On the world stage, peace becomes performance — and every spotlight hides the shadows of control.

By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 15, 2025

Update — CBC analysis (Oct 16, 2025)

CBC’s latest piece describes Trump’s Gaza deal as potentially “historic” yet cautions that it stops at a negative peace—a pause in violence—without a clear path to a negotiated, lasting settlement. Trump declined to commit to a two-state solution, and analysts note the plan largely reflects Israeli and U.S. priorities, with limited Palestinian voice. In short: headline peace, unresolved foundations.

Why it matters for this essay: this directly reinforces the theme of performative peace—high-visibility wins in Phase 1 with structural questions left open, increasing the risk of later fracture.

Source: Nahlah Ayed, CBC News, “Trump’s Gaza deal may be ‘historic,’ but falls short of delivering ‘dawn of a new Middle East’,” posted Oct 16, 2025 (updated 12:47 PM ADT).

When Peace Becomes a Performance: Trump, Netanyahu, and the Architecture of Escape

The Gaza ceasefire agreement, publicly described as a step toward peace, contains within it a series of conditions that appear designed to collapse under their own weight. Among the most striking features are the impossible demands: the return of all hostages, living and dead; Hamas’s total disarmament; and an implicit assumption that a shattered territory can deliver complete compliance under bombardment. At the centre of this fragile structure stand two dominant figures — Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — whose political and strategic interests have become increasingly intertwined. To analyse their alignment without slipping into speculation, this post focuses on strategy, evidence and verification.

1. Convergence of interests

Trump’s domestic narrative casts him as the deal-maker who achieves results where traditional diplomacy fails; Netanyahu’s depends on demonstrating that Israel remains strong, unbending, and protected by Washington’s approval (CNN, 2025). Both face internal pressures that reward toughness over compromise, which helps explain why their language and sequencing converge.

2. Narrative synchronisation as political instrument

Modern conflicts are fought with words as well as weapons. Press conferences, photo-ops and carefully sequenced “points of agreement” serve as instruments of narrative control. In this context, the widely discussed “twenty points” function both as negotiation terms and as a communication script (Reuters, 2025). Each clause reinforces a moral hierarchy — Israel as the disciplined actor, Hamas as the unreliable counterpart — a framing reinforced by disputes over recovered remains (Associated Press, 2025).

3. The optics of ownership: Trump’s first word

A revealing CBC segment documented a handwritten note passed to Trump during a domestic round-table: “Very close. We need you to approve a Truth Social post soon so you can announce the deal first” (CBC, 2025). Minutes later he signalled an imminent deal; within hours, his post appeared. Communication scholars call this narrative capture — controlling the headline rather than the outcome (Entman, 1993). The footage shows media choreography in action: the announcement itself is part of the performance.

4. The propaganda parallel

Describing this as “propaganda-like” need not imply deceit. In communication theory, propaganda is deliberate perception-shaping to achieve behavioural outcomes (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2019). One-sided or impossible conditions become rhetorical proof of restraint on one side and intransigence on the other; synchronised statements and timing create an echo chamber that amplifies the stronger party’s moral logic (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

5. Avoiding the conspiratorial trap

Strategic analysis examines observable incentives and outcomes; conspiracy claims allege secret coordination beyond evidence. Messaging alignment between Washington and Jerusalem is verifiable — statements often mirror each other within hours, and close communication is acknowledged (The Guardian, 2025). What would cross the line is asserting a total hidden script without documentation.

6. Self-defeating design: why the agreement may collapse

Five dynamics make the framework structurally unstable: (1) Impossibility clauses such as the demand to return all bodies (Reuters, 2025); (2) Asymmetrical enforcement where one side can unilaterally decide compliance (ABC News, 2025); (3) Domestic incentives for toughness that discourage compromise (The Guardian, 2025); (4) a verification vacuum; and (5) a humanitarian feedback loop in which devastation itself becomes grounds for future non-compliance claims.

