I agree with you, a good reputation is difficult to build but easy to lose. Trump's geopolitical actions might be beneficial in the short term, but harmful in the long term.
I like taking concept back to first principles and this relates to Entropy, no? It's always harder to build something than it is to tear is apart.
The fragility of a reputation is likely linked to the fact that cooperating is riskier than not cooperating, as one can be worse off if one cooperates and is taken advantage of than if one is wary and does not cooperate. Hence, you need a reputation based on substantial evidence to entice others to cooperate with you, especially when you are very powerful.
Are you implying that Canadians would not be proud to have Donald Trumps radiant orange face gracing their currency, and Trump's eloquence voiced in American high school French? If there is one thing Canadians all agree on, it is that they need more personal bankruptcies from random health injuries and crises. Why waste your money on some over-valued house when you can buy substandard medical care? All the Canadian doctors I know working in the US think this is a great idea, along with tax cuts for the highest income earners, all financed with government debt. What could possibly go wrong?
1. Ukraine never had nuclear weapons,. There were Soviet weapons stationed in Ukraine, which the Ukrainian regime never controlled.
2. Ukraine is a puppet regime, with no more authority in its own house than the Zelenskii family dog. Simiarly, Europe. There is no reason to keep up the pretense that one must speak to the glove puppet.
You make two assertions that are not warranted. I’ll take the opportunity to correct these for the interested readers.
** The assertion that "Ukraine never had nuclear weapons, only Soviet weapons stationed there" is incorrect. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, comprising approximately 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, as well as thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. This is a matter of historical record, well documented by nuclear security experts such as Pifer (2015).
While it is true that the launch codes initially remained under Moscow’s control, Ukraine retained physical possession of both the warheads and their delivery systems. More significantly, it inherited key elements of the Soviet nuclear infrastructure, including the missile factory in Dnipro, which produced ICBMs. This meant that, given time and resources, Ukraine had the potential to develop independent control over its nuclear arsenal. “According to Western analysts, Ukraine had the technological capacity to break the Russian authorization codes and establish full operational control over its nuclear arsenal within 12 to 18 months” (Budjeryn, 2016).
** The claim that Ukraine is a “puppet regime” is equally unfounded and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both Ukrainian politics and international relations. Since gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine has demonstrated sovereign decision-making through multiple competitive elections and independent policy choices that have often diverged from both Western and Russian preferences.
D’Anieri (2019) documents Ukraine’s democratic transitions, showing that its leadership has changed through genuine electoral processes rather than external imposition. Kuzio (2015, p. 510) describes Ukraine’s pre-2014 foreign policy as a "multi-vector" approach, in which it maintained relations with both Russia and the West, frequently frustrating the strategic aims of both. Even under President Zelenskyy, Ukraine has pursued economic and military policies that have sometimes differed from those of NATO and the European Union.
The suggestion that Ukraine is merely an instrument of external powers overlooks the nature of alliances, which are typically based on mutual interest rather than unilateral control. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO and EU membership aligns with its own strategic interests and reflects the overwhelming support of its population, as consistently shown in independent polling (Pew Research Center, 2022).
References
Budjeryn, M. (2016). Was Ukraine's Nuclear Disarmament a Blunder? World Affairs, 179(5), 9–20.
D’Anieri, P. (2019). Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War. Cambridge University Press.
Kuzio, T. (2015). Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism. ABC-CLIO.
Pifer, S. (2015). The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia, and Nuclear Weapons. Brookings Institution.
Pew Research Center. (2022). NATO Seen Favorably Across Member States. Pew Global Attitudes Survey.
So the USSR had massive nuclear arsenals within its borders, and when dissolved these were removed from the territory of a new country that could potentially use them against a now weakened Russia via a future "alliance". I wonder why that happened.
It was a good deal at the time. They had no oil, no diamonds, even their crops and such had been sold off by Russian intelligence scumbags (see Vladimir Putin). Even the central Asian republics were in better shape with more people living off the land and a less tortured past, not to mention gold mines. natural gas and other resources.
Ukraine took the best deal it could get, and Americans slept better at night knowing that Palestinians or Al Qaeda were not going to buy a thermonuclear device for a few cases of vodka.
Sure, but that seems like a good reason for a lot of people sleeping better. Of course anything that brings the threat of nuclear war closer could upset sleep patterns again.
Russian trolls in the house. Sorry you could not get a visa to a better country Oleg. We do not resent you. If we were stuck in your position, we would do the same.
Thank you for writing this Lionel.
I agree with you, a good reputation is difficult to build but easy to lose. Trump's geopolitical actions might be beneficial in the short term, but harmful in the long term.
