Trump alas is treating geopolitics as if it is a simple business deal. It is no such thing.

Abstract: The document critiques Trump's approach to geopolitics, comparing it to historical events and emphasizing the complexity of international relations and the ongoing nature of colonization and power struggles.

• Trump's Simplistic View: Trump is criticized for treating geopolitics as a simple business deal, which oversimplifies complex international conflicts.
• Historical Comparison: The document references Chamberlain's 1938 nonaggression pact with Hitler to illustrate the dangers of oversimplified diplomatic agreements.
• Geopolitical Power Struggles: Geopolitics involves continuous power struggles and moral conflicts between opposing ideologies, which cannot be resolved through simple business deals.
• Ongoing Colonizing Wars: Colonizing wars are ongoing and driven by power, not diplomacy, as groups seek to defend and expand their territories and ideologies.
• Conflict Resolution Methods: Once colonized, groups are subjected to the colonizers' conflict resolution methods, which vary significantly depending on cultural and ideological differences.
• Power as the Determinant: Lines drawn on a map and signed agreements are meaningless without power to enforce them, as power is the ultimate determinant in geopolitics.

• Call for Change in Approach: The document urges Trump to change his negotiation paradigm from a business model to a Colonialpolitic conflict resolution model to address the deeper, ongoing nature of geopolitical power struggles.
  Copilot AI summary of document,  3-2-2025

Chamberlain Declares “Peace for Our Time”
30 September 1938

“On a rainy autumn evening, thousands awaited the prime minister’s return at London’s Heston Aerodrome, and the thankful crowd cheered wildly as the door to his British Airways airplane opened. As raindrops fell on Chamberlain’s silver hair, he stepped onto the airport tarmac. He held aloft the nonaggression pact that had been inked by him and Hitler only hours before, and the flimsy piece of paper flapped in the breeze. The prime minister read to the nation the brief agreement that reaffirmed “the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.” History, Christopher Klein, January 3, 2020

Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939

 Trumps Businesspolitic Model Paradigm

We would all like to have a world where all nations can smile and shake hands, trusting nations to keep to their signed agreements. This is not the reality of geopolitical power struggles. Individuals are affable as individuals but in culture ideology networked groups can and do inform significant power to hold onto what they have and take what they do not. The struggle for scarce resources as we see at the whole of biology/culture ideology level is not a nice affable chat. Making images and text depicting an aspiration as real does a disservice to truth. “The struggle for resources, power, and influence often leads to conflicts that are deeply rooted in cultural, ideological, and historical contexts.”

Reality under the dissimulation: Colonialpolitic Paradigm 

Trump alas is treating geopolitics as if it is a simple business deal. It is no such thing.

Geopolitics is since humans evolved into groups, a continual soft and hard power geopolitical morality war between antitheses biology/culture ideologies which are all seeking to defend themselves from having their landscape and/or socialscape colonized by their antithesis, either by internal sympathetic forces sourced via multiculturalism from these antithesis biology/culture ideologies, such as Muslim school children shouting “Allah Ackbar” supporting violent antisemitism in Australian streets or by external action by the antithesis biology/culture ideologies either by direct usurping of landscape-socialscape as with Russia against Ukraine and Georgia, China in the South China sea and China utilising hard power battleship diplomacy between Australia and New Zealand.

Colonising wars in defence and attack are continual they cannot be resolved with a business deal of a handshake for one or both of the belligerents seeks by power alone to take what the other has, not by talk but by raw power soft and hard. And therefore the stakes are high for both biology/culture ideologies members-citizens are willing to sacrifice their lives and scarce resources to overwhelm or stalemate the antithesis to that they hold dear, their lives, culture and ideology

For once colonised, the colonised are subject to the colonisers conflict resolution methodology to have the landscape-socialscape align to their culture ideology paradigm. Every Biology/culture ideology have codex which defines Other and the conflict resolution methodology to be applied dependent upon the significance of the difference in biology/culture-ideology. The British in colonising Australia had a significantly different categorisation of Other and conflict resolution method than Muslim ISIS colonising in the Middle East. This does not mean harm is not done to the colonised in the British Australian context, colonisation is not a grief free process.

