This was a great post. Found the connections between geopolitical negotiations and the problem of procrastination charming. I also have struggled a lot with procrastination and remember I was drawn to these pre-commitment strategies conceptually, but I hadn't heard about them in this context before. In hindsight my problem was that I didn't do them hard enough, often I actually had some ability to back down, it was just a bit difficult (but not difficult enough). Also I had some sort of idea that I just needed to do them limited number of times, which would then change my personality and finally teach me self-control/willpower. I remember I often wrote "burn your house down" in my notebook as a teenager; a reference to the strategy they used in the Fullmetal Alchemist manga where they burn down their childhood home when going on their epic quest to make sure they have nothing to return to. But I never heard of the concepts worded like this before, so thanks.
As for your analysis of the current Ukraine situation, I'm European (Swedish) and my two cents (0.00689956 SEK) is that you're probably interpreting Trumps actions as more rational/considered than they are. Besides the war his treatment of Canada, Mexico, and the EU with regards to both tariffs and rhetoric to me indicates he's not very interested in maintaining the US status in the world order at all. He's severely hurting the credibility of the US with no discernible long-term strategic gain. I'd like for you to be correct, and there's some plan to this, even if USA is a wholly self-interested party, but I honestly fear it's just far more stupid than that.
Thanks for the comment. I think burning your house down would have probably worked (assuming you wanted to go on an adventure?), but major commitments are scary and expensive so we avoid them. More practically it would have been very costly to burn your house down, so maybe a firestarter remotely connected to someone who monitors your home, and only activates it if you returned before completing your grand task. Then you get to keep your house and still get the psychological boost of knowing you can't go home.
My analysis of Trump wasn't really an attempt to portray what he's trying to do in reality, which is basically anyone's guess, but to apply consistent theory to what he should do if his stated aims are actually what they are. The abandonment of Ukraine he's doing right now just gives Russia every reason to keep the war going, as Ukraine is only expected to get weaker the more time goes on.
The political risks to Zelensky and Putin and their self-interest relative to their countrymen are not symmetrical.
If Zelensky refuses an unpopular deal, then in a democracy that’s the will of the people working as intended. If Zelensky refused, for some reason, to accept a popular deal then that would be him being self-interested.
If Putin makes a deal that is seen as a defeat then he’s an authoritarian dealing with the repercussions of failure and weakness.
Historian Sarah Paine talked about the importance of not putting your enemies on death ground (regarding Nazis, and also the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia) in her interview with Dwarkesh Patel.
> From Moscow’s perspective, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe wasn’t just geopolitically threatening—it felt like a betrayal of what Russian leaders believed was an informal understanding at the end of the Cold War.
I don't like the NATO expansion talking point, I think it fundamentally misleads people about why Russia is doing what it does.
My understanding is that Yeltsin and his administration sent misleading signals. Sometimes, NATO was fundamentally bad (okay), but then other times, it was that ultranationalist voters in Russia would not like it, but that there wasn't a principled opposition to it expanding eastward. More frequently, it was cited as "humiliating", but humiliation isn't taking a strong stance, and foreign policy is all about words, words, words.
Putin in the 2000s was entirely open to countries joining NATO. He publicly declared that if Ukraine was to join NATO, it would be up to it and NATO. Nor was he the only one - Medvedev said similar things in 2008 or so.
Even if one says they're lying for the public, Russia continued cooperating with NATO during this time, from what I understand. There is a contradiction here, because if NATO expansion was really this big of a deal, then working with your enemies makes no sense.
Lastly, Ukraine was neutral under its own law and forbidden from joining NATO. That was 10 months before the invasion of Crimea. That law was only repealed *after* Russia began its violence.
The actual motivations of Russia, or more specifically Putin are hard to know. NATO expansion is a convenient excuse, and absent any more specific motivations, can be assumed to be a simplified approximation of Russian ambitions.
Ukraine aligning with the West had been going on for decades, but its possible that the election of Zelensky, combined with worries about post-Covid inflation, provided the conditions where Russia felt confident in an invasion.
Either way, it's almost impossible to *really* ever understand the motivations of leaders or countries. Words mean little, and actions can always have multiple explanations. The key as far as Strategic thinking goes though, is making certain commitments that, if opponents don't act in a certain preferred way, incurs very heavy costs, thus incentivizing decisions by an opponent that are more favorable to yourself.