I like taking concept back to first principles and this relates to Entropy, no? It's always harder to build something than it is to tear is apart.
The fragility of a reputation is likely linked to the fact that cooperating is riskier than not cooperating, as one can be worse off if one cooperates and is taken advantage of than if one is wary and does not cooperate. Hence, you need a reputation based on substantial evidence to entice others to cooperate with you, especially when you are very powerful.
This excellent article totally hits home when read from Canada.
Are you implying that Canadians would not be proud to have Donald Trumps radiant orange face gracing their currency, and Trump's eloquence voiced in American high school French? If there is one thing Canadians all agree on, it is that they need more personal bankruptcies from random health injuries and crises. Why waste your money on some over-valued house when you can buy substandard medical care? All the Canadian doctors I know working in the US think this is a great idea, along with tax cuts for the highest income earners, all financed with government debt. What could possibly go wrong?
1. Ukraine never had nuclear weapons,. There were Soviet weapons stationed in Ukraine, which the Ukrainian regime never controlled.
2. Ukraine is a puppet regime, with no more authority in its own house than the Zelenskii family dog. Simiarly, Europe. There is no reason to keep up the pretense that one must speak to the glove puppet.
Hi FF,
You make two assertions that are not warranted. I’ll take the opportunity to correct these for the interested readers.
** The assertion that "Ukraine never had nuclear weapons, only Soviet weapons stationed there" is incorrect. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, comprising approximately 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, as well as thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. This is a matter of historical record, well documented by nuclear security experts such as Pifer (2015).
While it is true that the launch codes initially remained under Moscow’s control, Ukraine retained physical possession of both the warheads and their delivery systems. More significantly, it inherited key elements of the Soviet nuclear infrastructure, including the missile factory in Dnipro, which produced ICBMs. This meant that, given time and resources, Ukraine had the potential to develop independent control over its nuclear arsenal. “According to Western analysts, Ukraine had the technological capacity to break the Russian authorization codes and establish full operational control over its nuclear arsenal within 12 to 18 months” (Budjeryn, 2016).
** The claim that Ukraine is a “puppet regime” is equally unfounded and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both Ukrainian politics and international relations. Since gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine has demonstrated sovereign decision-making through multiple competitive elections and independent policy choices that have often diverged from both Western and Russian preferences.
D’Anieri (2019) documents Ukraine’s democratic transitions, showing that its leadership has changed through genuine electoral processes rather than external imposition. Kuzio (2015, p. 510) describes Ukraine’s pre-2014 foreign policy as a "multi-vector" approach, in which it maintained relations with both Russia and the West, frequently frustrating the strategic aims of both. Even under President Zelenskyy, Ukraine has pursued economic and military policies that have sometimes differed from those of NATO and the European Union.
The suggestion that Ukraine is merely an instrument of external powers overlooks the nature of alliances, which are typically based on mutual interest rather than unilateral control. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO and EU membership aligns with its own strategic interests and reflects the overwhelming support of its population, as consistently shown in independent polling (Pew Research Center, 2022).
References
Budjeryn, M. (2016). Was Ukraine's Nuclear Disarmament a Blunder? World Affairs, 179(5), 9–20.
D’Anieri, P. (2019). Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War. Cambridge University Press.
Kuzio, T. (2015). Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism. ABC-CLIO.
Pifer, S. (2015). The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia, and Nuclear Weapons. Brookings Institution.
Pew Research Center. (2022). NATO Seen Favorably Across Member States. Pew Global Attitudes Survey.
Bull.
1..Given time and resources, anyone can make nuclear weapons.
2. Ukraine has had elections but so does a high school student council. In both cases, the elected have little to no say over policy.
So the USSR had massive nuclear arsenals within its borders, and when dissolved these were removed from the territory of a new country that could potentially use them against a now weakened Russia via a future "alliance". I wonder why that happened.
It was a good deal at the time. They had no oil, no diamonds, even their crops and such had been sold off by Russian intelligence scumbags (see Vladimir Putin). Even the central Asian republics were in better shape with more people living off the land and a less tortured past, not to mention gold mines. natural gas and other resources.
Ukraine took the best deal it could get, and Americans slept better at night knowing that Palestinians or Al Qaeda were not going to buy a thermonuclear device for a few cases of vodka.
Sure, but that seems like a good reason for a lot of people sleeping better. Of course anything that brings the threat of nuclear war closer could upset sleep patterns again.
Russian trolls in the house. Sorry you could not get a visa to a better country Oleg. We do not resent you. If we were stuck in your position, we would do the same.