Sunday Mailbag

As we noted yesterday, we are giving over today's post to whatever that was that happened in the Oval Office on Friday, including some responses to our write-up.

The Oval Office Fiasco: What Was Donald Trump Doing?

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I have some thoughts on that on that godawful and disgraceful WWE style ambush. I have not seen this mentioned in the commentary and reporting, but people forget that English is not Volodymyr Zelenskyy's native language. While he does a very workman-type job in speaking our language, from listening to his speeches and conversations, he clearly has a rudimentary understanding of English, which is one of the more difficult languages to learn fully. He relies on the prime definition for his word choice and rarely, if ever, uses idioms or colloquial phrases. So, what do Brave Sir Trump, his trusty squire, J.D., and his plodding nag, Lindsey of Graham, all do? They speak in idioms and colloquialisms.

Graham boasted in front of reporters that he tried to warn Zelenskyy to "not to take the bait." A telling point comes when Brave Sir Trump starts yelling at Zelenskyy that "he doesn't hold all the cards." Zelenskyy, with real bitterness and hurt in his voice responses, "I am not playing cards." At face value, it seems an ordinary response. But when you consider that Zelenskyy expresses himself in literal prime definitions of words, that the two men—well, one man and a 2-year-old toddler—are talking about different things. Trump is clearly talking about power. While I don't know exactly how Zelenskyy translated Trump's phrase in his head, my guess from Zelenskyy's deeply hurt tone is that he thought Trump was talking about an idle game of frivolous chance or something close to that, which insulted Zelenskyy (who, we must remember, has had to lead his people through something that would break most seasoned politicians). Zelenskyy clearly and deeply cares about his country and its citizens, and to suggest that he regards his duties to his people as anything other than deeply serious is a deepest level of insult.

While Vance did not employ as many idioms as Trump, what he did was even worse. Haven't you ever run across an a**hole who is talking to someone for whom English is a second language, and the a**hole thinks by raising the decibels of his voice that he can make the other person understand? Vance is that kind of a**hole. Not only did he yell over Zelenskyy, he did another dastardly trick that nativist jerks do to act tough against a non-native speaker—as Zelenskyy tried to formulate the best words to use, made more difficult for him by having to translate in his head, Vance would constantly speak over Zelenskyy and would change subjects in a rapid-fire succession. Oh, Brave Brave Brave Sir Vance. These bully boy techniques are all I need to surmise this was pre-planned and possibly scripted out by these two worms.

As to the possible audience for this little traitorous production in boorishness, it is clearly Trump's MAGA base and the Republican politicians. There are two subjects where Trump's cultists are not fully onboard with Trump. They are Elon and support for Ukraine. In fact, the later subject is the one area that more than a few Republican politicians are willing to push back on Il Duce just a little bit, and Trump can't have that. Support for Ukraine, despite Trump's constantly bowing to Putin, still polls well with his base. By participating in "stunningly bad" and "monumentally ill-advised" Leonard Pinth-Garnell's Bad Political Performance Theatre, Trump is now able to say to his cultists, "Look at how your dearest leader suffers such abuse and disrespect at the hands of this madman Zelenskyy. How can you as the true MAGA faithful continue to support a man who has treated your favorite president so horribly? See how I suffer for you!" The biggest tell for this is when Trump recites his personal Stations of His Cross of "Russia, Russia, Russia," "laptop from hell," and "51 agents." Going back to Zelenskyy's challenges with the English language, notice the WTF look on Zelenskyy's face as Trump powers through his catechisms of Trump's martyrdom. Not only does Trump recites the slings and arrows he has endured for his people, but he also includes his fellow flagellant, Putin, who has shared Trump's scourges and tribulations.

Lastly, I wish there was some way to contact President Zelenskyy. I would like to apologize for the disgusting way he was treated as a guest to our country. I would say to him: "Trump and Vance do not speak for America and that I support you and the Ukrainian peoples as you go through hell and back each day as you defy the tyrant Putin."

There was only one leader, who puts the well-being of his countrymen ahead of his own personal concerns in the Oval Office on Friday, and that person wasn't an American. It's not only democracy that is under attack, it is basically decency as well. God bless Ukraine, its people, and its noble leader!

---

L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: I agree with much of the commentariat that the Oval Office beatdown of Volodymyr Zelenskyy was an ambush. I think it was pre-planned, or at least the possibility was prepared for (and maybe well prepared for). Let me explain why:

1. I think it is a serious mistake to assume that the supplicants TCF surrounds himself with are as short-sighted as TCF. (President Harris may agree)
   
   
2. I have seen bullies in grade school, and religious evangelists in college (and beyond) use the same tag-team tactic. Let one person soften up the target then the other goes in for the kill. If the target makes headway, the other takes over. Keep the target off balance. Police call it "good cop, bad cop." Interrogators, whether police or military, always work in pairs, on a lone target.
   
   
3. What's the quote by Einstein (or was it Gandhi?) about pounding the table? Clearly, J.D. and TCF were shouting, as noted by Zelenskyy. As TCF reminded us several times, "Might makes right." The loudest and most obnoxious one wins. Hail, Machiavelli!
   
   
4. TCF several times lightly touched Zelenskyy on the arm to cut him off. This tactic (lightly touching arm) is very effective in calming (and disarming) the target.

The only thing that surprised me was the non-participation of the Rocket Man (apologies to Elton John)... or do I call him X-Man (many more apologies)?

