In every corner, following the discussed theme, if we delve into history, the “unpredictability” or demonstrative “irrationality” were indeed often employed as tools by major politicians. On one hand, this could serve as a kind of “shock effect,” giving such a leader an edge in negotiations or governance. On the other hand, this tactic often led to severe consequences for their own country (and the entire world).
For example, U.S. President Richard Nixon tried to convince the leadership of the Soviet Union and North Vietnam that he could “snap” and resort to extreme measures, including the use of nuclear weapons if the conflict was not resolved. It was hoped that the fear of an “inadequate” American president would force the opponents to seek a compromise more quickly. Before Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower adhered to similar tactics, ending the Korean War with such methods.
This political strategy is called the “Madman Theory”. The underlying ideas were articulated as far back as the 15th century by Machiavelli, who noted that in politics, “it is sometimes useful to pretend to be mad”.
Overall, it is useful to indeed be a bit “nuts”. And better even more than a bit. The line between acting like a madman and being one is incredibly thin.
The “Madman Theory” is quite often criticized as an ineffective foreign policy strategy. In particular, it is noted that it can be considered a Russian roulette in international relations, increasing unpredictability and not always prompting the desired behavior from its recipient.
The problem is that the “Madman Theory” is associated not only with Nixon but also with Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il/Jong Un, and basically almost everything. If you look at it, something similar was present with Ivan the Terrible and Stalin. Under both, the country flourished. But there were a lot of corpses.
In business, the “Madman Theory” is primarily associated with Elon Musk (yes, they found each other).
There is also a negotiation technique called “Brinkmanship”. This is when one of the parties pushes events towards an undesirable, often catastrophic outcome for both parties, counting on the last moment that the other side will yield for self-preservation, thereby avoiding the catastrophe and gaining unilateral advantages.
One would like to think that behind all this there is some strategy, which so far shows only its corner. Who knows, such abrupt “turns” in politics might be a deliberate tactic related to techniques from the “madman theory” or “brinkmanship”. First, one side demonstrates unexpected loyalty, lifts restrictions, offers joint projects, and creates an illusion of long-term warming. The other side, sensing a benefit, starts to invest heavily and rely on new opportunities, which increases the “exit costs” from these relationships. Once the connection between the partners becomes close enough (which could happen literally within a month or two) and potential losses from a breakup are too high, the initiator of the “warming” switches to tougher demands, knowing that it is difficult for the partner to refuse: the stakes have already been raised, and the risk of loss has seriously increased.
Not sure if it’s like that, but in general, it’s also not out of the question. We will observe, it seems, for us there remains only observation
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 