of GDP with promises over ever-growing commitments, appeasing Trump’s demands.

• Improved bilateral business sentiment through German investment in US manufacturing.

• Avoided the public spats that plagued Merkel’s and Scholz’s dealings with Trump.

Failures:

• Struggled to gain concessions on trade tariffs, especially automotive sector protections.

• Failed to persuade Trump to support a coordinated Western approach to China.

• Found himself isolated within the EU for perceived appeasement of American unilateralism.

Verdict: Politically effective but strategically constrained. Merz earned Trump’s respect but at the cost of European unity.

Emmanuel Macron: The Philosopher-Diplomat Meets the Showman

No leader has invested more personal energy into understanding Trump than Emmanuel Macron. Having hosted Trump for Bastille Day during his first term and engaged in marathon philosophical monologues, Macron returned to his familiar blend of intellectual charm and calculated flattery in 2025.

Macron’s gambit this time was subtler: position France as the indispensable bridge between an isolationist America and an ambivalent Europe. He offered:

• Joint strategic visions on global order reform, occasionally indulging Trump’s scepticism of NATO’s bureaucracy.

• Discreet coordination on Middle East policy, particularly post-Iran strikes.

• Personal rapport, leveraging Trump’s respect for strong, performative leadership.

Successes:

• Secured Trump’s backing for a “New Atlantic Charter” summit on Europe’s defence autonomy.

• Enhanced French influence over transatlantic energy and migration policy.

• Maintained direct access to Trump, even during crises (a feat in itself).

Failures:

• Often ended up parroting Trump’s language without securing lasting outcomes.

• Damaged credibility within the EU for perceived self-promotion.

• Failed to deter Trump from imposing tariffs on French digital services.

Verdict: Theatrically effective, strategically ambiguous. Macron remains in the room—but to what end?

Vladimir Putin: From Puppet Master to Supplicant

Vladimir Putin once relished Trump’s chaos. In his first term, Trump disrupted NATO, discredited American intelligence, and questioned NATO's Article 5 (member states' mutual self-defence). But in 2025, amidst Russia’s faltering war in Ukraine and mounting economic distress, Putin returned to the table as a weakened and uncertain figure.

His approach to Trump included:

• Offering conditional ceasefires in Ukraine in exchange for sanctions relief.

• Promising strategic neutrality on China to tempt US accommodation.

• Flattering Trump’s self-image as a global dealmaker.

Successes:

• Bought time on the front line through Trump’s initial refusal to expand US arms deliveries to Ukraine (now partially reversed).

• Fuelled division within NATO, especially amongst Hungary and Slovakia.

• Re-entered selective diplomatic channels despite international pariah status.

Failures:

• Misread Trump’s domestic constraints and anti-Russian sentiment in Congress.

• Lost the initiative to Zelensky in shaping the narrative of war.

• Received no meaningful sanctions relief or recognition of territorial claims.

Verdict: Outmanoeuvred and out of time. The Kremlin’s leverage over Trump has faded into memory.

Volodymyr Zelensky: Heroism Meets Pragmatism

President Volodymyr Zelensky confronted a new American administration with a familiar fear: abandonment. Trump had long criticised aid to Ukraine and praised Putin’s strength. Yet Zelensky adjusted swiftly, trading moral appeals for cold pragmatism and strategic visibility.

His playbook included:

• Emphasising American jobs and arms contracts linked to aid packages.

• Inviting Trump to Ukraine, not for symbolism but for televised “deal talks”.

• Leaning on European allies and Congress to shape Trump’s options.

Successes:

• Secured continued (if reduced) US military support, especially in drones and air defence.

• Framed Ukraine as defending the West’s borders—a message that has resonated with Trump’s nationalist base.

• Trump's 50-day threat to impose new sanctions against Russia (expiring the day this is written; so we'll see what happens).

Failures:

• Public humiliation in his first press conference with Trump.

• Faced delays and unpredictability in weapons deliveries.

• Remains heavily reliant on Congressional Republicans for defence appropriations.

Verdict: Tactically nimble, strategically exposed. Zelensky has not lost Trump—but cannot count on him.

Xi Jinping: Calculated Caution and Long-Term Leverage

China’s President Xi Jinping views Trump with a mix of disdain and utility. In 2025, he adopted a posture of strategic ambiguity: seeking to exploit US-European tensions without overtly antagonising Trump’s instincts.

His engagement has been minimal but significant:

• Backchannel communications through trade envoys and intelligence officials.

• Selective cooperation on North Korea and rare-earth minerals.

• Deliberate restraint on Taiwan to avoid triggering Trump’s wrath.

Successes:

• Maintained bilateral trade flows despite tariff threats, which Trump has directed more at India, China's strategic rival.

• Prevented escalation in the South China Sea through selective de-escalation.

• Used Trump’s erratic diplomacy to position China as a stable counterweight in the Global South.

Failures:

• Gained no traction on lifting technology sanctions.

• Saw Trump increase military cooperation with Japan and the Philippines.

• Failed to displace US influence in critical semiconductor supply chains.

Verdict: Strategically aloof, patiently opportunistic. Xi plays the long game—and watches Trump closely.

Diplomacy in the Age of Disruption

Donald Trump’s second term has proven no more predictable than his first. World leaders have adapted in different ways—some through flattery, others through institutions; some with success, others with costly miscalculations.

What emerges from this diplomatic mosaic is not a coherent foreign policy doctrine but a contest of personalities. The leaders who succeed are those who understand that engaging Trump is not about echoing his worldview, but about presenting him with victories he can claim without themselves conceding substance.

In this respect, diplomacy under Trump is not dead. It has merely changed shape—like so much else in a world remade by war, pandemic and populism.