Main page    Mar. 01


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

---

We initially intended to write up our thoughts on the "diplomacy" that took place yesterday, and then to share some reader thoughts, and to answer some Ukraine-related questions. However, this is already more than 6,000 words. If we added the extra material, that would push it well past 10,000 words and would also mean that it would not go live until 9:00 a.m. PT or later. So, we're going to stick with just the write-up. Tomorrow, we will probably devote the whole post to questions and comments about Ukraine, etc.

An Oval Office Fiasco

Some readers will know the board game Diplomacy, which is sort of like Risk, but (generally) with much more interaction between players, and no element of chance. To be successful at the game, a player must convince their "allies" that the relationship is solid... right up until the moment they stab those allies in the back. For obvious reasons, that game was on our minds yesterday.

What Happened?

We imagine that most readers have already heard the news about the disastrous Oval Office meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the tag team of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Nonetheless, we will run down the lowlights, so that everyone reading this is on the same page. If you would like to see the carnage for yourself, the video is here (it's a little less than 50 minutes).

Keeping in mind that Trump, as we have observed many times, is... well, not a candidate for any edition of Profiles in Courage, it is not surprising that Vance assumed the attack dog role. In short, the Vice President decided to engage in some serious politicking (attacking Joe Biden and Barack Obama, among others) and also some very aggressive finger-wagging. Vance presumed to lecture Zelenskyy about how Ukraine should be much more appreciative of the help it's getting from the United States, and how this war is only going to be resolved with diplomacy.

This commentary was undoubtedly designed to get Zelenskyy's goat. After all, he's engaged in all kinds of diplomacy and it hasn't exactly brought the war to a successful conclusion. Further, he's had a front row seat as his countrymen have fought, and suffered, and died. For someone to presume to deliver a lecture from the (very safe) cheap seats, and to imply that the sacrifices of the Ukrainian people are basically meaningless, was just boorish. Still, although Zelenskyy certainly pushed back, he maintained emotional control, responding:

You know that we had conversations with [Vladimir Putin], a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, [French President Emmanuel] Macron and [former German Chancellor Angela] Merkel. We signed a ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never [leave Ukraine]... But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn't exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn't do it. What kind of diplomacy, J.D., you are speaking about? What do you mean?

In response to this, Vance not only continued the finger wagging, he became patronizing, telling the Ukrainian leader: "I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict."

Everyone in that room, at that moment, knew full well that Vance was talking out of his a**. He has very little experience in politics, and zero foreign policy experience (writing puff pieces for the military, while serving as a grunt in the Marine Corps, is NOT foreign policy experience). Further, Vance has never been to Ukraine. So, Zelenskyy called the VP out on all of this, particularly the latter fact: "Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?" And Vance came right out and admitted his ignorance:

I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you've had problems, bringing people into your military? ... And do you think that is respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

In other words, "You're right, I've never been to Ukraine to see for myself. But I HAVE watched multiple hours of coverage on Fox. And, on top of that, I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

It was at this point that Donald Trump tagged in, and began piling on Zelenskyy as well. Once Trump was speaking, the whole thing really took on the general tone and tenor of a mafia summit. The President repeatedly made the same basic points: (1) Ukraine is weak and the U.S. is strong, (2) Ukraine is not showing him (Trump) enough respect, and (3) The good thing about Vladimir Putin is that he knows how to show respect. Trump might just as well have ended by asking, in a whispery voice, "What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?" He ended the meeting soon thereafter, and a post-Oval Office press conference, and a Zelenskyy speech later in the day, were canceled.

And in case you think we have misread the message that Vance/Trump were trying to send to Zelenskyy (and, presumably, others), here is what Trump posted to Truth Social shortly after the Ukrainian departed:

We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It's amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don't want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.

To the extent that Trump's administration is thoughtful and/or considered, this is it. That is to say, this was an official statement that was undoubtedly reviewed by multiple White House staffers, and cannot be attributed to a misunderstanding, or the heat of the moment, or anything like that.

What REALLY Happened?

