Describing Israel and Iran fighting each other at his NATO pre-summit news conference in The Hague this week, US President Donald Trump drew an analogy with children fighting in a schoolyard, who eventually had to be separated.

“Daddy has to sometimes use strong language,” Mark Rutte, NATO secretary-general, chimed in.

Asked about the comment after the summit, Trump said: “No, he likes me. I think he likes me. If he doesn’t I’ll let you know. I’ll come back and hit him hard, OK? He did it very affectionately. Hey Daddy. You’re my Daddy.”

The White House decided Rutte was flattering the US president, and made a reel of Trump’s visit to the Netherlands, set to the music of Usher’s Hey Daddy.

Rutte’s flattery of Trump didn’t stop there. On tackling the Russia-Ukraine war, Rutte told reporters before the NATO summit: “When he came in office, he started the dialogue with President Putin, and I always thought that was crucial. And there’s only one leader who could break the deadlock originally, and it had to be the American president, because he is the most powerful leader in the world.”

But how sincere are world leaders’ statements about Donald Trump? Do they genuinely serve to improve bilateral relations and does flattery work?

Who has handled Trump well and what have the results been?

Neither Rutte, nor any other European leader, engaged in any kind of dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time after the summer of 2022, the year of his invasion of Ukraine, believing it pointless.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was severely criticised as “defeatist” for phoning Putin last November, while Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, the only European leaders to have visited the Kremlin during the war, have been viewed as openly collaborationist.

Yet when Trump started talks with Putin, many Europeans paid him the same compliment as Rutte when they made their inaugural visits to the White House after he took office in January.

Keir Starmer, UK

“Thank you for changing the conversation to bring about the possibility that now we can have a peace deal, and we will work with you,” said the United Kingdom’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, in the Oval Office in February.

Starmer pulled a few rabbits out of hats. Knowing Trump’s fondness for the notion of hereditary power, he drew from his jacket a letter from King Charles III containing an invitation for an unprecedented second state visit to Windsor Castle.

Trump was momentarily speechless. “Your country is a fantastic country, and it will be our honour to be there, thank you,” Trump said when he’d gathered himself.

Starmer and Trump exchanged a few handshakes while speaking and Starmer repeatedly touched Trump’s shoulder in a sign of affection.

But did all this flattery have much effect? Trump announced he was freezing military aid to Ukraine the following month, much to the outrage of the UK, along with Nordic and Baltic countries.

Giorgia Meloni, Italy

Both Starmer and Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, identified Ukraine as a key issue for Trump, who has made it clear he wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize by ending international conflicts. So far, he has claimed credit for ending this month’s “12-Day War” between Israel and Iran, preventing nuclear war following the May 7 air battle between India and Pakistan, and overseeing a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda.

Meloni, therefore, tried a similarly flattering approach to Trump. “Together we have been defending the freedom of Ukraine. Together we can build a just and lasting peace. We support your efforts, Donald,” she said during her White House visit in April.

Meloni astutely punched all of Trump’s hot-button issues in her opening remarks, saying Italy had policies to combat Fentanyl, an addictive painkiller that Trump has blamed Canada and Mexico for allowing into the country, to invest $10bn in the US economy and to control undocumented immigration.

She even adapted Trump’s slogan, Make America Great Again, to Europe. “The goal for me is to Make the West Great Again. I think we can do it together,” Meloni said to a beaming Trump.

None of this has translated into a state visit by Trump to Rome, a move which would cement Meloni’s position as a major European leader, however.

Mark Carney, Canada

Meanwhile, newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was both flattering and firm with Trump last month. He complimented Trump on being “a transformational president” who had sided “with the American worker”, but also shut down Trump’s territorial ambition to annex Canada as the 51st US state. “It’s not for sale, won’t be for sale ever,” Mark Carney said.

Relations seemed to have taken a turn for the better following Trump’s friction with Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau. Trump called him “very dishonest and weak” at the 2018 G7 summit in Canada before storming off early.

But Carney may not have had much effect at all. On Friday, Trump ended trade talks with Canada and threatened to impose additional tariffs on exports over Canada’s new digital services tax.

Which meetings have gone less well?

Emmanuel Macron, France

There was little warmth in Trump’s White House meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in February.

