Why Europeans Misread Trump and Putin Leadership "Gangster Methods"
Mikhail Khodorkovsky's recent observations in Le Monde (8/3/25) about the leadership styles of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin offer a fascinating glimpse into how political communication can be fundamentally misunderstood across cultural divides.
The former Russian oligarch suggests that both leaders employ what he terms "gangster methods" in their approach to politics and international relations. At the heart of this approach is a crucial distinction: their public statements often function as tactical manoeuvres rather than straightforward policy declarations.
European leaders, schooled in diplomatic traditions where words carry binding weight and official statements reflect genuine policy intentions, repeatedly fall into the trap of taking Trump and Putin's rhetoric at face value. This fundamental misreading leads to a cascade of strategic miscalculations.
For Trump, provocative statements and apparent policy reversals that seem chaotic to European observers may instead represent negotiating tactics meant to keep adversaries off-balance. His business background informs an approach where initial positions are merely opening gambits rather than firm commitments.
Putin, meanwhile, has perfected the art of strategic ambiguity. His statements serve multiple audiences simultaneously—reassuring domestic supporters while confusing international observers. When he speaks of "security guarantees" or "peaceful intentions," these words may bear little relation to Russia's actual military objectives.
What Khodorkovsky understands, through his own experience navigating the post-Soviet business and political landscape, is that both leaders operate in environments where strength and unpredictability are valued over consistency and transparency. Their words are tools for creating leverage, not expressions of political philosophy or binding commitments.
The European failure to grasp these methods has significant implications for the Ukraine conflict and beyond. By misreading signals and overestimating the reliability of diplomatic communications, European leaders risk being perpetually wrong-footed in negotiations that could determine the continent's security architecture for decades to come.