An authoritative book on the art of diplomacy, written by the controversial goat of diplomacy himself, Henry Kissinger. Not done yet, but somehow my favorite book of all time. A masterpiece that provides a comprehensive overview of the history and practice of diplomacy, exploring its role in shaping the world order and the challenges it faces in the modern era!

Important insights:

1. The book starts off interestingly by focusing on some of my favorite historical figures, Périgord, Metternich and Bismarck. The book is a great introduction to the history of diplomacy, and the importance of diplomacy in the modern world. A thought provoking quote in Henry Kissinger's analysis suggests that the three major geopolitical forces—China, India, and the United States—lack traditional diplomatic experience for various historical reasons. He argues that:

China has historically seen itself as a dominant power in East Asia and has focused inward, ignoring much of the rest of the world. This has shaped its approach to diplomacy as largely self-referential and centered on its own region.

India has a long history of regional division and was not a unified state until relatively recently in its history. This fragmented past impacts its approach to international relations, making it less experienced in the continuous practice of diplomacy.

The United States developed its foreign policy significantly during the Cold War, a period characterized by ideological conflict with the Soviet Union. This experience was less about traditional balance-of-power diplomacy and more about a binary, adversarial approach focused on ideological and strategic competition."

2. My favorite chapter so far is the one on the Congress of Vienna. It's a great example of how diplomacy can be used to shape the world order after a major conflict. Kissingers focus on how Napoleon III and Bismarck both wanted to destroy the status quo is incredible.

3. Furthermore, I have never been a fan of Napoleon III, but after reading this book those feelings have only been reassured. The 30 years war (1618-1648) gave France a 200 year dominance over Europe thanks to a weak Central Europe, but Napoleon III gave Bismarck the perfect excuse to unite Germany and create a strong Central Europe, permanently changing the balance of power in Europe and leaving France 'stuck' without any room to expand. A valuable lesson explaining how wanting it all will give you nothing. Napoleon III wanted to change the Metternich system, but turns out France was the one benefitting the most from the system. He sped up the process of a unified Germany & Italy, which left France isolated. In my view, one of the most incompetent leaders in modern history. We can partly blame his incompetence for the two world wars.

4. Another interesting point, that really isn't revolutionary, but still worth mentioning, is the similarity between the British Empire and the United States. The question internally in both nations become when to play a role in geopolitical affairs. The only threat to Britain has always been a huge nation forming in Europe - Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany are good examples. When that isn't the case Britains focus was elsewhere (Colonialism for example). The situation today is worrying because the only threat to the US is a Eurasian juggernaut forming and that's certaintly the case today with Russia, Iran and China allying up. (Despite obvious historical grievances)

5. The more I study the more clear it is that luck plays a crucial part in almost all famous successes. True of Bismarck (only appointed because of meltdown in royal circles), true of the likes of SpaceX (an explosion away from bankruptcy) and Steve Jobs (tried to sell early and was turned down), true of Napoleon Bonaparte... We just don’t see all the stories of very able people trying really hard who get taken out by bad luck early in the story. Also though, everybody has bad luck and those who survive long enough to get good luck are very perseverant.

IN PROGRESS

IN PROGRESS

The bible for startups in Silicon Valley.

The first principles on (1) what to work on (2) how to work on it to create massive value and (3) how to capture part of the value to build a valuable company.

I won't spoil this book since it's very short but I strongly recommend finding the PDF online and reading it.

IN PROGRESS

Notes

Chapter 1:

Ben Horowitz is from a different era but it's quite clear how 'nerdy' early Silicon Valley was - these people were math geniuses prior to any entrepreneurial success.

Just before the chapter ends, he talks about the pivot NetScape was forced to make. To make a long story short, Microsoft copied their service but made it much cheaper and better. To be a thorn in Microsoft sides, Netscape did the same and made a cheaper version of Microsoft's original product. Sounds like geopolitics.

Horowitz on his relationship with Mark Andreessen: "People often ask me how we’ve managed to work effectively across three companies over 18 years. Most business relationships either become too tense to tolerate or not tense enough to be productive after a while. Either people challenge each other to the point where they don’t like each other or they become complacent about each other’s feedback and no longer benefit from the relationship. With Marc and me, even after 18 years, he upsets me almost every day by finding something wrong in my thinking, and I do the same for him. It works."