Braced for confrontation with a leader who claims to lead Europe in strategic thought, Trump spoke from lengthy, defensive, scripted remarks which attempted to justify his Ukraine policy.

Macron preached that peace in Ukraine must not mean surrender – a sentiment shared by many European leaders, but not expressed to Trump. Trump was cordial with Macron, but not affectionate.

Meanwhile, France is holding out on any sort of capitulation to Trump in European Union trade talks. Other members of the EU want to settle for an “asymmetric” trade deal that might benefit the US more than the EU, just to get it done.

What’s more, following the G7 meeting in Canada two weeks ago, it was clear no love was lost between the two leaders: Trump called Macron “publicity seeking” in a social media post on June 17.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was mauled by Trump and Vice President J D Vance on February 28, when he went to the White House to sign a mineral rights agreement he hoped would bring US military aid.

He and Vance clashed over direct talks with Russia over Ukraine’s head, and Vance lambasted Zelenskyy for failing to show enough “gratitude” to the US.

“You’re playing with millions of people’s lives. You’re gambling with World War Three,” said Trump.

However, Zelenskyy and Trump appeared to have patched things up a little when they held an impromptu meeting while attending the funeral of Pope Francis at the Vatican in April. A White House spokesperson described the encounter as “very productive”.

Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa

Last month, Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House when he played him a video of a South African opposition party rally in favour of evicting white farmers. Trump accused South Africa of carrying out a “genocide” against white farmers.

Ramaphosa was visibly discomfited, but he patiently explained that under a parliamentary system, different viewpoints are expressed, which don’t represent government policy, and that South Africa is a violent country where most victims of violence are Black.

“You are a partner of South Africa and as a partner you are raising concerns which we are willing to talk to you about,” Ramaphosa said, calming Trump a little.

Trump was sidetracked into talking about a Jumbo Jet that Qatar had gifted him during his Middle Eastern tour. “I’m sorry I don’t have a plane to give you,” said Ramaphosa, as if to make a virtue of his absence of flattery.

Does flattery work with Trump?

Some experts believe that flattery may help to prevent confrontation with Trump. Some observers have argued it helps “to contain the American president’s impulses”.

But flattery does little to change actual US policy. Rutte and other NATO leaders failed to draw the US back into the Contact Group helping Ukraine with weapons.

“A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day,” wrote Andrew Gawthorpe, a lecturer in history and international studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands, in The Conversation, a UK publication.

Those who do have good relations with Trump don’t necessarily come away with the things they want, either. Starmer’s US-UK trade deal keeps tariffs in place for British companies exporting to the US, albeit lower ones than Trump had been threatening. Meloni is still waiting for Trump to bestow her a visit.

Respectful firmness, on the other hand, does seem to work.

Trump has dropped his campaign to redraw US borders by absorbing Canada and Greenland, which is owned by Denmark. Carney’s firmness helped, because it carried a sense of finality. Carney had just won an election and Trump acknowledged “it was probably one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics. Maybe even greater than mine.”

Denmark has been similarly firm. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said existing agreements with the US already allow it to station military bases there, while Greenlanders don’t want to be colonised by Americans.

Trump’s attempts to embarrass Zelenskyy and Ramaphosa also backfired. Europe has stepped in to make up the shortfall in US military aid to Ukraine, casting the US as a fickle ally. Trump’s “white genocide” video did little to convince Americans that South Africa was committing a genocide against Dutch Boers, and his offer of asylum to a number of them has been roundly criticised in the US.

The latest NATO summit proved a surprising success following a surreal bromance between top leaders. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, a veteran politician and former Dutch prime minister, pulled out all the stops to charm US President Donald Trump, who was visibly pleased with all the obsequious talk over his “Daddy” status in the global pecking order.

But the leaders of top US allies in Asia, namely Japan and South Korea, stayed away, reportedly due to disagreements over defence spending, trade tensions, as well as military action against Iran.

For now, it seems that Europeans are confident of winning over Trump with a combination of flattery and long-term burden-sharing reassurances. I got an inkling of this charm-offensive strategy when a diplomat at the Quai d’Orsay emphatically told me earlier this year: “We have no issues with him. We have an excellent relationship with Trump!” The context of my recent conversations with diplomats in several major European capitals was the seeming divergence in Washington’s approach to allies in Asia and Europe.

