From the Art of the Deal to the Art of the Duel
Trump, Putin, and Xi are no longer making deals - they’re locked in mirrored escalation. Still, a way out remains.
Editor’s Note:
This essay was submitted to several major publications, but due to the urgency of the August 8 deadline, I’ve chosen to publish it here. If a mainstream outlet picks it up, I’ll remove the text and redirect readers to the official version.
President Trump has dramatically accelerated his ultimatum to Vladimir Putin, shortening the timeline from 50 days to just 10–12 days, with an end date of August 8, 2025. The condition remains the same: agree to a cease‑fire in Ukraine or face “very severe” tariffs and secondary sanctions. According to multiple sources, these sanctions would not only target Russian oil but also extend to China and India as secondary buyers. This sudden compression reflects not just urgency but a growing realization that deal-making has failed. Trump, once convinced diplomacy could work, now seems convinced it cannot. Even his closest advisers now acknowledge that the era of transactional optimism is over. His frustration stems from repeated attempts at diplomacy that have been aborted, having come close to a deal “four different times,” only to conclude that Putin was never serious. This failure isn’t just about tactics. It reveals something more profound: that leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping aren’t operating within the same moral or strategic framework as the West. They don’t respect deals; they provoke duels. Unless our leaders understand the underlying mechanism at play, they will continue to be dodged or outmaneuvered.
This shift in posture became even more evident when Trump ordered two U.S. nuclear submarines repositioned closer to Russian waters in response to aggressive rhetoric from Dmitry Medvedev. While framed as a show of strength, the move drew criticism from military analysts who warned that surfacing or announcing submarine movements undermines their deterrent value. The move, while largely symbolic, signals a break with deterrence-by-stealth doctrine and marks an escalation from diplomacy into strategic spectacle. Meanwhile, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is en route to Moscow for a last-ditch meeting before the August 8 deadline. European officials and Ukrainian leadership have expressed cautious support for the visit - but made clear that the era of open-ended negotiations is over. As one Kyiv source noted, “If Putin doesn’t budge this time, the tariffs must drop like a hammer.”
Enter René Girard (1923–2015), the French-born American Catholic anthropologist and philosopher. In his last work, Battling to the End, Girard argued that modern conflict is no longer governed by reason, diplomacy, or deterrence, but by a dangerous cycle of mimetic rivalry, in which enemies imitate one another’s aggression until they spiral into catastrophe.“The duel,” Girard wrote, “is the real description of war.” This mimetic structure isn’t new. It was dimly glimpsed by Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831), the Prussian general whose treatise, On War, remains a cornerstone of Western military theory. Clausewitz attempted to distinguish between the “political” and “military” dimensions of conflict, suggesting that politics could moderate the use of violence. However, Girard exposes this as wishful thinking. Once two rivals are locked in reciprocal suspicion, even diplomacy becomes part of the fight.
The Face of the Duel Today
This is the world we inhabit now. Putin escalates, NATO reacts. Xi consolidates, and the West sanctions. Even backing down is seen as weakness, which only invites more aggression. Girard puts it starkly: “To back down... provokes the conflict it was supposed to avoid.” This dynamic is unfolding not just in Ukraine or Taiwan, but across trade, tech, currency, and even religion. The illusion that diplomacy replaces violence is precisely what makes violence inevitable.
European NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, recently warned that Putin is simply “waiting us out,” betting that the West’s resolve will crumble. However, Putin isn’t waiting – he’s watching. In the world of the duel, “waiting” is just another form of positioning. That’s why Girard insists that once reciprocity (the imitation of one another’s hostility) has appeared, “it can no longer be hidden.” At that point, everything becomes strategic. Even silence is a signal, and restraint is a provocation. This mimetic escalation is now mirrored by Trump himself, who has begun abandoning his prior restraint in favor of muscular signaling; from ultimatums to submarine maneuvers to public condemnation of his own team’s failed attempts at negotiation.
Trade Is Not the Answer
For centuries, we hoped that commerce would pacify violence. Montesquieu (1689–1755), the French political theorist, famously argued that trade civilizes nations, softens war, and fosters peace through mutual dependency. Girard demolishes this Enlightenment optimism. “Trade is a constant low-intensity war,” he writes. When it breaks down, “a trade war can become a real war.” Far from neutral, economic exchange is often just a more polished form of combat. Look no further than the current scramble for semiconductors, rare earth minerals, energy control, and AI supremacy. Protectionism, sanctions, and retaliatory tariffs aren’t failures of free markets - they are signs that the markets themselves have become battlefields.
