Foreign policy isn't a reality television show where the loudest voice wins the room. Yet, watch any high-stakes international summit, and you'll see a recurring pattern that leaves seasoned diplomats shaking their heads. When former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul recently evaluated Donald Trump's public posture alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping, he didn't mince words. He called out an asymmetric display of flattery that projected an embarrassing weakness on the global stage.
If you look closely at how modern American diplomacy functions under populist leadership, a troubling trend emerges. Leaders trade substance for spectacle, often walking into diplomatic traps disguised as friendly handshakes. For a deeper dive into this area, we recommend: this related article.
The Asymmetry of Praise
Diplomacy relies on reciprocity. When two heads of state meet, mutual respect is usually communicated through balanced rhetoric and calculated posture. Trump tossed caution—and tactical advantage—to the wind by repeatedly labeling Xi Jinping a "friend" and a "great leader" during their high-profile meeting.
Xi didn't return the favor. For broader details on the matter, comprehensive analysis can be read at USA Today.
Not once did the Chinese leader refer to Trump as his friend or bestow similar effusive praise. This imbalance tells a clear story to international observers in Beijing, Brussels, and Moscow. It signals an eagerness for approval that foreign autocrats know how to exploit. McFaul pointed out that this unreciprocated warmth isn't just unnecessary; it fundamentally undermines the negotiating stance of the United States.
When you treat a strategic competitor like an idol while they treat you like a transactional counterpart, you've already lost half the battle before policy is even discussed.
Walking Straight Into the Thucydides Trap
The rhetoric got worse when Xi subtly invoked the Thucydides Trap—the classic historical concept describing how an established power fears an emerging challenger, often leading to conflict. Mentioning this concept to an American president in the heart of Washington is a calculated move. It frames China as the inevitable rising superpower and casts the United States as the declining incumbent.
Instead of pushing back against a narrative that diminishes American standing, the administration leaned into cordial pleasantries. Strategic studies experts quickly noted the mismatch. Sitting quietly while a geopolitical rival outlines your nation's decline isn't strength. It is a masterclass in missing the subtext.
Why Personal Chemistry is a Poor Substitute for Strategy
We've spent years being told that personal relationships between strongman leaders can bypass institutional gridlock. History suggests the exact opposite. Relying on "great chemistry" usually leads to bad foreign policy because it ignores structural conflicts of interest over trade, technology, and regional security.
Autocrats like Xi Jinping play the long game. They measure power in economic output, supply chain dominance, and technological independence, not in how many times an American president calls them a friend in front of the cameras. When Washington prioritizes performative camaraderie over hard-nosed realism, allies grow nervous and adversaries smell blood in the water.
True authority doesn't need constant verbal validation. If you have to keep telling the world someone is your great friend, you're usually trying to convince yourself.
Evaluate future international summits by looking past the handshakes and listening for the missing words. That is where the real power dynamic lives.
