Conversations with Great Thinkers
Welcome to Conversations with Great Thinkers™, the podcast where curiosity meets inspiration! Dive into a world of profound ideas and transformative discussions that challenge the status quo and open your mind to new possibilities. In each episode we bring you engaging interviews with renowned authors and deep thinkers, exploring the intricate ways philosophy, ethics, and theology shape our human experience—past, present, and future. Whether you’re a lifelong learner or a passionate reader, join us to ignite your imagination and uncover the power of ideas to change the way we see the world. Let the journey begin!
Conversations with Great Thinkers
Trump's Strategic Negotiation Playbook
Alfred Kellogg, a veteran attorney and negotiation expert, takes us deep into the strategic mind of Donald Trump's approach to international dealmaking. Drawing from decades of experience advising major multinational corporations, Kellogg unpacks the sophisticated methods behind what often appears as unpredictable behavior from the former and current President.
The conversation begins with Kellogg introducing his book "Negotiate Eight Keys to Winning Negotiations," which distills critical negotiation principles into a practical framework. Four keys focus on preparation – which Kellogg identifies as the most crucial yet frequently neglected element of successful negotiation – while the remaining four address conducting negotiations effectively. Throughout the discussion, he applies these principles to analyze Trump's distinctive negotiation style.
What sets Trump apart, Kellogg explains, is his recognition and willingness to leverage America's greatest asset: access to the U.S. market. "Nobody else really has that to offer," Kellogg notes, describing it as "the biggest bargaining chip in the world." This fundamental understanding powers Trump's approach to tariffs, which Kellogg breaks down into three strategic categories: economic tools for revenue generation, national security protections for critical industries, and punitive measures against adversarial nations.
The most fascinating aspect of Trump's approach, according to Kellogg, is how he seamlessly integrates business, finance, diplomacy, and national security considerations into cohesive negotiation strategies. "He doesn't have lines," Kellogg observes, allowing Trump to reach across traditional boundaries to create leverage. This cross-disciplinary thinking enables creative solutions, as seen in his approaches to Panama and Greenland. Perhaps most importantly, Trump's established reputation means counterparties can't dismiss his threats as empty – "you already know his reputation, you already have a belief that he will pursue the issue."
Want to develop your own negotiation skills and understand the principles behind high-stakes international dealmaking? Visit negotiateeight.com to learn more about Kellogg's approach to winning negotiations in both business and diplomatic contexts.
For more information about our podcasts, see our website at www.Great-Thinkers.com
Welcome to Conversations with Great Thinkers. Our guest today is Mr Alfred Kellogg. Mr Kellogg is an attorney who, over the course of decades, has conducted and advised on negotiating agreements and resolving business disputes. He has worked as a senior counsel and as an officer of major multinationals, including a luxury hotel chain, an airline and two leading international banking firms. Mr Kellogg is the author of Negotiate Eight Keys to Winning Negotiations eight keys to winning negotiations. He'll provide us with his thoughts and perspectives on the negotiating style and strategy of the current United States President, donald J Trump. Mr Kellogg, welcome to our show.
Speaker 2:Thank you very much.
Speaker 1:Maybe the easiest way to begin our discussion today is to let our audience get familiar with the book that you wrote and the reasons that you wrote it. So let me turn the microphone over to you.
Speaker 2:Well, I wrote a small book called Negotiate and you'll forgive me if I point out that it's spelled N-E-G-O-T-I and the number eight, so it's a little bit cute Negotiatecom eight keys to winning negotiations, and in it I tried to distill some of my principles that I have found in my negotiating experience. In my negotiating experience, some of it derived from things I had read or heard, but a lot of it derived from what I have found works and I found myself trying to create a checklist of things that I wanted to have in mind in going to any negotiation. Even the most experienced pilot has a checklist that he goes through before takeoff. And my checklist is not paint by the numbers, because every negotiations different, but there are elements that are present in every negotiation and I tried to explain and highlight these. Their relative importance will change from one negotiation to the other, so there is no paint-by-the-numbers solution for every negotiation, but there is something that can remind you have I thought through this, that and the other thing? Have I thought through this, that and the other thing? And the book does something I didn't see elsewhere, which is it has four of my eight keys are prompting you on how to prepare for the negotiation Because, in my experience, preparation is the single most important element in successful negotiating, at least in the business context, and frequently the least observed in practice.