Girard goes even further: money, he argues, was initially invented as a substitute for sacrifice. It allowed human beings to exchange goods and services without resorting to violence. Despite its origin, when the symbolic power of money breaks down, the violence it was meant to contain returns. It will first emerge via economic collapse, then through actual war. This is not a metaphor. Xi Jinping’s consolidation of capital, his coercive use of trade, and his purge of rivals all signal a regime preparing not merely for competition but for domination. With speculation growing about Xi’s weakening internal grip, the temptation to manufacture strength abroad becomes even more likely. As Girard warned, “we can reasonably fear a major clash between China and the United States in the coming decades,” a conflict rooted not in ideology, but in the breakdown of commercial relations.
This is a reminder that modern conflict is no longer rational, containable, or governed by politics. “We are in a world more positively violent than Clausewitz’s,” Girard writes - one where diplomacy, trade, and even silence can fuel the escalation. Trump’s original 50-day ultimatum now looks like a historical footnote. The new 10-day window marks a strategic turning point, one that fully acknowledges the failure of deal-making and shifts the narrative from one of optimism to one of confrontation. Despite multiple attempts at a deal, Putin never budged. Not because the terms were wrong, but because Putin was never negotiating. He was dueling.
This is not to say that the United States can’t duel - we can. But Trump’s team, once adamant about avoiding escalation, has now shifted into calculated confrontation. The pivot is not merely reactive; it reflects a growing belief that restraint was misread as weakness. Now that avoidance has given way to a calculated escalation policy, at least to this point, it still appears that sincere belief in strong leadership and personal diplomacy can head off escalation. Western powers often assume that religious regimes like Iran are unwilling to make deals because of ideological rigidity. Still, perhaps they’ve underestimated how deeply non-Islamist, secular strongmen like Putin (and Xi) operate on equally inflexible, mythic terms. Putin is on record invoking the spiritual destiny of the Russian Empire and the glory days of Soviet dominance. He sees himself not as a manager of geopolitical interests, but as a redeemer of Russian greatness. This is not realism - it is extremism. Putin believes he has nothing to lose. He is not a negotiator - he is an apocalyptic actor with a mythical script.
This is where Girard matters most: he shows us that peace is not a product of strategy, but rather a result of renunciation. The only way to break the duel is to refuse to mirror the enemy and to step outside the spiral of imitation. As we look out across today’s fractured world stage, we must ask: Who among us has the fortitude to do that?
The Peace the World Cannot Give
Pope Leo XIV may be the one world leader capable of doing so. In a remarkable gesture, the Holy Father has offered to have the Vatican serve as a neutral broker for peace. The proposal has been largely dismissed in secular and strategic circles as naïve. Yet perhaps its “naïveté” is its strength. In a world obsessed with leverage and pressure points, the Vatican offers neither. That’s precisely why it still matters. The Catholic Church is not just another actor in the game of nations. It is the one institution that has long understood the danger of the duel - not only at the level of politics, but at the level of the soul. It proclaims a peace that the world cannot give - a peace rooted not in domination or deal-making, but in sacrifice, mercy, and truth. The Holy See has mediated crises before (from Cold War flashpoints to border disputes in Latin America), not because it can force outcomes, but because it can summon conscience. It has credibility not as a power player, but as a moral counterweight.
The Church knows this spiral can be broken, because it has been. On the Cross, Christ absorbed the violence of the world without returning it, unmasking the lie of redemptive violence and revealing the only path to true reconciliation. This is not abstract theology - it is the very heart of the Church’s witness. Where the duel demands domination, the Cross absorbs aggression. Where every actor in the conflict seeks advantage, the Church offers surrender - not as defeat, but as a redemptive act. The Church does not imitate the powers of this world. That is why it still has the authority to interrupt them.
As the rhetoric sharpens on all sides, we must ask: What if the Vatican is not just a voice for peace, but the only force capable of reversing the spiral? Not a neutral observer, but the bearer of a truth that can unravel the logic of rivalry itself. In a world ruled by mirrored violence, the Church alone proclaims the Cross, not as a symbol of defeat, but as the only mechanism that breaks the cycle and restores the possibility of peace.
In these final days before the August 8 deadline, with submarines repositioned, ultimatums issued, and naval drills multiplying, we cannot afford to rely solely on diplomacy to save us. As Girard foresaw, we are in a duel, and once engaged, the first mistake is pretending the other side wants peace. Nevertheless, the second mistake is the deadliest one: believing that peace is impossible.
So let us not blink. Let us also not despair. Instead, let us listen to the one voice that dares to speak of reconciliation without revenge. As Girard said, “Once reciprocity has appeared, it can no longer be hidden.” That may very well be true, but neither can grace.
Curious what others think:
Are we already past the point where diplomacy can work with leaders like Putin and Xi? Or is there still a meaningful path forward - outside of escalation?
Would love to hear your take.