Chapter 2:

1. Raising money in the dot com crash. Nothing too surprising - what actually was surprising is how Ben Horowitz always seems to be on the winning side no matter the odds.

2. the power of individuals (Bill Campbell), breaks communist philosophy that humans are replacable. Pretty ironic considering Ben Horowitz' own ancestors were avid communists.

3. The struggle of their stock guidance - "Should we try to minimize the initial damage by taking down the number as little as possible or should we minimize the risk of another reset? If we reduced the number by a lot, the stock might fall apart. On the other hand, if we didn’t lower it enough, we might have to reset again, which would cost us all the credibility we had left. My controller, Dave Conte, raised his hand with what would be the definitive advice: “No matter what we say, we’re going to get killed. As soon as we reset guidance, we’ll have no credibility with investors, so we might as well take all the pain now, because nobody will believe any positivity in the forecast anyway. If you are going to eat shit, don’t nibble"

4. Peacetime CEO vs Wartime. Quote from the book: "I let them present all forty-five slides without my asking them a single question. When they finished I said, “Did I ask for this presentation?” Those were the first words I spoke as I made the transition from a peacetime CEO to a wartime CEO. By virtue of my position and the fact that we were a public company, nobody besides me had the complete picture. I knew we were in deep, deep trouble. Nobody besides me could get us out of the trouble, and I was through listening to advice about what we should do from people who did not understand all the pieces"

5. After selling Loudcloud to EDS, Bill Campbell gave some interesting advice: "If we hadn’t treated the people who were leaving fairly, the people who stayed would never have trusted me again. Only a CEO who had been through some awful, horrible, devastating circumstances would know to give that advice at that time"

Chapter 3:

Chapter 4:

Chapter 4 is definitely the most productive chapter so far. I'd suggest skipping the first three, if you are solely reading the book for productivity gains.

1. Startup CEO’s shouldn’t play the odds. When you are building a company, you must believe there is an answer and you cannot pay attention to your odds of finding it. You just have to find it. It matters not whether your chances are nine in ten or one in a thousand; your task is the same.

2. Life is struggle

3. Don’t put everything on your shoulders. Nobody takes losses harder than the one most responsible.

4. Play long enough and you might get lucky. This is true in any aspect of life!

5. Follow the principle of Bushido - the way of the warrior; keep death in mind at all times. If a warrior keeps death in mind at all times and lives as though this day might be his last, he will conduct himself properly in all manners. Same can be said about CEO’s and startups.

6. The positivity delusion.

Chapter 5:

IN PROGRESS

IN PROGRESS

IN PROGRESS

Mediations wasn't my favorite book due to it's dry nature. I am a big believer in stoicism, but to really benefit from the book it requires frequent reading. I found more value from people recommending the book and it's quotes than the book itself. (Ryan Holiday is a good example)

IN PROGRESS

• This 'book' is a brief introduction to Jean Monnet but it's clear without a doubt Jean Monnet resembles the modern-day EU bureaucrat.
• It's hard to know what to give him credit for and things to blame him for. The European Union is clearly as he envisioned, yet Europe is weaker than ever the more unified we have become. I don't think solely blaming the EU for this development is intellectually honest or benefical.
• Jean Monnet died in 1979, so soon 50 years ago. Europe is incredibly different today than 50 years ago. The idealism hasn't held up to reality so far.
• "The nations of Europe are too circumscribed to give their people the prosperity made possible, and hence necessary, by modern conditions. They will need larger markets. And they will have to refrain from using a major proportion of their resources to maintain "key" industries needed for national defence and made mandatory by the concept of sov· ereign, protectionist States, as we knew them before 1939" - I fully agree with this sentiment but I don't think the EU has been able to deliver on this promise. Italian unification is comparable - idealist promise that didn't hold up to reality.

IN PROGRESS

IN PROGRESS

• Most of the book has been quite lackluster
• Best parts were definitely focusing on their time meeting Paul Graham from YC.

IN PROGRESS

IN PROGRESS

IN PROGRESS