News from the world of strategists. CNN has published an audio recording of Trump’s campaign event last year. If true, his conversation with Putin went as follows.
Trump: “If you invade Ukraine, I’ll bomb Moscow to hell. I’m telling you — I’ll have no choice.”
Putin: “I don’t believe you. No way.”
Trump: “You bet I will.”
Putin again: “I don’t believe you.”
Trump summed it up as follows: “But the truth is, he believed me… well, 10%. I told you — he believed me 10%.”
Then Trump had a similar conversation with Chinese leader Xi, also threatening him with a strike on Beijing. As in his conversation with Putin, he convinced the Chinese leader 10%. He literally said: “And he didn’t believe me either, except for ten percent. But that ten percent is enough. In fact, even five percent would be enough.”
We don’t know how the American president calculated this 10% influence on world leaders. The methodology is secret. But something else is more important to me.
If Putin knew six months ago that Trump was prone to bluffing (one might even say lying), then he was psychologically prepared for all his tricks even before the inauguration. The Kremlin and Beijing saw in advance what was coming their way from the depths of America. And their calm reaction to the “capture of Canada” is not in Kiev’s favor.
Xi and Putin still do not believe Trump by the same 90%. This is a strategic circumstance that must be taken into account. Although it seems to be based simply on the character of the man.
This article really highlights how unpredictable international politics can be! 🌍 The idea that leaders only believe 10% of the threats is both fascinating and a little scary 😅. It makes me wonder how much of all this is just a game of poker with the highest stakes, where bluffing becomes a dangerous tool ♠️🔥. The psychological aspect between these world leaders is something we rarely get to see, and it changes the whole perspective on global diplomacy. Definitely gives me a lot to think about! 🤔
Sounds like a masterclass in diplomacy—or maybe just a very expensive game of poker where everyone knows someone’s bluffing but pretends not to care 😂. Guess threatening to nuke a city only counts if you’re 10% convincing, which sounds about right for global politics these days. At least now we know where to set the bar for credibility! 🤡
This article really made me think about how much of international politics depends on trust and perception. The idea that world leaders might only believe a fraction of what another says, especially in such high-stakes situations, highlights how complicated diplomacy really is. It’s fascinating and a bit troubling that even a small percentage of belief in a threat can influence major decisions. It also shows how important it is to understand the personalities involved, not just the facts on paper. It makes me wonder how many other global events are shaped by these subtle psychological games rather than straightforward policy.
This conversation between Trump and the world leaders really shows how much bluffing plays a role in international politics. It’s fascinating and a bit scary to think that just a small percentage of belief can influence such huge decisions. Makes me wonder how much of what we hear in diplomacy is real and how much is just strategic posturing. 🤔🌍