(V) & (Z) respond: Ex-man might be more appropriate.

---

J.R. in New York City, NY, writes: When I first saw the video of the Oval Office meeting, I couldn't help but think how Donald Trump sounded exactly like my former landlord (really, slumlord) in Washington Heights (Manhattan) who was a bully. When I called my landlord complaining about how it rained 2 inches in my bedroom and that the back door to the lobby was broken off its hinges, posing a security hazard, the landlord admonished me in the same tone that Trump used with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, telling me "You got a great deal (rent stabilized apartment) and you should be thanking me for providing a nice place to live and if you don't like it, move out!"

My landlord was so bad that even his lawyer called him a monster as they walked out of housing court. Trump is cut from the same dirty cloth, only with a frightening amount of power and surrounded by yes men. Dark times are ahead indeed.

---

J.H. in Bloomfield Township, MI, writes: I think Donald Trump got a three-fer from the despicable and embarrassing performance at Friday's meeting in the Oval Office with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Two aspects arise from his reptile brain; one aspect arises from his long-standing attitude of entitlement.

First, he got even with Zelenskyy, who embarrassed him by refusing to be extorted in the Hunter Biden stuff, resulting in Trump's first impeachment.

Second, Trump got to punch down in front of a TV audience, as he loves to do.

And third, he is angling for the Nobel Peace Orize, to which he believes he is entitled. He felt snubbed when he negotiated the (in his twisted mind) "perfect" Afghan withdrawal and was (in his twisted mind) wrongfully ignored by the Nobel committee. On Friday, he yelled—both at the meeting and later on his puny social media account—about PEACE! He believes he deserves the Nobel for ending the war in Ukraine, no matter what the cost to Ukraine or the rest of Europe. After all, none of them voted for him or are captivated by his charms, so they do not exist. Zelenskyy got in his way and had to be ejected.

---

A.S. in Natick, MA, writes: The most outrageous thing about Donald Trump and J.D. Vance berating Volodymyr Zelenskyy to be thankful for all that the United States did for Ukraine is that any aid that the U.S. gave Ukraine was given by the Biden administration. Does Trump really want Zelenskyy to say, "Thank you Joe Biden for all that you have done for Ukraine?"

---

A.K. in Pico Rivera, CA, writes: In an attempt to change the media focus, I posit that Donald Trump will double down on all the tariffs he has promised (rather than his usual M.O. of waffling).

The Oval Office Fiasco: Vladimir Putin

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: It seems clear that this public humiliation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy was orchestrated with the full knowledge and approval of Vladimir Putin, which explains the presence of TASS at the event. I suspect Zelenskyy knew he was not going to get the security guarantees he needed before an agreement could be reached, but felt he couldn't reject an invitation from the White House.

Trump chose sides when Putin first invaded Ukraine and now sees his opportunity to help his buddy with his expansionist aims. I suspect Putin has convinced Trump that they can divide the world up between them. Democracy only gets in the way of those plans, so abandoning Ukraine helps on both fronts.

The question is how far Trump is going to go to help Putin win this war. Cutting off military aid, while a big blow, might not do the trick. Russia has been losing forces and equipment at an unsustainable rate. According to the Institute for the Study of War, if Ukraine receives continued support from its European allies, it could keep Russian forces from making any significant territorial gains. A war of attrition is not what Putin wants. In that case, would Elon Musk cut off access to his Starlink system? He's done it before. Would Trump actively assist Putin? Would he put American troops on the ground to assist Russia? At this point it's hard to put anything past him. Only when Republican wake up and hold him accountable will anything change.

---

D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: All the curiosity about what Vladimir Putin has on Donald Trump misses a simple concept that occurred to me long ago: mentorship. We often think of Trump as someone who'll do anything he pleases, consequences be damned. Yet we also know that he'll often do whatever the last person he saw suggested. What's more, between his father and, especially, Nixon's old coach Roy Cohn, mentorship is a thing he's participated in his whole life. The idea of "Vlad, how do I become a dictator just like you?" is easy to imagine, indeed.

---

R.S. in Myrtle Beach, SC, writes: Why is nobody talking about the obvious, that Donald Trump is acting like Vladimir Putin is his KGB handler? If we are using Occam's Razor, the most obvious explanation towards his bizarre affinity for Russia is some sort of unknown Russian influence or control. I'm not saying he's the Manchurian Candidate, but.... sure seems like that's a real possibility here.

---

T.B. in Waterloo, IA, writes: After watching the Volodymyr Zelenskyy/Donald Trump meeting I have a few observations.

First, this is the first time I've listened to Trump speak since receiving my cochlear implant. Trump now sounds like he's sucking helium, which is not helping dispel my impression of him as a clown.

Second, there was a moment during the meeting that stood out to me that I don't see being mentioned by anyone, including (V) and (Z): Both Zelenskyy and Trump made a prediction of future events. Zelenskyy predicted that if Ukraine falls, Putin will go after the Baltics and then Poland. And that "American solders—they will fight." Trump predicted that would not happen because "Putin respects [him]".

This is one of those (very) rare times I want Trump to be correct. However, I doubt it. Putin will not stop until he either: (1) succeeds in rebuilding the USSR or (2) he's dead, whichever happens first. Trump and his followers putting their fingers in their ears and pretending otherwise will not change that fact. And we will end up involved in it somehow, someday because I'm hard-pressed to think of any modern conflict in Europe that did not ultimately ensnare us before it was over. I don't see anything good coming out of yesterday's meeting.

