Trump’s Route for International Peace and Prosperity : A Trojan Horse Looming Over Eurasia

The so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity is clearly just a Trojan Horse aimed at laying the foundation to provoke a future war with Russia and Iran.

Bad-Faith Behavior by Those Proclaiming Détente is now the Norm

While the Russians have engaged in colossal and monumental efforts to try to bring about a viable peace proposal, Trump has proclaimed his desire for détente, a reset of relations with Russia, and has rolled out the 2025 National Security Strategy, which apparently seems to almost validate Russian core interests and spheres of influence in Eurasia and the former Soviet Union, something I have insisted needs to be done.

However, almost immediately on the heels of proclaiming that Russia has interests and we might actually do well to recognize and honor those interests, and at about the same time as he insists he wants détente and peace with Russia, Trump rolled out the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), which, if analyzed in any meaningful context, is obviously a Trojan Horse that neither Russia nor Iran can tolerate in any capacity.

America Suffers From an Inability to Rationally Assess its Own Interests

While all rational actors (the USA is a rational actor) act in accordance with their interests, they do not always rationally identify or understand their actual true interests, and mistakes or misperceptions about their interests may lead an otherwise rational actor to undertake clearly irrational action. I invite you all to contemplate the example I am about to give.

Suppose in a hypothetical, a highly rational power, the United States, calculated that Tahiti was a key component of core national interests, upon which hinged the fate of the United States. Based on this clearly flawed determination, it might seem rational to escalate to risk a nuclear war, because if the calculation had been correct, the escalation would be justified and warranted under theories of sovereign action on the international stage.

However, what happens when an otherwise rational actor makes a foundational or categorical mistake in classifying an irrelevant matter as one that touches on or implicates core national interests and escalates on the basis of their faulty understanding of their own actual interests?

It is easy to propose an agreement and reach a negotiated resolution if you correctly identify the national interests of the participants in the negotiations and they agree that you have identified what they identify as their national interests. The difficulty occurs when there is no consistency among the participants in what the national interests even are, or when the interests are clearly mutually exclusive, although at least correctly identified but mutually exclusive interests can still be worked around.

If the interests are not correctly identified, then no meaningful progress is possible. Imagine a client in law practice who is not merely difficult but is incoherent in their understanding of their situation, who insists he wants a money damages when what he really wants is an injunction and a retraction, or he claims he wants money damages when he really wants replevin (return of wrongfully........

© New Eastern Outlook