Speaker 2:So four of the keys are to prepare for your negotiation. Four are to conduct a negotiation. Negotiation is a learning process that continues throughout, so you're always trying to understand, both from external sources but also from your counterparty in a negotiation, and they will tell you many things, either directly in response to questions or sometimes involuntarily, in their reaction to to things. Negotiation is somewhat akin to poker, in that you are trying to read, you know what the other party is up to. So that's it in a nutshell.
Speaker 2:The book talks about two types of negotiations One is transactional and one is longer term. So it's become very fashionable for people to talk about win-win negotiating and considering the interests of the other parties. This is all valid, but it's really of greater interest where there's a continuing relationship relationship. Most of what Trump would have to do in the international arena in his negotiations is in that category. You are dealing with other countries that you will have an ongoing relationship with, so when you're talking about tariffs or treaties of almost any description, you are talking about a longer-term relationship. And the key thing here is that, as I like to put it, it's possible to win too big. In other words, if you use the power, you have to kind of crush the other side, you create an unstable relationship where over time, they're not getting at least the minimum that they need out of it. Well, let's take that point.
Speaker 1:I'm sorry to interrupt. Let's take that point, if we can, because you've touched on tariffs, which is really an important topic at the moment and a lot of Americans are getting dizzy from we're putting tariffs on. We're not putting tariffs on. How do you see the current negotiating style of the president in connection with tariffs, whether specific tariffs with regard to autos or quid pro quo tariffs with regard to other nations? What are some of your thoughts on that framework with regard to other nations?
Speaker 2:What are some of your thoughts on that framework? Well, let me start with a couple of observations. First of all, trump is ready, willing and able to use whatever power levers are available to him. He has often made comments about how, you know, we've been treated unfairly by trade partners and indicating that the prior administrations plural were essentially negligent and incompetent in this part, and I think that's because Trump sees everything as a negotiation and Trump it almost offends him when he sees people leave things on the table. So, to the extent that prior administrations haven't in trade relations haven't been designed using the power elements that the United States can bring to bear the power elements that the United States can bring to bear, he's upset about it. And now what are the power elements? Well, he's got one giant bargaining chip on his side, which is the greatest bargaining chip in the world, which is access to the US market. Nobody else really has that to offer.
Speaker 2:If you deal with the EU, you're often dealing one country at a time. If you're dealing with EU overall, they're still in their marketplace. You don't get entry and then get to sell across Europe with no problems. There are different standards, in some cases different languages on your labeling. There's just a lot of impediments. But what you have to offer if you'll let someone on the terms you'll let someone into the US market is wide, open access to the biggest consumer market and business market in the world, and that's of incredible value. So Trump holds the card that he can cut off or greatly reduce or encumber access to the US market, and he knows that, of course. And that is the underlying power. So Trump's style is very interesting because he we're used to governments often being very discreet about their negotiations and they go on behind closed doors and then they may or may not announce some sort of agreement and often these agreements sort of agreement and often these agreements paper particularly in the diplomatic context, paper over issues which are actually left unresolved.
Speaker 1:I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think I want to clarify for our listeners. Is it safe to presume that from your perspective, you see that tariffs can be effective as a means of achieving foreign policy goals, and maybe you could comment on what, if any, risks you see in that regard?
Speaker 2:Well, the tariffs don't serve a single purpose. They have different purposes in different contexts, and this is why the discussion can easily be oversimplified. So I think Trump does want tariffs as an economic matter. He feels that there's a lot of trade where there should be tariffs. For many years, particularly the Republicans have told us that we're in favor of free trade, neglecting to mention for the public, which is often unaware of this the tremendous tariffs and trade barriers we face in going into many other markets. So the free trade was all on our side. You know. We should have no tariffs or very low tariffs. Trump is trying to even that up.
Speaker 2:So there's the economic aspect, which is let's get some more government revenues and let's take care of our business. Then there is the national security aspect, which is we must absolutely protect our critical industries, and there we should have whatever high tariffs are required in order to keep our supply lines and production domestic and protect national security. And then the third bucket I would say offhand is a big stick where we have a problem with someone over national security issues, serious issues, something like Iran, you know, or something where you want to have a trade policy that punishes them. Now, of course, in the case of Iran, we go beyond tariffs to boycotts of various types. But the point is, it's all in that context of someone viewed as a bad actor with whom we have serious disputes, and so there, terrorists may form a portion of a stick in a carrot and stick structure where we really intend to punish somebody.
Speaker 2:So therefore, it's difficult, and the concept of reciprocal tariffs, which Trump has raised, is attractive on the face of it, and yet it's not an answer to everything, because if you have equal auto tariffs on a country that produces no autos, where's the symmetry?
Speaker 2:There isn't symmetry in what Ricardo would call the comparative advantages that exist in trade. This is why I believe the tariff negotiations ultimately will percolate down to any number of specific negotiations and the outcomes will vary based on the factors on the ground and in the commercial and diplomatic relationship, as well as the nature of the reason for having the tariffs. So Trump has launched the tariff issue in a big way with some very general statements in order to put pressure on other parties to come to the table. If he says I'm going to put a 25% tariff on you and you realize, your critical export to the United States is affected and a big part of your GDP. You're the other country in this example. Then you will come to the table. You'll need to talk to Trump, because the US market is the best and biggest in the world, so tariffs will ultimately get way and more and more complicated as you percolate down to the individual details.
Speaker 1:Thanks. Those are some pretty interesting perspectives that you've offered, but I'm going to see if we can shift the discussion a little bit at this point, if you're comfortable doing so. There are a couple other prominent case studies and really complex negotiations at the moment, including, for example, the Panama Canal. Are you prepared to say a few words about the negotiating strategy? Oh, by the way, I should say parenthetically that I think I heard correctly on the news this morning that Hutchinson-Wampoa has just withdrawn from the proposed agreement to sell the canal or the facilities at either end of the canal to Black Rock or Blackstone. Do you have some thoughts on what has happened so far with regard to the Panama Canal and what may happen?
Speaker 2:I think it's Black Rock in this situation regard to the Panama Canal and what may happen. I think it's BlackRock in this situation. Well, let me say this, and I want to make this disclaimer I'm not a Washington insider, so I don't have inside information on any of these issues, but I am a person experienced in negotiating, so my comments are on what you and I can see in the paper and on the news, and based on that, I think I can make some observations that may be useful for people to understand what's going on, but I'm not the insider. In the case of Panama, trump followed his pattern of putting the issue on the table in a big way, in a very public way, and in so doing, he accomplishes a number of things, one of which is he informs the US public. The issue of Panama has not been on people's radar for years, and so it was not prior to Trump raising it. I'm not aware that it was being treated as a current issue of importance, and that's for a number of reasons, largely the lack of information on the part of the population. So he does that. At the same time, he makes a demand and puts pressure on the opposing party, but one of the interesting things that I think the Panama situation illustrates, although, as you say, it does appear that some of this is falling apart now, but I think that would be temporary. I do not expect Trump to relent on pushing on this issue.
Speaker 2:But one of the things that illustrates is Trump has a very broad-ranging experience. He's previously been president of the United States, been President of the United States, head of a major company in real estate development and hotels and golf courses, and so on and so forth Quite a significant company. He is somebody who has an affinity with the military. He didn't have a big military record, but he was trained at school as a military cadet and so on, and so he has a very wide range of interests and it's what you might call a talent or skilled stack. Is Trump the world's best negotiator? I don't know, but he's a very good negotiator. Is Trump the world's biggest military expert? No, I don't think so, but he's interested and he follows it and he's a very fast learner. Is Trump the best financial analyst in the world? Well, maybe not, but he's got a very sophisticated understanding of money and trade flows and so on. By the way, he has made himself on the topic of the tariffs, apparently made himself quite a student of it in recent times, and so he's aware of some history that a lot of people aren't, which is that when we had tariffs in the past, the United States was flourishing economically. A lot of people have been trained to associate tariffs with Smoot-Hawley, which some people have blamed for the Great Depression. That's highly debatable, but tariffs themselves are not something that collapses economies.