---

L.G. in Waltham, MA, writes: You always mention the same three possibilities for what Vladimir Putin has over Donald Trump, but have not mentioned that maybe Trump owes money to the Russian mafia, and this is how he is paying them back.

Also, I read the tweet posted by Trump on Truth Social, and for some reason it played in my head with a Russian accent. Maybe the TASS reporter was escorted to another office so he could write it.

---

J.C. in Hamilton, GA, writes: TASS did not show up at the White House without an invitation. Thus, the most important question raised by this entire fiasco is this: Why was TASS invited?

At first, one might think so Vladimir Putin could watch in real time. But that can't be it. Simply broadcasting the "diplomacy session"—say, on Fox—would allow for that.

But the world knows that TASS isn't really a news organization and is, rather, a propaganda arm for Russia (and before that, the Soviet Union). Allowing TASS to be on the premises was an unmistakable signal to Russia and to the world whose side the White House is on. I can personally think of no other reason.

This should be the big story from that meeting.

Heaven help us.

---

W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, writes: Joseph McCarthy was right. There are Soviet sympathizers in our highest levels of government.

The Oval Office Fiasco: Volodymyr Zelenskyy

E.V. in Derry, NH, writes: For the N + 1th time, Donald Trump showed himself to be ignorant, completely lacking in compassion, and pathologically self-centered in his own little world.

J.D. Vance just proved again that he is a jerk.

I follow news from Ukraine daily, and have read and/or heard a fair number of Volodymyr Zylenskyy's public statements. He can be cooperative, firm, friendly, critical, snarky and heroic, depending on the circumstance. He is good at fitting his words to the circumstance, despite some hiccups along the way. There is no doubt he is not fooled by anything Trump says. The past few months he played nice, saying the right things, going for a reset with the new administration. He has to. But he knows the limits. When Trump called him a dictator, he declared Trump to be in a Russian information bubble. Directly confronting Trump is an unforgivable sin.

On to Friday. Given that Zelenskyy was probably briefed for a different type of meeting, I think he handled things fairly well. One must also not forget the language barrier. Zelenskyy's English is very good, but has its limits. He can struggle with complex syntax. From the transcripts, it was clear that he was trying to piece together a response that was balanced between diplomacy and firmness. At the same time he was thinking on his feet and formulating his response in decent enough English that was clear and avoided an unintended slip-up. Responding to two aggressive people made it all the harder. If there had been interpreters, he would have had time to think and be more precise, and Trump and Vance would have had to cool their heels. But, as you wrote, this type of meeting is usually pro forma.

I'm sure Zelenskyy will try to patch things up. He cannot afford to take it personally. He is leading Ukraine in a fight for its existence. Perhaps a new dynamic will come from this with the European Union or the new government in Germany.

Finally, I am amazed at how little media attention is given to the fact that declaring a ceasefire will not stop the war as it stands. The U.S. does not need a ceasefire and peace with Russia. Ukraine does, but Ukraine is fighting for its existence. It is not going to just give up territorial integrity, and abandon 3 million citizens in the occupied lands. It knows it cannot trust Putin. Of course the country wants peace. But there is nothing in any of the proposals that creates acceptable security. All the talk of "Ukraine has to do [X]" is nonsense. Regardless of any Trump "deal," they will keep fighting with whatever they have, until something radical changes in Russia. Ukraine showed this in the first week of the war. What choice do they have?

---

N.D. in Victoria, BC, Canada, writes: As I watched the three-way shouting match on Friday, I was struck by two features of the interaction that no one seems to have commented on.

English is the everyday language used by the two Americans. For President Zelenskyy, however, it is a second language. I have no idea how frequently he uses it. I was struck by his response to the comment "You don't have the cards right now" which was "I don't play cards." This is a very English idiom and I wonder if he actually understood the meaning of what was being said.

The second observation was that of being assailed by two people frequently interrupting him and not allowing him an opportunity to complete his sentences. I wondered how quickly he would be able to marshal his thoughts to respond in a foreign language.

My conclusion to the obvious antagonism generated by the three participants was the additional factor of frustration by Zelenskyy. Diplomacy often fails because of a breakdown in communicating the correct words and meaning.

---

P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: What happened at the meeting on Friday should never have occurred in public before the media—that kind of thing needs to happen behind closed doors, not on live television. Having said that, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have gotten upset with Volodymyr Zelenskyy for wanting more, and not exhibiting sufficient gratitude. When both of those presidents—given their widely divergent viewpoints on pretty much everything—react in the same way to him, then perhaps Zelenskyy needs to examine what about his own behavior is causing this response. He is being treated as completely above reproach by many, which is a situation that should not be—always question everyone's motives, and what their larger goals are outside of the obvious.

---

L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands, writes: Are you aware of Ukraine24? It's the official Ukrainian government site for people who want to donate to their cause. A rise in donations would sure get under President TCF's thin skin...

The Oval Office Fiasco: J.D. Vance

A.C. in Kingston, MA, writes: I wanted to share some heartening news (sadly, I think it'll be a long time before I view any news as objectively "good") from my corner of the country. Two pieces of news, actually.

As I'm sure you've heard by now, J.D. Vance attempted to bring his family to Vermont for a ski vacation. Specifically, the Waitsfield/Warren area, to ski at Sugarbush. This is a section of the state that is practically a second home to my family—my favorite uncle lives just over the Lincoln Gap, we've been visiting and vacationing there year 'round since I was a child, we fly fish regularly in the Mad River (and the New Haven River across the mountain gap), and one of my favorite bookstores, along with a great yarn place and the best creemees in the state, are all in one little plaza there. It felt like Vance was invading "my" turf heading there, even though objectively I know that's ridiculous.