How are we to make sense of what happened yesterday? Obviously, this story is still unfolding. Further, nobody except the key players involved can know exactly what was going on in the various participants' hearts and minds. We're going to run down a list of dynamics that may have been in play yesterday. Some of these are near-certainties, others are a little more speculative, but they are all more than plausible enough for us to share as potential ideas:

• Ambush: A great many reporters and commentators, in their responses yesterday, referred to the meeting as an "ambush." It was clear that hammering out an arms-for-rare-earths deal was not on the agenda, and poking Zelenskyy in the eye most certainly was. The tougher question is whether this was the plan all along, or if there was some sort of late-in-the-game audible. Our guess is that it was a late change, since this administration rarely plays the long game, or even the medium game. We suspect that someone, or many someones, got to Trump and told him he was getting completely outmaneuvered by Zelenskyy.
  
  
• Trump: Although Trump, with his lack of spine, did not take the lead in attacking Zelenskyy, it was not hard for the President to jump in, with much enthusiasm, once Vance ceded the floor. Keeping in mind that The Donald's concern is always The Donald, it strongly suggests that what happened yesterday was, at least in part, some score-settling. As we have pointed out many times, including this week, Trump got himself impeached the first time because he tried to extort Zelenskyy, demanding that the Ukrainian commence an investigation into Joe Biden's (alleged) dealings in Ukraine. Zelenskyy not only refused to play ball, he went public with the demand. Trump has never forgotten that, and never will (at least, until his mind deteriorates to the point that he CAN'T remember).
  
  
• The Dope Show: On the subject of Trump's mental state, we are certainly keeping tabs on any clues that he is legitimately compromised. One thing that is very clear is that while the President was once a motormouth, he often cedes the floor these days to someone else. Think of the Elon Musk Oval Office press conference, or the first Cabinet meeting this week. In both cases, Musk took the lead, and Trump was a supporting player. Yesterday, we have absolutely no doubt that Vance had much more speaking time than Trump did.
  
  On top of this, Trump keeps garbling his facts in high-profile fashion. When meeting with French president Emmanuel Macron on Monday, Trump claimed that the money that Europe was sending to Ukraine was loans that would be paid back. Macron corrected him, and said that most of the money is a gift. When meeting with U.K. PM Keir Starmer on Thursday, Trump made the same claim, and was corrected in the same way. In both cases, Trump pushed back against the correction, without much success. Yesterday, Zelenskyy asserted (correctly) that Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, and Trump declared that it was really 2015, and "I wasn't here (in the White House)." Zelenskyy said, again, that it was 2014, and Trump said, again, that it was 2015, while Vance piped up and said it was both 2014 and 2015.
  
  It is certainly possible that Trump's "errors" are deliberate, and serve his political goals. That could very well explain the exchanges with Macron and Starmer, since Trump's angle here is that the Ukraine needs to pay the U.S. back for any assistance that is rendered. However, the 2014/2015 argument from yesterday is... very odd. First, is it really plausible that Trump knows the timeline better than Zelenskyy does, to the point of arguing about it? Second, what does it matter? Trump was not in power in either of those years, and so either way, it's Barack Obama's "fault." That Trump got it wrong, and then insisted he was right, and then seemed to suggest that he WAS in power in 2014, is not a great sign when it comes to mental sharpness.
  
  
• The Apprentice: Something else that is undoubtedly true is that yesterday's fiasco was political theater, put on for the benefit of... someone. Recall that the press, with both video cameras and digital recorders, was in the room for the whole thing. Generally, that is only the setup if the meeting is basically rote and symbolic—e.g., a signing ceremony. If there's going to be any actual diplomacy, up to and including "we've completely changed our mind about this," then that happens out of public view. Doing it in private is not only more respectful, it also avoids sending the message "I/We are not reliable partners" to other leaders.
  
  Clearly, Trump wanted someone, or many someones, to have a front row seat for the Zelenskyy ambush. The President even admitted as much: "This is going to be great television. I will say that." The only real question is: Who was the audience supposed to be?
  
  
• Putin: A prime candidate, when it comes to answering that question, is Vladimir Putin. We still have no firm idea as to why the Russian has such a hold on his American counterpart. Kompromat? Trump Tower Moscow? Love of strongmen? Manipulation of a weak man by a stronger one? Similarly, we are not sure when Putin's influence became a part of this particular interaction. Did he help set the ambush? Or did he start pulling strings Thursday night, when he realized he was at risk of a serious setback?
  
