A Tale of Three Quagmires: Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine—and Three Theories to End War. From Eisenhower’s Good Cop/Bad Cop to Nixon’s Madman to Trump’s Badman Theory.
Interesting historical perspective on current events once again. The madman tag on Trump , Iron man tag on Putin seem pretty accurate.
Not sure about the Sandman tag on the other pathetic puff ball , not sure he merits one. Trump can certainly do a Nixon, not sure he has a Kissinger (but Vance looks promising).
To the guy who complains the article is too long , I don’t think so , this is what historical based analysis of current affairs takes.
Not like the mass produced, pre-packaged microwave reheats the MSM production line churns out.
Thanks you! I hesitated on both the Sandman and Strawman sections as they didn't quite feel right. In the end I kept them in because of the Oval Office incident but I agree that they don't fit.
The “too long” comment is thought-provoking. We’re in the midst of a shift—from the rapid-fire, emotion-driven cycle of 24-hour cable news and social media to the slower, more reflective format of three-hour podcasts and long-form essays. In my work, I strive to ground current events in historical and theoretical depth, which naturally requires more than a few soundbites—often, several thousand words!
Love the way you bring things into perspective, though often disagreeing with the direction ;)
No matter what, honor to who honor deserves. Your work is a pleasure to read and a relief amidst the slew of unsubstantiated garbage poured out on the world.
"he’s slapped 25% tariffs on the EU": but EU is not paying these tariffs; nor are Canada or Mexico paying. It is the US populace which is facing the increased cost of of products and living, because they are paying for those tarfiffs.
It is not like Trump is taxing EU, Canda or Mexico, right? Or am I wrong?
"write new scripts for peace" assumes that Ironman would suddenly respect agreements and treaties, which he has not ever done before.
Why would he now?
It is more likely that after UA, the Baltic States will be brought 'Heim ins Reich' and then the rest of the ex-Soviet countries, like Kazachstan, which has been labelled by Putin as 'not a country in its own right'.
My best bet is that Putin will not stop expanding, unless he is told to stop. Only NATO can do that, as China will not.
NATO has been important as it has brought peace to the Western Hemisphere for almost 70 years. Abandoning the Alliance in worst case would allow Russia to overrun Europe (it can't really, but it could try and there is always a chance of success). Now, would that be in the best interest of the USA, if there is one big Eurasian continent, ruled by Xi, Putin and Kim? I don't think so, as it would shrink the USA to a minor power in terms of population, economy and industrial output.
In a break-even scenario, abandoning the Alliance leads to Europe holding its own (600million pop., economy dwarfing Russia, larger and more mordern armed forces etc.). Further, relations between USA and Europe would be damaged beyond repair. Europe might be able to broker a peace, declare UA neutral, Europe and Russia help exploit UA in capitalizing on the minerals while USA misses out. As a result better ties develop between Russia, China and Europe and USA is left alone on its island, reduced to a minor economic power after the hegemony of the US$ is broken.
I consider that a real risk (which would cost me dearly).
Your comments on NATO only highlight the effectiveness of Trump's strategy in driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe. The image you paint of an avaricious Putin swallowing up helpless European microstates is exactly what Trump wants you to believe. Even the idea that NATO is the only thing standing between Europe and Russia; although a highly speculative assertion that’s already proven wrong in Ukraine, showcases the protection racket strategy Trump is running to squeeze more wealth out of the EU.
Let’s not forget the NATO chief’s claim that Russia produces weapons in three months at a rate equal to NATO's entire production from Los Angeles to Ankara in a year. Trump wants Europe to get busy filling that nine month gap.
If not, what happens when the U.S. withdraws from Europe and ends its 80-year post-WWII occupation? How will the girlbosses in Brussels respond to this reality?
This is the "Badman" strategy. Force Europe to stare into the abyss of a Putin-dominated Europe and then watch as they scramble back to Trump, ready to make serious concessions.
I'll respond one point at a time: On tariffs, what typically happens is that under a new tariff regime, the relevant currencies adjust to offset the difference. In this case, the dollar would likely rise while the Peso, Canadian Dollar, and Euro would fall. This could help lower inflation in the U.S., but it would likely raise inflation in the impacted currency zones.
However, the point of mentioning 25% tariffs was to support the argument that Trump sought to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe—not necessarily to claim this was or wasn’t sound economic policy.
Tariffs are a complex issue, as is economics in general, filled with trade-offs and contradictions. A rising dollar can help lower U.S. inflation but also contribute to deindustrialization by making American goods more expensive abroad. Ideally, a tariff policy would target manufactured goods while allowing raw materials to flow in without tariffs. However, trade partners are hardly naive and may respond with reciprocal measures. This could offer insight into why Trump seems intent on creating a "Greater America" by annexing Canada, Greenland, and everything north of the Panama Canal.
