That you can only call out the US, but not name names or other countries and their leaders, all but proves that you don't understand.

Good day.

EDIT: Again is it clear you all don't understand asymmetric war, because if you did, you would be able to see that your circlejerk is just a case of building up and tearing down strawmen.

EDIT 2: And still, in all your rationalizations and gyrations, you can't admit that anyone other than the nebulous "US" can engage in asymmetric warfare. This alone shows the limitations of your thinking.

And trying to use the "debunking" of great man theory as proof that Putin and Trump aren't important actors is bonkers. Both clearly act with autocratic "self-determination."

No one is saying they are great men. At best they are "generals" in the byzantine generals problem. Again, you need to do more research on the topic of asymmetric warfare before you will be able to make a coherent argument against the foundational thesis: "Putin thrives on ambiguity, and Trump has served that strategy again and again, openly and with intent."

Likewise, the straw-manning I called out was in the original circlejerk between you and the other original commenters.

The thesis I have put forth is the "steelman" that you are now flailing against. You are learning that it is harder to make rhetorical progress against an actual argument/thesis than a bullshit one.

Read and research more. Then maybe you will make actual progress in understanding the moment.

EDIT 3: If one can't understand the relevance of the byzantine general's problem to asymmetric warfare, they have no idea what they are talking about here.

One needs to understand the history of the problem before it was applied to computers. The computer science concept was taken from the asymmetric warfare that the Byzantine Empire engaged in for over a thousand years...

And the question of the falsifiability of the central thesis is easy:

All you have to do is show how the seeming ambiguity from Putin isn't really ambiguous. Show he wasn't lying about all the different reasons who gave for entering Ukraine. Show us the biolabs. Show us how Zelenskyy is a nazi.

Show us how Putin hasn't backed off nuclear red-lines. That he said he hasn't threatened energy blackmail on one hand and then said he is using it for blackmail on the other. That he hasn't denied the little green men, then later admitted to using them. That he didn't deny he used Wagner PMC, but then later admitted it. Show us how he is actually interested in a ceasefire. Etc.

The problem of course is that you can't show these things because the thesis is correct. Putin lied his people into war with Ukraine and has kept many of his actual motives and actions ambiguous. The only reason this part of the thesis is "unfalsifiable" for you is because the evidence that it is true is overwhelming.

There is a term, Strategic Ambiguity, and Putin is doing it. Hell, he would probably think you were insulting him if you reported he wasn't smart enough to use ambiguity.

The second part of the thesis is, in theory, just as falsifiable. The problem is, we have a history of Trump covering for Russian and Putin. It goes back decades. He even admitted in a truth social post, that without him, "really bad things" would have happened to Putin's Russia.

The fact is the argumentation you are using against the thesis is pedestrian at best. It reads like someone had others accuse him/her of using a fallacy-ridden argument, and then they tried to use the same rhetorical approach themselves, but only after doing a cursory google search on the fallacy in question.

Sadly though, one has to understand a fallacy before accusing someone of it, not just shit it out whenever they are losing.