  We'll also add one other detail that might be germane to assigning some level of influence to Putin. As we noted earlier this week, the White House has assumed a task previously handled by the White House Correspondents' Association, and is now deciding which outlets do, and do not, get credentialed for events like yesterday's Oval Office meeting. And somehow, some way, the United States' two preeminent news services—the Associated Press and Reuters—were not granted access, while Russia's preeminent news service—TASS—was. Later, the White House claimed that was an error, that TASS was not supposed to be there, and that the reporter was escorted from the room. Maybe that's true, though it's worth noting that the White House is usually very good at denying access to those individuals and organizations that it does not want to have access. Like, say, the AP.
  
  In any event, all we know for sure is that Putin was the big winner yesterday. And when he wins, it isn't generally due to dumb luck.
  
  
• Vance: J.D. Vance is clearly trying to carve out a meaningful role in the Trump administration, with the idea that one day, he will be anointed as successor to the Orange Throne. We've been planning a piece on this subject for a couple of weeks, and more pressing stuff keeps pushing it to the back burner. The short version is that Vance is delusional. That said, just because he's delusional doesn't mean he isn't trying to make nice with the big dog. Yesterday's performance from Vance was clearly about that (and see below).
  
  
• The Age of Empires: This is the week that (Z) lectures on the Spanish-American War and the rise of the American Empire. So, imperialistic language, and thinking, are certainly on his mind. And it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Trump and Vance are both thinking in a manner more consistent with 1895 than 2025, with this notion that the U.S. is some sort of feudal lord, and that the miserable serfs of Ukraine must bend the knee. That said, Trump and Vance have conveniently forgotten that whether we are talking about a feudal system or "The White Man's Burden," the stronger partner still has a responsibility to defend the weaker one.
  
  
• Zelenskyy: Of everything we write in this section, this portion is undoubtedly the shakiest, so proceed accordingly. We have not been observing Zelenskyy closely for the last decade-plus, nor are we knowledgeable about the nuances and subtleties of Ukrainian culture.
  
  With that out of the way, one could certainly conclude that Zelenskyy failed his nation yesterday. After all, he was there to engage in diplomacy and ended up in a shouting match. He was effectively ejected from the White House, and the chances that the U.S. will continue to render aid to his cause are much reduced.
  
  For our part, we would largely reject this assessment. First, keep in mind that Zelenskyy does not have the benefit of considering the response from Trump/Vance for several hours (or several days, or several weeks), and then picking the best possible course of action, aided by input from advisors. He had to make decisions in real time, based on his best on-the-fly assessment. And his assessment was that there was no actual possibility of a deal, and that he was being used as a prop for Trump's political theater. We've had considerably more time than Zelenskyy had to consider his position, and yet we see no reason to think his conclusions were in error.
  
  It is true that he could have dropped to his knees, either literally or metaphorically, and paid homage to Trump. And some might argue that is what Zelenskyy should have done, for the good of his country. However, that's not going to achieve much if there's actually no deal to be had. Further, like Trump, Zelenskyy is also a former TV star, and also knows a thing or two about playing to the audience. Performing weakness and supplicancy might have been what Trump wanted, but it would send a very problematic message to Putin and other world leaders, and would also be very bad for morale in Ukraine. Our confidence in this assessment grew when we heard one Ukrainian, interviewed on TV, make this observation: "Dignity is also a value. If Russia cannot destroy it, why does the U.S. think it can?"
  
  We can certainly see why some people would assign at least some of the blame to Zelenskyy. And if someone feels that way, we cannot strongly disagree. But we also do not agree, based on what is known right now.

Again, all of this is just our insta-response. What happened yesterday was so out of the ordinary, and will likely be so transformative, that we foresee entire books being written about it.

The Response

The Democratic response to yesterday's events was entirely predictable, and is not particularly interesting. If you would like to read about Democrats screaming to high heaven, you can click here or here. At the moment, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is the de facto head of the Party; you can read his disdainful statement here.

