Tag: international relations

War between Europe and Russia should be irrational. Rational models show both sides would suffer catastrophic losses. Yet history reminds us that wars are not born from logic, but from the hidden Demand for Recognition (DfR) — the deep drive to preserve dignity, avoid humiliation, and claim prestige. Europe’s decline has created a recognition deficit, Russia thrives on recognition through defiance, and NATO is bound to protect credibility. The recent Polish drone incident illustrates how even a trivial event can escalate into a symbolic confrontation, where restraint feels like dishonor and escalation appears as strength. Rational payoff tables predict peace, but once recognition is included, confrontation becomes tempting, even inevitable. To avoid war, recognition must be openly managed: dignity must be preserved on all sides, or small sparks may ignite a larger conflagration.

Continue Reading

The Trump–Putin summit in Alaska was less a negotiation than a carefully staged theater of recognition. Every detail—the red carpet, the mirrored limousines, Trump’s clapping hands, Putin’s stoic silence—served not to strike a deal but to exchange respect before a global audience. Trust was built not through treaties but through symbolic gestures: Putin trusted he would not be assassinated or arrested; Trump trusted he would not be embarrassed in public. The photographs were the true outcome of the summit—recognition tokens that conferred legitimacy, status, and respect far beyond any policy result.

Continue Reading

The Recognition-Driven War Probability (RDWP) Model redefines how we assess the likelihood of conflict by incorporating a nation’s unconscious collective demand for recognition. Centered on the ratio of military spending to GDP, the model reveals how symbolic identity, domestic pressure, and perceived threats combine to shape strategic behavior. Use cases across diverse nations—from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia—demonstrate how recognition-seeking, more than pure strategic interest, predicts the probability of war in the 21st century.

Continue Reading

Western media and politicians routinely condemn Russia and China for human rights abuses and authoritarian practices—but their critiques often fail to achieve real impact. This essay explores why: beneath the surface, deep neuroscientific differences in cultural wiring make true understanding and effective criticism almost impossible. Using examples from everyday life in Russia and China, we reveal how Western criticism “backs form,” misunderstanding local recognition patterns and reinforcing division instead of fostering change. Eidoism offers a new lens—urging humility, dialogue, and the recognition that only internal cultural shifts can drive real transformation.

Continue Reading

to top
en_US