How heartening has it been to see that from the time Air Force Two touched down in South Burlington, the Vance family has been met with vociferous protests. From the pictures I saw, it looked like the entire stretch of Route 100 through Waitsfield and Warren was lined with protesters. Mad River Glen (another nearby ski area) changed their sign to indicate that the VP was not welcome. The woman who updates the daily snow conditions at Sugarbush is now a local/regional hero, having risked her job to post her true feelings about this administration this morning.

Closer to home, a high school friend of mine, who still lives where I grew up one town over, organized a demonstration for this afternoon with something like 18 hours' notice. The last such demonstration, in the same location a few weeks ago, drew a few dozen people. There were between 150 and 200 people at today's event.

I'm also noticing friends and colleagues who've, until now, never shared any whiff of their politics but are making more overtly political social media posts. I've also noticed a handful of acquaintances who I know have always been conservative finally waking up to reality and making posts about their concerns. I'm not sure where things are heading, and overall my husband, children and I share a fairly bleak outlook for the future, but today was the first time I felt any sense that people on our side are doing enough that it's getting noticed.

---

J.G. in Farmington, CT, writes: I'm writing about the disaster of a press conference between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the unholy trio. Maybe the press will come to their senses soon, but until now, no one's published what is to me the obvious read of the situation:

1. J.D. Vance read the mineral rights treaty and, because he's not a moron, figured out that Trump got taken for a ride.
   
   
2. J.D. Vance needs leverage and cred over the Team of Incompetent Sycophants that is this cabinet.
   
   
3. J.D. Vance played Trump like a rage bait fiddle and blew up the deal.

There is no way Donald Trump is present enough mentally to pull off an ambush like this. This reeks of an Ivy League power play. This is J.D. Vance's Model UN greatest hits. What a deeply evil person to do this with millions of lives in the balance, but then again, Elon Musk did it with USAID, so par for the course, I guess.

That's my take, as hot as it is.

---

H.G. in Bellingham, WA, writes: Please refrain from referring to J.D. Vance as a "grunt." That gives him too much credit. He served as a combat camera Marine, which is certainly an honorable enlistment, but he most definitely was not a "grunt." "Grunt" is a term of art that refers to enlisted infantrymen. I served as a combat engineer in the Marine Corps, and while I was certainly much closer to "grunt" status than Vance was, I fully accept that the true grunts would not consider me one. The proper term for J.D. Vance is either "pogue" or "POG" (piece of garbage). These are terms for Marines who gain usable job skills during their enlistment.

Semper Fi.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I am ashamed to be associated with the likes of Vice President Vance, yet again.

He already allied himself with a man who literally stood atop the graves of our brothers and sisters for a cheap photo-op, stood by him as he violated the sanctity of a place some of my friends are buried, and dismissed as nothing that rapist sh**head's mocking of our service to nation.

And now? To himself disrespect the thousands of men and women who have died for their country?

I will never be ashamed to be a United States Marine. But I am ashamed that I am counted among the likes of Vice President Vance.

Semper Fidelis.

The Oval Office Fiasco: The Republican Party

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: After yesterday's tantrums, it is clear that the White House is a dysfunctional mess and will not improve. All of this could have been—and indeed was, by many of us—foreseen. So now what? Where are five out of the 53 Republican Senators and five out of the 217 Republican House Representatives who are willing to take their oaths of office seriously? Where are two of the Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans willing to take their oaths of office seriously? Nowhere to be seen. So it's over. The Constitution of the United States of America: born 1789, died 2025. Rest in peace.

---

G.E. in Rehoboth Beach, DE, writes: Some people have called Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) a chameleon over the years, but we just learned otherwise. He wore a blue and yellow tie for Ukraine while he defended Donald Trump excoriating Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the media. He didn't even change his stripes.

---

C.D. in Sierra Vista, AZ, writes: Sent the following to my Congressman, Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ):

I never believed that the United States would stand with Russia against a democracy.

I stand with Ukraine.

Who do you stand with?

It will be interesting to see what type of response I get, if any. Other readers should contact their congresspeople, too.

The Oval Office Fiasco: Sartorial Choices

P.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: If J.D. Vance/Donald Trump/MAGAts are so upset that Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn't wear a suit, what do they think about the attire of Co-President Elon Musk? His attire is surely more disrespectful to the office: t-shirt, baseball cap, etc.

I'll wait to hear their angry howls... oh yeah, I forgot they have no shame about anything.

---

D.B. in Tokyo, Japan, writes: You wrote that "The right-wing media, in their efforts to make Zelenskyy the bad guy, have seized in particular on the fact that the Ukrainian was not wearing a suit when he arrived for the meeting."

You may already know this, but just in case you don't, I thought I'd point out that the photo you included with Marco Rubio appearing uninterested was taken when everyone was reacting to Brian Glenn (Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's, R-GA, boyfriend) asking Zelenskyy why he doesn't wear a suit and if he even owns one. Remember, this is the president of a country at war. It was one of the most condescending things I've ever seen.

Back to the photo, you can see J.D. Vance is smiling. Trump isn't but, then, he never does. My impression of Marco Rubio is that he is thinking "WTF?"