7. Interpreting behaviour, not allegiance

Treating each leader as a rational actor clarifies how the theatre of negotiation serves domestic objectives that may diverge from peacebuilding. This is not vilification; it is a study of how states convert negotiation into narrative.

8. Phase 1 and the architecture of escape

Phase 1 was designed as a self-contained, visible success: hostage releases, a short ceasefire and limited troop repositioning that can be credited quickly to presidential authority (CNN, 2025). By front-loading optics, a narrative victory is secured regardless of later collapse. In game-theory terms, the structure is non-zero but asymmetrical: Trump maximises gain in every outcome, while Israel and Hamas absorb risk. The agreement’s structure and its communication loop are entangled — each action is both procedure and performance. This is systemic entanglement: governance mechanisms blending with perception mechanisms to create a recursive information loop.

Conclusion: the peace that performs itself

The ceasefire’s logic is self-contradictory: it demands total compliance from a devastated region while granting wide discretion to its guarantors. The very qualities that make it politically valuable — moral clarity, unilateral control and domestic resonance — make it operationally fragile. Whether the Trump–Netanyahu alignment is deliberate or emergent matters less than the outcome: a system that performs the ritual of peace while perpetuating structures of conflict.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

References

1. ABC News. (2025, October 15). Israel says ceasefire deal contingent on full return of hostages.
2. Associated Press. (2025, October 14). Israeli military says one of the bodies handed over by Hamas is not that of a hostage.
3. CBC News [Chang, A.]. (2025, October 12). How Trump’s ‘first word’ defined the Middle East peace announcement.
4. CNN [Tapper, J.]. (2025, October 15). Trump tells CNN that Israeli forces could resume fighting in Gaza if Hamas doesn’t uphold ceasefire deal.
5. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
6. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.
7. Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2019). Propaganda & Persuasion (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Reuters. (2025, October 14). Returning hostage bodies from Gaza may take time, Red Cross says.
9. The Guardian. (2025, October 15). Trump and Netanyahu’s alignment strengthens as Gaza deal faces hurdles.

---

Trump’s Biggest Deal That Never Happened: The Nobel Peace Prize

I am the center of the universe

By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 11, 2025

Why Donald Trump Did Not Receive the Nobel Peace Prize

There are two prevailing schools of thought on why President Donald Trump should or should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

In my opinion, there are many reasons why he didn't receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The first point is that by repeatedly claiming he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump has effectively politicized the award. The Nobel Prize is not a prize that one can demand that they deserve or should be nominated for. By politicizing the award, he may have biased the committee in the sense that they feel manipulated, and awarding him that award may make them feel that they are complying with his “I deserve the Nobel Prize” campaign (BBC News, 2020).

As an observer, it appears that Donald Trump creates crises so that later he can claim that he alone resolved the problems he created.

Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has shown a recurring pattern of amplifying or even manufacturing crises, only to later claim credit for resolving them. This approach creates the illusion of decisive leadership while concealing the fact that the instability often originated from his own actions (Reuters, 2020; Washington Post, 2024).

A clear example is the North Korea nuclear crisis. Early in his first term, Trump's confrontational rhetoric — “fire and fury like the world has never seen” — brought the region to the brink of open conflict. Months later, when tensions subsided and diplomatic talks began, he presented the outcome as a personal triumph, claiming to have “stopped a war.” Yet North Korea's nuclear arsenal remained intact, and experts noted no verifiable disarmament (AP News, 2019; PBS NewsHour, 2019).

A similar pattern emerged in trade policy. Trump's imposition of sweeping tariffs on allies and rivals alike triggered retaliatory measures that harmed global markets and U.S. consumers. When partial deals were later struck — often restoring conditions that had existed before the tariffs — he framed them as “historic victories.” In effect, the damage and the “solution” were two parts of the same political performance (Financial Times, 2019; CNBC, 2020).

