Hero Worship

Oh, get a room. Sally Jenkins, reportedly an award-winning journalist, writes in a recent column in The Atlantic

Suavity is a sorely missed ingredient in the American presidency. The effortless charm of a Roosevelt or a Reagan, a Bush or a Clinton, projected a particular brand of power. Suave means a kind of athletic ease and self-command in difficult, spotlighted circumstances, the assurance that solutions are at hand if only we all hold our composure and act right-headedly. Here was the ultra-suave Barack Obama’s message to the basketball player Caitlin Clark in a small but noteworthy exchange over the WNBA All-Star weekend: It never hurts to be winsome. In fact, it can help you win.

Almost unbelievably, it goes downhill from there.

You can read in her piece about the soiree of the ex-President and Clark's Indiana Fever as the team was "milling around an indoor court at the newly opened Obama Presidential Center on Chicago's South Side." Obama, the breathless Jenkins recounted, was suave enough "to gently remind them of certain truths." When he spoke to Clark, there was "a sweetness in the moment, a subtle teaching. In the nicest way, Obama shored Clark up..."

Jenkins remarks that the young superstar guard

can be either mesmerizing to watch or tiresome, depending on how aggrieved she feels on the day. Clark has complained that she is intentionally targeted with hard fouls—and sometimes she is, but not because she’s white. Mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an otherwise insuperable player.

Highlights from video and television suggest that Clark can be mesmerizing to watch or tiresome and is sometimes "intentionally targeted with hard fouls."  Further, Jenkins comments, "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an ohtewise insuperable player."

I don't watch WNBA games. But if the journalist believes that "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop" a great player, she has not watched the National Basketball Association much in the past quarter century. The men often play an o'le defense (defense, optional), much to the annoyance of most of us in middle-age or above. And when the ball handler is a star, it is even more common for the defender (word used loosely) to make only a disinterested effort at stopping him. (If Jenkins were referring specifically  to the women's league, she would not have used "time-honored" and would have clarified her remark.)

Nonetheless, she really is more interested in aleging that the mauling of Clark is "not because she's white."

But we don't know that, and Jenkins makes no effort to explain why she believes that.  It is very likely that jealousy is involved. Though there have been seveal excellent players in the NBA, all have gone under the radar, elicing little attention or endorsements. Caitlin Clark joins the league,  garners tremendous publicity and while lighting up the league, reaps endorsements and credit for making the WNBA a hot ticket (or at least much hotter than in the past). 

Gun to head, I would say that race and/or the sexuality (straight) of Clark plays a role. However, that's only speculation- I would not assume, unlike Jenkins. I admit I may be wrong; she leaves no doubt of her certainty.

She also is certain about the ex-President.  The article was not only about Jenkins' perception that the player embodies a sense of entitlement but also about Barack Obama's awesomeness.  The latter "gave her grace" and "a lesson in how to be winning."

As it happens, President Obama was himself given a lesson in winning in his second term.  One chapter in the recently-published U.S. Foreign Policy and Presidential Leadership in an Age of Strategic Uncertainty

explores the rise and fall of President Barack Obama’s “reset” policy toward Russia, highlighting its conciliatory approach and strategic missteps. ​ Obama sought to improve US-Russia relations, leveraging cooperation on arms control, counterterrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation. ​ However, his administration underestimated Russia’s expansionist ambitions, particularly in Ukraine, where limited sanctions and non-lethal aid failed to deter Russia’s aggression. ​ The reset policy, rooted in Obama’s consequentialist worldview, prioritized avoiding escalation but overlooked long-term security risks. ​ Ultimately, the policy’s shortcomings contributed to strained US-Russia relations, emboldened Moscow’s neo-imperialist aspirations, and left lasting negative impacts on European and global security.

In early 2012,  President Obama assured outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with Russia once he was re-elected later that year. Medvedev told Obama that he'd relay the information to incoming president Vladimir Putin.

Message received. Russia in 2014 annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, part of which still is occupied by the Kremlin. The US response, consisting of mild sanctions, was tepid.

In 2024, we learned

According to Watergate journalist Bob Woodward's forthcoming book, War, (President Joe) Biden expressed discontent during a private conversation late last year over how his former running mate handled Russian troops invading Ukraine's eastern Donbas region in February 2014. At the time, Biden was serving as vice president under former President Barack Obama.

"They f***** up in 2014," Woodward quoted Biden saying to a close friend in December 2023, according to the Associated Press, who obtained a copy of Woodward's book before its publishing date of October 15. "Barack never took [Russian President Vladimir Putin] seriously."

Biden is also quoted as telling the friend that the White House "never should have let Putin just walk in there" and that Washington "did nothing" when Russia invaded.