Colonisation as a force is continual, human groups even those situated within a socialscape for some time do not own anything you only ever reside as long as environmental and human actions allow. Unless you develop the required soft and hard power defences to preserve your residence you will be colonised if your landscape and or socialscape contains resources which would increase the viability of an antithesis potential coloniser. Lines drawn on a map, as we have seen throughout history, text signed by all are meaningless. Power is the determinant.

The business deal approach assumes the CEO is the Prime minister, the Dictator, are the determiners of the colonising policy and therefore their signature is all that is required. Trump assumes this, he is fatally wrong.

“The use of force and violence is more commonplace and prevalent in some families, communities, religions, cultural/ethnic groups and societies based on the views and values about adult prerogatives with children espoused. They may also be based upon the sociopathy of the perpetrators.” Treatment of Complex Trauma Courtois/Ford, 2016

"Even in integrated theories that account for both personal and situational factors (see Anderson & Bushman, 2002), the bulk of the explanatory power is placed on the individual. In other words, the classic developmental and personality theories of aggression do not necessarily constitute theories of group aggression, yet groups commit and receive more aggression than individuals (Meier & Hinsz, 2004). Groups large and small are synonymous with aggression in society (Baron & Kerr, 2004; Brewer, 2003)"
Aggression between Social Groups, James Densley and Jillian Peterson, 2016

“the ways in which people were killed indicate a high degree of popular participation, and extreme hatred It seems only a minority were shot by the military Most. Were beheaded, stabbed, or had their throats slit with knives or swords (sometimes after they had been tied up), others were hacked to death, strangled, slain with clubs or rocks, drowned, or burned or buried alive. Armed forces delivered victims to their village communities for murder, sometimes starting with the military execution of leaders, or villages traded victims in order not to have to slaughter their neighbors were , for the most part, political or politico-religious parties and groups, youth, and student groups in particular. [...] “More than any other political group, the Nahdelatul Ulama (largest Muslim organization in the world) their youth organization Ansor, and armed wing Baser (all-purpose units) made a mark on the mass killings throughout virtually the entire country.”
Gerlach, C. (2010). Extremely violent societies: mass violence in the twentieth-century world: Cambridge University Press.

“A phenomenon of such extended malignance as the Great War does not come out of a Golden Age. Perhaps this should have been obvious to me when I began but it . was not. l did feel, however, that the genesis of the war did not lie in the ,Grosse Politik of what Isvolsky said to Aehrenthal and Sir Edward Grey to Poincare; in that tortuous train of Reinsurance treaties, Dual and Triple Alliances, Moroccan crises and Balkan imbroglios which historians have painstakingly followed in their search for origins. It was necessary that these events and exchanges be examined and we who come after are in debt to the examiners; but their work has been done. I am with Sergei Sazonov, Russian Foreign Minister at the time of the outbreak of the War, who after a series of investigations exclaimed at last, "Enough of this chronology!" The Grosse Politik approach has been used up. Besides, it is misleading because it allows us to rest on the easy allusion that it is "they," the naughty statesmen, who are always responsible for war while "we," the innocent people, are merely led. That impression is a mistake.

The diplomatic origins, so-called, of the Great War are only the fever chart of the patient; they do not tell us what caused the fever. To probe for underlying causes and deeper forces one must operate within the framework of a whole society and try to discover what moved the people in it.”
THE PROUD TOWER, A Portrait of the World before the War 1890-1914, Barabara Tuchman, 1962

Trump for the sake of humanity must change his negotiation paradigm from one of a business model. If life was only so simple, to a Colonialpolitic conflict resolution model, for Realpolitik is simply a dissimulation of one party or both in a colonialism conflict to gain breathing space to build to a threshold to reengage in the colonisation project this time in a much stronger position to do so. Businesspolitic is an absurdity.

Trump must change his approach or we are in deep trouble.