The Trump 2.0 administration is stacked with loyalists who lack a fundamental understanding of international diplomacy, tarnishing the United States’ global reputation in unprecedented ways.

After winning the presidency, Donald Trump’s team was divided on how to negotiate with Putin. Keith Kellogg pushed for a strategic, long-term approach leveraging pressure on Russia, but was sidelined in favor of a rapid negotiation blitzkrieg that excluded Europe and Ukraine. Those advocating for deterrence quickly became targets of Trump’s attacks.

Trump’s signature negotiation tactic—threats followed by offers—failed from the onset. In Saudi Arabia last month, his team skipped the pressure phase entirely and moved straight to concessions, addressing nearly all of Vladimir Putin’s demands without securing anything in return.

Sergey Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov (center), speaking to Marco Rubio in Riyadh. Credit: Al Jazeera

Trump’s history of failed diplomacy further underscores this pattern. His latest approach to Russia mirrors his disastrous past dealings with the Taliban and North Korea—big talk, empty threats, and misplaced trust in strongmen. As a result, the U.S. has not only exposed its diplomatic weakness but also alienated its European allies, undermining NATO and emboldening the Kremlin.

When naïveté rules in diplomacy

Trump’s administration initially sought to pressure Russia into a deal but failed to create credible threats. Kellogg, the main proponent of a calculated strategy, was pushed aside. Instead, Trump’s envoys engaged in rushed talks, ill-prepared negotiations, focusing their criticism on Ukraine and European allies rather than Moscow.

More to read:
[video] U.S. diplomat says Trump deliberately seeks to destroy European Union

The shift became clear at the Munich forum in February, where Vice President J.D. Vance bluntly dismissed Europe’s role, while Trump accused Ukraine’s Volodimir Zelenski of provoking Russia’s invasion.

At the Riyadh talks, Trump’s team downplayed their concessions despite overwhelming evidence that they systematically met Putin’s demands—justifying Russia’s invasion, blocking Ukraine’s NATO bid, and agreeing to Russian-influenced elections in Ukraine.

In return, Moscow gave nothing and insisted on further negotiations, exploiting Trump’s eagerness for a quick deal.

A pattern of dilettantism

Despite his self-proclaimed negotiation skills, Trump’s track record suggests otherwise. His tactics in Russia resembles his handling of North Korea—big talk, empty ultimatums, and misplaced trust in authoritarian leaders. Clearly, Trump’s short attention span and aversion to detail make him fundamentally ineffective in high-stakes diplomacy.

Riyadh only amplified these weaknesses. Veteran Russian diplomats Sergey Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov faced a U.S. delegation woefully lacking negotiation experience or knowledge of the region. Compare them with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Representative Steve Witkoff, all of whom had been in their roles for less than a month.

Donald Trump arguing with Volodimir Zelenski. Credit: White House

After three years of war, a weakened Russia should have been an easy adversary to pressure. With its vast experience in international diplomacy, the U.S. should have cornered the Kremlin and secured ceasefire in Ukraine by now.

Instead, Trump fielded against heavyweight diplomats a team of amateurs whose main goal was to appease their boss—who naively believes Putin called him a "genius" as a sincere compliment, rather than a calculated manipulation.

It is no surprise that Russia emerged victorious, normalizing diplomatic ties with the U.S. while conceding nothing. Both Lavrov and Putin expressed their satisfaction over the meeting - why wouldn't they be happy?