Key foreign policy camps within the Trump administration tend to agree that Asia should be a top strategic priority, largely because of the emergence of China as a peer rival. Enter the curious case of frontline US allies such as the Philippines, which, unlike countries in Europe, has actually been at the receiving end of the Trump administration’s flattery. Top US officials have not only heaped praise on Manila’s growing role in constraining Beijing’s expansionist activities, but have also pushed for increased defence aid to and military presence in the Southeast Asian nation. In many ways, the Philippines has rapidly emerged as a reliable and consequential element of a US-led integrated deterrence strategy against a revanchist China.

US Army and Philippine Army soldiers during drills in March (Matthew Keegan/US Army Photo)

In fairness, Philippine-US bilateral ties experienced a renaissance under the first Trump administration, which not only managed to prevent a breakdown in bilateral ties under the Beijing-friendly Rodrigo Duterte presidency, but also steadily expanded the US naval presence in the South China Sea through joint drills with regional allies, regularised freedom of navigation operations, and clear defence commitments under the Philippine-US mutual defence treaty. In fact, then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo became the first top cabinet member to publicly clarify that the United States is obliged to aid Manila in the event of an attack on Philippine public vessels, aircraft and troops by a third party in the South China Sea.

The Biden administration and its West-friendly Filipino counterpart Ferdinand Marcos Jr simply built on this earlier effort. Far from breaking with precedent, the second Trump administration has shown even greater commitment to cementing a new era of bilateral cooperation with the Philippines.

During his visit to Manila earlier this year, the US Defence Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth reiterated his country’s “iron-clad commitment” to Manila and also emphasised the need for jointly enhancing “deterrence” capabilities in the face of “Communist China’s aggression in the region”. The US defence chief also underscored how the second Trump administration is “truly” prioritising a shift to Asia in “recognition that for the 21st century to be a free century” Washington needs to “stand alongside our allies and partners shoulder to shoulder.”

The second Trump administration’s empathetic approach to the Philippines has come with a catch.

Accordingly, Hegseth announced the deployment of the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) for this year’s US-Philippine Balikatan exercises, which happened to be one of the biggest on record. The Pentagon also gave a green light to the sale of up to 20 fighter jets – 16 F-16Cs (single-seat, single-engine) and four F-16Ds (dual-seat jets for training purposes) – under a $5.58 billion contract in order to “improve the security of a strategic partner that continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in Southeast Asia.”

While top US officials have been pressuring US allies to ramp up their defence spending, they have shown tremendous strategic sympathy for the Philippines, which has historically spent barely over 1 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product on the military. If anything, the Trump administration has not only exempted defence aid to Manila amid the ongoing overseas aid freeze, but is even expected to increase foreign military financing assistance to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with an eye on China.

The second Trump administration’s empathetic approach to the Philippines, however, has come with a catch. As the Pentagon’s top strategist Elbridge Colby told me prior to his return to service, frontline allies like the Philippines will have to forego any strategic hedging in favour of full-fledged alignment with America, especially on the China question. Eager to maintain its room for manoeuvre, the Marcos administration initially sent mixed signals, most notably on the brewing conflict over neighbouring Taiwan. The Philippines also wavered on sensitive infrastructure projects, including a proposed new port facility to be built by the Pentagon in the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes, which is only 160 kilometres from Taiwan’s southern shores.

Over the past year, however, the Philippines has increasingly embraced a more active Taiwan strategy, since, as one influential Filipino naval strategist put it, “[I]f we lose Taiwan, then China becomes our neighbour. And our [entire] northern territories will be under threat.” Accordingly, the Philippines has expanded its own naval facility near Taiwan, welcomed joint drills with the United States near the Bashi Channel, and is hosting advanced US military hardware such as the Typhon missile system. Most recently, the Philippines has also expressed openness to hosting more forward-deployed US presence, including a new weapons production and storage facility in Subic, which hosted the largest overseas American base during the Cold War period.

Overall, the second Trump administration’s bearhug of the Philippines may have strengthened its Southeast Asian ally’s hand vis-à-vis a resurgent China. But this could come at the cost of steadily diminishing Manila’s room to manoeuvre and, potentially, its overall geopolitical autonomy.

Flattery will get you everywhere: The world leaders who have decided sucking up to Trump is the best way to handle him

Donald Trump was in Europe for all of 24 hours this week, flying into The Hague to show his face at the NATO summit before hopping back aboard Air Force One and returning to Washington.

