The Updated Analyst Scorecard
- john raymond
- Sep 4
- 2 min read
The recent round of war commentary on Youtube forces a clarification: Jake Broe has taken the lead as the most disciplined analyst on YouTube precisely because he is willing to cross the line from “what if” speculation into “what is” acknowledgment of Trump’s role as a Russian asset.
Neilsen remains rigorous but cautious, still framing in counterfactual terms.
Warburg avoids overextension and holds to what he understands, but his recent misframing of Trump–Putin relations keeps him below Neilsen.
Vexler, by contrast, misfired badly by attributing Trump’s repeat betrayals to incompetence rather than intent.
Jake Broe—First
Broe’s decisive edge comes from recognizing that the Portuguese line—that Trump is a Russian asset—is not fringe but the most parsimonious explanation of his actions. By effectively echoing this position, Broe finally transcended the “accidental blunder” frame.
His battlefield and alliance coverage remains strong, but it is his adoption of the asset frame that vaults him to the top.
Anders Puck Neilsen—Second
Neilsen continues to deliver disciplined, military-grounded analysis. His phrasing—“if Trump were a Russian asset, he would behave no differently”—is correct but still couched. It describes the pattern without naming the conclusion.
This hedging, while professional, leaves him behind Broe, who now states the asset thesis outright. Neilsen’s nearness to the full frame keeps him above Warburg, but his lack of forceful acknowledgment keeps him in second.
Paul Warburg—Third
Warburg still falters on Trump–Putin. His tendency to treat Trump as a confused nationalist rather than a Traitor-General is a recurring limitation.
But his discipline lies in narrowing focus to what he can explain with clarity: Ukraine’s battlefield imperatives, Western political risk, and why delay is deadly. In the latest cycle, this restraint kept him ahead of Vexler.
Warburg does not soar, but he avoids the blunders of overreach.
Vlad Vexler—Fallen
Vexler’s eloquence and range remain, but his latest output collapsed because he misframed Trump’s outcomes as incompetence. The core analytic failure is that he treats damage to Ukraine and the West as collateral instead of as the point. This reveals his incomplete grasp of Pillar Three.
By dropping three places at once—incompetence, China-first, and accidental fallout—he disqualified himself from the top tier.
The Current Hierarchy
The hierarchy is now:
Jake Broe—first, because he accepts the “Trump-as-asset” thesis.
Anders Puck Neilsen—second, because he is closest to that frame but too cautious.
Paul Warburg—third, because he narrowed scope and avoided errors, even while still misframing Trump–Putin.
Vlad Vexler—fallen, because he misdiagnoses deliberate betrayal as mere incompetence.
Comments