America's unpredictable, "law of the jungle" approach doesn't embolden adversaries like Russia or China, who already operate this way. Instead, it forces traditional allies (Canada, Europe, Japan) to hedge their bets, decouple their interests, and reduce reliance on an unreliable United States for upholding international law.

Putin's history shows a reliable pattern: he appears cooperative and makes agreements, only to later act in his own self-interest. To predict his moves in conflicts like the Ukraine war, one must analyze this long-term behavioral pattern rather than his current statements or gestures.

Trump's rhetoric about acquiring Greenland "the easy way or the hard way" is not just bluster. It's part of a broader pattern of unilateral action that prioritizes American strategic interests above all else, even at the cost of alienating key allies and potentially fracturing foundational alliances like NATO.

To predict a leader's actions, disregard their words and even individual actions. Instead, focus on their consistent, long-term pattern of behavior. For Putin, the pattern is using negotiations as a stalling tactic to advance a fixed agenda, making him an unreliable partner for peace deals based on stated intentions.

With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.

Russia's provocations are designed to create dilemmas for European nations, forcing them to question whether the US would support a kinetic response. This uncertainty weakens the transatlantic alliance and strengthens Russia's psychological position for future negotiations over Ukraine and European security.

The administration's plan to acquire Greenland is seen as an incredibly "stupid own goal." It alienates a steadfast ally, Denmark, for no strategic reason, as the U.S. could gain any desired access through simple negotiation. This highlights a foreign policy driven by personal impulses rather than rational strategy.

An ideologue, even an anarchist advocating against the state, may support a massive state action if it serves a higher strategic purpose—in this case, disrupting a system they oppose. The perceived hypocrisy is dismissed as irrelevant when compared to the desired outcome, framing it as a solution, not a preferred method of governance.

High-level US military and intelligence figures see independent online voices as a primary geopolitical threat. They fear that uncontrolled narratives can foster nationalism (like Brexit), which could lead to the dissolution of key alliances like the EU and NATO, disrupting the established world order.