But this very short window provided plenty of insight into how America’s Western allies are approaching their interactions with the US President.

The two-day event would typically see members of the transatlantic security bloc discuss a host of issues, particularly at a time when Russia’s war continues to rage in Ukraine, the Middle East is mired in turmoil and China is growing ever stronger.

Instead, it was effectively watered down to a single-issue press conference in which NATO’s European cohort promised to spend more on defence and thanked the US for the pleasure of doing so.

If it wasn’t clear enough the first time round, leaders have recognised in Trump’s second term that stroking the former reality TV star and real estate mogul’s ego likely constitutes the path of least resistance in their dealings with him.

To be clear, a policy of knee-bending and fawnery is hardly a useful approach to conducting international diplomacy and advancing the interests of one’s country.

Indeed, Trump has gone on record expressing admiration for the likes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un – authoritarians and dictators whose strength has earned them respect from the Orange Don.

But it seems that sucking up to the leader of the free world – at least in public – is the most efficient way to avoid his ire… or to simply get him out the door.

With that in mind, here are just a few glaring examples of world leaders going out of their way to pump up the Trump.

French President Emmanuel Macron (L), NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (3rd L), German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (4ht L), U.S. President Donald Trump (front C) and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (3rd R) pose with NATO heads of state

US President Donald Trump (R) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte speak to media at the start of the second day of the 2025 NATO Summit on June 25, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands

Rutte

As Trump prepared to fly to the Netherlands for the NATO summit, the alliance’s Secretary-General Mark Rutte sent him a flurry of fawning text messages.

‘Mr President, dear Donald, Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer,’ the gushing texts read.

‘You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!

‘Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.

‘Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win. Safe travels and see you at His Majesty’s dinner!’ Rutte signed off.

We know the contents of the private messages because Trump gleefully plastered them on social media, forcing Rutte to bat down speculation that he was pandering to the President with texts that made him, and Europe, look weak.

The NATO chief later suffered another gaffe during a press conference with Trump in The Hague.

The US President, ranting about America’s involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, characterised the two foes as children having a squabble in the playground.

‘They’re not gonna be fighting each other. They’ve had it. Like two kids in a schoolyard – you know they fight like hell, and you can’t stop them. Let them fight for about two three minutes and then it’s easier to stop them,’ Trump said.

Rutte then quipped that ‘sometimes Daddy has to use strong language’, in a pointed reference to Trump’s use of a forceful expletive in an interview when chastising the arch foes for breaking a ceasefire deal.

A delighted Trump later told reporters Rutte had made the comment ‘because he likes me’.

‘He likes me, I think he likes me! If he doesn’t, I’ll let you know and I’ll come back and I’ll hit him hard OK?’

‘He did it very affectionately though… ‘Daddy, you’re my daddy’,’ the president said playfully.

The impression even managed to tease a laugh out of the normally stoic Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who could not contain a giggle as he stood behind Trump on the stage.

The White House’s press office also seized upon the opportunity to release what can only be described as a hype video, showing Trump’s return to Washington set to the tune of Hey Daddy (Daddy’s Home) by pop star Usher.

Rutte was forced to bat down speculation that he was pandering to the President with texts that made him, and Europe, look weak

US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte look at each other ahead of a family photo during a NATO leaders summit in The Hague, Netherlands June 25, 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio (right) giggles behind President Donald Trump (left) as he answered questions about being called ‘daddy’ by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte during the Wednesday conference in the Hague, Netherlands

Netanyahu

Since Trump began his second term in the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unofficially headed the Donald Trump fan club.

It wasn’t always so – Netanyahu has previously infuriated Trump on several occasions, most notably in 2020 when he declared on camera that Joe Biden had won the US presidential race, despite Trump’s claims the Democrats stole the election.

But as Donald prepared to return to the Oval Office, Bibi was likely reciting lines praising Trump for his excellent decision-making acumen and cherished friendship.

He understands Trump’s maxims of ‘MAGA’ and ‘America First’ like no other, and has expressed such admiration for them that he manages to paint Israel like a plucky partner of the US, rather than a dependent.

Now, Netanyahu counts the US President among his closest allies, and is no doubt cognisant that without his backing, his war on Iran and the ongoing military action in Gaza would face much greater resistance.

