In His Latest Video, Vlad Vexler Shows How Regime Security Dynamics Are King
- john raymond
- Jan 21
- 2 min read
In asymmetric politics, regime security is the causal driver; narcissism is, at most, a surface amplifier. To model the enemy as acting from narcissism is to mistake noise for signal and to mis-predict behavior under pressure.
Regime security explains consistency under contradiction. Narcissism does not. President Trump’s actions—toward Greenland, NATO, Ukraine, tariffs, allies, and enemies—exhibit a stable objective function: preserve personal power, weaken constraints, and fracture coalitions that could limit him—or limit his boss in the Kremlin.
The rhetoric oscillates; the incentives do not. This is precisely why statements cannot be read as commitments and why Trump “taking force off the table” is analytically meaningless. The invariant is leverage acquisition and constraint erosion, not ego gratification.
Narcissism, by contrast, is epiphenomenal. It can shape style (braggadocio, grievance, humiliation rituals), but it does not determine choice when survival is at stake. Autocrats who lack Trump’s particular performative traits still pursue the same moves under the same pressures.
The commonality across cases is not personality; it is the logic of survival in power. When courts, legislatures, alliances, and media threaten that survival, the response converges: coercion, ambiguity, divide-and-rule, and norm sabotage.
This is why Vlad Vexler is strongest when he focuses on post-truth mechanics and media complicity. Where analysis centers on how volatility is weaponized—how contradiction itself becomes a tool—the model predicts outcomes. Where it centers on narcissism, it risks improper moralizing instead of judicious forecasting.
Raymond Method alignment:
Pillar One (Regime Security): Actions are selected to maximize personal power retention; policy content is instrumental.
Pillar Two (Asymmetric Warfare): Contradictory speech, deniable threats, and “frameworks” without substance are used to desynchronize opponents and extract compliance.
Minimax corollary: When a proven enemy moves, assume the move enables harm; ask what it allows, not what it claims.
Under this lens, Greenland is not an obsession; it is a lever. NATO pressure is not pique; it is coalition fracture. “I won’t use force” is not reassurance; it is a tempo change while the traitor-general that is Trump attempts to reposition his leverage.
Treating the enemy as narcissism-driven leads to two errors: (1) over-weighting optics and under-weighting incentives; (2) expecting shame, exposure, or ridicule to alter behavior. None of those directly threaten regime security. Counter-strategy must therefore target constraints and coalitions: harden institutions, deny bilateral carve-outs, and report invariants rather than utterances.
Crucially, the enemy does what he does because survival in power demands it. Narcissism may color the delivery, but regime security selects the act.
If analysts forget that, they will keep being surprised by outcomes that were, in fact, entirely predictable.
Comments