Many Ukrainians consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 merely a continuation of the war begun in 2014. This is the particular "brand of power projected" by four presidents, whom she believes include Barack Obama and not Joe Biden. Yet, President Biden did what President Obama did not do and chose to defend Ukraine aggesively. As Sally Jenkins will tell you, Barack Obama knows "winning"- he did it twice. Unwittingly, he helped Vladimir Putin also do it.

Share |

Tripartite

In May, Edward Wong in The New York Times wrote that President Trump's

actions and statements suggest he might be envisioning a world in which each of the three so-called great powers — the United States, China and Russia — dominates its part of the globe, some foreign policy analysts say.

It would be a throwback to a 19th-century style of imperial rule.

Mr. Trump has said he wants to take Greenland from Denmark, annex Canada and re-establish American control of the Panama Canal. Those bids to extend U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere are the clearest signs yet of his desire to create a sphere of influence in the nation’s backyard.

He has criticized allies and talked about withdrawing U.S. troops from around the globe. That could benefit Russia and China, which seek to diminish the American security presence in Europe and Asia. Mr. Trump often praises President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping, China’s leader, as strong and smart men who are his close friends.

In March, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had argued much the same, that

The best assessment of Trump’s strategic “vision” that I’ve seen comes from Alex Younger, a former head of the British intelligence service known as MI6. He said in a Feb. 21 interview on BBC’s “Newsnight” that “we are in a new era where, by and large, international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions. They’re going to be determined by strong men and deals"...

Trump seems to envision a new balance of power with three poles: the United States plus Russia and China, whose leaders he sees as kindred spirits. The rest of the world, including the United States’ oldest allies, must fend for itself.

Two months later, as more evidence rolled in, Edward Wang in The New York  Times agreed, writing that President Donald Trump's

actions and statements suggest he might be envisioning a world in which each of the three so-called great powers — the United States, China and Russia — dominates its part of the globe, some foreign policy analysts say.

It would be a throwback to a 19th-century style of imperial rule.

Mr. Trump has said he wants to take Greenland from Denmark, annex Canada and re-establish American control of the Panama Canal. Those bids to extend U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere are the clearest signs yet of his desire to create a sphere of influence in the nation’s backyard.

He has criticized allies and talked about withdrawing U.S. troops from around the globe. That could benefit Russia and China, which seek to diminish the American security presence in Europe and Asia. Mr. Trump often praises President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping, China’s leader, as strong and smart men who are his close friends.

Not quite as presciently- it appears- Ignatius had added

European leaders tell me they are so worried about an expansionist Russia that they are prepared to take a strong stand in Ukraine by committing to send troops there to deter further aggression after a ceasefire. The Russians are outraged, but if Europe holds firm, will Trump really take Putin’s side against America’s closest allies? I doubt it.

Doubt no longer. In the months which have followed, Donald repeatedly has taken Russia's side againt Ukraine, pressuring Zelenskyy to give up territory and on a few occasions claiming that Ukraine itself started the war. While the President criticizes NATO, his Administration has advocated "ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a  perpetually expanding alliance."

That attitude throws into doubt the possibility of an agreement ending the Russia-Ukraine war which would give Ukraine significant security guarantees. The President does not view the transatlantic alliance as helpful to his dream of a world dominated by the world's three greatest powers- Russia, China, and the USA. Unfortunately

... the haggling over who gets dominance over what and where would likely come at the expense of (countries other than the USA, China, and Russia).

"Today's major powers are seeking to negotiate a new global order primaraily with each other," Monica Toft, professor of international relations at Tufts University in Massachusetts wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs.

"iIn a scenario in which the United States, China, and Russia all agree that they have a vital interest in avoiding a nuclear war, acknowledging each other's spheres of influence can serve as a mechanism to deter escalation," Toft said.

If that were the caase, "negotiations to end the war in Ukraine could resemble a new Yalta," she added.

Yet the thought of a Ukraine deemed by Trump to be in Russia's sphere is likely to send shivers down the spines of many in Europe- not least in ukraine itself.

"The success or failure of Ukraine to defend its sovereignty is going to have a lot of impact in terms of what the global system ends p looking like a generation from now," Mankoff said.

When Donald Trump forces an end- an unjust end- to the war in eastern Europe, he will have taken a step in promoting Vladimir Putin's plan to gain control over the entire region. "He (Putin) wants to see it happen," President Trump says. We know what Putin wants, and it has been clear since the beginning of this presidential term that Donald Trump wants the same thing.

