THE ART OF THE DEAL. DO TRUMP'S BUSINESS TACTICS APPLY WHEN TRYING TO REACH A GEOPOLITICAL SETTLEMENT

21 March 2025

1. Top Ten Tactics in Business Negotiations

These are classic tactics used by the stronger side to control the negotiation process and steer it toward a favourable outcome:

1.1 Anchoring High

Open with an ambitious position to define the frame.

Forces the weaker side to negotiate downward from your terms.

In geopolitics: e.g. “End the Fighting - The Must be an Immediate Ceasefire.”, "There must be a Territorial Status Quo - No Further Advances can be Tolerated", "Keep Ukraine out of NATO and Limit its Military", "Sign This Minerals Deal / Hand Over Your Power Stations and The US will Protect You".

1.2 Minimise Objections ("These Are Just Details")

Dismiss key concerns as minor technicalities.

Builds urgency and downplays complexity.

Trump often uses this: "We’ll get it done—no problem."

1.3 Project Confidence and Optimism

Assumes the deal is inevitable and success is certain.

Psychological pressure on the other side to not be the one who “derails” progress.

1.4 Control the Agenda and the Timeline

Set the pace and structure of talks.

Speed does benefit the better-prepared party.

Trump may say, “We want a deal in 30 days—let’s get it done.”

1.5 Divide and Conquer

Split up the other side’s internal factions.

Exploit differences between allies or interest groups.

Classic in geopolitical deals: e.g. Trump has used NATO divisions to push the idea that some states (like Germany) aren’t paying their share, creating splits over how to respond to Russia.

1.6 Use of “Carrots” and “Sticks”

Offer incentives, but also threaten consequences.

“Agree now and sanctions ease. Refuse, and we double down.”

Except Trump doesn't have any sticks, and there is little that Russia wants from him other than an enduring peace settlement.

1.7 Create a Sense of Scarcity or a ‘Last Chance’

Pressure to agree by suggesting the deal window is closing.

“This is your only chance for peace—don’t miss it.”

1.8 Control the Narrative/Public Perception

Shape media and diplomatic messaging.

Make refusal seem unreasonable or dangerous.

Trump might leak to media: “Russia's refusal proves they don’t want peace.”

1.9 Framing Concessions as Generous Compromise

Position minimal concessions as major goodwill.

Pressures the other side to “match” your “generosity.”

Eg the pause in attacks on each other's energy infrastructure is actually no concession at all.

1.10 Repetition and Consistency

Repeat key messages until they become accepted truths.

“Ukraine needs peace. We are offering peace. Russia refuses peace.”

2. Limits of Business Tactics in Geopolitical Negotiations

2.1 National Interests Are Non-Negotiable

In business, everything has a price.

In geopolitics, some things don’t: borders, sovereignty, ideology. This is a really hard one for the West to understand.

2.2 Domestic Political Constraints

Leaders must answer to parliaments, factions, voters - not to shareholders.

A deal that looks good on paper can be rejected by political realities.

2.3 Security and Trust

States deal in security dilemmas and have long memories affecting Trust.

Russia remembers every broken promise, from 1990s NATO "not one inch East", to 2008 Budapest "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO", to 2015 Minsk I and II, to March 2022 Istanbul, to the Belgorod incursion on the eve of this ceasefire ; Ukraine remembers Crimea.

2.4 Face and Prestige Matter

Saving face, especially for strong leaders, is vital.

Business negotiators can walk away quietl - countries cannot.

2.5 Multilateral Complexity

Geopolitical deals often involve coalitions, not just two parties.

Business logic can fall apart in a cats cradle of conflicting interests.

3. Conclusion: Trump’s Style – Business vs Statecraft

Trump’s negotiating style—high pressure, optimistic framing, ‘art of the deal’ - works well in real estate.

But geopolitics is not a Manhattan property deal. The other side may prefer ruin to humiliation.

Business tactics help, but must be embedded within diplomatic conflict resolution, realism that recognises that some goals are non-negotiable, and the art of the geopolitical deal especially requires an understanding of historical grievance.

[End]

Read More

WAR OR WEALTH: BRITAIN AND AMERICA FALL OUT OVER STRATEGY FOR UKRAINE

11 March 2025

We've had no explanation so far as to why London and Washington are so profoundly at odds over the flow of weapons and intelligence and also over the mineral rights deal. 

Moscow has apparently offered Washington a deal over development of Russia's 70 trillion dollars worth of natural resources. Kiev is auctioning off its 7 trillion's worth and this might be included as a secret annex to the one hundred year friendship agreement.

It seems that Europe is suffering from collective russophobia, (the panic-monkeys! - Russia does not represent an existential threat).... The front line states, you might call them, suffering from even more confusion, from pro-Russia Hungary and Slovenia, to Ukraine where Zelensky is constantly asking for security guarantees.

