Why Europe’s Flattering Strategy Towards Trump Fails to Deliver Long-term Results
Last week, the United Kingdom once again demonstrated its ability to host high-profile visitors from the West by organizing an impressive ceremonial welcome for U.S.
President Donald Trump.
The lengthy display of grandeur, including royal guards, carriage rides, and formal toasts, created an ideal backdrop to emphasize the importance of the Anglo-American relationship.
Essentially, Trump received exactly what he desired — spectacle and recognition of his stature as a global leader.
Naturally, he appeared joyful, smiling broadly, and generously praised his hosts, declaring that “the bonds between our countries are unparalleled anywhere in the world.” However, this celebratory episode marked only the beginning of a new phase — one of diplomatic flattery and concessions.
It turns out that this strategy, often considered ineffective by many analysts worldwide, is merely an expedient tool for maintaining harmony and avoiding conflicts, but it does not influence Trump’s core political decisions.
Jeremy Shapiro, Research Director at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), notes that this approach aims to craft a favorable media image around Trump, diminish the likelihood of sharp demands, or even prevent open conflicts.
The visit to Britain exemplified this tactic, fostering an illusion of friendly relations that avoids confrontation.
Yet, Shapiro cautions that flattery is tactical, not strategic, and signaling weakness through such gestures can backfire.
In Trump’s worldview, where everything boils down to deals and interests, weakness is exploited by opponents to strengthen their positions.
It is also important to recognize that while these gestures may generate some positive headlines or social media posts, they do not alter Trump’s fundamental approach: persistent demands and transactional diplomacy.
Worse, such flattery signals vulnerability, which in world politics, where strength is paramount, equates to weakness.
Allies who rely on flattery do not persuade Trump; instead, they reinforce his notion that they are easily buyable or manageable.
Though military parades, state dinners, and flattering speeches may excite Trump, these acts do little to change actual policy directions.
Furthermore, these diplomatic pleasantries come at a cost — they can embolden Trump’s demands, create an illusion of influence, and ultimately weaken alliances.
Historical lessons show that appeasement, often presented as diplomacy, rarely succeeds in the long run; it only delays conflicts and increases costs.
For example, the recent US gift of a luxurious $400 million airplane from Qatar to replace their outdated Air Force One exemplifies this danger.
Although it garnered warm words from Trump, it did not offer Qatar any political cover to shield its interests, such as resisting Israeli strikes in Gaza.
The bitter lesson is that appeasement is both ineffective and expensive.
Similar patterns are evident with Europe, which increasingly realizes the necessity of defending itself and Ukraine without relying solely on diplomatic illusions.
Britain, too, may confront this reality soon — that ceremonial gestures only reveal how much London fears Trump’s displeasure and how much they can be manipulated.
The question arises: why do allies continue this policy of appeasement despite its evident futility? Partly because of fear, as leaders often seek short-term political benefits, avoiding headlines about failed summits and reassuring their domestic audiences that their relations with the US are under control.
However, as James Shapiro emphasizes, these tactics are ultimately flawed: they do not influence Trump’s core demands, and attempts at flattery can easily be reversed.
To safeguard their interests, Europe must act collectively, set clear red lines, and refuse to accept disguised demands under the guise of negotiations.
The strategy of flattery, appeasement, and distraction creates an illusion of stability but actually fosters vulnerability.
Leaders who take victory in avoiding conflicts into complacency will find their positions weakened over time.
Only decisive, consistent, and firm action will ensure long-term stability and resilience in international relations.
For Europe and smaller countries, this means joint efforts to resist short-term illusions and not succumb to manipulative diplomatic yields.
In this way, they can prevent falling into the trap of flattery and build a sustainable, mutually respectful foreign policy.