The same strategy can be seen in the Middle East. U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement reignited regional instability, while unconditional support for Israel's military actions deepened the Gaza crisis. When Trump later proposed his 20-point “peace plan,” he positioned himself as the architect of resolution — despite having helped enable the escalation that made such a plan necessary in the first place (PBS NewsHour, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025).

---

The same pattern of manufactured crisis and self-justification is also evident within the United States. Domestically, Donald Trump's approach has increasingly centred on punitive politics — the pursuit of personal retribution against perceived opponents. Rather than fostering unity, his rhetoric and actions have deepened existing divisions, transforming political disagreement into moral hostility (New York Times, 2025).

Recent indictments and investigations targeting prominent Democrats have been presented by Trump and his allies as necessary acts of “justice,” yet to many observers they resemble political vengeance more than impartial law enforcement. When leaders use the instruments of the state to punish rivals, the effect is not restoration but corrosion — it weakens trust in democratic institutions and fuels the very instability that such actions claim to resolve (Guardian, 2025).

This domestic polarisation mirrors his foreign conduct: crises are created or magnified, and then authority is asserted as the sole path to order. The pattern sustains a cycle in which conflict becomes both the justification for power and the proof of its necessity. In this way, Trump's brand of leadership depends on division; peace, whether at home or abroad, is valuable only insofar as it can be personally credited to him.

---

Lastly, his 20 points, which were originally interpreted as an ultimatum — if all 20 points were not agreed to by Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement — implied that the consequences would be significant (PBS, 2025).

The problem with the entire 20 points is the complexity involved, and there are infinite ways players can respond. Therefore, accurately predicting the final outcome is based on what the probable outcome should be. This dynamic reflects the unpredictability described in game theory, where every player acts under uncertainty and strategic manipulation can destabilise any path to peace (Nash, 1950).

Donald Trump operates within a self-constructed paradox: he appears unpredictable, yet his unpredictability functions as strategy. To adversaries and observers alike, it can be difficult to distinguish whether he is an impulsive provocateur or a deliberate manipulator of perception. In either case, he has cultivated an image of absolute control — a political chess master who positions every piece, domestic and foreign, to ensure victory on his own terms. His willingness to employ distortion and false narratives — from linking Canadian trade to fentanyl trafficking, to claiming that immigrants are “eating dogs” — demonstrates a pattern of manufacturing emotional responses that reinforce his dominance within the public arena (Politico, 2025; CBC News, 2025).

From a game-theoretical perspective, this behaviour reflects a form of information warfare in which truth itself becomes a negotiable asset. By flooding the board with misinformation, he destabilises his opponents’ capacity for rational response. The objective is not persuasion but confusion — to make the opponent’s next move uncertain while his own appears decisive. This is the political equivalent of asymmetric play, where the perceived “madman” advantage keeps adversaries reactive, unable to coordinate effectively against him (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944).

In the end, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded for dominance, negotiation, or spectacle. It recognises those who elevate humanity beyond division — individuals who pursue peace not as leverage, but as conviction. Donald Trump’s pattern of manufacturing crises, weaponising disinformation, and treating diplomacy as a contest of ego stands in direct contrast to that moral foundation.

And then he and his supporters wonder why he didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

References

• Al Jazeera. (2025). Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan: full text.
• AP News. (2019). Trump claims success in talks with North Korea despite lack of progress.
• BBC News. (2020). Trump says he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize but will never get it.
• CBC News. (2025). Trump’s remarks about Canadian fentanyl and immigrant “dog-eating” claims draw criticism.
• CNBC. (2020). Trump’s tariffs hurt American consumers, economists say.
• Financial Times. (2019). U.S.-China trade war: the real costs of Trump’s tariffs.
• Guardian. (2025). Trump’s use of indictments against Democrats raises fears of political retribution.
• Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
• PBS NewsHour. (2019). Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un: what did it achieve?
• PBS NewsHour. (2025). Trump’s 20-point proposal to end the Gaza war.
• Politico. (2025). Trump stokes outrage with false claims about immigrants and fentanyl.
• Reuters. (2020). Trump’s manufactured crises and self-claimed victories: a pattern of governance.
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
• Washington Post. (2024). Trump’s politics of chaos: creating disorder to claim control.
• New York Times. (2025). Trump’s domestic strategy: divide and dominate.