As to the Republicans, most of them quickly fell into line. We'll highlight three examples here. First is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who fancies himself a big supporter of Ukraine, who has visited that nation nine times since the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and who was part of a pre-White House meeting with Zelenskyy yesterday at which he (Graham) wore a Ukrainian flag lapel pin. After the Oval Office fiasco, Graham held a press conference. The Senator described the meeting as an "absolute, utter disaster," said that Zelenskyy needs to apologize to Trump immediately, and opined that, in the end, it's probably best that Zelenskyy just resign. "I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again," he remarked. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Second is "Secretary of State" Marco Rubio. Take a look at this photo, which was brought to our attention by readers M.P. in Dallas, TX and J.G. in San Diego, CA:

Notice, first of all, Vance's tie. It is red. It is tied incorrectly, such that it hangs down below his balls, instead of down to his beltline. Whose style in ties does that mimic?

Now, take a look at Rubio. Could he look any more uninterested? He's there because it's a high-level meeting with a foreign dignitary and he (Rubio) is secretary of state, at least in name. However, he played no role in the discussions, and he might as well have slept in yesterday.

Despite the fact that Rubio has clearly been sidelined, and despite the fact that he's effectively being humiliated as some version of a political cuckold, and despite the fact that the above shot of Rubio became fodder for a million memes yesterday, the Secretary was all over the place yesterday selling the Trumpy line. He got on eX-Twitter to share this thought:

Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before. Thank you for putting America First. America is with you!

One would think that someone who is the United States Secretary of State would know their history a little better. For example, we might expect Rubio to have heard of a little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis, where John F. Kennedy stood up to Nikita Khrushchev in a manner that required just a wee bit more courage than Vance and Trump browbeating Zelenskyy.

Later, Rubio appeared on CNN and refused, despite being prompted several times, to say that Putin is responsible for starting the war with Ukraine. This despite the fact that he said so many times when he was in the Senate. That said, while Rubio refused to blame Putin, he also did not repeat the current White House line, which is that the whole thing is Zelenskyy's fault. This is pretty good evidence that he still knows the score.

Third, and finally, there's Marc Thiessen of The Washington Post. Recall that we mentioned him yesterday, because he wrote a piece lionizing Trump for scoring such a brilliant diplomatic coup with the deal to access Ukraine's rare earths. Last night, however, Thiessen's opinion had... evolved:

This is entirely Zelensky's fault. Trump greeted him graciously, was ready to turn the page. Just said he wanted to get help Ukraine get it's (sic) territory back. And Z comes in and gets into a fight in public? I've never seen anything like it in my life.

If Trump is as skilled a diplomat as Thiessen claimed on Thursday, and if this deal was so very good for the United States, then shouldn't Trump have been able to salvage the situation, even if Zelenskyy was behaving unreasonably? We don't seem to recall, in our study of history, Franklin D. Roosevelt threatening to reject the agreements made at the Casablanca Conference because Joseph Stalin hurt his fee-fees.

The point here is that the usual suspects did what they always do, and promptly fell in line behind Trump. There is nothing that matters, no fact that is relevant, except that Trump is ALWAYS right. 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. Hmmmm... we don't seem to recall the right-wingers complaining about that during this meeting:

Or this one:

Zelenskyy, Mohammed bin Salman and Kim Jong-Un all dress the way they do because they are communicating something they deem important to their citizenry. In Zelenskyy's case, he's been wearing the same exact outfit since the war with Russia began. It's formal enough to say "leader" and military enough to say "I am sharing in the struggle." Everyone knows this is what is going on, and anyone who carps about it is full of crap.

All of this said, while the Democratic response was basically uniform across all members of the party, the Republican response was not. Yes, plenty of spine-challenged folks bent over backward to make excuses for Trump. However, there were also a number of notable right-wing figures who were critical. A few examples:

• Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE): "A bad day for America's foreign policy. Ukraine wants independence, free markets and rule of law. It wants to be part of the West. Russia hates us and our Western values. We should be clear that we stand for freedom."
  
  
• Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY): "[T]he only winner here today was Vladimir Putin and Russia because a deal did not come to be, which is also why I believe it's critically important for President Zelenskyy and President Trump to get back together and work towards finalizing an agreement, because when this conflict does come to an end, and it will at some point, when it comes to an end, Ukraine is going to need significant U.S. and European investment to rebuild."
  
