In many quarters, the New York Times’ David Sanger is considered the country’s best diplomatic journalist.  After a recent article in the NYTs, titled “Trump’s Personal Diplomacy Results in a Strategic Muddle” maybe it’s time to scrutinize his work more carefully.  The article made no sense whatsoever in trying to compare the personal styles of Donald Trump and Theodore Roosevelt.  Sanger believes the comparison is relevant and dispositive because both Trump and Roosevelt rely on their “powers of persuasion as the central element of success in America foreign policy—and ending wars.”

A comparison of Trump and Roosevelt is flawed and fallacious on any level.  Roosevelt was arguably one of the most interesting presidents in American history; Trump is the most vindictive president in American history and not even compos mentis.  Roosevelt played the crucial role as the mediator in the Treaty of Portsmouth, which formally ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.  He initiated the peace talks, despite the initial reluctance of both Russia and Japan.  He skillfully guided the negotiations, and ultimately earned the Nobel Peace Prize in in 2006.  Roosevelt was a strategic thinker, who understood the importance of the balance of power for U.S. interests in East Asia.  As a result, he offered his “good offices” to mediate the conflict.  He maintained a neutral stance throughout the process, which was key to gaining the trust of both Moscow and Tokyo.

Roosevelt is known as the “Rough Rider,” the hero of the Spanish-American War, who  led a series of charges up Kettle Hill towards San Juan Heights on his horse, Texas.  The Rough Riders followed on foot.  Trump is the classic Chicken Hawk, who claimed bone spurs to avoid military service during the Vietnam War.  In an interview during his first campaign, he couldn’t remember which foot was affected, which added to speculation that there were no bone spurs.  The fact that he dictated the letter to the physician who ultimately arranged the deferment contributed to the view that Trump was lying once again.

Roosevelt’s interest in foreign affairs was no less intense than his interest in domestic reform.  He was conscious of America’s growing stature as a world power and concerned that continued hostilities in East Asia would disrupt the balance of power.  Roosevelt proclaimed himself “peacemaker,” and used his considerable energy—and his tact—to initiate the conference and bring about a treaty.  It was no easy task.  As for Trump, he used his second campaign to say that he could bring an end to the Russian-Ukrainian War in 24 hours.  The mainstream media continues to cite this claim as if it were reasonable or in some way imaginable.

Trump’s face-to-face negotiations with Kim Jong-un in the first term and Putin in the second term have been risible, even disastrous.  Trump was seeking disarmament with North Korea, and Kim has responded with a dramatic expansion of his nuclear arsenal.  Trump was seeking a cease-fire from Russia, but Putin has responded with the heaviest bombardment of the war that began in February 2022.  Roosevelt was a neutral mediator between Russia and Japan, but Trump wavers between accusing Ukraine with starting the war or emphasizing that Ukraine remain a free, independent country.  It is this inconsistency that had the NATO countries and Ukraine on a virtual death watch when Trump and Putin met in Anchorage, Alaska.

Trump could not be more different from Roosevelt in all aspects.  Trump is not a strategist; he is clueless regarding the creation of a process for negotiations; he is not a diplomat; he lacks a national security and foreign policy team.  The unsuitability of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as national security adviser, has left the field of negotiations to a billionaire real estate investor from Florida, Steve Wytkoff, who is regularly corrected by his staff for his numerous misstatements of fact.

Ultimately, negotiations have a chance to succeed when there are capable leaders at the table; there is a non-partisan mediator; and there are reasonable and shared goals regarding an end state.  As long as Trump is playing a major role in the negotiations, there is little likelihood of success.  Trump is a particularly dangerous partner for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a particularly naive counterpart to Putin.  Trump’s expectation that Putin would agree to a cease-fire without getting anything in return was particularly risible.  His promotion of some type of the NATO charter’s Article Five mutual defense guaranty without a role for the United States was a nonstarter.

As a result, Putin got a diplomatic triumph—a summit with the United States on U.S. soil—and Trump got nothing.  A group of European heads of state are doing their best to keep Trump’s feet to the fire, but the prospects for Ukrainian and European security will remain uncertain.

The post The NYT’s David Sanger Foolishly Likens Trump to Teddy Roosevelt appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.