Escalate to De-Escalate

I was on a call with my friend SBC, who is way better read than me, especially around what’s happening in this country. We speak at the speed of lightning, going back and forth—not always agreeing, but always making the other more thoughtful, challenged, and… dare I say, smarter?

Anyway, we were discussing how, while we are terrified about people who depend on it losing things like Social Security to wake them up to the demise of their country and its future, maybe that is exactly what has to happen.

Let them shut down Social Security. Let them not pass the budget for next year. Let them put tariffs in place and tank the economy… if it saves democracy and wakes Congress up to their responsibility to impeach this horrible, corrupt, evil person and his circle of collaboration.

“Escalate to de-escalate,” she said.

“I love that combination. It’s so clear. So easy to understand. Did you make it up?”

“No, it’s Putin’s. He originated it.”

“What?! Putin? What are you talking about?”

Vladimir Putin’s long-standing strategy of "escalate to de-escalate" has been a hallmark of his leadership, both domestically and internationally. This tactic involves creating or exacerbating crises, only to later present himself as the force that can restore stability—often at great cost to those who oppose him. It allows him to consolidate power, intimidate adversaries, and maintain a strategic advantage while keeping his opponents on the defensive.

One of the most evident examples of this approach was Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Putin escalated tensions by supporting pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine and deploying unmarked Russian troops (the infamous "little green men") to destabilize the region. The rapid and aggressive move caught the West off guard, creating an urgent crisis that left world leaders scrambling for a response. Once Crimea was effectively under Russian control, Putin positioned himself as a stabilizing force, claiming to "protect" Russian-speaking citizens from a supposed Ukrainian nationalist threat. The de-escalation, in this case, came in the form of diplomatic negotiations and ceasefires that cemented Russia’s gains rather than reversing them.

Another example is Russia's intervention in Syria. In 2015, Putin dramatically escalated Russia’s military involvement by launching airstrikes in support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. By positioning Russia as the key power broker in the conflict, he made himself indispensable to any peace process. As the West struggled to react, Putin used the crisis to strengthen Russia’s global influence, forcing world leaders to engage with him on his terms. Eventually, he orchestrated ceasefires and peace talks, but only after ensuring that Assad remained in power and that Russia had cemented its presence in the Middle East.

Domestically, Putin has used the same tactic to maintain control over the Russian people. He frequently stokes fear of external enemies—whether it’s NATO, the United States, or internal “traitors” like opposition leader Alexei Navalny. When protests erupted against election fraud in 2011-2012, Putin cracked down hard, arresting activists and deploying security forces. But once opposition movements were sufficiently weakened and the public exhausted, he adjusted tactics to give the illusion of softening—occasionally releasing political prisoners or allowing limited political debates that he knew would not threaten his rule.

This cycle of crisis and controlled resolution has allowed Putin to maintain power for over two decades. Whether through military aggression, election interference, or domestic crackdowns, his strategy ensures that he always controls the narrative, forcing his adversaries to react rather than dictate the terms of engagement. AI

Finally, Putin gives me something I can dig my teeth into, something I can learn from. Look, this is not ideal. And better minds than mine have been batting around the pluses and minuses of the idea of stopping efforts to fix the problems this regime is creating to wake up those who are not aware of the enormity of it all. But this? It’s more tangible.

I was talking to someone who I tried to show the changes that would come to them if they voted for Trump. (Didn’t work—they voted for him anyway.)

She called in a bit of a panic the other day.

“Hey, my mom called. Her friend told her they might not get their Social Security checks anymore. I told her she was wrong, that’s just left-wing BS, but she asked me to ask you about it.”

Instead of my voice and blood pressure rising as I reminded her that I sent her the Project 2025 plan and WTF is wrong with her, I took a new, different tact.

“Oh, I thought you knew that was going to happen. Remember I mentioned it months ago? That is the intent, yes, but it might not happen for a few months. But I do think that’s the plan. You haven’t heard it? It’s everywhere. No one is denying it, and it’s not just DT—it’s congresspeople from MAGA as well. Yes, she’s right.”

Then, before she could say anything, I said, “Hey, a bunch of us are talking about renting a place in the South next winter, and I thought you might want to join us? You in?”

She paused. “Chris, my mom needs her check. That’s what she lives on.”

I paused. “Well, you have been telling me for months that we are all going to have to suffer to make this country great again. Did you think your mother wasn’t one of those who needed to have things she is not entitled to taken away?”

I swear I did not have one note of bitterness, or fuck you. I swear. What I wanted to say? “Well, what is it you are always telling me? The people of color should have planned better. Immigrants should work harder, take another job. They are lucky to be here; we shouldn’t be helping them by giving handouts. Your mom worked for forty years in a great job with major benefits. She took vacations every year. She wears designer clothing. Is this the taxpayer’s problem?”

I know Social Security is not a handout. Of course I know that, and I look at my check every month and thank my country for setting it up for me to have. It’s great. But when someone runs from certain death or can never feed their family, so they come here to try and change things for their next generation, I don’t consider what we do as a handout either. Nor do I think school lunches are handouts. I think that every American child should not be hungry in a country this wealthy. And, and, and. Enough of what I think. You already know what I think.

But what she thinks? #EscalateToDeEscalate