Reindustrializing the U.S., following the 19th-century American System, is a complicated topic that would require an entire post to fully explore.
I'm working on it! The least I can say is that it is a long-term project that necessarily requires a short-term decline in the US standard of living. One possible way of hiding this is the annexation of Greenland and Canada so that the economic statistics are no longer are comparable to the past. But in any case there are a lot of moving parts in reindustrialization but ultimately it would be much better if the US succeeds in this endeavour.
On a personal level I would love to see the USD rise :)
On a less selfcentered level I am not looking forward to destabilization, which - especially if Europe and USA get truly separated - might cause the end of the USD hegemony.
How many words would you think is short enough? I start each essay with a 1500 word limit and unfortunately end up somewhere near 3000 each time. Your idea is to do something similar to a YouTube short, which I find interesting.
Well, I read so many long philosophical texts, but as I materialist philosopher, I think much of it is idealistic philosophical nonsense that I can´t use for anything and that I waste my time on.
And the art of differentiation between what is relevant and what is less relevant. In other words, not youtube populism, but to cut down and go as directly to the essence as possible.
If I refer to the war in Ukraine and specifically the Trump-Vance- Zelensky dispute last night, lots of words but no focus on the origin of the war (even though Trump and Vance came closer), which of course was the regime change coup on Maidan Square in Kiev in 2014.
Now I read your text again, maybe it is all, or most of it substantial relevant leading up to today´s tense situation, so maybe I was too soon. Sorry.
The issue is that I used the image from the Oval Office incident, even though the article had already been mostly written before that event unfolded. You were looking for a quick rundown of what happened, but instead, I provided a deeper dive into Trump’s persona and strategy—a dive that, as luck would have it, was vividly demonstrated to the world just as I was finalizing the article. Timing can be both a blessing and a curse.
Interesting historical perspective on current events once again. The madman tag on Trump , Iron man tag on Putin seem pretty accurate.
Not sure about the Sandman tag on the other pathetic puff ball , not sure he merits one. Trump can certainly do a Nixon, not sure he has a Kissinger (but Vance looks promising).
To the guy who complains the article is too long , I don’t think so , this is what historical based analysis of current affairs takes.
Not like the mass produced, pre-packaged microwave reheats the MSM production line churns out.
Thanks you! I hesitated on both the Sandman and Strawman sections as they didn't quite feel right. In the end I kept them in because of the Oval Office incident but I agree that they don't fit.
The “too long” comment is thought-provoking. We’re in the midst of a shift—from the rapid-fire, emotion-driven cycle of 24-hour cable news and social media to the slower, more reflective format of three-hour podcasts and long-form essays. In my work, I strive to ground current events in historical and theoretical depth, which naturally requires more than a few soundbites—often, several thousand words!
Your approach is sound👏👏👏👍
Love the way you bring things into perspective, though often disagreeing with the direction ;)
No matter what, honor to who honor deserves. Your work is a pleasure to read and a relief amidst the slew of unsubstantiated garbage poured out on the world.
From “Security Queens” to “Madman, Badman, Ironman, Sandman”. Great perspective again.
Thanks! I got on a roll with that flurry!
A few things stick out to me:
"he’s slapped 25% tariffs on the EU": but EU is not paying these tariffs; nor are Canada or Mexico paying. It is the US populace which is facing the increased cost of of products and living, because they are paying for those tarfiffs.
It is not like Trump is taxing EU, Canda or Mexico, right? Or am I wrong?
"write new scripts for peace" assumes that Ironman would suddenly respect agreements and treaties, which he has not ever done before.
Why would he now?
It is more likely that after UA, the Baltic States will be brought 'Heim ins Reich' and then the rest of the ex-Soviet countries, like Kazachstan, which has been labelled by Putin as 'not a country in its own right'.
My best bet is that Putin will not stop expanding, unless he is told to stop. Only NATO can do that, as China will not.
NATO has been important as it has brought peace to the Western Hemisphere for almost 70 years. Abandoning the Alliance in worst case would allow Russia to overrun Europe (it can't really, but it could try and there is always a chance of success). Now, would that be in the best interest of the USA, if there is one big Eurasian continent, ruled by Xi, Putin and Kim? I don't think so, as it would shrink the USA to a minor power in terms of population, economy and industrial output.