---

The Integration Trap: How Global Economics Locked Us Into Climate Collapse

By J. André Faust (Sept 06, 2025)

1. The Personal Paradox

Most of us are trapped in a contradiction. To survive, we must earn money. To earn money, we must participate in an economy that accelerates the destruction of the environment that keeps us alive. I see this contradiction every day. If I stopped working to focus full time on writing and producing the kind of intellectual content that could help others see the big picture, I could not pay for food, shelter, or electricity.

Every paycheck, every purchase, every click on a digital ad connects me to the same global web that is heating the oceans, thinning the ice caps, and releasing ancient gases from the permafrost. It is not hypocrisy; it is structure. The system demands participation. Refusal comes at the cost of survival.

2. Geoeconomics: Power in the Age of Interdependence

We often talk about the global economy as though it were a neutral machine. In truth, it is a geopolitical battlefield disguised as a marketplace. Nations use trade, energy, and technology to pursue power under the banner of prosperity.

Each country competes for advantage: cheaper labor, cheaper energy, looser environmental laws. Every ton of carbon burned to sustain that competition becomes another contribution to the planetary debt. Even when governments promise cooperation, the incentives push toward self-interest. The result is a global race where everyone speeds up while pretending to brake.

3. Climate Feedback: The Planet Mirrors the Market

The Earth’s climate behaves much like the global market; it amplifies what it receives. When emissions rise, warming accelerates. When ice melts, reflectivity drops and more heat is absorbed. When permafrost thaws, methane escapes, trapping even more heat.

Economics follows the same feedback logic. When profits rise, investment accelerates. When consumption expands, industries grow. When debt fuels spending, growth becomes mandatory just to keep balance sheets alive. Both systems are self-reinforcing loops, and both now run beyond the point where simple adjustments can restore equilibrium. The climate is not our opponent; it is our mirror.

4. Complexity at Diminishing Returns

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter described how civilizations collapse when the costs of complexity exceed the benefits. In modern terms, our complexity is the global economic machine itself: supply chains, data networks, financial derivatives, multinational regulations. Every time we add a new layer to solve a problem, we create new vulnerabilities that require still more layers to manage.

Each summit, each climate accord, each innovation adds more structure without reducing the total stress on the planet. The energy required to maintain this complexity—both literal and political—keeps rising. The returns keep shrinking. Collapse, in Tainter’s sense, is not moral failure. It is an energy imbalance that can no longer be paid for.

5. The Lost Capacity for Collective Action

For any hope of reversal, the world would need unified effort: shared technology, synchronized energy transitions, and transparent resource management. But the geopolitical environment rewards fragmentation, not cooperation.

Tariffs on green technologies, competition over critical minerals, and rival energy blocs reflect a deeper truth: the system’s self-preservation instinct now overrides the planet’s. The same logic that drives corporations to maximize quarterly profits drives nations to prioritize GDP over stability. When cooperation becomes politically impossible, the window for reversal closes. The tipping point is no longer just environmental; it is institutional. The global economy has become too self-interested to save itself.

6. The Human Dilemma

Here is where it turns personal again. Knowing all this does not free me from it. Like billions of others, I am bound to a currency system that values growth more than life. Even the act of writing about collapse depends on electricity, servers, and manufactured devices—processes sustained by the very machinery I critique.

This is the emotional cost of awareness: understanding that every solution still draws from the same finite pool of energy and materials. There is no clean exit, only degrees of participation.

7. What Remains Possible

Perhaps the goal is not salvation but clarity. We can still choose honesty over illusion, cooperation over denial, and resilience over blind optimism. Local economies, cultural memory, and intellectual integrity become forms of resistance when global systems refuse correction.

