The deal of flattery by Edoardo Moretti

A war-scarred region, battered by years of artillery and grief, offering to rename itself “Donnyland” in a bid to secure political favor. It sounds like satire, until it doesn’t. Because beneath the absurdity lies a revealing truth about modern power: flattery, once a subtle diplomatic tool, is now being wielded as a blunt instrument in global politics.

The reported gesture from Ukraine, whether earnest, exaggerated, or purely strategic, underscores a shift in how nations navigate influence in an era shaped by personality-driven leadership. It is no longer enough to appeal to shared values, treaties, or long-standing alliances. Instead, leaders and those seeking their support, are increasingly playing to ego, branding, and spectacle.

This is not entirely new. History is rich with examples of rulers who demanded praise and tribute as proof of loyalty. But what feels different now is the brazenness. The hypothetical “Donnyland” proposal doesn’t just flatter; it advertises its flattery. It assumes, perhaps correctly, that symbolic gestures aimed at personal vanity can carry as much weight as policy arguments.

For Ukraine, a country fighting for its sovereignty against Russian aggression, the stakes could not be higher. The idea of carving out a demilitarized zone in Donbas, one that Russia could never annex, would be a strategic lifeline. If attaching a name, even one loaded with political connotations, could help secure that outcome, some might argue it’s a small price to pay.

But at what cost does diplomacy become performance? The danger of such tactics is not merely that they cheapen political discourse. It’s that they risk redefining the terms of engagement altogether. When flattery becomes currency, those unwilling or unable to participate in the game are left at a disadvantage. Policy risks being shaped not by merit or necessity, but by who can deliver the most appealing narrative to the most influential audience.

There is also a deeper, more troubling implication. If global actors believe that appealing to personal ego is the most effective path to securing support, it suggests a lack of confidence in the stability of institutions themselves. Alliances become transactional. Commitments feel conditional. And the line between diplomacy and manipulation blurs.

Of course, one could argue that this is simply realism in action. Nations have always acted in their own interests, and if flattery works, why not use it? Yet there is a difference between pragmatic negotiation and the normalization of political theater as a primary tool of statecraft.

The “Donnyland” idea, whether real or rhetorical, captures this tension perfectly. It is both clever and unsettling, a symbol of ingenuity born from desperation, but also a reflection of how far the global conversation has drifted from substance to spectacle.

In the end, the question is not whether such tactics are effective. They often are. The question is what they leave behind. If international relations increasingly revolve around personal branding and public flattery, the risk is that serious issues, war, peace, sovereignty, become props in a larger performance.

And for places like Donbas, where the consequences are measured in lives rather than headlines, that is a gamble the world can ill afford.