Opinion | My Way Or The Highway: The New Normal In Global Negotiations

Historically, international negotiations followed hard bargaining behind closed doors and soft, diplomatic messaging in public. This method allowed leaders to protect relationships while still advocating for national interests. Behind-the-scenes negotiations were often tough and strategic, but public rhetoric emphasised cooperation, stability, and long-term partnerships. The rhetoric would drive the media, and the analysis or criticism was muted or contained in the public sphere.

The new approach today, however, flips this dynamic. Instead of careful, behind-the-scenes bargaining, the US leadership is openly confrontational, using public pressure, social media, and press statements to shape negotiations. This shift creates a high-stakes environment where countries feel forced to take rigid stances to avoid losing face in public. The consequences include heightened tensions, increased unpredictability, and a greater risk of negotiation breakdowns.

This shift exemplifies Trump’s approach, particularly in trade and security discussions. His administration has frequently used social media and public statements to pressure negotiating counterparts, forcing real-time responses rather than allowing for quiet, measured diplomacy. This hardline approach, amplified by Vice President JD Vance, is a defining characteristic of the US’s international negotiations. This will affect negotiation methods in bilateral relationships and is a harbinger to a new way of negotiating in business and even multilateral forums.

CHANGING THE REFERENCE POINT: A NEW ANCHORING STRATEGY

One of the most significant shifts in this negotiation style is the deliberate redefinition of the anchoring point, or the starting reference for discussions. Rather than negotiating from a conventional baseline, the US has changed the frame of reference to put other nations on the back foot before talks even begin.

• In the case of Ukraine, the US moved the focus away from core issues like reclaiming Russian-occupied territory or achieving a ceasefire. Instead, the anchoring point was set at a radically different level—Ukraine ceding mineral rights to the US in exchange for support. This fundamentally altered the negotiation’s premise, shifting it from a security-based discussion to a transactional, resource-exchange dynamic. By doing so, the US forced Ukraine to argue against an artificial demand rather than negotiate on its original terms.
• This strategy is even more apparent in trade negotiations. Instead of beginning discussions from existing trade norms, the US set new baselines by introducing steep reciprocal tariffs. This approach effectively forced trading partners like Canada, Mexico, and China into a defensive posture, focusing on removing or mitigating these tariffs rather than negotiating other critical trade terms. By shifting the anchoring point to a new, harsher standard, the US ensured that its negotiating counterparts had to fight uphill battles just to return to previously accepted norms.

THE FIXED-PIE BELIEF IN UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS

One of the key cognitive biases in negotiation, as discussed by Bazerman and Neale (1992) in Negotiating Rationally, is the fixed-pie belief—the assumption that a negotiation is a winner-takes-all scenario rather than an opportunity for mutually beneficial solutions. This belief was evident in the US’s approach to talks with Ukraine, where the Trump administration proposed that the US receive ownership of half of Ukraine’s mineral and oil resources in exchange for continued American support. This shifted from the moral high horse approach that Ukraine has used till now to force the US, and even Europe, to shame them in supporting its conflict with Russia.

From the US perspective, the demand was seen as a necessary price for military and economic aid, rooted in the belief that any gain for Ukraine must come at a proportional loss for Kyiv. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected this proposal outright, arguing that it lacked substantive security guarantees and positioned Ukraine as a vassal rather than a sovereign ally.

Zelenskyy’s approach—assuming that the US would negotiate on conventional diplomatic terms—did not align with the Trump-Vance administration’s strategy, which relied on extreme anchoring and rigid demands. Rather than countering in a way that acknowledged the US’s hardline stance, Ukraine’s outright rejection eliminated opportunities for compromise. This demonstrated a crucial misalignment where Ukraine assumed room for mutual benefit. The US viewed the negotiations strictly from a mineral gains point of view and forced this publicly, not privately. Zelenskyy had to finally capitulate and agree to the terms and leadership of the US, as is evident from the letter he wrote to the US President after leaving the negotiation midway.

HARDLINE TACTICS IN TRADE NEGOTIATIONS: THE MY-WAY OR HIGHWAY APPROACH

This uncompromising approach is not limited to Ukraine but is evident in trade negotiations with Mexico, Canada, and China. Trump imposed a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, arguing that these measures would revitalise the American economy. Canada and Mexico responded with retaliatory tariffs, escalating the trade dispute.

Similarly, in negotiations with China, the administration repeatedly altered terms and imposed sudden tariffs, making it difficult for China to anticipate US demands. This created an environment of uncertainty—a negotiation tactic often used to pressure the opposing party into irrational concessions due to fear of unpredictability, as noted in Negotiating Rationally.

By shifting the anchoring point to new, extreme tariffs, the US forced other countries to negotiate from a defensive position rather than engage in equal bargaining.

THE GLOBAL SHIFT TOWARD UNPREDICTABILITY IN NEGOTIATIONS

The success (or, at least, the endurance) of this hardline strategy suggests that it is becoming the new normal—not just for the US, but for other nations as well. In a world where unpredictability has proven to be a powerful tool, more countries may adopt similar tactics to gain leverage in international agreements. We are already seeing instances of this:

India has taken a firmer stance in trade negotiations with the European Union, leveraging its growing economic clout to dictate terms rather than accept concessions.

China has begun implementing its retaliatory economic policies, ensuring that US tariffs are met with equally severe countermeasures. It has refused to back down from the US approach, and it has become a game of who blinks first, how long this stand-off will continue, and whether it will flow into other, even harsher, military adventures.

The shift toward a more rigid, transactional negotiation style marks a fundamental change in global diplomacy and trade relations. The traditional framework of cooperative bargaining is giving way to a more aggressive, confrontational model. The US’s deliberate shift in anchoring points has fundamentally altered negotiation dynamics, forcing counterparts into defensive positions even before talks begin.

Research on high-pressure negotiations, such as studies by Malhotra & Bazerman (2007) in Negotiation Genius and Carnevale & De Dreu (2006) in Motivational Aspects of Negotiation and Mediation, suggests that such tactics heighten anxiety and stress among negotiators, leading them to make more significant concessions than they would under more stable conditions. When confronted with unpredictable and extreme demands, negotiators often act out of fear or pressure rather than rational evaluation, ultimately ceding more ground than initially intended.

While this approach may yield short-term gains, it also risks long-term instability and erosion of trust among international partners. As this negotiation-normal gains traction, it raises critical questions about the future of diplomacy: Will nations find ways to counterbalance these hardline tactics, or will this become the dominant negotiation method in the years ahead?

K Yatish Rajawat is a public policy researcher and works at the Gurgaon-based think and do tank Centre for Innovation in Public Policy (CIPP). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.