  
• Karl Rove: This is why diplomacy should never be conducted in public. I'm confident that we now know that if, for example, in World War II, there were heated disagreements between Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill - but we didn't see them broadcast on TV. And we what we saw were statements that came out of these big conferences in which the allies made an effort to move forward together.
  
  It is hard going to be incredibly hard to walk back from the kind of animosity that we saw in that room today, and to walk back some of those statements. It could have been done. And if it had not been - if cameras had not been running.
  
  But the only winner out of today is Vladimir Putin. This is a mistake to have it and have it broadcast. It was a mistake for Zelensky to get his—get his dander up. And it was it was a mistake for the president and the vice president to be so public in their in their comments.
  
  
• Noah Rothman (National Review): "[T]his is not a TV show. It's real geopolitical diplomacy centered on a real war on the European continent with real and grave implications not just for the stability of the Atlantic Alliance but the U.S.-led world order around the globe. This is not a game for the benefit of a terminally online audience that is constitutionally allergic to earnestness and solemnity. There will be consequences that follow from this, and they will almost certainly be bad for U.S. security and that of our allies."

We tend to dismiss the reflexive Democratic and Republican responses, because those folks could very well be playing the role that their career requires them to play. But the four folks above (and many others) are not giving the reflexive responses, they are making declarations against interests (lawyers' term) or are fulfilling the criterion of embarrassment (historians' term). They are unlikely to say the things they are saying unless they believe them. And what they are saying is: (1) Donald Trump deserves at least part of the blame here; (2) Having cameras in the room was a huge misstep, and (3) Russia is the bad guy here, regardless of what the White House says.

Also instructive, in our view, is the response from leaders across the world. First, because they have less need to lie than domestic politicians. Second, because they are the deciders when it comes to partnering with the U.S. (or not) going forward. With few exceptions (ahem, Viktor Orbán), leaders across the world were not impressed with what Trump did yesterday. Some examples:

• Polish PM Donald Tusk: "Dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone."
  
  
• Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez: "Ukraine, Spain stands with you."
  
  
• Moldovan President Maia Sandu: "The truth is simple.
  
  "Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor.
  
  "Ukraine defends its freedom—and ours.
  
  "We stand with Ukraine."
  
  
• Czech PM Petr Fiala: "We stand with Ukraine and on the side of the free world!"
  
  
• German Chancellor-to-be Friedrich Merz: "[W]e stand with Ukraine in good and in testing times. We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war."
  
  
• Portuguese PM Luís Montenegro: "Ukraine can always count on Portugal."
  
  
• French President Emmanuel Macron: "There is an aggressor: Russia.
  
  "There is a people under attack: Ukraine.
  
  "We were all right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago and to continue to do so.
  
  "We are Americans, Europeans, Canadians, Japanese and many others.
  
  "Thanks to all those who helped and continue to help. And respect to those who, since the beginning, have been fighting. Because they are fighting for their dignity, their independence, for their children and for the security of Europe."
  
  
• Finnish PM Petteri Orpo: "Finland and the Finnish people stand firmly with Ukraine. We will continue our unwavering support and work towards a just and lasting peace."

It is true, they are not calling Trump out by name. But it's still clear where they stand, right?

What Next?

At this point, we have absolutely no idea what the Trump administration will do next. We continue to believe that if he turns his back on Ukraine, there will be major domestic blowback. But we could be wrong about that. Or, we could be right, but Trump could think he'll get away with it. Or, Trump could recognize that he's going to take some damage, but he's got other concerns that outweigh that. Or, he could be so far gone mentally that he's got no real plan at all. Anything is possible. The only thing we feel at all confident in writing is that this is not a negotiating tactic to get more rare earths out of Ukraine. If the goal was to improve the terms of the deal, then publicly embarrassing Zelenskyy was not the way to get there. Even Trump surely understands that.

As to Zelenskyy, while we admit that we don't know him all that well, and we certainly don't know the Ukraine and its culture, we actually feel we can say a few more intelligent things about his path forward. That is because he is, you know, rational. He really only has four choices, at this point: (1) try to patch things up with Trump, (2) move forward without the U.S., (3) resign, or (4) surrender to Russia.

