By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Boris Pistorius criticized Trump’s initial approach to the Ukraine conflict, highlighting his premature concessions on NATO membership and territorial claims as a significant misstep. This weak negotiating stance, according to Pistorius, hinders prospects for peace or a ceasefire. While acknowledging a potential shift in Trump’s strategy, Pistorius suggests that relying solely on pressure tactics against Putin is unlikely to yield success. Ultimately, Pistorius believes Trump needs to adopt a more nuanced and effective approach.
Read the original article here
Germany’s Pistorius believes Trump drastically misjudged his influence over Putin, a misconception rooted in Trump’s inflated ego and a fundamental misunderstanding of the power dynamics at play. The idea that Trump possessed any significant leverage over the Russian president is, at best, wildly optimistic and, at worst, a dangerous delusion.
Trump’s public pronouncements, often characterized by vague boasts of successful interactions with Putin, paint a picture of a relationship where he believes he holds sway. This perception is demonstrably false, as evidenced by Putin’s consistent actions that directly contradict any notion of deference to Trump’s desires or opinions. Instead, Putin’s behavior suggests a calculated manipulation of Trump, exploiting his vanity and need for approval to further his own agenda.
The assertion that Trump possesses influence over Putin is not only unfounded but also ignores the established power imbalance between the two figures. Putin, a seasoned and shrewd political operator, operates on a different level altogether compared to Trump. His motivations are strategic and long-term, while Trump’s actions often appear impulsive and reactive. To suggest otherwise is to underestimate Putin’s intelligence and political prowess.
It is more accurate to say that Trump, along with his associates, significantly overestimated their collective ability to influence Russian oligarchs and, by extension, Putin. Their belief in their own influence blinded them to the reality of Putin’s control, leading to miscalculations and missed opportunities. The relationship was far from one of equals; it was a dynamic characterized by manipulation and exploitation, with Putin holding all the cards.
The idea of a reciprocal relationship—of influence flowing in both directions—is completely inaccurate. The evidence strongly suggests that Trump, driven by personal ambition and a distorted view of his own importance, actively sought the approval and perhaps even the favor of the Russian president. The narrative of a “great talk” and mysterious agreements reveals more about Trump’s self-perception than the actual substance of any such conversations. These exchanges are more likely designed to appeal to Trump’s ego and sustain a false sense of power.
The notion that Trump’s actions were based on a calculated misjudgment is also too charitable. While misjudgment certainly played a role, it was amplified by Trump’s inherent narcissism and a willingness to accept any affirmation of his perceived importance, regardless of its credibility. His apparent disregard for reality, frequently manifested in his statements and decisions, leaves little room to believe that his dealings with Putin stemmed from strategic miscalculation rather than blind ambition and self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, the supposed “influence” of Trump over Putin was a mirage. It was a product of Trump’s own self-deception and Putin’s masterful manipulation. Any attempt to portray it differently obscures the underlying power imbalance and risks downplaying Putin’s strategic mastery. It’s not just about misjudging influence, but about ignoring the far more accurate and demonstrably true narrative: Putin’s control over Trump. This highlights a severe flaw in understanding the nature of power and the manipulation of political figures by those who possess a clearer understanding of geopolitical realities. The narrative needs to shift from misplaced influence to blatant manipulation.