We may not stop the collapse, but we can shape how consciously we experience it. Every act of truth-telling slows the descent a little and preserves knowledge for whatever comes next.

8. Closing Reflection

Civilizations do not fall because people stop caring. They fall when caring is no longer profitable. The integration that once made us powerful now binds us to the consequences of our own design. The global economy, the climate system, and human survival have merged into a single equation whose solution we can no longer balance.

We are living within that equation—each of us an input, each of us a signal echoing through the system we built. Understanding that is not despair; it is the beginning of wisdom.

9. What Game Theory Has to Say

From a game-theory perspective, the climate crisis behaves like a global Prisoner’s Dilemma. Each nation knows that cooperation—cutting emissions, sharing technology, and limiting extraction—would benefit everyone in the long run. Yet the fear of losing competitive advantage makes defection the safer short-term choice. The result is a rational race toward collective ruin.

In game-theory terms, the global economy is locked in a non-cooperative equilibrium where each player pursues individual gain, even while knowing that mutual restraint would yield a higher collective payoff. The system rewards exploitation over preservation, competition over trust, and growth over equilibrium.

Economists and political theorists call this a coordination failure, but in deeper terms it reveals a civilization unable to rewrite its own rules. Collapse, therefore, is not only a physical or economic event; it is the logical outcome of the strategies that once made us successful. The tragedy is not that humanity is irrational, but that our rationality now serves the wrong game.

For readers interested in cooperative strategies and the mathematics of coordination, classic works in game theory explore how trust, reciprocity, and reputation can stabilize systems that would otherwise self-destruct. These ideas will be central to any future rethinking of global governance.

---

References

Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.

Smil, V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. MIT Press.

Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

About the author

J. André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact, and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are therefore provisional. When outcomes are hard to predict, it is often because hidden layers and feedback loops are still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback, and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

Trump’s 90-Day Tariff Pause: Strategic Masterstroke or Calculated Bluff?

World domination: Countries will dance to my tune

 By J. André Faust (April 10, 2025)

Trump’s recent 90-day pause on most retaliatory tariffs isn't random—it’s a calculated maneuver in a multi-player strategic game.

In game theory terms, this looks like a deliberate pivot within a sequential game. Faced with simultaneous signals from over 75 countries, Trump appears to have shifted to a pause-and-observe strategy, maintaining flexibility while testing the responses of other players.

He didn’t pause everything. Tariffs on Chinese imports were hiked to 125%, which looks like asymmetric signaling—rewarding cooperative states with relief, while punishing non-compliance with intensified pressure. The outcome? A 9.5% surge in the S&P 500, one of the strongest market rebounds since WWII. If that’s not anticipation of payoff, I don’t know what is.

To me, it seems likely that Trump had already mapped out potential player responses, including how financial markets would react. This is not improvisation; it’s the behavior of a player operating several moves ahead, likely within a zero-sum frame, where one player's gain is another’s loss.

His reference to Mark Carney as the “Prime Minister of Canada” instead of “Governor” wasn’t a gaffe. In strategic communications, that’s a public signal meant to undermine Pierre Poilievre while elevating a preferred alternative. If we interpret this as a soft annexation narrative, it fits within a framing tactic: shifting perceived legitimacy from one actor to another.

Poilievre’s electoral strategy, on the other hand, has been highly predictable. He’s adapted rhetoric, not strategy. In the context of a repeated game, voters eventually see through surface-level repositioning when no deeper change occurs.

Now, what’s the biggest threat to Trump’s strategy? Coalition formation. If all 75 countries moved in unison against him, the payoff matrix would shift dramatically. But the global interdependence of economies makes such unity improbable—too many players have something to lose in a full-scale standoff.

Trump’s Tariff Pause: A Game Theory Perspective

Trump’s recent 90-day pause on most retaliatory tariffs isn't random—it’s a calculated maneuver in a multi-player strategic game.

