The so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity is clearly just a Trojan Horse aimed at laying the foundation to provoke a future war with Russia and Iran.
Bad-Faith Behavior by Those Proclaiming Détente is now the Norm
While the Russians have engaged in colossal and monumental efforts to try to bring about a viable peace proposal, Trump has proclaimed his desire for détente, a reset of relations with Russia, and has rolled out the 2025 National Security Strategy, which apparently seems to almost validate Russian core interests and spheres of influence in Eurasia and the former Soviet Union, something I have insisted needs to be done.
However, almost immediately on the heels of proclaiming that Russia has interests and we might actually do well to recognize and honor those interests, and at about the same time as he insists he wants détente and peace with Russia, Trump rolled out the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), which, if analyzed in any meaningful context, is obviously a Trojan Horse that neither Russia nor Iran can tolerate in any capacity.
America Suffers From an Inability to Rationally Assess its Own Interests
While all rational actors (the USA is a rational actor) act in accordance with their interests, they do not always rationally identify or understand their actual true interests, and mistakes or misperceptions about their interests may lead an otherwise rational actor to undertake clearly irrational action. I invite you all to contemplate the example I am about to give.
Suppose in a hypothetical, a highly rational power, the United States, calculated that Tahiti was a key component of core national interests, upon which hinged the fate of the United States. Based on this clearly flawed determination, it might seem rational to escalate to risk a nuclear war, because if the calculation had been correct, the escalation would be justified and warranted under theories of sovereign action on the international stage.
However, what happens when an otherwise rational actor makes a foundational or categorical mistake in classifying an irrelevant matter as one that touches on or implicates core national interests and escalates on the basis of their faulty understanding of their own actual interests?
It is easy to propose an agreement and reach a negotiated resolution if you correctly identify the national interests of the participants in the negotiations and they agree that you have identified what they identify as their national interests. The difficulty occurs when there is no consistency among the participants in what the national interests even are, or when the interests are clearly mutually exclusive, although at least correctly identified but mutually exclusive interests can still be worked around.
If the interests are not correctly identified, then no meaningful progress is possible. Imagine a client in law practice who is not merely difficult but is incoherent in their understanding of their situation, who insists he wants a money damages when what he really wants is an injunction and a retraction, or he claims he wants money damages when he really wants replevin (return of wrongfully detained/held goods), what he claims he wants doesn’t match with his stated desired outcome, hence we must conclude he lacks the foresight or discernment to realize what his interests actually are.
A rational nation can be mistaken about their actual interests, and while their actions make sense within the framework of their mistaken assessment of their own interests, the actions are actually irrational in relation to the nation’s actual interests.
American Irrationality Compels it to Escalate With Russia
The American assessment of having crucial core national interests in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia has resulted in a situation where the United States is (from its perspective) rationally escalating with Russia, but in reality the USA is irrationally escalating because the USA has miscalculated and does not understand its own core national interests.
In the realm of international statecraft and geopolitics, the Russians understand themselves, and they understand the Americans, and the Russians (correctly) understand their own interests, and the Russians (correctly) understand the interests of the Americans. However, the United States neither correctly understands its own interests nor correctly understands the interests of Russia. This leads to a situation where Russian interests are objectively and subjectively rational, while American interests are objectively irrational but subjectively rational from the perspective of Americans who are acting in pursuit of (mistaken) interests.
American actions around the periphery of Russia, in what Russians call “the Near Abroad” or in the former Soviet Union, only make sense when one understands and accepts the USA has an irrational conception of its own interests and is acting to pursue those interests. The only other viable explanation is that the USA is a malicious power that is acting to deliberately bring down Russia because the USA wants to force an ideology of gender confusion, child abuse, Satanism on Russia, which may actually be the case, although I will focus more on political analysis and leave theological and eschatological explanations for others to make.
America Clearly Doesn’t Want Peace With Russia Given the TRIPP Escalation
The United States has recently begun claiming (loudly and incessantly) that it wants peace and that Donald Trump wants peace so badly that he deserves a Nobel Prize just for thinking about peace. The United States allegedly wants peace with Russia.
In February of 2026, JD Vance went to Armenia. Why? I would shrug and respond, “I don’t know what good could come from such a visit.” As I recall, there is a Russian military contingent permanently stationed in Armenia, and Russia has agreements and strong ties with Armenia. Thus, the American Vice President making a visit to Armenia is a provocation against Russia, and an unnecessary one at that. It appears that JD Vance has been facilitating negotiations with Armenia for the purpose of trying to pull Armenia from Russia and into closer alignment with the West/NATO/USA.
Is attempting to undermine Russia in the Russian Near Abroad consistent with peace, détente, and thawing relations with Russia? I cannot imagine how it could be consistent with such articulated goals.
