Fact Check: Rutte defended Trump's flattery as a necessary business tactic.

Fact Check: Rutte defended Trump's flattery as a necessary business tactic

What We Know

The claim that Mark Rutte, the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands and current NATO Secretary General, defended Donald Trump's flattery as a necessary business tactic lacks substantial evidence. Rutte has been known for his straightforward and often blunt communication style, particularly in his interactions with Trump. For instance, during a meeting with Trump, Rutte was noted for his immediate rejection of Trump's suggestion that not signing trade agreements could be "positive," emphasizing that it was not a beneficial approach and that action was necessary (Washington Post).

While Rutte has expressed admiration for certain aspects of Trump's leadership, particularly regarding NATO's defense commitments, there is no clear indication that he explicitly endorsed flattery as a business strategy. Instead, his approach has generally been characterized by a commitment to directness and clarity in diplomatic discussions (Politico).

Analysis

The assertion that Rutte defended Trump's flattery as a business tactic seems to stem from a misunderstanding of Rutte's diplomatic style. Rutte has been described as pragmatic and flexible, often accommodating various political factions to achieve results (Wikipedia). This flexibility does not equate to endorsing flattery; rather, it reflects a strategic approach to governance and international relations.

Moreover, the sources discussing Rutte's interactions with Trump do not provide evidence that he advocated for flattery as a necessary tactic. Instead, they highlight Rutte's tendency to be candid and assertive in his communications, which contrasts with the idea of flattery as a primary diplomatic tool. The reliability of the sources varies; while major outlets like the Washington Post and Politico are credible, the interpretation of Rutte's comments may be influenced by the framing of the articles rather than direct quotes or explicit endorsements of flattery.

Conclusion

Needs Research. The claim that Rutte defended Trump's flattery as a necessary business tactic is not supported by the available evidence. Rutte's diplomatic style is characterized by directness rather than flattery, and while he may have expressed admiration for certain aspects of Trump's leadership, this does not equate to an endorsement of flattery as a tactic. Further investigation into Rutte's statements and the context of his interactions with Trump is necessary to clarify this claim.