---

C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: Thank you for explaining Donald Trump's tie. It has always bothered me that he wore it hanging "below the belt" and pointing to his genitals. At first I thought he wore it that way to hide his gut and make himself appear slimmer. Thanks to you, I now realize that he wears it that way to compensate for, or distract from, his tiny penis (according to Stormy Daniels, who should know). Therefore, the Trump Tie is the newest version of the codpiece.

The Oval Office Fiasco: The U.S. and the World

A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes: The Juvenile-in-Chief has just abdicated the United States' position as leader of the free world.

---

A.A. in Branchport, NY, writes: Everyone's seen the footage of the tag-team attack by Donald Trump and his stooge on the President of Ukraine. The man was invited to the White House to finalize some sort of "deal." And then unceremoniously ejected after a ton of verbal abuse.

In the future, how does any foreign leader accept any invitation to the White House, given that a similar attack could occur at any time?

---

M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO, writes: I really wonder if we'll now live to see a time when the rest of the world looks to America for anything. Leadership? Morality? Democracy? How can anyone ever trust us again? Hell, how can we trust ourselves?

I think we're gonna quickly find out exactly how lonely the world can be when you put yourself first, second, third, etc.

---

G.L. in East Grand Rapids, MI, writes: I just wonder if any other world leader will ever dare to meet with Donald Trump and J.D. Vance after the duo's disdainful performance with the Ukrainian president.

---

B.O. in Stockholm, Sweden, writes: I can understand, in a way, why Donald Trump was elected. If you didn't like Joe Biden or Kamala Harris (who never had a shot), you are left with Trump. In Sweden, where I come from, we have several parties to choose from and, therefore, more inertia in our system.

I can also understand that a new administration wants to get as much done as possible before the midterm elections. However, I can't understand how it is possible that the U.S. can allow foreign policy to change so dramatically and so quickly, even if the Republican Party controls the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. In one fell swoop, the U.S. upended their European foreign policy since World War II (i.e., more than 80 years back). It has always been the safeguard for democracy. The transatlantic partnership has always been prioritized, for stability in the world, and to the United States' benefit, in my opinion. I am that cynical, in that I don't believe this has only been done out of the goodness of America's heart.

Coming back to inertia; how is it possible to suddenly vote against condemning Russia for its aggression against the Ukraine? Are there no checks and balances left to hinder a newly-elected president who has not even been on the job for two months from reversing the United States' policy on Russia? Is this the way we can expect the U.S. to behave in the future (i.e., randomly, after every new administration)?

I started writing this before the catastrophic meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy on Friday. This meeting clearly indicates upending the support for the Ukraine that Biden started suggests a split between the E.U. and U.S., further destabilizing Europe and the world order by letting Russia win. Sooner or later, this will be remembered as a catastrophic move for the free world.

---

I.K. in Queens, NY, writes: Rarely have I been as ashamed to be American as I was during The Oval Office Meeting, with our orange mafia boss presuming to lecture Volodymyr Zelenskyy on gratitude when he's not fit to lick Zelenskyy's boots.

I wish I had your optimism that America's support for Ukraine can be salvaged. From the Ukrainians' perspective, I think it would be a waste of time and energy to grovel for U.S. aid—it took all of the combined energies of Joe Biden and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to shepherd aid through Congress last time, and now there is not a single person in power who actually wants that aid passed. Republicans may want it deep down, but with their votes they support whatever The Convicted Felon wants. Why deal with the mercurial Americans and hope for a miracle when Europe is stepping up with a united front and continued aid?

You write that you expect domestic blowback for selling out Ukraine, but I don't see it. Democratic votes are unavailable to the Republicans. Republicans will fall in line with whatever TCF and/or Fox dictates. And clearly the GOP has decided to only court the Republican votes.

I've had a front-row seat to Republicans falling in line, through my family. They immigrated from Ukraine in 1991 (technically still the U.S.S.R., at that time) with refugee status as Jews, and were politically Rockefeller Republicans. I kept waiting for them to turn against Trump the first time, and they never have, viewing him as boorish but right in all regards. When Putin invaded Ukraine, they took it very hard and had a surge of patriotism—donating money however they could, and even having a Ukraine-themed birthday party. My grandmother even reluctantly said that she liked how Biden handled things during the initial invasion.

Fast forward to the holidays this year, after sitting through Trump's whole campaign. My mother declared, "There's no point sending money to Ukraine, because it's so corrupt that all the money will be pocketed and won't help the war effort." If the GOP propaganda can do that good a job on actual Ukrainian Americans, and not very MAGA-y ones at that, I'm certain that Trump need not fear domestic pushback for an anti-Ukraine policy.

Bigger picture, I think that Trump's isolationism will lead to the emergence of not one, but two additional superpowers in the world: China and Europe. The E.U.'s GDP is only a little below China's, and if the E.U. actually develops military strength, it will be a global player on par with the U.S. and China. Putin and his orange asset have galvanized and united Europe, who are realizing they need their own power base. Especially with French president Emmanuel Macron and the incoming German chancellor Freidrich Merz being largely on the same page in many regards, the E.U. will be moving quickly (for them) to get their affairs in order without the U.S.

---

T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: If and when the Orange Turnip arrives for his State Visit (assuming His Majesty The King survives that long—I presume such invites are null if he passes away and a new monarch is in place) I shall, for the first time in my over half-century of life, be protesting his presence on the streets. I will personally be prepared to lead a chant of "Nazi Scum."