We must therefore ask ourselves, “Does the USA genuinely seek peace with Russia?” It does not seem that such is the case. At most the USA seeks peace on the terms of the globalist elite who wish to impose a diktat upon Russia. Let us not lose sight of the fact that these elites are the same people who were raping and eating pre-teen girls on Epstein’s island and for whom the controlled corporate media in the USA now runs cover for. The same media running cover for child rapists is now agitating for war with Russia.
Undermining Russia in the Former USSR is NOT Conducive for Peace
If the USA is sincere in its desire for cooperation with Russia, then any infrastructure project taking place in Eurasia or the former Soviet Union should involve cooperation and participation (or at least approval) by Russia. If the USA wants to operate infrastructure linking Europe to East Asia, it should naturally route through Russia, which would mean co-financing with Russia, profit sharing with Russia, and maintenance agreements with Russia, and all of this would necessarily entail removal of sanctions to facilitate the transactions. We simply could not maintain any sanctions scheme on a nation we would have joint projects with, especially if the joint projects were valued in the tens of billions of dollars.
A basic proposal could entail the direct investment of American money in projects for infrastructure across Russia, especially in the interior, and the exploration, extraction, and exploitation of minerals in Siberia, with 70% of revenues going to Russia, 20% going to the USA, and the remaining 10% split between other independent investors (China and those across Europe). Of course, this would require the complete removal of all sanctions on Russia (which should be removed anyway).
As an aside, I am aware that removal of sanctions on Russia would allow Russian “oligarchs” to invest money in the USA, which doesn’t bother me in the slightest. If we have increased economic ties, we are less likely to go to war over trivial disputes, and I am fine mingling and merging American and Russian business and financial interests in that manner. If the US winds up with $50 to $200 billion in direct investments in Russia, and Russian elites wind up investing tens of billions in real estate, industry, agriculture, and such across the USA, the likelihood of war would (or at least should) greatly diminish.
This sort of cooperation is only possible through mutual respect. If a Russian delegation informs the USA, “We are uncomfortable with your plan to unilaterally build a pipeline and a rail line through Armenia; either abandon the project or find a way to incorporate our companies and protect our interests,” we should honor the request. Likewise, if the Russians were about to build an air and naval base in Panama, there would likely be significant concerns raised by elites in the USA, rightly so, as there is not really any valid or legitimate reason for Russia to build a military base next to the Panama Canal. I don’t believe the Russians would engage in such provocations, but their restraint from such maneuvers, contrasted with American provocations in Armenia (which are real and ongoing), paints a grim picture and demonstrates that Russia is generally behaving reasonably on the world stage while the USA is playing a sort of “zero-sum game” of “we will gain at your expense, we win, you lose, we will poke and prod you and dare you to do something.” This game is unnecessary, and it will almost certainly prove to have been a dangerous mistake when the Russians finally call the bluff and say, “You dared us to do something; well, look at what we did.”
Russia Must Guard Against TRIPP Trojan Horse
At the present time it seems peace is elusive, because the Americans proclaim peace, but there is no peace. As the prophet Jeremiah said (in Jeremiah 6:14) which Christian readers may appreciate, “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” Those educated in the classics may appreciate the words of Tacitus, “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desolation, they call it peace.”
This is a basic summary of modern American foreign policy: proclaim peace while promoting war, insist that Gaza is at peace when it most certainly is not, and call the diplomatic process (such as it is, whatever it is) occurring in regard to Ukraine “peace and negotiations with Russia” while undermining Russia in the Russian Near Abroad.
It costs the USA very little to recognize and respect core Russian interests in the Russian Near Abroad, especially when those interests do not conflict with America’s core national interests (I have never accepted the neo-con liberal interventionist line that America has legitimate interests, let alone crucial interests, in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia). The vast majority of problems in the relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation are due to an irrational American calculation of its own interests and then pursuing things (such as infrastructure in Armenia, or trying to get Georgia or Ukraine into NATO) that are not crucial American interests and not even legitimate undertakings, but are highly provocative and even existentially threatening to the interests of Russia.
Little is gained by the USA, much is risked, and many opportunities for cooperation with Russia are squandered.
Right now the USA claims to want peace with Russia, but the TRIPP clearly lays the foundation for future conflict by creating American commitments in the Russian Near Abroad, and by bypassing Russia and Iran in a way meant to provocatively injure their commercial and threaten their security interests.
Trump’s initiative is not one for peace and prosperity but rather for war and plunder. If Trump’s initiative were truly intended to bring about peace and prosperity, it would include Russia, and the Americans would actively seek Russian cooperation and participation as an equal partner or primary facilitator, and perhaps even find a role for Iran (although I would grant Iranian involvement would be more difficult in light of the present state of world affairs). In any event, this is not an initiative for peace and prosperity; it is yet another grandiose Trump project with a gussied-up name that is ultimately a mislabeled project.
Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
