Chuck Holton
News • Politics • Culture
Trump 2.0. Master Negotiator or Something Else?
Did Trump just throw Ukraine (and NATO) under the bus?
February 13, 2025
post photo preview

Trump’s negotiating style has always been unconventional, but it does follow a certain logic—at least in his own strategic framework. His approach is a mix of hardball tactics, unpredictability, and personal relationships, but how he applies those elements can sometimes appear contradictory. Here’s a breakdown of how this could fit into his broader strategy:

1. The “Madman Theory” and Anchoring Tactics

Trump often uses extreme opening positions, as you noted, to anchor negotiations in his favor. The classic example is threatening 25% tariffs on Mexico to force them into border security agreements. This works when:

  • The other party fears the consequences.
  • He has leverage (i.e., Mexico's economic dependence on the U.S.).
  • He can later walk back the extreme position while still achieving his objectives.

2. Friends vs. Enemies: Why He Bullies Allies and Woos Dictators

This is where things get interesting. Trump has a pattern of being tough on allies (NATO, South Korea, Canada, Germany) and more accommodating with adversaries (Putin, Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping). Why?

  • Transactional Worldview: Trump sees allies as entities that should "pay their fair share." He doesn't believe in historical alliances for their own sake, but rather as business arrangements where the U.S. should extract maximum benefit.
  • Respect for Strength, Not Institutions: Trump admires power and direct action more than international norms. Dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un operate with raw authority, which he sees as a form of strength. He views democratic leaders as weaker because they are constrained by political processes and bureaucracy.
  • Disruptive Leverage: By attacking NATO, he pressures European nations to contribute more defense spending. However, this risks undermining alliances that give the U.S. strategic power in the long run.

3. The Putin Problem: A Negotiation Misfire?

Now, why does he seem to be giving away leverage when dealing with Putin? His current stance—suggesting Ukraine must cede territory before negotiations even begin—would typically be considered a weak opening move in a negotiation. Here are a few possible explanations:

  • “Keep Your Enemies Closer” Approach: Maybe Trump thinks that by flattering Putin and giving him early concessions, he can build a personal relationship that allows for a later deal.
  • Isolationist Instincts: Trump has long been skeptical of U.S. intervention abroad. He may genuinely believe Ukraine should give up land because he doesn’t see the conflict as an American priority.
  • Desire to End the War Quickly: If Trump’s primary goal is simply to end the war and "bring peace," he may not care how it happens—just that it does.
  • Misjudgment of Putin’s Position: Unlike Mexico or NATO, where Trump had leverage, Russia is already in a strong position militarily in Ukraine and may see Trump's approach as a sign of weakness rather than strength.

4. A Flawed Negotiator?

Trump’s methods are based on power, bluster, and personal relationships rather than strategic consistency. That means:

  • When he has leverage, he often wins (Mexico border policy, NATO defense spending increases).
  • When he lacks leverage, he sometimes makes premature concessions (North Korea summits with no real denuclearization, China trade deals that didn’t fundamentally shift the balance).
  • His personal affinity for strongmen can sometimes cloud his judgment. He may mistake friendly words from dictators for genuine respect or willingness to deal, when in reality, they are manipulating him.

Conclusion

Trump is a high-risk, high-reward negotiator, and his approach often depends on whether his tactics match the situation. In some cases (business deals, Mexico tariffs), his extreme positions yield results. In others (Putin, Kim Jong-un), his strategy appears more naive, giving away leverage in hopes of a personal breakthrough that may never come.

If he were truly playing the "Art of the Deal" approach with Russia, he would:

  • Threaten greater U.S. support for Ukraine to pressure Russia into negotiations.
  • Hold back on preemptive concessions like NATO membership restrictions.
  • Keep Putin guessing rather than openly suggesting a willingness to hand him part of Ukraine.

Instead, by leading with appeasement, he’s not anchoring high—he’s giving the other side confidence that they can take more. Whether this is strategic (keeping enemies close) or a fundamental misunderstanding of geopolitics is debatable.

community logo
Join the Chuck Holton Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
22
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Hamas Breaks Ceasefire

A Hamas rocket was launched at Israel, but landed inside the strip, killing a 14-year-old boy.

Meaning they also broke the ceasefire and also killed a Palestinian child.

00:00:18
Trump Gives Ultimatum to Hamas

ALL of them...not in drips and drabs...by Saturday at 12:00 after that I'd say all hell is gonna break out.

00:00:41
New Video Out of Gaza

Obviously, the IDF still has some work to do.

00:01:21
Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

My erstwhile field producer and cameraman Dennis Azato has accompanied me on ten years of adventures across the globe. Today he joins me in Ukraine and we spend some time remembering our many trips together.

Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce
Media Bias

This is what you call a "slow news day." Trump apparently didn't open his mouth much yesterday, and this is all the media could come up with to attack him. Sheesh.

post photo preview
GOING LIVE at 2pm EST

I was in Kyiv, Ukraine, in 2009 and had the opportunity to go to Chornobyl on a tour. You had to take a taxi transport to perimeter check point, then take another transport from that perimeter check point to the city itself. We would have been given special shoes that would be discarded after our tour, and the visit would be time limited. Since I had not yet started to have children, I decided that spending $400 for a supposed sublethal dose of radiation just to see trees growing up in the streets and an abandoned amusement park was not a good way to spend my money, so I didn’t actually go. But Kyiv was a beautiful city. I did swim in the Dnipro river though....

post photo preview
S.C.A.R.E. Tactics - Russia's Shadow War on the West
The Acronym I mentioned in Saturday's Live

S.C.A.R.E.: Russia’s Asymmetric War Against the West

Russia is waging a silent war against the West—one fought not with tanks and missiles, but through a mix of sabotage, cyberwarfare, assassinations, propaganda, and election interference. This is the world of asymmetric warfare, where Russia engages in covert and deniable attacks to destabilize its enemies while avoiding direct military confrontation. To understand the full scope of this strategy, we break it down using the S.C.A.R.E. framework:


S – Sabotage: Targeting Critical Infrastructure

Russia has a history of targeting essential infrastructure to create economic disruption and fear. This includes:

  • The Nord Stream pipeline explosions (2022): Mysterious explosions destroyed sections of Russia’s own gas pipelines to Europe. Was this an attempt to prevent future negotiations or a false-flag operation?