Trump: "I saw a very interesting President Putin today. I mean, he wants to see it happen. He wants to see it. He told me very strongly. I believe him. Don't forget, we went through the Russia Russia Russia hoax together and he'd call me, I'd call him, I'd say 'Can you believe… pic.twitter.com/CKFq6bYYe2

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 28, 2025

 

Share |

As the British Would Say, "Rubbish"

Former Ohio senator and current Vice President and master of irony:

JD Vance on Russia-Ukraine: "What I admire about the president is he's not trying to focus on every nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a half year ago, he's trying to focus on the nitpicky details of now." pic.twitter.com/UCXG63U317

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 24, 2025

Focusing on a nitpicky detail of how the thing started three and a half years ago is exactly what Donald Trump has done. He always has blamed Ukraine, invaded from the east, for starting the war with Russia. As President, on February 18 he told reporters at Mar-a-Lago of Volodymyr Zelensky "You should have never started it. You could have made a deal." At the White House on April 14, he stated "you don't start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles."   And speaking on Fox and Friends the day after the August 19 summit with European leaders, he argued 

Russia is a powerful military nation. You know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation. It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size.

Donald Trump likes and admires Vladimir Putin. Putin projects strength, as does the American President.  However, unlike Trump, the Russian President is in total control of his country, a goal Trump obviously has set for himself.

And wealthy, perhaps the fourth richest individual in the world. Although we don't know the source of his wealth

The Russian president is worth up to $200 billion, according to financier Bill Browder. Once the largest foreign investor in Russia, Browder testified in 2017 that Putin's wealth was amassed after the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed in 2003 for fraud and tax evasion.

"After Khodorkovsky's conviction, the other oligarchs went to Putin and asked him what they needed to do to avoid sitting in the same cage as Khodorkovsky," Browder told the US Senate Judiciary Committee. "From what followed, it appeared that Putin's answer was, '50%.'"

That $200 billion estimate would make Putin one of the richest people in the world, behind Elon Musk and Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, and above Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Putin is often photographed wearing "high-end luxury watches" that retail "for multiple times his supposed annual income", said Fortune. He is also rumoured to be the owner of numerous homes and hundreds of cars, as well as dozens of aircraft and helicopters.

His "lavish lifestyle" is regularly "on display" said the UK Foreign Office in 2022, after the war with Ukraine broke out and the new sanctions on Russia were announced.

That's very important. As former Trump national security advisor John Bolton has explained, "if Trump believes that he has friendly relations with someone, you know, like Vladimir Putin, then relations between the two countries will be much better."

As a consequence, Trump

has made a habit of blurring the boundary between domestic policy grievances and foreign policy goals. He is uniquely vulnerable to manipulation, critics say, because he views national and international affairs through a single prism of self-interest. 

And so the American President has embraced Vladimir Putin and the latter's argument and rhetoric, which makes it less likely that an outcome critical to the security of Ukraine and the European continent will be achieved. That's hardly the stuff of "nitpicky details."

 

Share |

A Cowardly Kind of Swagger

 

 

Share |

Bleeding Ukraine

To be fair- and when haven't I been fair to Donald Trump?- I don't actually believe that this is what our President was telling her.

June 25. Trump tells a Ukrainian journalist—whose husband is on the front lines—that he’ll see what he can do to help shield Ukraine’s skies from Russian attacks.

July 1. Pentagon chief Hegseth halts vital aid to Ukraine, including support to defend cities from missile strikes. pic.twitter.com/by2js2c3h1

— Resurgam (@Resurgamhub) July 2, 2025

Attempting to appear reassuring, President Trump tells the foreign reporter "I can see you're very well- you know, it's amazing." Learning that her husband is fighting in Ukraine, Trump notes "well, that's tough, you know."  When he realizes she is asking about supplying Ukraine with Patriot anti-missile missiles, Trump states "we're going to see if we can make some available."

As a skilled politician- and actor- Trump held out the hope, without a foolish promise, that Ukraine would get the help it needed. With "it's amazing" and "well, that's tough, you know," he was extending sympathy. Unfortunately, he concluded with the utterly patronizing "that's a very good question and I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see it's very important to you."

If appearances are telling- and sometimes they're not- the reporter wasn't buying it. "We're going to see if we can make some available" was vague, a wise approach because 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a pause in sending a shipment of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine amid concern about the U.S. military’s stockpiles, according to two defense officials, two congressional officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision.

Hegseth ordered the delay weeks after he issued a memo ordering a review of the U.S. stockpile of munitions, which has been depleted after years of the United States’ sending weapons to Ukraine to defend against the Russia invasion, as well as nearly two years of military operations in the Middle East as the United States fought Houthi rebels in Yemen and defended Israel and allies against Iran, four of the officials said.

The munitions and other weapons could be held up until the assessment is complete, the two defense officials and two congressional officials said, and if the munitions are in short supply or needed in other parts of the world, they could be held back even longer.

