a strange way to do business
At a NATO summit in Ankara, President Trump lifted sanctions against Turkey as a gesture of diplomatic goodwill, framing the move as proof that personal dealmaking can strengthen alliances. The decision, however, raised a question as old as statecraft itself: whether trust is built by offering concessions freely, or by making them the reward for earned commitments. Former Ambassador Ivo Daalder's criticism placed the moment within a longer debate about how democracies should wield leverage with partners whose interests only partially align with their own.
- Trump arrived in Ankara having already surrendered one of Washington's most significant tools of influence over Turkey — the sanctions — before negotiations had formally begun.
- Critics like former NATO Ambassador Ivo Daalder warned that removing leverage without securing reciprocal commitments inverts the basic logic of diplomatic pressure.
- Turkey's history of friction within NATO — its Russian defense systems, its Syria operations, its democratic erosion — made the summit a moment ripe for structured negotiation, not unilateral reward.
- The move reflects Trump's broader instinct to lead with dramatic gestures and personal rapport, a style that has reshaped tone in past summits but left underlying tensions unresolved.
- The alliance now watches to see whether Turkey responds with greater cooperation or interprets the gesture as confirmation that Washington's leverage can be obtained without conditions.
President Trump touched down in Ankara for a two-day NATO summit carrying a diplomatic offering already unwrapped: the lifting of sanctions against Turkey. He presented it as evidence of his dealmaking instincts — a signal to allies and the American public that he could warm relations with one of NATO's most strategically vital and most complicated members.
The decision drew swift criticism from Ivo Daalder, who served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO under President Obama. His objection was not to the goal of better relations, but to the sequencing. In conventional diplomacy, sanctions represent leverage — the pressure that motivates changed behavior. They are typically lifted in exchange for concrete commitments, not offered in advance of them. Turkey's sanctions had been tied to serious concerns: its purchase of Russian air defense systems, military operations in Syria, and democratic backsliding at home. Removing them without conditions, Daalder argued, was spending influence before the negotiation had begun.
The summit's timing sharpened the stakes. NATO gatherings are meant to reaffirm collective commitments, and Turkey has long tested those commitments — pursuing independent foreign policy, maintaining ties with Moscow, and acting unilaterally in ways that strain alliance cohesion. The summit was an opportunity to press for alignment, not to relieve pressure.
Trump's approach followed his familiar playbook: build personal rapport with leaders, make bold gestures, and trust that goodwill will generate results. The method has shifted atmospheres before, but NATO operates on consensus and shared obligation — a different architecture than bilateral summitry. The question the alliance is now left to answer is whether Turkey, feeling respected and rewarded, will become a more cooperative partner — or whether the removal of sanctions will simply confirm that Washington's leverage is available without conditions.
President Trump arrived in Ankara for a two-day NATO summit with a diplomatic prize already in hand: the lifting of sanctions against Turkey. It was meant to signal a warming of relations between Washington and one of NATO's most strategically important members, a country that straddles Europe and Asia and controls critical waterways. Trump presented the move as evidence of his ability to strengthen alliances through dealmaking—a tangible win to show the American public and NATO partners alike.
But the decision drew immediate scrutiny from those who have spent careers navigating the complexities of transatlantic relations. Ivo Daalder, who served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the Obama administration, questioned the logic of the approach. In his view, removing sanctions without clear conditions or reciprocal commitments represented an unusual way to conduct diplomacy. The criticism cut to a fundamental question about how nations should negotiate with allies: whether concessions should come before or after securing concrete commitments in return.
The sanctions in question had been imposed on Turkey for various reasons—including its military operations in Syria, its purchase of Russian air defense systems, and concerns about democratic backsliding. They represented leverage, tools that Washington could use to influence Turkish behavior. By lifting them during the summit, Trump was essentially spending that leverage upfront, betting that the gesture would produce goodwill and cooperation.
Daalder's concern was not that Trump was wrong to seek better relations with Turkey. Rather, it was the sequencing and the apparent absence of negotiated conditions. In traditional diplomacy, sanctions are typically lifted in response to changed behavior or as part of a formal agreement. They are the carrot that motivates compliance. Removing them without securing something concrete in return—whether policy changes, military cooperation, or other concessions—struck Daalder as backwards.
The timing also mattered. A NATO summit is a moment when the alliance is supposed to reaffirm its unity and shared commitments. Turkey, despite its NATO membership, has often pursued independent foreign policy goals that diverge from broader alliance interests. Its relationship with Russia, its military actions in Syria and Iraq, and its internal political trajectory have all been sources of tension within the alliance. A summit was an opportunity to use diplomatic pressure to address these tensions, not to remove leverage.
Trump's approach reflected his broader negotiating philosophy: build personal relationships with leaders, make dramatic gestures, and trust that goodwill will follow. It had worked in some contexts—his summits with North Korea, for instance, had generated headlines and shifted the tone of U.S.-North Korean relations, even if the underlying security situation remained complex. But NATO diplomacy operates under different rules. The alliance functions through consensus and shared commitments. Individual bilateral relationships matter, but they cannot override the collective interests of the alliance.
The question hanging over the summit was whether Trump's gambit would pay off. Would Turkey, feeling rewarded and respected, become a more cooperative NATO partner? Or would the removal of sanctions simply embolden Turkish leaders to pursue their own interests more aggressively, knowing that Washington had already given away its leverage? Daalder's skepticism suggested the latter was more likely. In his experience, allies respond to clear expectations and consequences, not to unilateral gestures of goodwill. The coming months would test which view was correct.
Citações Notáveis
Lifting Turkey sanctions without clear conditions or reciprocal commitments represents an unusual approach to diplomacy— Ivo Daalder, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter when sanctions are lifted? Couldn't Trump argue he's just trying to improve relations?
Because sanctions are leverage. Once you remove them, you've spent your bargaining chip. If Turkey doesn't change behavior, you have nothing left to encourage it.
But couldn't the goodwill from lifting sanctions actually make Turkey more cooperative?
That's the bet Trump is making. But Daalder's point is that allies don't typically respond to gifts—they respond to clear expectations and consequences. Goodwill without conditions can look like weakness.
So this is about the order of things?
Exactly. Normally you say: change this behavior, and we'll lift sanctions. Trump said: we're lifting sanctions, now let's be friends. It reverses the traditional logic.
What could Turkey do now that it couldn't before?
Pursue its own interests more freely. Without the threat of sanctions, it has less reason to coordinate with NATO on Syria, Russia policy, or anything else that conflicts with Turkish goals.
Is Daalder saying Trump shouldn't have lifted them at all?
Not necessarily. He's saying Trump should have negotiated first—secured commitments from Turkey in exchange for relief. That's how you turn a concession into leverage for future cooperation.