In this case it would be Trump credibly threatening Russia with a large influx of US aid to Ukraine if they didn't agree to a ceasefire, and a credible threat to Ukraine to pull all aid if the didn't do the same. I won't make a moral judgement between that and heavy support pushing for aa Ukrainian victory, as at least under such conditions, Ukraine wouldn't be left to fight without US support unless they decided to do so.
> NATO expansion is a convenient excuse, and absent any more specific motivations, can be assumed to be a simplified approximation of Russian ambitions.
And by accepting it, or not talking about how weakly evidenced it is, we perpetuate a lie that only serves Russia. "NATO expansion" is *unironically* cited by people against supporting Ukraine as proof that the West is the ultimate aggressor here. I don't think they ultimately actually care, they'd still never like supporting Ukraine because it's foreigners getting things without paying for them. But I'd rather they have to deal with their own true rejection and bluntly and openly declare their rejection of helping other nations instead of dealing with this fig leaf excuse of NATO being the problem.
And to illustrate my point further, consider that Poland wasn't allowed into NATO by Clinton even when they threatened to develop a nuclear program and got Yeltsin so drunk he agreed to let them join. What got them in was the Poles going to the Republicans, threatening Clinton in the 1994 midterms.
> Either way, it's almost impossible to *really* ever understand the motivations of leaders or countries. Words mean little, and actions can always have multiple explanations.
You may not know in that moment why precisely someone is saying or doing something, but we're not totally in the blind here. Even in Russia, people have to talk. That includes the propaganda speeches Putin's regime puts out - either they talk directly and reveal their thoughts, or the populace has to know how to interpret vague ideas and themes, and at least one of those people will be willing to explain things.
In material interests, Russia obviously wants a pro-Ukraine Russia. Hell, they don't even necessarily want Ukraine, they want the land as it keeps NATO farther from the Russian core. Ukraine, as I understand it, was one highway to invade Russia in the past. They want the world to run on Great Power politics, where the hegemons divide the world into spheres of influence.
Then there's Putin's own beliefs, which have to be accounted for since he holds a lot of power *personally*, meaning his neuroses and delusions are *Russian* neuroses and delusions. Putin thinks democracy is a sham, and that the pro-democracy protests and revolutions (failed or not) in the 2010s all over the world were not people genuinely wanting these things, but because the US, via the CIA/USAID/George Soros, is making them happen i.e Color Revolution conspiracy theorizing.
you clearly do not believe to your own eyes and even after DOGE revealing inner workings of the USAID, you still believe "fact checkers" and other corrupted scammers, that Color Revolutions are "just conspiracy theorizing"
First, even before DOGE there was more than enoug proofs that Color Revolutions and many many other actions around the world were highly organized from the outside (from the west) and second I do not see why a credible thinker would oppose existence of such "conspiracies theoris". Even the above mentioned Sun Tzu's main claim had been, that Deception is in the heart of every warfare (which is also clearly valid for diplomacy and all other politics). You are really delusional, if you think that governements etc represent the things as they are .. Deception has been forever the main principle of governing. Because the one who does not use such methods will be soon destroyed buy the ones who do.
> you clearly do not believe to your own eyes and even after DOGE revealing inner workings of the USAID
DOGE isn't worth the letters it takes to type out the name. It hasn't found fraud in the slightest, and nothing USAID was doing was hidden. You might disagree with that spending, but it's not fraud.
> you still believe "fact checkers" and other corrupted scammers, that Color Revolutions are "just conspiracy theorizing"
I've found that believing the fact checkers does better in terms of understanding reality than smoking weed and "just asking questions" like Rogan and his ilk do.
> First, even before DOGE there was more than enoug proofs that Color Revolutions and many many other actions around the world were highly organized from the outside
Nice argument, Senator. Why don't you back it up with a source?
> second I do not see why a credible thinker would oppose existence of such "conspiracies theoris"
Because the conspiracy theories that end up being proven true are just called theories. If the evidence persuades me, I accept it. Color Revolution Theory has had decades to show that the revolutions in Eastern Europe were a product of US/Western meddling, it's come up with nothing.
> You are really delusional, if you think that governements etc represent the things as they are
Same as before - show me the proof and I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'm going to ask you why Russel's Teapot isn't real.