Following the US intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict last week that saw American B-2 stealth aircraft drop the world’s largest non-nuclear weapons on Iranian nuclear sites, Netanyahu delivered an address which doubled as a love letter to Trump and America.

‘President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history… America has been truly unsurpassed. It has done what no other country on earth could do.’

‘History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime, the world’s most dangerous weapons,’ he continued.

‘His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.

‘President Trump and I often say peace through strength. First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.’

‘President Trump, I thank you. The people of Israel thank you. The forces of civilisation thank you.

‘God bless America. God bless Israel and may God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith.’

President Donald Trump smiles at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right

US President Donald Trump welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the entrance of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 7, 2025

Starmer

Sir Keir had only been in power himself for four months when Trump stormed to victory in the November 2024 US presidential election and from the outset was keen to display his admiration.

In fairness, he had to do some damage control.

Labour deputy Angela Rayner had openly called Trump an ‘absolute buffoon’ who had ‘no place in the White House’ while Foreign Secretary David Lammy once referred to him as ‘a racist KKK and Nazi sympathiser’.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the Prime Minister has worked to strike a careful balance, positioning the UK as a valued Atlantic intermediary, connecting North America with the EU.

He has played on the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the UK and US, and has seemingly got along well with Trump so far.

But Sir Keir has also had his fair share of moments that highlighted his eagerness to please the American leader.

On his first visit to the White House to see Trump in February, Starmer was all too happy to present the US President with a letter from King Charles in the middle of a press conference.

‘Am I supposed to read it now?’ Trump asked flippantly. Sir Keir insisted that Trump read the letter aloud, before grasping the President’s shoulder and flashing a giddy grin as he unfurled the envelope and scanned its contents.

Then, earlier this month, the Prime Minister was sent scrambling at Trump’s feet when the 79-year-old dropped the contents of a US-UK trade deal the pair had just inked at the G7 summit all over the floor.

As Trump opened a black binder with the signed agreement inside, several papers spilled out.

‘Oops, sorry about that,’ Trump quipped, looking down to see the Prime Minister plucking the papers from between his legs.

Moments later, Trump went on to announce he had struck the deal with the European Union, rather than the UK.

Sir Keir had neither the appetite nor the heart to correct him.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer jokes after Trump dropped the trade papers on the floor

President Donald Trump drops papers as he meets with Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the G7 Summit, Monday, June 16, 2025

On his first visit to the White House to see Trump in February, Starmer was all too happy to present the US President with a letter from King Charles in the middle of a press conference

Macron

The state of relations between Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron serves as a cautionary tale to other leaders who may be tired of sucking up to the US President and want to air their grievances in public.

In their first term, the pair often appeared firm friends.

Macron boasted of himself as a ‘Trump whisperer’ and recently said he had ‘the best relations in the world’ with the US President prior to 2020.

Their 29-second handshake-cum-handholding session during Trump’s visit to Paris for Bastille Day in 2017 is the stuff of legend, and both leaders garnered a reputation for being notably tactile with one another.

Early in Trump’s second term, the bromance appeared alive and well.

Macron performed admirably during his visit to the White House in February, laughing at Trump’s wisecracks while managing to politely and charmingly correct his American counterpart’s mistakes.

But relations have rapidly soured since then – a decline seemingly sparked by the outspoken Macron’s willingness to challenge Trump in public and criticise his policies on the world stage.

French President Emmanuel Macron, left, shakes hands with U.S President Donald Trump after the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs Elysees avenue in Paris Friday, July 14, 2017

After Trump abruptly departed this month’s G7 summit early, Macron tried to spin the exit as strategic, telling reporters the US might play a key role in brokering peace between Israel and Iran.

But Trump, already aboard Air Force One, launched a furious riposte online.

‘Wrong! He is ‘publicity seeking’ and always gets it wrong,’ the President fumed on Truth Social. ‘He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington… Much bigger than that. Stay tuned!’

Tensions only mounted further when Macron offered a rebuke of Trump’s hawkish stance on Iran.

As Trump called for Tehran’s ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,’ Macron warned that pushing for regime change would only sow ‘chaos’ across the Middle East.

‘We do not want to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons or ballistic capabilities,’ Macron said. ‘But the greatest mistake today would be to pursue regime change in Iran through military means – that would lead to chaos.’

