Trump and Diplomacy Part 5

 Diplomacy, Private Power Blocs, Corporate Alliances, Decentralized, Tech-Driven Diplomacy and Faith…

By: E. Eugene Webb PhD

PART 5 of 7 

I Asked: That is an excellent observation. So, when the politicians, the news media and social media go bonkers over the Trump/Zelensky dustup are they wrong or just uninformed?

ChatGPT said: They’re likely both wrong and uninformed—but also playing to their own interests.

1. The Nature of Political & Media Reactions

• Politicians, news media, and social media thrive on outrage and oversimplification.

• Most reactions aren’t about actual diplomacy—they’re about public narratives, political agendas, and audience engagement.

• Complex diplomatic moves get boiled down into “scandal” or “betrayal”, missing the strategic calculations at play.

2. The Trump-Zelensky Dustup: A Geopolitical Reality Check

If Trump made a statement or move that upset Zelensky:

• Was it a misstep? Maybe, if it weakened U.S. leverage.

• Was it part of a negotiation strategy? Possibly, if he was setting conditions for future deals.

• Was it a fundamental betrayal? Unlikely—because nations act based on interests, not emotions.

3. Why the Outrage?

• Politicians: Use the moment to attack or defend Trump, depending on their side.

• Media: Needs headlines, conflict, and drama to drive engagement.

• Social Media: Reacts emotionally, spreading misinformation or hyperbole without full context.

4. What They Miss

• Diplomacy isn’t personal it’s transactional. Trump (like any leader) makes moves based on perceived U.S. interests, not on emotional loyalty to Ukraine.

• Zelensky has his own playbook too. He’ll publicly push back if it helps Ukraine’s position, even if behind closed doors, he’s still negotiating.

• Real diplomacy happens outside the media circus. What’s being said in private matters far more than what’s being shouted on Twitter.

A Final Thought

The outrage machine will do its thing, but serious diplomacy isn’t conducted through press conferences or social media soundbites. If there was a dustup, the real question isn’t who’s mad—it’s who gained leverage and who lost it.

Would you agree that media-driven diplomacy often does more harm than good?

I Answered: No, I would not agree with that statement. If either party is involved in what we are now calling, for the moment, our high-stakes business negotiations loses popular support as a result of their negotiating position, does that not affect their future ability to negotiate? This is where the new world order of information distribution becomes the third party in the process? 

ChatGPT said: That’s an excellent counterpoint. You're absolutely right public perception matters in diplomacy, and in today's world, information itself has become a key player in negotiations.

1. The "Third Party" in Diplomacy: Public Opinion & Information Distribution

• In the past, diplomacy was largely conducted behind closed doors, with leaders controlling the narrative.

• Today, real-time media coverage, leaks, and social media shape the battlefield just as much as military or economic power.

• A leader’s ability to negotiate is now tied to public perception, and losing popular support can weaken their hand.

2. The New Reality: Public Sentiment Shapes Diplomatic Strength

• Leaders need domestic backing to execute agreements—if a negotiation position angers their base, their hands can be tied.

• Social media amplifies diplomatic missteps in real time, making it harder to course-correct.

• Opponents can weaponize information to pressure leaders into concessions.

o Example: Ukraine’s government publicly calling out weak Western support forces U.S. and EU leaders to act.

3. How This Changes Modern Diplomacy

• Negotiators must now manage two audiences:

1. Their counterpart at the table.

2. Their own people (and, in some cases, the world).

• Information leaks & media narratives shape outcomes.

o Example: The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan—negotiated over years—was shaped by a few days of chaotic images, destroying credibility.

• Popular pressure can force changes mid-negotiation.

o Example: Brexit negotiations—the U.K. government had to shift stances based on public and political backlash.

4. The Strategic Use of Public Outrage

• Leaders sometimes intentionally let negotiations spill into public view to gain leverage.

o Example: Zelensky calling out Western nations for delays in aid—by doing so publicly, he pressured them into acting.

• However, too much public exposure can weaken diplomacy by forcing leaders into rigid positions.

o Example: The Trump-Kim Jong-un talks—public spectacle made flexibility harder.

5. Conclusion: Information is Now an Active Player

• The media and public opinion are no longer just observers, they are active forces shaping diplomatic success or failure.

• Leaders can’t ignore the public dimension, or they risk losing both negotiation power and political viability.

• This “third party” in diplomacy—real-time information distribution—can be leveraged or can completely derail negotiations.

So, diplomacy today isn’t just two sides negotiating—it’s two sides negotiating while a third, global audience watches, reacts, and pressures them in real time. That fundamentally changes how power is wielded.

Would you say this shift has made diplomacy more transparent and accountable or just more volatile and performative?

I replied: I would say a large table of old men sipping cognac and smoking cigars or the UN is not going to be the form for managing the relations between nation states in the future. 

See Part 6