Negotiation to Mediation - Does TRUMP have a Strategy?
Feb 21, 2025
The world is witnessing, in real-time, the devastating consequences of unchecked power. In Ukraine, the loss of a generation, the brightest and the best, should shake us all. This is not just a humanitarian crisis; it is a warning to governments, businesses and institutions worldwide.
The Danger of Exclusion in Trumps Negotiations
Negotiation is often seen as a path to resolution, a diplomatic tool to avoid conflict. However, when negotiations deliberately exclude those directly affected, the outcomes are often catastrophic. A deal made without key stakeholders is not a true agreement... it is a ticking time bomb!
Negotiation Lessons from History: The Trump-Taliban Negotiations
We have seen before what happens when decisions are made behind closed doors, without those who must live with the consequences. The first Trump administration’s negotiations with the Taliban, excluding the Afghan government, led to a disastrous withdrawal and the subsequent collapse of the Afghan state.
The same pattern is unfolding again. If stakeholders are ignored, if those with the most to lose are sidelined, the long-term repercussions will be severe. Anyone who believes that history will not repeat itself is wilfully ignoring reality.
Try a FREE NEGOTIATION TASTER to practice your skills!
The White House’s Current Negotiation Approach is NOT Mediation
There is a distinction between legitimate mediation where an impartial third party facilitates discussions between opposing sides and negotiations that deliberately sideline key players. What we are seeing today is not mediation; it is a strategy to exert control, minimise dissent and dictate terms without opposition.
True mediation ensures that all voices are heard and that agreements reached are sustainable. Excluding key stakeholders does not create peace - it creates resentment, instability, and eventual collapse.
Why Do Negotiation Stakeholders Get Excluded?
Despite the obvious risks, history has repeatedly shown that decision-makers often exclude those most affected from negotiations. This happens for several reasons:
- Desire for Control - Powerful entities want to dictate the terms without opposition, prioritising political or economic gains over long-term stability.
- Short-Term Thinking - Leaders often focus on immediate victories rather than sustainable solutions.
- Perceived Weakness of the Affected Parties - Those in power may dismiss stakeholders as incapable of negotiating effectively, assuming that they will eventually have to accept whatever terms are imposed.
- Geopolitical Agendas - External interests sometimes prefer instability over peace, allowing them to exert influence over weakened states.
- Avoiding Complexity - Including multiple stakeholders makes negotiations more challenging, but avoiding that complexity only leads to fragile agreements.
A Business Perspective: The Global Impact of Exclusionary Negotiations
This is not just about politics - it is about global stability. The past few weeks have marked a catastrophic shift, not only in world order but in business predictability. Companies that once relied on stable international partnerships and long-term investment strategies now face an uncertain future.
Markets thrive on predictability. When geopolitical chaos disrupts trade, investment, and supply chains, businesses pay the price. When governments negotiate deals without considering economic stakeholders, the result is volatility, lost opportunities, and financial instability.
Negotiation Tactics and Techniques for Effective, Inclusive Negotiations
For negotiations to succeed in a way that creates lasting stability, certain fundamental principles must be followed:
- Stakeholder Mapping – Identify and involve all relevant parties, ensuring that no one with a vested interest is excluded.
- Active Listening – True negotiation is not about dictating terms; it is about understanding the needs and concerns of all parties.
- Creating Multi-Layered Agreements – Rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all solution, complex negotiations require flexible agreements with built-in contingencies.
- Avoiding Anchoring Bias – Parties must resist the temptation to set rigid positions early in the negotiation, which can hinder compromise.
- Building Incremental Trust – Agreements should be structured to allow for phased implementation, proving commitment step by step.
- Ensuring Third-Party Oversight – Neutral mediators or observers can help enforce fairness and accountability in high-stakes negotiations.
- Transparency and Accountability – Secret deals rarely withstand scrutiny. Agreements must be open, with clear commitments and consequences.
Try a FREE NEGOTIATION TASTER to practice your skills!
A Final Warning: Negotiations Must Serve the People, Not Just Power
The world cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot allow negotiations to become tools of exclusion, where those with power dictate terms while those who suffer the consequences are silenced. The fight in Ukraine is a microcosm of a larger global challenge—one that every leader, every company, and every institution must recognise.
This is not just about politics. This is about the world we are building. And it’s a moment of reckoning for us all.