Speaker 2:Well, let me return to Panama. So, because of this wide range of experience and insight, trump, there are no dividing lines between diplomacy, national security, business, finance, trade. He doesn't have lines. He reaches across all of these different topics to try to create elements and bring them into a negotiation as advantageous. So, in the case of Panama, the whole idea of buying the firm that had rights to manage the canal, which is Hutchinson-Winepoa this was really a commercial answer to a national security issue, and I think we see this a lot with Trump that he reaches for commercial answers often to things that somebody raised purely in the diplomatic or national security arena might not see as solutions, might not be creative in that way. But what will happen with Panama? I'm afraid I don't have any predictions right now, other than that I don't see the issue going away. Trump will continue to press it.
Speaker 1:Well, let's see if we can ask you to take out your crystal ball again and take a look at the Greenland situation, because I don't think the strategic importance of Greenland was on too many radar screens before President Trump took office. Now I would be quick to say that I've seen some marvelous movies about the World War II era, when the critical importance of Greenland was brought to the attention of then President Roosevelt and the steps that he took to be able to get bases there. But apparently since that time Greenland has not been the focus of US strategic interests. But now it is, and so are there different negotiating considerations with regard to Greenland versus what you've mentioned with regard to Panama.
Speaker 2:Well, as I said, everything's different. Well, as I said, everything's different. Greenland followed a kind of a similar pattern where Trumpading it to buying it, to having some sort of a trade or other agreement or security agreement where we feel we have it within our control to the extent we need to, and I think he intends to keep that vague and see where he can. The Greenland thing I think it illustrates another interesting aspect. Most people in my experience who are going to looking for a book or some interesting information about negotiating that will help them, they think that the answer is always going to lie in personal relations them. They think that the answer is always going to lie in personal relations they tend to look for how do I present things, what words do I say, how do I behave, and so on. Trump it's interesting to watch Trump in this regard because in general, I think Trump feels, as I do, that you have to show respect for your negotiating partners. The one thing you don't want to do typically is show any disrespect, because that introduces an element of personal animosity or resentment that could impair your path to a satisfactory result. So, in the case of Greenland, it's interesting that Vance, our vice president, just went down there and started chastising Denmark for doing a lousy job. And you might say well, that's strange. You know, trump is often criticized for being respectful to Putin, and here we've got what is a friendly country and they're calling him bad managers. Why is that?
Speaker 2:Well, I think the difference and the difference with Panama certainly is that Greenland is very remote from Denmark. Denmark doesn't have a very good way to protect Greenland. The US obviously could easily invade in the worst case, which I'm not saying I expect at all but the other counterparty is not sure what Trump is willing or able to do, and I'll get back to that in a second. So but the Vance and other similar statements I think are not intended for Denmark. They're intended for the population of Greenland and to the for the population of Greenland and to the extent the population of Greenland is brought around to the idea in a big way that it would be wonderful to be part of the United States as a territory of possession, even ultimately a state, that this would enhance their quality of life and their opportunities.
Speaker 2:If there's a really strong political movement within Greenland, it's kind of hard to see what Denmark would do to resist it. It certainly limits their options. It certainly limits their options. So that's kind of what I think is going on with Greenland. Trump, by all objective measures I've seen, is completely correct about the national security importance, particularly the northern waterways that go past Greenland, which apparently now have a lot of Chinese and Russian shipping and the Chinese have been buying properties in Greenland. So it is a serious national security interest and something will happen. My guess is there'll be some face-saving there or there will be some sort of a joint ownership or operation of Greenland between the US and Denmark. That's a guess as to where we may end up with that one.
Speaker 1:Interesting. I know our time is somewhat limited today and in the time that we do have left, and this may be terribly unfair, difficult or maybe even impossible, but I'd like to take a look at both the Ukraine conflict and the war in Gaza and ask what your thoughts are, with regard to not only President Trump but his alter ego, mr Witkoff, in terms of the way those negotiations are being handled and what, if anything, you see, that might come out of that.
