Vitamin R: On Vexler’s Latest Video Addressing the Trump-Putin Code
- john raymond
- Aug 11
- 2 min read
Vlad Vexler’s latest commentary represents a step forward in his understanding of President Trump’s political psychology and its ideological convergence with Vladimir Putin’s. For once, Vexler does not overly dilute his analysis by centering it on the narcissistic theater of Trump as a personality disorder case study. Instead, he locates the core in the nihilistic “might-makes-right” framework—a framework that is not incidental to Trump’s worldview but constitutive of it.
Where Vexler still stops short is in acknowledging the full depth of this alignment. Trump’s worldview is not merely the coincidental overlap of two power-hungry autocrats who happen to share the same instincts. It is the product of a deliberate, decades-long Kremlin construction project—political, financial, and narrative—designed to shape Trump into exactly the type of actor who would see the world in Putin’s terms.
Over forty years, this fabrication has been refined until the worldview and the patron are inseparable.
The key here is what Vexler describes as the imperial borderlessness and transactional logic—what’s mine is mine until you take it, what’s yours is yours until I take it. That is not simply a code of opportunism; it is the essence of master-slave political psychology. Power must be recognized; weakness must be humiliated.
This is the bullied-bully archetype, a creature who worships strength because he fears it, and who exercises cruelty because he once suffered it. In monarchical terms, it is the divine right of the strong—a worldview that makes every relationship a hierarchy and every hierarchy a potential conquest.
By tracing this back to Trump’s operational reality—that Putin is not just a peer but his political manufacturer—Vexler’s framework would gain the final clarity it currently lacks...
For in this lens, the Alaska meeting is not just a stage for two “like-minded” strongmen. It is a reunion of master and instrument, operating on the shared understanding that legitimacy comes not from law or consent, but from the raw ability to take and to hold.
That is why the symbolism matters: it is not absurdity for its own sake, but an enacted parable of how both believe the world should work—and how they intend to make it so.
Comments