For context, I NEVER seek out violence of thought, I've NEVER attended a protest, and I am for the most part a risk-averse, confrontation-avoidant walk-the-other-way sort of person. But the Orange Turnip and his lapdog J.D. Vance are the most clear and present danger to the lives of millions of people that I've known my entire life, beyond even Vladimir Putin, principally by being deliberate enablers of that particular tyrant.

When good people stand back and say nothing, evil wins. But not this time.

Slava Ukraini.

---

D.R. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: My biggest concern when Donald Trump entered office was what he would do to our international relationships and, especially, with Ukraine. I was very worried for the people of Ukraine because I expected Trump to abandon them and leave them to die. I had very, very low expectations for what he would do to them. I expected the worst and, this weekend, I am still sitting here in shock at how the meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy was handled. I am blown away that Trump and his childishness represent me to the rest of the world. I sat in my chair, watching that video, speechless with my jaw on the floor. This can't be real life. And J.D. Vance... wow. Just... wow.

What's even worse is they will be so proud of how they handled themselves. They think they nailed it. I just... I can't believe this.

---

T.E. in London, England, UK, writes: Approximately how many e-mails have you received with quotes from 1984?

For instance: "We have always been at war with Eastasia, Eurasia was always our ally. Long live Oceania!"

(V) & (Z) respond: Quite a few.

The Oval Office Fiasco: Shame

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: I hate to say this but, THANK YOU for your expert analysis of the clusterf**k white house debacle that was the Volodymyr Zelenskyy-Donald T rump Oval Orifice meeting yesterday. It almost makes me ashamed to be an American. I have never been a Republican zealot, but I at least acknowledge that Ronald Reagan, George Bush 1 and George Bush 2 were decent human beings. I disagreed with them, but at least I could respect them. There is no way on this green earth that I can defend, respect, or support the cabal of MAGA sycophants and Musk-rats that are infesting our current "leadership."

Yes, the punctuation, spelling, and spacing indicated are all intentional.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: Even though the United States has made numerous mistakes over the decades in foreign affairs, I've always believed that these mistakes were outweighed by the collective good our country has done. Donald Trump's and J.D. Vance's performance—and make no mistake, it was nothing but a TV performance—was disgraceful and made me for the first time in my 59 years ashamed of my country. Because close to half the country believes this criminal can do no wrong and they actually believe in most of his policies, and because the Democrats seem unable to effectively counteract any of it, I am afraid I won't live to see the day we emerge from this cynical and dark period of our history. I hope and pray that with the coming collapse of the post-World War II order and the inevitable nuclear weapons proliferation that will come from American indifference to world security, we can somehow avoid the worst-case scenario.

---

J.C. in Nashville, TN, writes: There will be plenty of people in this country who will voice their shame in the coming days, weeks, months. But it can never be expressed by enough people, enough times, to adequately capture just how utterly SHAMEFUL this staged hit job was.

If you are an American, and you are not ashamed to the core of your being, well, if the shame is not IN you, the shame is ON you. The shame I feel is evolving already... I am pissed. It is time for all of us to stop being horrified spectators in this sh**show. Pick your method of protest now, decide what you can do personally to further ACTUAL American values, no matter how small a gesture. Show solidarity with Ukraine—a bumper sticker, a flag, anything. Write letters to newspapers, get out in the streets, call politicians, organize local meet-ups, whatever it takes. The dissent against this regime must be massive and constant. Donald Trump must be removed and we all know it. Every action taken against him gets us closer to achieving that outcome.

If I were Volodomyr Zelenskyy, I do not come back to the U.S. again. I ask for nothing else from the American regime. If I am Europe, I recognize that, as of today, we must form our own mutual defense apparatus, with Ukraine as a member, and sideline America both politically and economically. It is not only necessary, it is right. The U.S. is now on the wrong side of this conflict, we are not the good guys.

The Oval Office Fiasco: Gallimaufry

K.H. in Albuquerque NM, writes: Thank you for mentioning the classic game of Diplomacy. For those who might want to give it a try, but don't have access to the old Avalon Hill boxed set, there's webDiplomacy, which lets you play against AI opponents as you learn the game.

Sunday Q&A

Again, it's all-Ukraine day.

Oh, and if you are still working on the headline theme, we'll observe that a punch in the nether regions might awaken you to the answer.

The Oval Office Fiasco

C.J. in Lowell, MA, asks: Why is there talk of negotiating a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine? As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable end, without which peace should be off the table, is that Russia entirely and unconditionally withdraws (and, even better, pays for the damage they have done). Also, why is the U.S. trying to get something out of this?

(V) & (Z) answer: Do not interpret this as a defense of anyone. However, the really messy circumstance in wars is when they enter into a stalemate in which neither side seems to be able to secure victory. The leadership of the aggressor country does not want to give up and go home, because they don't want to face the uncomfortable question: "What was the point of all the blood that was spilled and treasure that was lost?" But they also can't secure the win.

This state of affairs was reached in World War I (before the U.S. entered, and tipped the balance), and in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan (both the Russian invasion of that country and the American one). The Russo-Ukrainian War has clearly entered this phase, as well. Under current circumstances, Vladimir Putin can't win. But he also can't withdraw and tell his people "Hey! We tried!" So, he lingers, in hope that eventually world events will allow him to secure some version of a win.