In game theory terms, this looks like a deliberate pivot within a sequential game. Faced with simultaneous signals from over 75 countries, Trump appears to have shifted to a pause-and-observe strategy, maintaining flexibility while testing the responses of other players.

He didn’t pause everything. Tariffs on Chinese imports were hiked to 125%, which looks like asymmetric signaling—rewarding cooperative states with relief, while punishing non-compliance with intensified pressure. The outcome? A 9.5% surge in the S&P 500, one of the strongest market rebounds since WWII. If that’s not anticipation of payoff, I don’t know what is.

To me, it seems likely that Trump had already mapped out potential player responses, including how financial markets would react. This is not improvisation; it’s the behavior of a player operating several moves ahead, likely within a zero-sum frame, where one player's gain is another’s loss.

Here's a brief explanation of the payoff matrix: The assigned values mean that the higher the number, the better the outcome, and the lower the number, the worse the outcome.

• (Pause Tariffs, Cooperate) = (3, 3): Mutually beneficial outcome. Trump gets economic relief and positive optics, countries avoid economic retaliation.

• (Pause Tariffs, Retaliate) = (1, 2): Trump shows flexibility but gets undercut; countries benefit slightly from autonomy but at a minor economic cost.

• (Enforce Tariffs, Cooperate) = (4, 1): Trump gains dominance and appears strong; countries yield but suffer economically.

• (Enforce Tariffs, Retaliate) = (0, 0): Worst-case scenario. Trade war escalates, and both sides suffer
• If all 75 countries moved in unison against him, the payoff matrix would shift dramatically. But the global interdependence of economies makes such unity improbable—too many players have something to lose in a full-scale standoff.

Bottom line: this move isn't just about tariffs. It’s about shifting perception, testing loyalty, and managing risk while positioning for longer-term gains. The game is very much in motion—and Trump, for now, is dictating the tempo.

---

The Tariff Standoff: Who Will Blink First in the U.S.– China Showdown?

By J. André Faust (April 08, 2025)

Asymmetric War of Attrition: US vs. China Trade War

Understanding the Game of Attrition

In game theory, a "war of attrition" is when two players compete not by direct confrontation, but by waiting each other out. Think of it like a staring contest—each side pays a cost for staying in, and the last one to quit takes the prize. It’s used to explain animal behavior, business strategy, and politics. In this case, we're applying it to the US-China trade war, where both nations are enduring economic strain hoping the other backs down first.

With Trump recently slapping a 104% tariff on Chinese EVs, the game has clearly entered a new phase. The stakes are high, and so are the risks. But is there really a winner in a game where the longer you stay, the less there is to win?

Fig. 1 – Asymmetric War of Attrition: US vs. China Trade War

This graph is generated from the Python code below and illustrates how both countries approach the trade war with different cost structures and reward decay rates:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np

# Simulation parameters
rounds = 20
initial_reward_us = 100
initial_reward_china = 100
reward_decay_us = 3
reward_decay_china = 2
cost_per_round_us = 4
cost_per_round_china = 2

# Arrays for plotting
x = np.arange(1, rounds + 1)
reward_us = np.maximum(initial_reward_us - reward_decay_us * (x - 1), 0)
reward_china = np.maximum(initial_reward_china - reward_decay_china * (x - 1), 0)
cumulative_cost_us = cost_per_round_us * x
cumulative_cost_china = cost_per_round_china * x
net_gain_us_if_china_concedes = reward_us - cumulative_cost_us
net_gain_china_if_us_concedes = reward_china - cumulative_cost_china

# Plotting
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 7))
plt.plot(x, reward_us, label='US: Remaining Reward ($)', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, reward_china, label='China: Remaining Reward ($)', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, cumulative_cost_us, label='US: Cumulative Cost ($)', linestyle='--', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, cumulative_cost_china, label='China: Cumulative Cost ($)', linestyle='--', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, net_gain_us_if_china_concedes, label='US: Net Gain if China Concedes ($)', linestyle=':', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, net_gain_china_if_us_concedes, label='China: Net Gain if US Concedes ($)', linestyle=':', linewidth=2)

plt.xlabel('Rounds of Trade War')
plt.ylabel('USD Value')
plt.title('Fig 1. Asymmetric War of Attrition: US vs. China Trade War')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

Explanation: This figure shows how each side bears costs over time and how the potential reward they’re fighting for diminishes. The U.S. burns through more money per round, with rewards decaying faster, while China maintains a slower cost burn and a more gradual reward loss. This imbalance makes it an asymmetric war—each side is playing with different tools and different pain thresholds.