Washington, on the other hand seems to be more concerned with the dire state of its economy and its focus is on extracting the wealth of these countries.

Rifts between Washington and London are pretty unusual. There were crises suez and kippor.

So you might see it as fear in Europe versus greed in America but this video from Alex Krainer goes deeper into the matter and puts it in the context of the Anglo Saxon empire.

Nicely explained here

https://youtu.be/bPYoT24B2uc?si=LO68M4yltnl_vWqR

Alex Krainer explains the economics behind Halford Mackinder's geopolitical theory, ie the reason for an empire to seek and maintain hegemony.

Read More

RIYADH AGENDA, A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR PEACE AND ECONOMIC REVIVAL

22 February 2024

Riyadh Agenda: A New Framework for Peace and Economic Revival

The recent summit in Riyadh has sparked intense debate, most notably these last few days from Ukrainian President Zelensky. His criticism centres on Ukraine’s apparent exclusion from the peace talks. However, the purpose of the meeting is not to leave Ukraine out but to establish a comprehensive agenda for the upcoming summit between presidents Trump and Putin. The aim is to agree on broad headings and working groups, under which discussions can later accommodate all parties. In due course, a legitimate Ukrainian government nominee will find their place within this framework.

At its core, the Riyadh meeting is firstly about restoring something in the way of friendly relations and trust, and reopening, embassies, moscow and washington, iz, materialization of the wish to restore good relations, setting a clear agenda and a supporting process to realise this agenda, and choosing the people for the organisation to run the process. 

Leaders are working to define key areas of discussion, from conflict resolution to energy to economic revitalisation to a eurasian or even tripartite security architecture.. The goal, as we've said, is to create an agenda and way-of-working for addressing these issues. This will start to bring order, bearing on the chaos of ongoing conflicts over the last 33 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, allowing for a systematic approach that eventually integrates all voices. 

So Riyadh, rather than a final agreement, is about creating the necessary structure for future negotiations.... Ultimately, the goal is a new world order, "a new golden age" as Trump puts it.

On the economic front, there is a bold vision for the future. The proposal is to put an end to endless military engagements and to lift the sanctions that have long stifled economic growth. This strategy is expected to free up capital that has been locked in unproductive investments. Once released, these funds could be diverted towards public infrastructure and private research and development. In essence, the plan is to restart the American economy—and by extension, the world economy—by realigning investment towards areas that foster growth and innovation. This shift could herald a true rebirth, as productive investments replace the costs of perpetual conflict.

A crucial element of this world economic revival is the concept of liquidity. Liquidity refers to how easily assets can be converted into cash without significantly affecting their value. In modern economies, ample liquidity is essential; it ensures that money flows smoothly through financial markets and reaches businesses that need it. If liquidity dries up, even the most promising investments can falter because funds are simply not available when required. By enhancing liquidity, policymakers hope to unblock capital, allowing for greater investment in infrastructure and new technologies. This, in turn, would support sustainable growth and help stabilise the broader economy.

The strategic agenda being set in Riyadh is about more than just immediate conflict resolution—it is a forward-looking plan that seeks to transform global dynamics, it is the geopolitical vision that goes beyond Trump's apparent chequebook strategy for paying down debt and restarting the american economy using tarrifs to put manufacturing as the beating heart of the economy, rather than financials. 

By agreeing on a framework agenda that spans multiple issues, the supporting process intends to create a multilateral platform of participants. This platform should gradually incorporate the concerns of Europe and Ukraine, ensuring that when their turn comes, all major players eventually have a voice. Critics may call it exclusionary, but the intention is to establish a structured process that lays the groundwork for broader inclusion later on. This means the jealous and anxious squealing of Zelensky and European leaders misunderstands what is going on. Instead, they should wait there turn and meanwhile play their role as loyal vassals and start communicating the new multipolar world order to their publics.

Zelensky needs to pay special attention to organise elections and he needs to nominate someone to represent Kiev in negotiations with Russia. The alternative to negotiation is defeat on the battlefield. Many European leaders remain tethered to outdated cold war views of Russia, some even want to send troops with air cover to Ukraine. Instead of clinging to these anachronistic ideas, they must listen, re-engage with true democratic values and genuinely represent the interests of their peoples. The alternative is to find themselves obsolete and out of office in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

In the end, while Zelensky’s objections are understandable, they reflect a short-term view of a longer process. The real breakthrough, if it comes, lies in agreeing on the agenda and the process to obtain it. If successful, this could not only pave the way for resolving protracted conflicts, but also release and inject much-needed liquidity into the global economy, staving off recession and ultimately revitalising public and private investment.

This post has been specifically about the Riyadh summit and Zelensky who is yesterday's man and "the chief thief", but take a look at the broader context and what is really happening.

Read More