As to your final question, the foreign policy of the U.S., like that of other nations, is always at least partly self-interested. Every other president of the last 75 years understood that, in helping the nations of Europe to resist the U.S.S.R./Russia, the United States gains substantially. Because Donald Trump is a "businessman," and because he's not much of an abstract thinker, he is apparently unable to grasp any "gain" that is not in some sort of tangible form that can be converted into money.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: If we end up being able to count the number of pro-Ukraine Republican members of Congress on two hands, and if Congress cannot proceed to get a budget passed during the next 2 weeks, resulting in a shutdown, do you see any chance of these pro-Ukraine Republicans switching parties to solve the budget problem? You only need one or two.

I am trying to figure out incentives, such as whether it helps or hurts the reelection prospects of someone like Don Bacon (R-NE) if he switches parties.

(V) & (Z) answer: Switching parties, especially in today's polarized climate, is generally political suicide. Members of the person's previous party see them as a traitor, and members of the person's new party see them as a phony. The only time it works is when the demographics of the district/state have shifted, such that an area that was once Democratic no longer really is, or that was once Republican no longer really is. The example that most readers will recall is the Southern Democrats who became Southern Republicans, mostly from 1965-2010.

If one or more Republican members turn against Trump, they will be falling on their swords in service of some greater purpose than their own political careers. While you should not hold your breath, it's also not impossible that some members will make this choice. Former representatives Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and Justin Amash all did so during Trump v1.0.

---

P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: One of the fairly standard assumptions in U.S. politics is that foreign policy has a very limited impact on elections. Also, it was surprising how many people only realized that Donald Trump is a convicted felon after the election. Given these two factors, why do you think this would have any meaningful impact? Outside of the people who are following what is happening, do you think a lot of the low-information voters will care about this in a year's time?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will offer up three observations for your consideration. First, because American voters effectively have only two choices in presidential elections, it can be hard to tease out exactly what factors led a party to defeat. Second, every presidential election in the 21st century, save one (2008), was fairly close. Small changes in a party's support can be decisive. Third, Joe Biden was clearly hurt by the Afghanistan withdrawal, and our guess is that if Ukraine falls, that will be seen as many orders of magnitude worse. Add it up, and it's entirely plausible Ukraine could hurt the Republicans at the polls in 2026 or 2028, and without anyone really knowing for sure how much.

All of this said, if Ukraine survives (and maybe wins) with mostly European support, then this probably won't be an issue in 2026 or 2028. It might even end up as a feather in the caps of the GOP, along the lines of, "See, we finally got Europe to do its fair share."

---

O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: You wrote that confusing 2014 with 2015 for the year that Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea is a sign of mental decline on the part of Trump. Perhaps, but what was up with Trump constantly saying "raw earth"? Is he stupid, and does ne not actually know that all his repeated demands have been for "rare earth minerals," or is he cognitively slipping? Imagine if Joe Biden repeatedly misstated something like that, and how much crap he would have gotten about being senile. Don't you think that repeatedly referring to "raw earth" is more of a sign of decline than mixing up a date—especially given the fact that "rare earth minerals" is the centerpiece of the deal being Trump is trying to get?

(V) & (Z) answer: We did not assign much significance to "raw earth." That phrase conjures up a similar mental image to "rare earth," and once a person has a close-but-not-quite phrase stuck in their heads, it's easy to repeat it.

The problem with the year is not that Trump was wrong, it's that he kept insisting he was right. If (V) said that the Civil War started in 1860, and (Z) said it was actually 1861, (V) would not argue because (Z) obviously knows better. If (Z) said that MINIX was released in 1988, and (V) said it was actually 1987, (Z) would not argue because (V) obviously knows better. This is normal behavior, particularly when speaking with someone whose expertise clearly outstrips your own.

However, people who are suffering from dementia, or other forms of cognitive decline, will often insist on their version of facts, even if their version is wrong. That is because admitting that they are in error is, in effect, admitting to their incapacity.

---

K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: After the events of Friday, it's certain to me that any possible deal between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is dead.

My question is: When Trump cuts off arms supplies to Ukraine, can't U.S. arms manufacturers go around Trump and sell directly to European allies to give to Ukraine instead? If we are not at war with countries like the U.K., France, and Poland, there shouldn't be any barriers to supplying them with weapons, which could then be given to Ukraine. Most Europeans understand it is essential that Ukraine wins this war, or they could be under Russia's thumb again as they were in the 20th century.

(V) & (Z) answer: You are not going to like the answer to your question. The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (supplemented by other legislation) gives the president the authority to review arms sales by American companies to foreign countries. The president is specifically instructed to make certain that: (1) the arms are being purchased for self-defense purposes, and (2) the arms will not lead to the escalation of an existing conflict.

So, if RTX or General Dynamics or Northrop was planning to sell a bunch of stuff to, say, the U.K., with the knowledge (or a strong suspicion) that the U.K. was going to turn the materiel over to Ukraine, then Trump would not only be able to kill the deal, he would have a legal obligation to do so.

---

D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: Can Donald Trump unilaterally prevent Ukraine from joining NATO?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. For a new member to be added to NATO, their admission requires unanimous support from existing members. Remember how Turkey had to be "persuaded" (with a bunch of military "aid," mostly in the form of American F-16s) to allow Sweden to join.