Fig. 2 – War of Attrition with Shrinking Reward

This second graph, generated by the code below, takes it a step further by showing what happens when the total reward shrinks over time—not just because of internal costs, but because of external factors like global economic downturns:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np

# Time axis
time = np.linspace(0, 10, 100)

# Reward decay function (e.g., exponential decay)
initial_reward = 10  # Starting reward value
decay_rate = 0.3
reward = initial_reward * np.exp(-decay_rate * time)

# Plotting
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.plot(time, reward, label="Shrinking Reward Over Time", linewidth=2)

# Labels and Title
plt.title("Fig 2. War of Attrition with Shrinking Reward", fontsize=14)
plt.xlabel("Time (Rounds of Trade War)", fontsize=12)
plt.ylabel("Reward Value (Billion $)", fontsize=12)
plt.grid(True)
plt.legend()
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

Explanation: Fig. 2 captures a bigger problem: what if the prize you’re fighting for is evaporating? Even if a country “wins” by outlasting its opponent, the final reward might be a fraction of what it once was. Global recessions, shifts in alliances, inflation—these can all chip away at the prize until there’s nothing left worth fighting for.

Closing Thoughts

Looking at Fig. 1, we see the broader picture: an asymmetric war of attrition between the U.S. and China. The U.S. enters the game with higher costs per round and a steeper reward decay, while China plays a more patient, lower-cost game. Each round that goes by chips away at the potential payoff. If either side drops out early, the other could win big—but if they both hold out too long, the prize may not be worth the fight.

Then there’s Fig. 2, where the game gets even trickier. Here, the reward itself shrinks over time, not just because of cost but due to external economic pressure—like global market contractions or public fatigue. It’s a warning: sometimes, there’s no glory in winning if the reward has already vanished.

Trump’s latest move—slapping a 104% tariff on Chinese EVs—might look tough on the surface. But from a game theory lens, it’s a signal. He’s testing China’s resolve, daring them to respond, all while trying to frame the narrative on his terms. The question isn’t just who wins—it’s when they decide the game isn’t worth playing anymore.

That’s the heart of a war of attrition. It’s not about who throws the biggest punch—it’s about who can outlast their opponent, and whether the prize is still worth it by the time someone gives in.

---

Tariffs, Tension, and Trump: The Art of the Trade War

 

By J. André Faust (March 27, 2025)

The markets reacted today after Trump moved ahead with hefty tariffs on auto imports, prompting a noticeable dip across the major indices. The Dow and S&P both fell, and the Nasdaq took the hardest hit. What’s going on here isn’t just about economics — it’s about strategy.

From a game theory perspective, Trump appears to be operating from a zero-sum framework, where gains for others are seen as losses for the United States. This is a departure from cooperative trade models that have dominated global economics for decades.

But it doesn’t stop there. His latest comments — threatening even larger tariffs on Canada and the EU if they "do economic harm" to the U.S. — suggest a brinkmanship strategy. This kind of move involves pushing tension to the edge of collapse, creating uncertainty in order to force concessions. It's risky, and it depends heavily on whether the other players believe you're willing to go all the way.

Markets don’t like uncertainty. Investors know brinkmanship can spiral if miscalculated. We're no longer looking at a simple negotiation — this is a game where credibility, bluffing, and escalation are all on the table.

The question now is whether Canada and the EU will call the bluff, or fold under the pressure. Either way, we’re seeing the global chessboard shift.

---