Speaker 2:Well, ukraine is first of all, I think, ukraine, although it has the elements of a negotiation I'll explain in a minute it might more properly be described as a mediation which Trump is trying to see, if there's a way to bring Putin together with Zelenskyy slash Ukraine. So it's a little bit complicated, and then we become a party to it to the extent we have to put in some sort of guarantees or engage in this agreement, which I guess is already complete, on rare earth minerals. One of the things that is going to be present, particularly in the Middle East and Ukraine is, you know, the famous meeting at the White House that blew up in my observation was largely although people bring in again all the personal kind of veneer to it but I think basically it was that Zelensky was trying to get Trump to commit to a security guarantee of some sort, which and he clearly is collaborating closely with some European countries and they would all like that too and Trump resisted that and, in negotiating terms, trump walked away. He said no, that's not it and I won't accept it and we'll cut off the negotiation. Now Zelensky, in that case, had to come back and, in negotiating terms, generally speaking, when you have to come back after walking away, it means somebody called your bluff and you're generally in a weaker negotiating position. So, but the mediation thing if you, if you're mediating a dispute and thing, if you're mediating a dispute and you are looking, trying to look at it objectively and say where is it possible to get an agreement, you often find that one party has a much stronger position than the other and you inevitably, to make the agreement, are going to try to move the party in the weaker position towards the one in the stronger position, not because you favor one over the other personally, but because this is the way an agreement can be accomplished.
Speaker 2:And I think that Trump sees the resolution of the Ukraine war as highly important strategically for the United States. He thinks that our main adversary is China and that we should not be involved in or worrying about wars in Europe and so on at this time. So Trump has been accused of favoring Putin. I don't think he favors anybody, but in order to get a deal done, as he told Zelensky to his face, you don't have the cards at the White House meeting. So, again, time will tell. Not everything is predictable, but this is the general direction it's taking and the danger, of course here is that Putin feeling he has a strong hand is going to be more and more difficult and demanding, but I also think that there's a good case to be made that Putin has plenty of reasons to try to resolve this himself. So I'm not personally. I suspect there will be ultimately an agreement, but the Russian style of negotiation is to drag it out and drag you down and dip away, and so it may not be fast. We'll see.
Speaker 1:That is really, really helpful. Let me ask you in the few moments that we have left here, do you have any final thoughts on negotiations in what I'll call the world of real politic?
Speaker 2:Well, again one thing I'd like to say, and some people listening to this may have seen the Steve Witkoff interview and he made a point similar to one that had occurred to me, which is if you and I are starting a negotiation with somebody that we have not previously dealt with, one of the things that, of course, is constantly going on a negotiation is evaluating the other party. Do they mean what they say? To what extent are they bluffing? Is their position weak or strong? Trump has complete and, by the way, in my view, a lot of these early issues and signaling are of critical importance. Very often the negotiation is largely complete by the time the parties meet, because the to-ing and fro-ing and positioning tends to be very educational on both sides. But with Trump, you already know he's famous, he has a history in negotiating, he has a history as president. So Trump is pretty convincing that he means what he says and he's very capable of taking strong and even disruptive action if he needs to. So if you are going to negotiate with Trump, it's very hard to be complacent. If Trump says he's going to put heavy tariffs on your country, one thing you can't do is say well, he'll back down or it'll go away. And Trump doesn't have to say a word because you already know his reputation, you already have a belief that he will pursue the issue and it's just a question of where you come out. But the status quo is not going to remain. You're not going to be able to protect it going to remain. You're not going to be able to protect it.
Speaker 2:In a power-oriented negotiation, trump starts with a goal. Woodclaw said that himself. I think it's a lot of people in their personal negotiation. They often don't stop and say what is my goal? What do I want here? What's the best thing? They also don't stop and examine where would I walk away if I can't achieve it? And then they don't impose time deadlines. Trump does all of those things, although he may not divulge the walkaway, which is often kept hidden. So that's his basic approach, which is what I call the power approach.
Speaker 1:Mr Kellogg, I am so grateful. I think we've all learned an enormous amount from your insights and perspectives. Thank you very, very much. Before we conclude this, can I ask you to please tell our listeners where they can find your book and tell them the name again, because it's a little unusual.
Speaker 2:Well, the book. Thank you, Jim. The book is available on Amazon now. It's called Negotiate, with the number eight instead of the letters A-T-E, so it's N-E-G-O-T-I, number eight dot com and you can find it on Amazon. And I have a website which is negotiate eight dot com, again with the same number, and there if you want to consult with me on any topic relating to negotiations or help arrange a training or a seminar, you can put yourself in my calendar and reach me very easily. So thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 1:Thank you.