Options #3 and #4 can be dismissed out of hand. Zelenskyy is not the type, and if he was open to these choices, he would have exercised one of the other of them already. Our guess—and we don't think this is especially bold—is that he will allow the dust to settle a bit, and then will try to find some sort of rapprochement with the Trump administration.

Zelenskyy has already said he will not apologize, and we think he's telling the truth. Again, it would signal weakness to Trump, Putin, the other leaders of the world, and the Ukrainian people. However, despite Trump's and Vance's insinuations to the contrary, Zelenskyy is perfectly willing to thank the U.S., even profusely. He did it in his speech to Congress on December 21, 2022, for example:

Now, on this special Christmastime, I want to thank you, all of you. I thank every American family which cherishes the warmth of its home and wishes the same warmth to other people. I thank President Biden and both parties, at the Senate and the House, for your invaluable assistance. I thank your cities and your citizens who supported Ukraine this year, who hosted our Ukrainians, our people, who waved our national flags, who acted to help us. Thank you all, from everyone who is now at the front line, from everyone who is awaiting victory... [Your] Financial assistance is also critically important, and I would like to thank you, thank you very much, thank you for both financial packages you have already provided us with and the ones you may be willing to decide on.

Zelenskyy even thanked the U.S. yesterday, AFTER being ejected from the White House:

Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.

CNN quickly put together all the "thank yous" to the U.S. they could find that Zelenskyy has offered in English, and came up with 33 different instances. Undoubtedly, if the outlet had more time to look, and if they had been able to include thank yous offered in Ukrainian, the number would be higher.

The point is that maybe Zelenskyy can give Trump a hearty thank you, and that will allow Trump to claim he's being properly respected, while also allowing Zelenskyy to avoid looking weak. Then, at some point, if Donald Trump Jr. is killed in a hail of enemy gunfire, Zelenskyy can repay his Don by preparing the body for burial. Or not. In any case, the bottom line is that there may still be some middle ground here, particularly if the White House uses some of the (few) grown-ups in the administration as intermediaries. The odds aren't great, but they aren't zero.

At the same time, Zelenskyy would not be doing his job if he was not trying to lay the groundwork for a post-U.S. war effort. And, as the messages above make clear, the nations upon which he would need to rely appear to be amenable. Beyond being "charitable," the leaders of Europe surely realize that if Putin takes some or all of Ukraine, he'll come after other chunks of Europe next. Better to keep the Russian at bay when he's 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 kilometers away than when he's 100 or 200 or 300 kilometers away.

The other thing the leaders of Europe surely realize is that Trump simply isn't a reliable partner. Maybe it's mental decline, maybe it's being in the thrall of Putin, maybe it's his inner populist, maybe it's something else, but he just can't be trusted. Even if a nation makes a deal with his administration, he might very well bail out at any time, and humiliate them in the process. Further, even if he doesn't bail out, can he be trusted to keep his word? His signature on a treaty, these days, is surely not worth a lot more than was Adolf Hitler's signature on the Munich Agreement.

Obviously, this goes far beyond just Ukraine. It includes other alliances, both extant and in the future. It includes trade agreements. It includes intelligence sharing. It includes research into weapons development. How can any nation seriously commit to any such partnership with the United States right now? Not only did the American people twice elect a president with no interest in diplomacy, but the U.S. Congress has done nothing to change his course. Even once Trump is out of office or dead, there's no way to be certain this pattern won't play out again, with whomever the next Republican president might be. Some folks are already writing that NATO will soon be dead. We are not sure they are wrong, especially since killing NATO has long been a goal of Trump.

Perhaps the most damning assessment yesterday came from Kaja Kallas who, as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is the European Union's top diplomat: "Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge." We wouldn't be surprised if Trump agreed with this sentiment. The problem is that because he thinks the U.S. government is U.S.A., Inc., and because he's really not a very good businessman, he doesn't appreciate that the "savings" that might come from not helping Ukraine/NATO/etc. will pale in comparison to the costs the U.S. will pay if it yields its position as the center of the political, diplomatic and economic universe. It may not be long before he, and the American people, learn this lesson the hard way. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones