Bhuvan—Is Trump a madman or a strategic genius?
Have you ever had those eye tests where the ophthalmologist makes you read those bloody tiny letters as if you just fell on your head?
Well, Trump is like a similar test but for our brains. Whether we know it or not, we reason by telling ourselves stories about the world. You may not realize it, but you are concocting elaborate stories, fantasies, and fictions laced with facts to make sense of reality, much like a sci-fi writer building a new universe.
The stories we make up are in a constant tussle with reality, and we edit our stories based on the feedback from this tussle. With Trump, however, our brains are having a tough time coming up with stories. Even if we come up with a story to make sense of him, he would've done a total 180 in just a few days. Understanding Trump is like trying to grab a fistful of water. It's not possible—is he a madman, a bumbling idiot, or a strategic genius? I've no clue.
I'm saying all this because I was watching this interview of Mike Green in which he makes the case that Trump is a strategic genius.
Here's what he says specifically about Trump's actions:
- Trump's overriding geopolitical priority is to deal with China. His overtures to Russia are a way to drive a wedge between the China-Russia relationship. Also, China and Russia aren't that great friends because China has apparently made huge inroads in the Siberian region with a lot of Chinese people settling there. Green goes on to say there's "tremendous debate as to whether or not Russia actually controls that territory."
- Trump pressuring Europeans to spend on defense is a way to free up American resources to focus on China.
- As chaotic as American actions seem, the underlying thread that ties all these actions is to contain the Chinese threat.
- Trump is making noise about acquiring Canada and Greenland because the Arctic ice sheets are melting due to global warming. Soon, the ice will melt to a level that makes navigation between the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans possible through the Arctic along the Alaskan, Canadian, and Greenlandic coast. This will be a vital choke point like the Suez Canal and Panama Canal.
- Green uses the example of Schrödinger's cat to explain Trump's attack on US democracy. Whether it's alive or dead can only be known once we open the box.
- Trump's tariffs are a way to bring manufacturing back to the US. They are also a way to friend-shore US production in countries like India and Mexico. Eventually, the high-value manufacturing will move to the US while labor-heavy manufacturing will be friend-shored. He also adds that it's "silly" to expect significant manufacturing return to the US given low labor force growth.
One interesting historical anecdote from the interview:
"It's semi-related but I often retell the story from the 1930s when the FDR Administration approached Alcoa and said, 'Hey, we're really worried that there's a war coming and aluminum, which Alcoa actually was DuPont at the time controlled on a global monopoly, that we don't have adequate supplies to build an Air Force which we think is going to be the strategic asset in this war' - turned out to be right of course - 'that we're not going to have the resources and aluminum availability to build the aircraft that we're going to need to build.' And Alcoa/DuPont's response to that is 'Oh don't worry, we've got plenty of capacity, we can service you out of our plants in Germany.' Right? Now obviously that's absurd, and so the FDR Administration created Kaiser Aluminum and Reynolds Aluminum as competitors to Alcoa for precisely that reason. Tariffs on steel are designed to create a price umbrella that attracts new capital and new investment into the US economy because we are a net - we're a minor producer of steel at this point, certainly relative to China which has far too much steel capacity."
All of this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes of all time:
"The idea that the future is unpredictable is undermined every day by the ease with which the past is explained." ― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Pranav—In some parts of the world, the snow never melts
Here's something fascinating I just learned.
There are parts of the world, like in some bits of Greenland, where the snow never melts. Every year, new sheets of ice are deposited, but they never completely disappear. If you were to dig into the ice, you would go into the past, in a sense. The deeper you dig, the older the ice gets.
If you cut a column through the ice - the way you're supposed to dig into a pot of biryani so that you get a little of everything - your column will have a little bit of ice from every year of history.
Now, imagine you slice that column into s series of little flat planks. What you get, essentially, is a slice of ice from some very particular point in the past. You could pinpoint the year it came from. If you studied it, you'd know what the snow from that particular year was like. And because snow falls out of the sky, you get a slight sense of what the skies were like.
But why should the sky seem any different at different points in history? Well, because of pollution! If pollution is a by-product of economic activity, then the amount of pollution in any given time should tell you about what the era’s economic history was like! Your column of ice is, in a sense, a sliver of the region’s economic history!
In the mines of the Romans, silver and lead came laced together in a bundle, as ores. Now, silver was valuable. It would go into making currency - which would run the engines of commerce. But to get to that silver, they had to purify it, and because the silver came along with lead, the lead would pollute the skies.
The more economic activity they saw, the more silver they would need. And the more silver they extracted, they more lead they would emit. So when you look at different parts of a column of Greenland ice, you can literally see the rise and fall of Rome.
Here's a paper from a recent study they did on this.
Kashish—Diplomacy or Disgrace?
Back in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi entered Buckingham Palace to meet King George V. He wore just a simple dhoti and shawl. This wasn’t about style. It was his way of highlighting the suffering of millions of Indians under British rule. Naturally, people started whispering—some saw it as disrespectful.
When questioned, Gandhi just smiled and said: “The King has enough clothes for both of us.”
That line was more than a witty comeback. It was a moment of dignity and defiance—a reminder that real leadership isn’t about suits and ties but about standing for something bigger than yourself.
Fast-forward to yesterday, when another leader walked into a powerful room.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stepped into the Oval Office to negotiate for his country’s survival. He wore his usual military-style outfit—just like when he visits the front lines. Not because he’s trying to be cool, but because he stands with soldiers who don’t have the luxury of wearing suits.
And just like Gandhi, Zelenskyy got mocked. One reporter found his outfit “disrespectful.” His response?
“I will get a suit just like yours after the war.”
He refused to get sidetracked. He stayed focused on the main issue: saving Ukraine.
But unlike Gandhi, it wasn’t just gossip he was dealing with. He walked into what felt more like a setup than a diplomatic meeting. Instead of real negotiation, it was more like a public show. Instead of allies, he faced spectacle. It wasn’t diplomacy; it was theater.
Strength vs. Showmanship
I used to believe that, at the very least, world leaders would maintain some level of dignity. That even when they disagree, they’d keep a certain decorum, especially in front of cameras. Because that’s how leaders should act, right? You can strongly oppose each other’s politics, but there’s usually a baseline of respect and composure. What we saw in the Oval Office didn’t look like leadership—it looked like bullying.
Yet the important part is how Zelenskyy handled it. He didn’t engage in the mudslinging. He stayed on track, focusing on Ukraine’s survival. He didn’t bite back; he stayed clear and calm. That’s true leadership.
Trump Had a Point, But Blew the Delivery
Here’s the twist: I don’t entirely disagree with Trump’s main argument. He talked about saving lives, ending the war, and preventing more destruction. He didn’t want a never-ending commitment; he wanted a deal. He proposed that Ukraine open up to American investment and trade, especially in rare-earth minerals—because Trump believes peace often comes from shared interests.
And you know what? There’s logic in that. In any war or negotiation, you rarely get everything you want. You negotiate, you compromise, and you move forward for the greater good. Trump, as a businessman, gets that. Plus, if the U.S. is heavily invested in Ukraine, Russia might think twice before striking. So yes, his points weren’t totally off-base.
But how he said it was the real problem.
At one point, he even chuckled and said, “Great television,” basically mocking Zelenskyy—a man whose country is under siege, whose soldiers risk their lives every day. That’s not how you treat someone who’s fighting for their homeland.
There’s a huge gap between being a strong negotiator and being a bully. True strength in leadership means you can be firm without forcing people to submit, and you can challenge opponents without humiliating them. What we got instead was a display meant for the cameras, where an invited ally got torn down for not automatically agreeing.
Sure, Trump’s fans might love the “tough guy” image. But if his message is that he can dominate any leader at any time, that’s unsettling for the global stage.
When showmanship replaces genuine diplomacy, the fallout is bigger than just hurt feelings. It damages trust, stability, and the world order itself. And it’s not just the world that’s affected—it’s the United States too.
America’s Image at Risk
The U.S. has long acted like the “big brother” to nations that need support. But what does it say when that same big brother publicly ridicules its own allies?
This moment wasn’t just about Ukraine. Every American ally was watching. If Trump can pull an ally into the Oval Office only to embarrass them, what’s to stop him from doing it to others?
That plants a seed of doubt—about America’s leadership, friendships, and reliability. Doubt in geopolitics is dangerous. It makes allies wonder if they should hedge their bets with other powers—maybe even China—because they’re not sure the U.S. will be there when it counts.
If a superpower starts treating friends like foes, it won’t take long before those friends start looking elsewhere.
The World Remembers Moments Like This
So, was this a new approach to foreign policy, or just a show of force? Was it actual diplomacy, or a public shaming session? I can’t say for sure. But I do know that people around the globe won’t forget how a leader was treated during that meeting.
In politics, it’s not just your easy wins that define you; it’s how you handle pressure when things get tough. History will judge both Trump and Vance for using their power in this way, and it will remember how Zelenskyy refused to bow down.
And in that refusal lies the true essence of leadership.
Krishna—People aren’t moving to cities in Sri Lanka
I came across this interesting chart from Our World in Data. It shows how Bangladesh has been urbanizing better than it’s peers including us. One other interesting thing to note in this infographic is how the line of Sri Lanka is more or less the same.
I don’t know why is that the case, but I’ll read up more on this.
That's it for today. If you liked this, give us a shout by tagging us on Twitter.