Political actions are often driven by a leader's narrow self-interest rather than the good of their country, party, or ideological group. Decisions frequently benefit the leader's immediate circle, even when it damages the broader faction they represent, as seen with politicians unwilling to step aside for their party's benefit.

Analyzing the Trump administration requires understanding the individual motives of figures like Marco Rubio, not a unified state policy. Trump's foreign relations are based on personal chemistry with leaders like Milei or Bukele, creating a non-transferable, unpredictable policy that lacks long-term strategic direction for future presidents.

Anne Applebaum argues that certain leaders don't analyze geopolitical issues by what benefits the nation, but by how they personally emerge as a 'winner.' This transforms complex diplomacy into a quest for applause and personal validation, rather than strategic problem-solving.

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.

Donald Trump's political style represents a shift beyond traditional autocracy. His primary aim isn't just to empower his party or allies, but to consolidate power entirely for himself, creating a personalist autocratic system where loyalty is to the individual, not an institution.

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.

Trump's strategy of escalating threats is based on the model that rational actors will capitulate to overwhelming force. This fails when adversaries, viewing conflict as existential, operate under a different calculus, leading to unpredictable and dangerous escalations.

The attack on Iran is viewed not as a strategic national security move, but as an action motivated by Donald Trump's personal legacy and brand. Decisions are centered on the "Trump" name and persona rather than traditional statecraft or established government policy.

Unlike the cautious, collegial Soviet Politburo—composed of men who survived Stalin by avoiding opinions—Putin governs alone as a risk-taker. This lack of institutional checks and balances makes his actions dangerously unpredictable. The stability of Russia itself is fragile and dependent on him, making him a fundamentally different and more acute threat than his Cold War predecessors.