---

J.Y. in Salem, OR, asks: I just got through watching our POTUS and VP act like schoolyard bullies today when Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the Oval Office. Afterward, I heard the response from European nations condemning it and affirming their commitment to Ukraine. I am aware that the U.S. contributes a great deal to NATO, but the E.U. has to be sick and tired of dealing with the Orange Menace. It made me wonder how feasible it might be for NATO to be proactive and kick the U.S. out and let Ukraine join?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is not easy to kick a nation out of NATO. That is particularly true of the U.S., which is the founding member. In fact, the NATO charter essentially says that if the U.S. leaves, NATO is no more.

However, there is nothing stopping the non-U.S. members of NATO from forming a new alliance and not inviting the U.S. to join. Surely this is the path they would pursue, should they decide that America is no longer a worthy partner.

---

S.M. in Warren, MI, asks: I was appalled, just as many were, by the absolute disaster that occurred between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Many of the European leaders have signified their continued support for Ukraine.

My question is two-fold: (1). Do you see Europe as a whole chipping in as a whole to give Ukraine support? and (2) Do you now think that the world will begin to isolate away from the United States—and that a new much stronger Europe is in the works?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, and yes. Because Donald Trump is either a man of limited vision, or is a Russian stooge, or both, he does not appreciate that if the goal is to resist Russia, it's way easier to let someone else do it than to do it yourself. Not only does that spare your nation's populace, infrastructure, etc., it also saves from having to spend countless billions or trillions in future veterans' benefits (both pensions and healthcare). The nations of Europe are not limited/compromised in this way, and will see that they can either contribute money and arms to Ukraine now, or be at serious risk of having to do the fighting themselves a few years down the line.

As to moving away from the United States, we have a hard time seeing how that does not happen, because the U.S. has proven to be an unreliable partner, and because one of the two major political parties is now fundamentally xenophobic and isolationist. We suppose that the fact that the U.K. left the E.U. is a slight barrier to European cooperation, especially since that is a byproduct of xenophobia and isolationism among some segment of the British public. However, we suspect that barrier will be overcome, one way or another.

---

E.S. in Providence, RI, asks: Given that the selling out of Ukraine is now complete, and that Donald Trump is completely in Vladimir Putin's pocket, is it possible for the highest-ranking pro-democracy officials at the Pentagon to start a military takeover of the Executive Branch and arrest POTUS, VEEP and Musk for treason?

(V) & (Z) answer: A military coup, even if you agree with the motivations, is still a military coup. If this did come to pass, that's the end of the republic.

---

B.H. in Southborough, MA, asks: Between turning against our ally in support of Russia and installing a Cabinet intent on destroying their respective organizations, it's clear now that Donald Trump works for Vladimir Putin, who is set on destroying our country. How do we remove him from office?

(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably this question was rhetorical, but we thought we'd answer it nonetheless, because it pairs with the previous question.

The U.S. Constitution affords three ways of ending a president's time in office: (1) impeachment and conviction, (2) removal by the Cabinet under the terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and (3) the expiration of the president's term. You could plausibly add a fourth item to this list, namely removal under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, but under current jurisprudence that ends up being a similar thing to impeachment, since SCOTUS says an enabling act from Congress is required.

Beyond that, Trump could choose to resign, for whatever reason. Or he could die, either a natural death, or a Second Amendment sort of death.

Most of the items above are not within the power of the average voter right now (and the one that arguably is, we certainly would not advocate). If public opinion aggressively shifts against Trump, particularly if he becomes plainly senile, then maybe Congress will eventually be persuaded to take action, but it is very unlikely.

---

S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: Can you explain the letters "TCF"—as in TCF v1, TCF v2, etc.? I guess I missed it and I have searched the site for it but to no avail. For what it's worth, I read it as Trump Cluster F**k. How close am I?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not too close. While we don't use such acronyms, many readers (and many, many other people) had taken to referring to Donald Trump as "TFG" for "The Former Guy." However, he's not former anymore, at least not at the moment. On the other hand, he IS a convicted felon. And so, "TFG" was replaced by "TCF," for "The Convicted Felon."

---

B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: If every MAGA politician and voter magically disappeared from the United States overnight, how long would it take the country to recover from the damage that has already been incurred?

(V) & (Z) answer: A long time, we fear. The problem isn't just Trump, it's that the U.S. system allowed for him to be elected twice, and then to act with near impunity. Even if he dies or leaves office, how can anyone be sure it won't happen again?

Domestically, it's going to be hard to rebuild the agencies that have been torn asunder by Trump's appointees and his other lackeys (e.g., Elon Musk). If you are a current federal employee, wouldn't you be looking for private sector work right now? And if you are a future federal employee, wouldn't you have to think twice about taking that kind of gamble with your life and your career?

In foreign affairs, it's the same problem. Most prominent Republicans today, and certainly the ones who aspire to the MAGA throne, are isolationists and xenophobes. The next Republican president could be just as unreliable a partner as the current one is.

This is a grim assessment, but we do see two ways that maybe things will bounce back more quickly than might otherwise be expected. First, if the courts and the Congress eventually get themselves in gear, and start reining Trump in, then maybe people can persuade themselves that the U.S. system works, even if it's sometimes delayed. Also, if the worldwide trend toward populist reactionaries (Trump, Viktor Orbán, Javier Milei, etc.) peters out, then maybe it will lead to the conclusion that Trump was just the product of a historical moment whose time has passed.

Final Words

R.B. in Santa Monica, CA, writes: Abdur Rahman Khan, Emir of Afghanistan, to his son Habibullah Khan, in 1901, from the elder Khan's deathbed: "My last words to you, my son and successor, are: Never trust the Russians."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger