Foreign Policy Is Personal
The missing link in foreign policy
“One man is more concerned with the impression he makes on the rest of mankind, another with the impression the rest of mankind makes on him.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
The Pressure Point
Years of dismissing, mocking, and underestimating Trump have left many foreign policy experts without the tools to handle him. The irony? While they refuse to take him seriously, other countries—who don’t have the luxury of indifference—are scrambling to figure out how to navigate him.
Ukraine, in fact, is precisely in this situation. Is Trump a madman, a narcissist, a playboy? The truth of the matter is who cares? Ukraine needs to deal with him, court him, and seduce him if possible. Not because he’s Trump, but because he is both Trump AND the President of the United States.
But Ukraine’s predicament reveals a deeper lesson—one that extends beyond European affairs or U.S.-Russia relations. Democrats can’t crack Trump’s mindset, and pro-Ukraine Trumpists misread the game, clinging to Cold War rhetoric and Reaganism. In the end, none of it matters—everything hinges on Trump’s personal equation with Zelensky. Convincing Trump isn’t about doctrine or alliances; it’s about leveraging his impulses.
So why is everyone playing by the rulebook when foreign policy is really a game of egos?
1- Foreign policy orthodoxy clings to the notion that institutions, not individuals, shape the course of history—overlooking the enduring truth that leaders, with their ambitions, grudges, and whims, often bend policy frameworks to their will.
Foreign policy analysis often treats diplomacy like an easy and unchallenging game of chess—focusing on rules, institutions, and tactical maneuvers while assuming that all players follow the same logic.
Policymakers are trained to master the mechanics of treaties, sanctions, and multilateral frameworks, believing these tools alone can shape global events. But this rulebook approach ignores a critical factor: the player across the board.
In reality, not every leader plays by the established moves. Some, like Donald Trump, flip the board entirely—operating on instinct, personal vendettas, and gut decisions rather than strategic doctrine. Yet many experts remain fixated on the pieces, failing to recognize that in a game where personality dictates play, mastering the rules means little if you can’t read the opponent.
2- Adjusting to personalities requires flexibility, while the acceptable toolkit approach to foreign policy offers the illusion of control and predictability.
Foreign policy thrives on predictability and control—qualities that both policymakers and the public crave.
Treaties, economic leverage, and military alliances create a framework of order and stability, allowing experts to analyze trends, anticipate responses, and craft long-term strategies with confidence. These institutional mechanisms offer a sense of rationality and manageability, much like a well-practiced chess opening, where each move follows a familiar pattern, reinforcing the belief that global events can be influenced through structured decision-making rather than unpredictable shifts driven by personal whims.
For politicians, predictability is even more appealing. It allows them to project authority, justify decisions through precedent, and minimize political risks. A structured, rules-based approach provides clear narratives and a safeguard against backlash—enabling leaders to claim, “We followed the process.”
However, this reliance on conceptual frameworks falters when dealing with figures who play like grandmasters of chaos. Some leaders upend the board entirely, making moves based on personal instincts. Adjusting to personalities requires adaptability, improvisation, and direct influence—skills often undervalued in foreign policy circles.
In fact, at its core, foreign policy isn’t always a game of slow, strategic positioning; sometimes, it’s about knowing when to abandon the standard playbook and respond to the player, not just the pieces on the board.
3- Foreign policy analysis rewards expertise in systems and structures, but undervalues the skill of reading and influencing individuals in power.
In an era where influence is a weapon and perception dictates power, foreign policy is no longer just about treaties, sanctions, or military strength—it’s about mastering the psychology of decision-makers. The battlefield has expanded beyond territory and institutions to the minds of those who control them.
As Guy Debord wrote: “The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.” In the digital and information age, foreign policy is not just about force or diplomacy but about controlling narratives, shaping perceptions, and strategically influencing decision-makers. Leaders are not merely rational actors responding to institutional frameworks; they are individuals shaped by ego, fear, ambition, and cognitive bias. Yet, many policymakers still cling to the illusion that structured talks alone can dictate outcomes, failing to adapt to the human factor that often overrides bureaucratic constraints.
Adaptive strategy is no longer an advantage—it’s a necessity.
Knowing when to apply coercion, when to flatter, when to exploit uncertainty, and when to manufacture controlled instability separates those who shape events from those who merely interpret them. Those who master the art of influence, persuasion, and psychological leverage are the ones who dictate global affairs. The rest? They remain spectators in a world where, as Debord warned, perception is not just shaped—it is reality.
—
Policymakers ignore personality-driven diplomacy at their peril. Clinging to rigid frameworks blinds experts to the human factor shaping global power. To stay ahead, they must adapt, anticipate, and influence—or be outplayed.
Chewy stuff! Reminds me of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.