Larry Johnson – Allegiance to Whom? And Lavrov Speaks

I am fascinated by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreeing to do an interview with NBC. The bimbo doing the interview was following a script and not listening to what Lavrov was actually saying. Mr. Lavrov, despite gotcha questions from Kristen Welker, who conducted the interrogation, remained calm and cool and precise. He even extended an invitation for her to come to Moscow and do the next one in person.

Now that the hype surrounding the Alaska Summit and Trump’s subsequent Monday meeting in Washington with Ukraine’s Zelensky and this seven-pimp masters from Europe, has died down, there is growing realization in the West that there is no peace deal imminent. Lavrov explains in meticulous detail Russia’s position, which I have published on this blog ad nauseum.

While I understand President Putin’s desire to have a normal relationship with President Trump, I worry that Mr. Putin does not comprehend the depth of hatred within the Deep State for the Russian government. There is nothing short of destroying Ukraine militarily that will compel the West to reach a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine.

I don’t know if Vladimir Putin is a student or fan of game theory, but I think that recent Russian actions suggests that Putin is applying the principles. So what is the best strategy, according to game theory, when Russia is trying to negotiate with the United States, who is intent on seeking Russia’s subjugation to Washington? Whether through deceit, economic sanctions or military force, I believe that the US is intent on destroying Russia. The Washington bureaucracy will not allow Donald Trump to create a normal economic and diplomatic relationship with Russia. So what should Russia do according to game theory?

Game theory suggests that the best strategy when negotiating with a party that wishes to harm you involves a careful balance of deterrence, credible threats, and restraint. Key insights include:

• Credible commitment: You must make threats or promises that your adversary believes you will carry out; credibility often requires some form of constraint on your own actions to build trust in your declared strategy. Without credibility, threats will be ignored and negotiations will break down.

• Tit-for-tat or reciprocity: A common deterrent approach is to respond in kind to your opponent’s actions (e.g., cooperating when they cooperate, retaliating when they harm). This encourages cooperation by showing that aggressive behavior will be met with retaliation, making harm costly.

• Communication and reputation: Successful deterrence hinges on clear communication of intentions and maintaining a reputation for both resolve and restraint. This strategic signaling helps avoid unintended escalation while demonstrating that you will defend your interests.

• Future consequences and repeated interactions: Viewing negotiations as part of a longer-term sequence encourages cooperative behavior since both sides anticipate future repercussions if they defect or harm one another.

I think that Russia’s attack this past week on a US-owned factory in western Ukraine, which was producing key components for drones, was an example of tit-for-tat retaliation. In summary, game theory advises Putin to balance firmness and restraint and to make credible threats of retaliation to deter harm, while keeping channels for cooperation open to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Here is the Lavrov interview. I strongly recommend that you take the time to watch it: