I've considered this as well, and its true from a purely rational reasonable POV, however narcissists are also capricious and what they want is not always what you think you are giving in a game-theory style analysis
"The truth is that diplomacy has always involved all sorts of bullying and browbeating behind closed doors."
Right, and among the results of this kind of diplomacy was World War I, a civilization-destroying catastrophe in absolutely none of the participants' interest, followed by a peace settlement so badly bungled that another, even more catastrophic world war was inevitable, followed by a long period of nuclear=armed tension during which one or the other of the nuclear-armed powers, through accident or misunderstanding, repeatedly came close to destroying organized human life. Traditional diplomacy has been an utter, disastrous failure. Is tht what you're recommending.
As usual, your tough-minded conclusions are exactly wrong. Only painstaking confidence-building, transparent at every step, and based on the explicit recognition that international competition is wholly irrational and that weapons of mass destruction are too dangerous to allow any state to possess, offers any hope of long-range survival.
This seems more like a critique of what diplomacy is, rather than a case for some alternative diplomacy. I think Damir has the right idea, we should see diplomacy between nations clearly, boils and all. Then we can realize just how fallen nations states are. For better or worse, Trump has bumbled his way to pulling back the veil.
Humans aren't rational so I don't really understand your second point.
Since I was born and brought up in Delhi, and emigrated to the US in mid-90s, I do have strong opinions on what just transpired between Trump and Modi/India. The point Damir makes about diplomacy not needing to be secretive and polite is on a lot stronger grounds when discussing Trump's dealings with the EU and the UK, both of which have been benefiting from US' largess (security blanket, access to US market etc.) for decades, and that have rebuffed successive US Presidents request to increase their share of contribution to NATO to 2% of GDP. These nations absolutely needed Trump treatment of humiliation and a threat of leaving the NATO to make them wake up to reality.
Indeed, Damir's prescription on how to conduct diplomacy applies retroactively to how US should have conducted their diplomacy vis-a-vis the EU.
With India, though, I think Trump's instincts have served him poorly. He does not understand that India would rather be poor than be subservient to other nations - this has been built into its psyche since its independence in 1947, probably because Hindu India got its independence after almost a thousand years of Muslim invasions/rule and British rule. That explains its "Strategic Autonomy" doctrine, and multiple alliances, so it is not dependent on any one power. For this privilege, India understands it won't get the Most Favored Nation trade status from the US, or the latest US weapons platform - and certainly not a technology sharing agreement. By the way, a key part of diplomacy is knowing the country you are dealing with; it is obvious Trump did not seek the counsel of South Asian experts at the State department.
Russia, on the other hand, has offered India such a relationship - latest weaponry (S400, nuclear-powered submarines, Brah-Mos hypersonic missiles through a joint venture based out of India) -and no demands for India to support Russia in international forums, including the Ukrainian war (India has remained neutral).
But leaving aside how unique India is, Trump's approach was just bad on several levels. For one, he blamed India for taking advantage of low Russian oil prices - but that was an outcome of what the US and the EU proposed during the Biden administration. Trump could have proposed uniform tariffs on all countries benefiting from the Russian crude oil purchase - China and Turkey specifically - but he singled out India. Indians, like any one else in that position, were outraged at the unfairness and arbitrariness of Trump's use of power over a weaker country. Many Indians have wondered: if the US could behave so capriciously with so little leverage (India's trade with the US is about 1.5% of its GDP), how reliable could it be in times of war?
Trump sought to use the threat of close relations with Pakistan to shake India down; India responded by doubling down on its relationship with Russia, and improving its relations with China. Trump set out to break Russia China alliance (that seems to be the main driver for his desire to end the Ukrainian war), and instead ended up not only strengthening it, but also adding India to that alliance. I mean - this is a strategic disaster for the US - and while US and India relations will improve, and a trade deal will be reached eventually, India will no longer be looking to buy US weapon platforms - that you can be sure of. They will buy from the West (France, UK, Norway) to hedge against over reliance on Russia, but not the US.
In diplomacy, you have to be aware of a nation's sensitivities, especially those harbored by nations that were colonized by the West of which the memories are still fresh, and cordial with nations with which one has little leverage. A great example is how Trump treated Cyril Ramaphosa, the President of South Africa, on his last visit to the White House. Please check out the recent podcast from Economist on the impact of Trump's brilliant diplomacy: https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2025/09/02/trump-card-could-china-pose-a-solution-for-south-africa.
The last point I'll make is this: US is forcing EVERY country to limit its dependence on the US; it is not inconceivable that the US will find itself isolated on the world stage. And, it will have to spend a lot of resources in the future in the form of sweet heart trade deals and diplomatic effort just to win back allies it already had.
I am not sure one can use "diplomacy" and "Trump" in the same sentence. Sure, even a blind squirrel can sometimes find an acorn, but confusing short-sighted narcissistic barbarism with diplomacy is an egregious act of "sane-washing".
All of this is about Trump not getting a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, end of story...
Interesting piece. There's a really good book called Realpolitik by John Bew, which emphasises that realpolitik is in reality the attainment of concrete ends, not abstract values, which cannot be found in practice. Trump's brash and bullying persona is not the enactment of realpolitik but its own form of idealism reflecting an American supremacy which has now passed.
I do not think you are wrong to say diplomacy has historically involved all sorts of bullying and brow-beating but it has also involved ingenuity, necessary compromise, and tacit recognition of the other's needs for our own good. I am not sure Trumpism really delivers on any of these things which are just as important to diplomacy as browbeating and bullying are.