This was a great post. Found the connections between geopolitical negotiations and the problem of procrastination charming. I also have struggled a lot with procrastination and remember I was drawn to these pre-commitment strategies conceptually, but I hadn't heard about them in this context before. In hindsight my problem was that I didn't do them hard enough, often I actually had some ability to back down, it was just a bit difficult (but not difficult enough). Also I had some sort of idea that I just needed to do them limited number of times, which would then change my personality and finally teach me self-control/willpower. I remember I often wrote "burn your house down" in my notebook as a teenager; a reference to the strategy they used in the Fullmetal Alchemist manga where they burn down their childhood home when going on their epic quest to make sure they have nothing to return to. But I never heard of the concepts worded like this before, so thanks.
As for your analysis of the current Ukraine situation, I'm European (Swedish) and my two cents (0.00689956 SEK) is that you're probably interpreting Trumps actions as more rational/considered than they are. Besides the war his treatment of Canada, Mexico, and the EU with regards to both tariffs and rhetoric to me indicates he's not very interested in maintaining the US status in the world order at all. He's severely hurting the credibility of the US with no discernible long-term strategic gain. I'd like for you to be correct, and there's some plan to this, even if USA is a wholly self-interested party, but I honestly fear it's just far more stupid than that.
Thanks for the comment. I think burning your house down would have probably worked (assuming you wanted to go on an adventure?), but major commitments are scary and expensive so we avoid them. More practically it would have been very costly to burn your house down, so maybe a firestarter remotely connected to someone who monitors your home, and only activates it if you returned before completing your grand task. Then you get to keep your house and still get the psychological boost of knowing you can't go home.
My analysis of Trump wasn't really an attempt to portray what he's trying to do in reality, which is basically anyone's guess, but to apply consistent theory to what he should do if his stated aims are actually what they are. The abandonment of Ukraine he's doing right now just gives Russia every reason to keep the war going, as Ukraine is only expected to get weaker the more time goes on.
The political risks to Zelensky and Putin and their self-interest relative to their countrymen are not symmetrical.
If Zelensky refuses an unpopular deal, then in a democracy that’s the will of the people working as intended. If Zelensky refused, for some reason, to accept a popular deal then that would be him being self-interested.
If Putin makes a deal that is seen as a defeat then he’s an authoritarian dealing with the repercussions of failure and weakness.
Regarding "limiting your own options" there's a concept of 'death ground' that (depending on the translator) dates all the way back to Sun Tzu.
https://learn.saylor.org/mod/book/view.php?id=32097&chapterid=10541
Historian Sarah Paine talked about the importance of not putting your enemies on death ground (regarding Nazis, and also the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia) in her interview with Dwarkesh Patel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3tuS9bgBfo
Very true! Schelling actually touched on the concept from Sun Tzu in the book.
> From Moscow’s perspective, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe wasn’t just geopolitically threatening—it felt like a betrayal of what Russian leaders believed was an informal understanding at the end of the Cold War.
I don't like the NATO expansion talking point, I think it fundamentally misleads people about why Russia is doing what it does.
My understanding is that Yeltsin and his administration sent misleading signals. Sometimes, NATO was fundamentally bad (okay), but then other times, it was that ultranationalist voters in Russia would not like it, but that there wasn't a principled opposition to it expanding eastward. More frequently, it was cited as "humiliating", but humiliation isn't taking a strong stance, and foreign policy is all about words, words, words.
Putin in the 2000s was entirely open to countries joining NATO. He publicly declared that if Ukraine was to join NATO, it would be up to it and NATO. Nor was he the only one - Medvedev said similar things in 2008 or so.
Even if one says they're lying for the public, Russia continued cooperating with NATO during this time, from what I understand. There is a contradiction here, because if NATO expansion was really this big of a deal, then working with your enemies makes no sense.
Lastly, Ukraine was neutral under its own law and forbidden from joining NATO. That was 10 months before the invasion of Crimea. That law was only repealed *after* Russia began its violence.
The actual motivations of Russia, or more specifically Putin are hard to know. NATO expansion is a convenient excuse, and absent any more specific motivations, can be assumed to be a simplified approximation of Russian ambitions.
Ukraine aligning with the West had been going on for decades, but its possible that the election of Zelensky, combined with worries about post-Covid inflation, provided the conditions where Russia felt confident in an invasion.
Either way, it's almost impossible to *really* ever understand the motivations of leaders or countries. Words mean little, and actions can always have multiple explanations. The key as far as Strategic thinking goes though, is making certain commitments that, if opponents don't act in a certain preferred way, incurs very heavy costs, thus incentivizing decisions by an opponent that are more favorable to yourself.