In a break-even scenario, abandoning the Alliance leads to Europe holding its own (600million pop., economy dwarfing Russia, larger and more mordern armed forces etc.). Further, relations between USA and Europe would be damaged beyond repair. Europe might be able to broker a peace, declare UA neutral, Europe and Russia help exploit UA in capitalizing on the minerals while USA misses out. As a result better ties develop between Russia, China and Europe and USA is left alone on its island, reduced to a minor economic power after the hegemony of the US$ is broken.
I consider that a real risk (which would cost me dearly).
Doesn't such an outcome scare anyone else?
Your comments on NATO only highlight the effectiveness of Trump's strategy in driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe. The image you paint of an avaricious Putin swallowing up helpless European microstates is exactly what Trump wants you to believe. Even the idea that NATO is the only thing standing between Europe and Russia; although a highly speculative assertion that’s already proven wrong in Ukraine, showcases the protection racket strategy Trump is running to squeeze more wealth out of the EU.
Let’s not forget the NATO chief’s claim that Russia produces weapons in three months at a rate equal to NATO's entire production from Los Angeles to Ankara in a year. Trump wants Europe to get busy filling that nine month gap.
If not, what happens when the U.S. withdraws from Europe and ends its 80-year post-WWII occupation? How will the girlbosses in Brussels respond to this reality?
This is the "Badman" strategy. Force Europe to stare into the abyss of a Putin-dominated Europe and then watch as they scramble back to Trump, ready to make serious concessions.
I’m describing a process here, not taking sides.
I'll respond one point at a time: On tariffs, what typically happens is that under a new tariff regime, the relevant currencies adjust to offset the difference. In this case, the dollar would likely rise while the Peso, Canadian Dollar, and Euro would fall. This could help lower inflation in the U.S., but it would likely raise inflation in the impacted currency zones.
However, the point of mentioning 25% tariffs was to support the argument that Trump sought to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe—not necessarily to claim this was or wasn’t sound economic policy.
Tariffs are a complex issue, as is economics in general, filled with trade-offs and contradictions. A rising dollar can help lower U.S. inflation but also contribute to deindustrialization by making American goods more expensive abroad. Ideally, a tariff policy would target manufactured goods while allowing raw materials to flow in without tariffs. However, trade partners are hardly naive and may respond with reciprocal measures. This could offer insight into why Trump seems intent on creating a "Greater America" by annexing Canada, Greenland, and everything north of the Panama Canal.
Reindustrializing the U.S., following the 19th-century American System, is a complicated topic that would require an entire post to fully explore.
I’d like to read your thoughts on potential USA re-industrialization. Please.
I'm working on it! The least I can say is that it is a long-term project that necessarily requires a short-term decline in the US standard of living. One possible way of hiding this is the annexation of Greenland and Canada so that the economic statistics are no longer are comparable to the past. But in any case there are a lot of moving parts in reindustrialization but ultimately it would be much better if the US succeeds in this endeavour.
On a personal level I would love to see the USD rise :)
On a less selfcentered level I am not looking forward to destabilization, which - especially if Europe and USA get truly separated - might cause the end of the USD hegemony.
That would be desastrous.
Love your explanations. I hope you are right.
I also love the term 'girlbosses in Brussels'!
Just afraid that Trump may also become an 'Albaciades' (except for the handsame part) and the USA 'Athens'.
We will have to wait and see.
Maybe a too long text for readers. Could you make it shorter, more updated and intense?
I thought it quite riveting, even if it ascribes more starategy to Trump than I think he is capable of.
Let him cook
How many words would you think is short enough? I start each essay with a 1500 word limit and unfortunately end up somewhere near 3000 each time. Your idea is to do something similar to a YouTube short, which I find interesting.
Well, I read so many long philosophical texts, but as I materialist philosopher, I think much of it is idealistic philosophical nonsense that I can´t use for anything and that I waste my time on.
And the art of differentiation between what is relevant and what is less relevant. In other words, not youtube populism, but to cut down and go as directly to the essence as possible.
If I refer to the war in Ukraine and specifically the Trump-Vance- Zelensky dispute last night, lots of words but no focus on the origin of the war (even though Trump and Vance came closer), which of course was the regime change coup on Maidan Square in Kiev in 2014.
Now I read your text again, maybe it is all, or most of it substantial relevant leading up to today´s tense situation, so maybe I was too soon. Sorry.
If you're in rush, ask chatGpt to summarize it; others like me feel very lucky to read Kevin's talented writing in their full length
The issue is that I used the image from the Oval Office incident, even though the article had already been mostly written before that event unfolded. You were looking for a quick rundown of what happened, but instead, I provided a deeper dive into Trump’s persona and strategy—a dive that, as luck would have it, was vividly demonstrated to the world just as I was finalizing the article. Timing can be both a blessing and a curse.
Good call, I edited it to "started or escalated."