Tomahawks? When Dealing with a Known Traitor and Liar Like Trump, Trust Actions, Not Words
- john raymond
- Oct 11
- 3 min read
In an environment of systematic deception, words lose their meaning. Promises, declarations, supposed chatter, verbal commitments—they become tools of manipulation, not indicators of intent.
The only reliable metric left is action.
This is especially true when your interlocutor has a recognized history of betrayal and dishonesty. In that case, any statement they make must be treated as a strategic instrument rather than a transparent signal.
The Problem of “Credibility Debt”
A person or regime that habitually lies accumulates what we may call credibility debt: every future statement carries a default presumption of falsehood until devices of confirmation replace it.
In normal diplomacy or politics, states lean on a baseline of mutual credibility: reputations matter, treaties are binding, withdrawal from commitment imposes cost. But a known liar internalizes those costs or disregards them; their primary calculus is control, not agreement.
Once credibility debt passes a certain threshold, all communications collapse into noise. Any new promise, even if beneficial, is discounted—or treated as a weaponized lie. The only prudent posture is to ignore words until verified by concrete deeds.
Historical Precedent: Promises vs. Performance
In the case of the Trump presidency (first and second), one sees repeated instances where grand rhetorical commitments failed to translate into meaningful action:
During his first term, President Trump was impeached over his attempt to withhold congressionally approved Ukraine aid to force political leverage. The aid was only released after exposure and political pressure—not because of his stated principle or moral conviction.
As president-elect during the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised he would end the Russo-Ukrainian war “in 24 hours.” After assuming office, he shifted tone and gradually walked back the claim, even claiming later it was “sarcastic.”
In public commentary, Trump has often made assertive statements about NATO, sanctions, support for Ukraine—and yet, observers criticize that “he repeatedly talked the talk without coming close to walking the walk.”
Under the current administration, military aid to Ukraine has been intermittent—paused, resumed, partly resumed—reflecting a pattern of rhetorical escalation followed by operational stagnation or reversal.
These patterns are not anomalies; they are structural. They derive from a decision calculus in which promises serve political theater, not contractual commitment.
The Rational Posture: Minimax Interpretation
From a strategic standpoint, when your counterpart has zero credibility, you must adopt the minimax rule: assume the worst (i.e. deception, betrayal) until proven otherwise.
The cost of overtrust is catastrophic; the cost of undertrust is limited to forgoing opportunities that were unlikely anyway.
Thus:
Ignore statements — including policy statements, press briefings, internal chatter, White House proclamations — until verified.
Demand physical confirmation — transfers, execution orders, verified intelligence movement, legal documents.
Seek independent verification — technical channels, partner agencies, redundant confirmation.
Treat any action that matches prior words as a surprise, not a confirmation — because a liar may randomize alignment by chance or convenience, not principle.
In short: words are irrelevant; deeds are the only signal.
Why This Matters Now
In the context of Ukraine, European security, and the war with Russia, relying on Trump-era promises is not just risky: it’s strategic folly. The costs of miscalculation are severe: Russia can exploit vacuums, push territory, cut deals, or escalate precisely when the U.S. is found wanting.
Ukraine and its backers cannot afford to vest trust in rhetorical shifts that may evaporate under Kremlin pressure.
One must treat Trump 2.0 as not a normal state actor, but as a narrative control mechanism—a regime whose external output is, until materialized, Kremlin-backed propaganda.
Recognizing that, the only rational posture is one of radical empiricism: disbelieve until you see, and even then trust but verify the downstream motive.
In short, believe in tomahawks only once they go kaboom in Russia and Ukraine.
Comments