In this case it would be Trump credibly threatening Russia with a large influx of US aid to Ukraine if they didn't agree to a ceasefire, and a credible threat to Ukraine to pull all aid if the didn't do the same. I won't make a moral judgement between that and heavy support pushing for aa Ukrainian victory, as at least under such conditions, Ukraine wouldn't be left to fight without US support unless they decided to do so.
> NATO expansion is a convenient excuse, and absent any more specific motivations, can be assumed to be a simplified approximation of Russian ambitions.
And by accepting it, or not talking about how weakly evidenced it is, we perpetuate a lie that only serves Russia. "NATO expansion" is *unironically* cited by people against supporting Ukraine as proof that the West is the ultimate aggressor here. I don't think they ultimately actually care, they'd still never like supporting Ukraine because it's foreigners getting things without paying for them. But I'd rather they have to deal with their own true rejection and bluntly and openly declare their rejection of helping other nations instead of dealing with this fig leaf excuse of NATO being the problem.
And to illustrate my point further, consider that Poland wasn't allowed into NATO by Clinton even when they threatened to develop a nuclear program and got Yeltsin so drunk he agreed to let them join. What got them in was the Poles going to the Republicans, threatening Clinton in the 1994 midterms.
> Either way, it's almost impossible to *really* ever understand the motivations of leaders or countries. Words mean little, and actions can always have multiple explanations.
You may not know in that moment why precisely someone is saying or doing something, but we're not totally in the blind here. Even in Russia, people have to talk. That includes the propaganda speeches Putin's regime puts out - either they talk directly and reveal their thoughts, or the populace has to know how to interpret vague ideas and themes, and at least one of those people will be willing to explain things.
What do you think Russias underlying motivations are?
In material interests, Russia obviously wants a pro-Ukraine Russia. Hell, they don't even necessarily want Ukraine, they want the land as it keeps NATO farther from the Russian core. Ukraine, as I understand it, was one highway to invade Russia in the past. They want the world to run on Great Power politics, where the hegemons divide the world into spheres of influence.
Then there's Putin's own beliefs, which have to be accounted for since he holds a lot of power *personally*, meaning his neuroses and delusions are *Russian* neuroses and delusions. Putin thinks democracy is a sham, and that the pro-democracy protests and revolutions (failed or not) in the 2010s all over the world were not people genuinely wanting these things, but because the US, via the CIA/USAID/George Soros, is making them happen i.e Color Revolution conspiracy theorizing.
you clearly do not believe to your own eyes and even after DOGE revealing inner workings of the USAID, you still believe "fact checkers" and other corrupted scammers, that Color Revolutions are "just conspiracy theorizing"
First, even before DOGE there was more than enoug proofs that Color Revolutions and many many other actions around the world were highly organized from the outside (from the west) and second I do not see why a credible thinker would oppose existence of such "conspiracies theoris". Even the above mentioned Sun Tzu's main claim had been, that Deception is in the heart of every warfare (which is also clearly valid for diplomacy and all other politics). You are really delusional, if you think that governements etc represent the things as they are .. Deception has been forever the main principle of governing. Because the one who does not use such methods will be soon destroyed buy the ones who do.
> you clearly do not believe to your own eyes and even after DOGE revealing inner workings of the USAID
DOGE isn't worth the letters it takes to type out the name. It hasn't found fraud in the slightest, and nothing USAID was doing was hidden. You might disagree with that spending, but it's not fraud.
> you still believe "fact checkers" and other corrupted scammers, that Color Revolutions are "just conspiracy theorizing"
I've found that believing the fact checkers does better in terms of understanding reality than smoking weed and "just asking questions" like Rogan and his ilk do.
> First, even before DOGE there was more than enoug proofs that Color Revolutions and many many other actions around the world were highly organized from the outside
Nice argument, Senator. Why don't you back it up with a source?
> second I do not see why a credible thinker would oppose existence of such "conspiracies theoris"
Because the conspiracy theories that end up being proven true are just called theories. If the evidence persuades me, I accept it. Color Revolution Theory has had decades to show that the revolutions in Eastern Europe were a product of US/Western meddling, it's come up with nothing.
> You are really delusional, if you think that governements etc represent the things as they are
Same as before - show me the proof and I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'm going to ask you why Russel's Teapot isn't real.
Amazing article 👍
Thank you!