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.

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.

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.