A Two-Axis Framework-Model with Meta-Analysis of Four Western War Analysts—Vlad Vexler, Anders Puck Nielsen, Jake Broe, and William Spaniel
- john raymond
- Aug 6
- 6 min read
Before beginning this assessment, let me offer a brief note of humility: I am certain that my own thinking is imperfect. Any effort to categorize or rank the intellectual output of others carries with it the risk of hubris and oversimplification.
But the nature of war—especially asymmetric, regime-driven war—requires us to analyze not only events and actors, but also those who interpret them for the public. If we are to be effective in resisting the psychological and ideological campaigns waged against liberal democracy, then we must become better at judging who among us sees clearly—and who does not.
To that end, I present here a semi-rigorous attempt to model the usefulness of four well-known Western war analysts or "war bloggers": Vlad Vexler, Anders Puck Nielsen, Jake Broe, and William Spaniel.
Each occupies a distinct space within the current analytical ecosystem. Some rely on technical precision; others on moral clarity; some offer intellectual depth, and others valuable tactical reporting. But not all frameworks are created equal. Not all mental models illuminate. Some actively mislead. And if we are to survive this moment of epistemic and political chaos, we must develop our ability to distinguish between surface-level noise and strategic insight.
To do so, I have constructed a two-axis evaluation model to assess these analysts. Once each figure has been situated along both axes, I then collapse the results into a single, practical hierarchy.
Axis One: Framework Utilization
The first axis concerns whether or not the analyst in question consistently applies a framework—a model, a set of principles, a system of interpretation—to understand world events. It is not enough to simply report facts, speculate randomly, or offer moral indignation.
An analyst must engage with the world as a system: one that has rules, pressures, incentives, and predictable failure points. In other words, they must think in frameworks.
On this axis, a high score indicates active and consistent use of a strategic or conceptual model. A low score reflects either the absence of a framework altogether or a purely reactive approach to news events.
Axis Two: Correctness of Framework
The second axis concerns not just the presence of a framework, but the quality of it. Some frameworks are elegant but obsolete. Others are primitive but correct. The key issue here is alignment: does the analyst’s model correctly interpret the current world, or does it falsely map onto a world that no longer exists?
In particular, our world is now shaped by asymmetric warfare, regime security as prime directive, and mindwar fought over narrative control. Analysts who continue to think in terms of Cold War rational actor theory or simplistic “great power competition” fail to capture the true nature of the conflict. They are using the wrong maps.
A high score on this axis indicates a framework that adapts to the psychological, memetic, and deceptive nature of modern autocratic warfare. A low score reflects a mismatch between model and battlefield.
Analyst One: Vlad Vexler
Vexler is perhaps the most unusual and valuable of the four. A philosopher by training, he does not operate primarily as a military analyst, nor even as a traditional political commentator. Instead, he focuses on the epistemic terrain of modern autocracy: how lies metastasize, how societies fall into consensus collapse, and how liberal democracies must adapt or perish in the face of narrative-driven warfare.
On the first axis—framework utilization—Vexler scores extremely high. He approaches every issue through a clearly developed interpretive lens. He is not merely reacting to events, but reinterpreting them through a deep understanding of ideology, psychology, and civic trust.
On the second axis—framework correctness—Vexler also scores high. His recognition that the battlefield has shifted into the realm of belief, trust, and public narrative makes him one of the few thinkers genuinely equipped to deal with today’s asymmetric threats. His framing of autocracy as consensus disruption aligns well with the realities of reflective control, ideological zombification, and epistemic warfare.
He is not infallible—occasionally he hesitates to name certain threats directly or leaves interpretive space where clarity is needed—but his overall contribution is profoundly valuable.
Analyst Two: Anders Puck Nielsen
Nielsen occupies a different niche: a tactician and strategist with firm grounding in military operations, especially naval logistics, command structure, and NATO cohesion. He is thoughtful, well-informed, and often cautious. He does not claim more than he knows, which is itself a virtue.
On framework utilization, Nielsen scores high. He consistently uses military operational models to explain decision-making, force posture, and alliance dynamics. He understands deterrence, escalation ladders, and logistical fragility.
On correctness of framework, however, Nielsen lands in the middle-high range. While he is aware of the shifting terrain—especially the rise of drone warfare, economic sabotage, and disinformation—he has not fully internalized the fact that the war is now being fought in the psychological and political domain more than on the battlefield. His caution is sometimes a strength, but occasionally a liability, as it causes him to underemphasize the active intent behind autocratic chaos.
Still, among traditional strategists, Nielsen is ahead of the pack. He is evolving.
Analyst Three: Jake Broe
Jake Broe is the most populist of the four. He presents news, offers tactical summaries, and tries to make sense of world events for a general audience. He lacks an explicit framework, but he is morally sincere and not intellectually dishonest. He tries to think through each problem inductively, from the facts up, rather than imposing a rigid ideological or strategic model onto events.
On framework utilization, Broe scores in the medium range. He is not entirely without one—he senses patterns, especially around regime instability and democratic values—but he does not possess a rigorously defined model. He often reacts with good instincts but lacks structural scaffolding.
On correctness of framework, he also scores in the medium range. His instincts are not wrong, and he tends to reject bad models rather than adopt outdated ones. Unlike Spaniel, Broe is not beholden to Cold War logic or rational actor theory. His limitations are due more to lack of depth than to error. He is honest, and when he is wrong, it is usually on the periphery rather than at the core.
Broe is valuable to the ecosystem as a kind of early-warning sensor. He catches signals others miss, but does not always know what they mean.
Analyst Four: William Spaniel
Spaniel is the most technically impressive and intellectually inflexible of the group. A game theorist by training, he applies formal logic, utility modeling, and probabilistic reasoning to questions of war, deterrence, and diplomacy. His videos are elegant in construction and mathematically correct.
But his framework is wrong.
On framework utilization, Spaniel scores high. He absolutely uses a rigorous model. He interprets all events through the lens of rational actor behavior, strategic equilibrium, and formal conflict resolution theory.
On correctness of framework, however, Spaniel scores low. His model was designed for a world in which leaders were rational, communication was clean, and deterrence functioned linearly. That world no longer exists. He does not understand reflective control, ideological regimes, or narrative warfare. He assumes that Putin wants what a Western leader would want. He assumes that Trump’s actions are strategic blunders rather than asymmetric betrayals. He misunderstands the nature of the battlefield.
Spaniel’s thinking is sophisticated but obsolete. He is a Cold War physicist in a quantum world.
Collapsing the Model
By integrating the two axes into a single hierarchy of practical utility, we arrive at the following ranking:
Vlad Vexler – The Philosopher-General. Sees the battlefield where it truly is: in the mind, in consensus, in truth.
Anders Puck Nielsen – The Strategist-in-Transition. Operationally superb, increasingly attuned to psychological and narrative war.
Jake Broe – The Honest Sensor. Limited in tools, but perceptive and unencumbered by false models.
William Spaniel – The Elegant Irrelevant. Brilliant, but trapped in a model that no longer describes the world.
A Concluding Word
What we need now are thinkers who do not just explain the world—but who interpret it correctly. The enemies of democracy have long understood that war is no longer just about territory or tanks. It is about minds, stories, legitimacy, and fear. If we continue to elevate analysts who misread the terrain—no matter how brilliant—they will lead us to failure.
This hierarchy is not final. People evolve. Paradigms shift. But unless we begin judging our interpreters as rigorously as we judge our leaders, we will continue to lose ground in a war most of us don’t even realize we are fighting.
Let us, then, be precise—not just in what we see, but in how we think about who sees clearly. That is how democracies endure.
Comments