I've considered this as well, and its true from a purely rational reasonable POV, however narcissists are also capricious and what they want is not always what you think you are giving in a game-theory style analysis
"The truth is that diplomacy has always involved all sorts of bullying and browbeating behind closed doors."
Right, and among the results of this kind of diplomacy was World War I, a civilization-destroying catastrophe in absolutely none of the participants' interest, followed by a peace settlement so badly bungled that another, even more catastrophic world war was inevitable, followed by a long period of nuclear=armed tension during which one or the other of the nuclear-armed powers, through accident or misunderstanding, repeatedly came close to destroying organized human life. Traditional diplomacy has been an utter, disastrous failure. Is tht what you're recommending.
As usual, your tough-minded conclusions are exactly wrong. Only painstaking confidence-building, transparent at every step, and based on the explicit recognition that international competition is wholly irrational and that weapons of mass destruction are too dangerous to allow any state to possess, offers any hope of long-range survival.
This seems more like a critique of what diplomacy is, rather than a case for some alternative diplomacy. I think Damir has the right idea, we should see diplomacy between nations clearly, boils and all. Then we can realize just how fallen nations states are. For better or worse, Trump has bumbled his way to pulling back the veil.
Humans aren't rational so I don't really understand your second point.
"Humans aren't rational"
Oh yes we are. Ego ipse dixi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4
Since I was born and brought up in Delhi, and emigrated to the US in mid-90s, I do have strong opinions on what just transpired between Trump and Modi/India. The point Damir makes about diplomacy not needing to be secretive and polite is on a lot stronger grounds when discussing Trump's dealings with the EU and the UK, both of which have been benefiting from US' largess (security blanket, access to US market etc.) for decades, and that have rebuffed successive US Presidents request to increase their share of contribution to NATO to 2% of GDP. These nations absolutely needed Trump treatment of humiliation and a threat of leaving the NATO to make them wake up to reality.
Indeed, Damir's prescription on how to conduct diplomacy applies retroactively to how US should have conducted their diplomacy vis-a-vis the EU.
With India, though, I think Trump's instincts have served him poorly. He does not understand that India would rather be poor than be subservient to other nations - this has been built into its psyche since its independence in 1947, probably because Hindu India got its independence after almost a thousand years of Muslim invasions/rule and British rule. That explains its "Strategic Autonomy" doctrine, and multiple alliances, so it is not dependent on any one power. For this privilege, India understands it won't get the Most Favored Nation trade status from the US, or the latest US weapons platform - and certainly not a technology sharing agreement. By the way, a key part of diplomacy is knowing the country you are dealing with; it is obvious Trump did not seek the counsel of South Asian experts at the State department.
Russia, on the other hand, has offered India such a relationship - latest weaponry (S400, nuclear-powered submarines, Brah-Mos hypersonic missiles through a joint venture based out of India) -and no demands for India to support Russia in international forums, including the Ukrainian war (India has remained neutral).
But leaving aside how unique India is, Trump's approach was just bad on several levels. For one, he blamed India for taking advantage of low Russian oil prices - but that was an outcome of what the US and the EU proposed during the Biden administration. Trump could have proposed uniform tariffs on all countries benefiting from the Russian crude oil purchase - China and Turkey specifically - but he singled out India. Indians, like any one else in that position, were outraged at the unfairness and arbitrariness of Trump's use of power over a weaker country. Many Indians have wondered: if the US could behave so capriciously with so little leverage (India's trade with the US is about 1.5% of its GDP), how reliable could it be in times of war?
Trump sought to use the threat of close relations with Pakistan to shake India down; India responded by doubling down on its relationship with Russia, and improving its relations with China. Trump set out to break Russia China alliance (that seems to be the main driver for his desire to end the Ukrainian war), and instead ended up not only strengthening it, but also adding India to that alliance. I mean - this is a strategic disaster for the US - and while US and India relations will improve, and a trade deal will be reached eventually, India will no longer be looking to buy US weapon platforms - that you can be sure of. They will buy from the West (France, UK, Norway) to hedge against over reliance on Russia, but not the US.
In diplomacy, you have to be aware of a nation's sensitivities, especially those harbored by nations that were colonized by the West of which the memories are still fresh, and cordial with nations with which one has little leverage. A great example is how Trump treated Cyril Ramaphosa, the President of South Africa, on his last visit to the White House. Please check out the recent podcast from Economist on the impact of Trump's brilliant diplomacy: https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2025/09/02/trump-card-could-china-pose-a-solution-for-south-africa.
The last point I'll make is this: US is forcing EVERY country to limit its dependence on the US; it is not inconceivable that the US will find itself isolated on the world stage. And, it will have to spend a lot of resources in the future in the form of sweet heart trade deals and diplomatic effort just to win back allies it already had.
I am not sure one can use "diplomacy" and "Trump" in the same sentence. Sure, even a blind squirrel can sometimes find an acorn, but confusing short-sighted narcissistic barbarism with diplomacy is an egregious act of "sane-washing".
All of this is about Trump not getting a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, end of story...
Interesting piece. There's a really good book called Realpolitik by John Bew, which emphasises that realpolitik is in reality the attainment of concrete ends, not abstract values, which cannot be found in practice. Trump's brash and bullying persona is not the enactment of realpolitik but its own form of idealism reflecting an American supremacy which has now passed.
I do not think you are wrong to say diplomacy has historically involved all sorts of bullying and brow-beating but it has also involved ingenuity, necessary compromise, and tacit recognition of the other's needs for our own good. I am not sure Trumpism really delivers on any of these things which are just as important to diplomacy as browbeating and bullying are.
Never Trumper here. Even I can see that the trump hate is so strong it's hard to have a foreign policy discussion these days.