  • Undersea cable cuttings (2024-2025): Several incidents damaged undersea internet and power cables in the Baltic Sea, affecting communication between NATO allies.

  • Power grid and energy attacks: Russia has previously launched cyberattacks against Ukraine’s power grid, showcasing its capability to plunge entire regions into darkness.

  • Industrial and energy coercion: Russia has long used energy as a weapon, threatening gas supply cuts to Europe to exert political influence.


C – Cyberwarfare: Hacking Governments, Businesses, and Infrastructure

Russia is one of the world’s most aggressive actors in cyberwarfare, with well-documented attacks on governments, corporations, and infrastructure:

  • NotPetya cyberattack (2017): A devastating malware attack initially targeting Ukraine but rapidly spreading worldwide, costing businesses billions of dollars.

  • SolarWinds hack (2020): Russian-backed hackers infiltrated U.S. government agencies, corporate networks, and key supply chains.

  • Election system breaches: Russia-linked hackers have attempted to access voting systems in multiple Western countries.

  • Targeting Western banks and businesses: Financial systems remain vulnerable to state-backed Russian cyberattacks.

These cyber tactics allow Russia to inflict massive damage without firing a single bullet while maintaining plausible deniability.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Breaking Free:
How Ukraine and the Baltics Are Escaping Russia’s Power Grid

For decades, countries like Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were tied to Russia’s power grid—a system built during the Soviet Union. But in recent years, they’ve been working hard to break free and join Europe’s power network instead. This shift isn’t just about electricity; it’s about independence, security, and even war.

Ukraine’s Big Switch—And Russia’s Invasion

On February 24, 2022, Ukraine made a bold move: they disconnected from Russia’s power grid for the first time to test their ability to operate independently. That same day, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Was the timing a coincidence? Maybe not. Being connected to Russia’s grid gave Moscow leverage over Ukraine, allowing them to cut power or cause blackouts. Ukraine’s move toward energy independence weakened that leverage, so Russia attacked before Ukraine could fully join Europe’s grid.

Despite the war, Ukraine successfully linked up with Europe’s power grid (ENTSO-E) just a few weeks later in March 2022. This gave them access to European electricity and reduced Russia’s ability to disrupt their power supply.

The Baltic States Cut the Cord

Now, in 2025, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have finally disconnected from Russia’s power grid for good and fully joined the European grid. This is a huge step for their security.

For years, these countries worried that Russia could use its control over their electricity as a weapon—shutting off power or even launching cyberattacks on their infrastructure. By switching to Europe’s grid, the Baltic states protect themselves from Russian energy blackmail and reduce the risk of power disruptions.

Why It’s Not as Simple as Flipping a Switch

Some might wonder, why didn’t they switch sooner? The answer is it’s not that easy.

  • Different Technologies: Russia’s grid operates differently from Europe’s. Switching over means rebuilding parts of the power system so they work with the European network.
  • Balancing Power Supply: Power grids need to stay perfectly balanced—too much or too little electricity at any time can cause massive blackouts. Making sure everything is stable takes careful planning.
  • Russia’s Interference: Russia strongly opposed these moves because it loses influence over these countries when they switch.

Does This Hurt Russia?

Not really. The Russian power grid is huge, and losing Ukraine and the Baltic states doesn’t cause major damage to their electricity supply. However, it does hurt Russia strategically because they can no longer use energy as a weapon against these countries.

A Win for Energy Security

By cutting ties with Russia’s grid and joining Europe’s, Ukraine and the Baltic states have taken big steps toward energy security and independence. They are now less vulnerable to Russian cyberattacks, power cutoffs, and energy blackmail—giving them one less thing to worry about as they stand against Russian aggression.

This is more than just an energy decision—it’s a step toward freedom from Russian influence and a stronger, more secure future.

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Truth About the Ukrainian Biolab Controversy
How So Many Americans Believed Russian Propaganda

In the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. Some people believe these labs were secretly making biological weapons, but the truth is much simpler—and very different from what Russia wants you to believe.

What Are These Labs Really For?

The United States has worked with Ukraine for years to help build and improve biological research laboratories. These labs study diseases like anthrax and other dangerous viruses to help Ukraine detect and stop outbreaks. This is part of a program called the Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP), which helps countries secure dangerous pathogens so they don’t accidentally spread or get stolen.

I visited one of these lab sites in downtown Kyiv.  It is a veterinary hospital surrounded by high-rise apartment buildings.  Nobody would be stupid enough to build a dangerous bioweapons lab in a residential area.  There was virtually no security, either, beyond a short wrought-iron fence.  The doors were unlocked.  The US gave 2 million dollars to this lab to help them upgrade their technology to discern whether a toxin was naturally occurring or had been weaponized.  Purely defensive.

You can watch that video here:

This program is not unique to Ukraine—the U.S. has helped many countries worldwide, including Georgia, Kazakhstan, and even Russia (before relations soured). The goal is to prevent bioweapons, not create them.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals