I think your view is commonly held, possibly correct, and totally unhelpful because it is used an excuse not to figure out what's going on. And on a hockey talk board, we don't have to figure anything out, so that's not a criticism of you. But the allies and adversaries of the United States (and neutrals who trade with the US or are being pushed to be one or the other) need to figure it out. Too often, those leaders (and moreso the "opinion makers" in their countries) toss their hands up in the air that it is all unpredictable meglomania and they miss an opportunity to promote or protect their interests. If there is no rationale, than it doesn't matter what you do. But if there *is* a rationale, it does. So every prime minister and foreign office should operate with the assumption that there's a thread (which if not uniform, is not random) to Trump's actions and figure it out.Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 11:38 am UW I would like to think that despite all of the trump admins bluster that there i some sort of an agenda but sadly I (and many, many others) believe he ismore likely a 300 lb infant who wants to make a legacy akin to the Monroe doctrine. There are some who think he sees a world map and thinks it "might be cool" to absorb what he perceives to be a giant piece of real estate (which appears distortionally large due to map scaling)
He's strongly resembles a narcissistic megalomaniac who has zero tact or respect for anyone else whatsoever. What else can the world think given everything he has said and done the past 14 months???
And FWIW, I think there are a few clear rationales and patterns.
(1) Trump has a "realism" foreign policy framework, that nations act in their own self-interest, and knows that this is true of Russia and China, and believes this is the way the world works whether people say it or not. He has limited tolerance for idealism in foreign policy, and thinks the Europeans have exposed themselves because they care more about what they say than what they do -- and they do things that are not aligned with what they say. To Trump, do reveals more than say.
This doesn't mean everything is predictable -- people can look at the same problem through the lens of foreign policy realism and come to different answers about what they should do or how another nation will respond. There may be information asymmetry, different risk tolerances, etc.
FWIW, I think Trump is largely right about the lens, though I don't agree with each of his actions or decisions.
(2) Trump is not precious, precise, or polite about the tools that he uses to achieve his ends. The do matters, the ends matter, the means -- there are limitations (until Iran, I think his resume was pretty strongly that he strongly preferred non-military means to achieving the ends, and that the use of the military was primarily to let others know that it can be used so that it might be used less the next time it seems like a possible option). When Trump threatened to leave NATO in the first term, so many pulled out their hair -- but he got nations (except Canada) to commit 2% of their GDP to defense. No one but the US was there in 2017, IIRC. And this go around, commitments have gone up again. NATO is stronger and getting in stronger in "do" while the "blah blah" is that the alliance is frayed. Which do you prefer -- an alliance that can execute its military mission which is is full of stressed relations because so much of getting there was do to impoliteness, coercion, and fear-based persuasion, or one where everyone is all snuggly together while Russia invades and has an arsenal of "We condemn their actions!"
(3) Trump uses every strategy in the Art of the Deal or any other book on negotiations. And he doesn't do it honorably. Example, you can have a deal and it can be nudged once you are desparate for it. He also stakes out extraordinary demands to anchor a favorable position so that the compromise is much closer to what you could have achieved with a more modest opener. Not every situation is a negotiation, and not every negotiation starts with "we are going to negotiate about this," but the quicker people realize this is what's going on, the more likely they are not to get frazzled -- no one is invading Greenland! (but it is on the table -- because it is a truism that there are circumstances that could arise between nations in which you use your military, so it is always on the table). And more than not getting frazzled, in any typical negotiation the moment you spot your opponent trying to establish an unreasonable anchor, you know the true range is much closer to your position than you might otherwise think.
(4) He is susceptible to flattery. Its so obvious -- Mark Ruuta (NATO Secretary, don't know the spelling) gets it, why don't others? Its because they are as vain as Trump, but in their own way. And while Trump can't help his own vanity, he does know how to use others' vanity against them, whether that's through flattery or embarrassment.
The common retort to this kind of thing is something like you can always post-hoc rationalize irrational acts. Maybe, but see the first point -- it only matters if is rational. But more than that, we've had 5+ years with Trump as a President, and the same pattern arises over and over. So maybe there's something to it?