‘Does anyone think what was done in Iraq in 2003 was a good idea? Or in Libya last decade? No.’

When asked later about the spat, Trump couldn’t resist a jab.

‘That was Emmanuel – nice guy, but he doesn’t get it right too often.’

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

“Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.

Read more: Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.

Read more: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

And so to Nato

What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.

Read more: At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory

The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

EPA/Sem van der Wal

The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.

Read more: How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

The trouble with Iran

Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.

Read more: Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation

For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.

Read more: Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?

And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.

Read more: US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation

Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.

Read more: In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

Donald Trump is a difficult figure to deal with, both for foreign leaders and figures closer to home who find themselves in his crosshairs. The US president is unpredictable, sensitive and willing to break the rules to get his way.

But in Trump’s second term, a variety of different leaders and institutions seem to have settled on a way to handle him. The key, they seem to think, is flattery. The most obvious example came at the recently concluded Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands, where world leaders got together to discuss the future of the alliance.

Previous summits with Trump have descended into recrimination and backbiting. The organisers were determined to avoid a repeat – and decided the best way to do it was to make Trump feel really, really good about himself.

Even before the summit began, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte had texted Trump to thank him for his “decisive action” in bombing Iran. This, he said, was something “no one else dared to do”.

Then, when discussing Trump’s role in ending the war between Israel and Iran, Rutte referred to Trump as “daddy” – a name the White House has already transformed into a meme.

The summit itself was light on the sort of contentious and detailed policy discussions that have historically bored and angered Trump.

Instead, it was reduced to a series of photo opportunities and speeches in which other leaders lavished praise on Trump. Lithuania’s president, Gitanas Nausėda, even suggested the alliance ought to copy Trump’s political movement by adopting the phrase “make Nato great again”.

Nato leaders aren’t the only ones trying this trick. British prime minister Keir Starmer has had a go at it too. Starmer has made sure that Trump will be the first US president to make a second state visit to the UK. He described the honour in Trump-like terms: “This has never happened before. It’s so incredible. It will be historic.”

After Trump announced global trade tariffs earlier in the year, Starmer was the first leader to give Trump a much-needed victory by reaching a framework trade agreement. But it worked both ways, with Starmer able to land a political victory too.

In his first term, flattery was also seen as a tool to be used to get Trump onside. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky tried it in phone conversations with the US president, calling him a “great teacher” from whom he learned “skills and knowledge”.

Flattery and compliance clearly have their uses. Trump is extremely sensitive to criticism and susceptible to praise, however hyperbolic and transparent it might be. Buttering him up may be an effective way to get him to back off.

But it doesn’t achieve much else. At the Nato summit, an opportunity was missed to make progress on issues of real importance, such as how to better support Ukraine in its war against Russia or to better coordinate European defence spending.

A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day.

A missed opportunity

Individual decisions to bow down to Trump also mean missing the opportunity to mount collective resistance. One country might not be able to stand up to the president, but the odds of doing so would be greatly improved if leaders banded together.

For example, Trump’s trade tariffs will damage the US economy as well as those of its trading partners. That is especially the case if those partners impose tariffs of their own on US goods.

If each country instead follows Britain’s lead in the hope of getting the best deal for itself, they will have missed the opportunity to force the president to feel some discomfort of his own – and possibly change course.

But perhaps the greatest danger of flattering Trump is that it teaches him that he can get away with doing pretty much whatever he likes. For a president who has threatened to annex the territory of Nato allies Denmark and Canada to nevertheless be feted at a Nato summit sends a message of impunity.

That’s a dangerous lesson for Trump to learn. He has spent much of his second term undermining democratic and liberal norms at home and key tenets of US foreign policy abroad, such as hostility to Russia. He is attempting to undermine all traditional sources of authority and expertise and instead make the world dance to his own tune.

Given the expansive scope of his aims, which many experts already think is leading to a constitutional crisis that threatens democracy, the willingness to suck up to Trump normalises him in a menacing way.

When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from those he chooses to attack.

Perhaps the best that can be said for this strategy is that maybe it will appease Trump enough to prevent him from doing too much actual harm. But when dealing with such an unpredictable and vindictive president, that is a thin reed of hope.

It is much more likely to encourage him to press on – until the harm becomes too severe to ignore.