The weapons being delayed include dozens of Patriot interceptors that can defend against incoming Russian missiles, thousands of 155 mm high explosive Howitzer munitions, more than 100 Hellfire missiles, more than 250 precision-guided missile systems known as GMLRS and dozens each of Stinger surface-to-air missiles, AIM air-to-air missiles and grenade launchers, the two defense officials, two congressional officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision said.

For some of us who are not experts in military weaponry, this sounds at least plausible. Then a member of the Administration blew the cover when

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “This decision was made to put America’s interests first following a DOD review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran." The Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The spokeswoman is saying "We're not running out of weapons. We simply don't want to help democratic nations when invaded by totalitarian states". The macho "just ask Iran" so precious and performative. If Iran were put under truth serum, it probably would say something quite different.

So what seems clear from the intel, is that we probably should have reloaded the B2s, and gone for a second round. Instead the impulsive toddler was desperate to have a strong ending to the movie and declare a cease fire.

This is a show to him, entertainment, and he’s the…

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@AdamKinzinger) June 30, 2025

 

Donald Trump is so rude and crude that we tend to forget that he is a shrewd politician.  He promised merely "we're going to see" about the weapons because that is devoid of meaning. It was a moment in which he faced a young, obviously distressed woman and feigned concern. And then he proceeded with his strategy of acting as an instrument of the imperialist ambition of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

                                       HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY

Share |

Inflammation

There is so much to be said in the latest edition of "President Trump Tries to Break Up the Atlantic Alliance."

We may have thought things couldn't get worse after the USA sided with Russia in two votes at the United Nations. The USA sided with Russia, North Korea, and Belarus in voting against a resolution which condemned Russia's actions and supported Ukraine's territorial integrity. Then we supported a resolution we drafted which omitted criticism of Russia while calling for an end to the war.  (Both resolutions were tabled.)

Then came the Trump-Vance- Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office, which prompted a vigorous defense of the President from a few Republicans who would appear not to have watched the confrontation. This is not a case of mere difference in judgement, as when the compromised Lindsey Graham saying that he has "never been more proud" of Trump, nor Secretary of State Rubio, Speaker Johnson, and Senator Lee substituting "America" for "Russia" in claiming the President has "put America first."

There were Republicans who instead opted for self-delusion or, less generously, lying. Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona fantasized "Dictator Zelensky had the audacity to disrespect President @realDonaldTrump and VO @JDVance during what should have been a friendly meeting, and @POTUS rightfully showed him the door."

Dissatisfied with the cordial exchange among the three leaders which had characterized the meeting, Vance decided to poke Zelensky with

I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, 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.

Instead of rebuking the Vice President for lecturing him, suggesting he bow down to Trump by "thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict," Zelensky asked Vance "have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?"

Vance was unable to say that he ever had. Zelensky could have pointed out that Vance was speaking from ignorance but instead replied "come once." That was what Andy Biggs called "the audacity to disrespect Donald Trump and JD Vance." 

If this was not the "friendly meeting" Biggs said could have come about, it was the meeting set up by President Trump. It was on Trump's ground, a venue the American president chose. Vance claimed  Zelensky had "come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media." However, it was one Ukrainian and two Americans, one of whom (Vice President Vance) was there to praise Donald Trump and urge worship of him. The meeting was set up by the President with media the President wanted there and featured a bully and his sycophant teaming up against a wartime leader. 

Similarly, Ron DeSantis, whom candidate Trump enjoyed calling "Ron DeSanctimonius," posted on X "the disrespect shown by Zelensky to @POTUS was jarring- especially given how much support the US has provided."  Indiana senator Jim Banks actually contended "Zelensky ungratefully expects us to bankroll and escalate another forever war- all while disrespecting the President. This entitlement is insulting."

That's an unwavering supporter of Donald J. Trump accusing another president- another human being, even of a sense of "entitlement."  Donald Trump whines when anyone dares even to question him and claimed a right to theft and possession of classified, even top secret, documents. By contrast, it's not "entitlement" when, as the BBC explained

It's going to be a very hard thing to do business like this," said Trump. It's going to be a tough deal to make because the attitudes have to change."

The President and Vice-President reprimanded Zelensky, appearing most angered by what they perceived as his "attitude."

Just say thank you," Vance demanded at one point.

Zelensky's responses- which were to fact-check the two far more powerful men and argue his corner- seemed driven by the existential nature of this moment.

Donald Trump, however, had far different motivation indicated by this segment, from a commentary/podcast by Stephen A. Smith. Trump gives Vladimir Putin a negotiating point with "you're not winning the war," He waves his finger at Zelensky and at 4:23 actually pushes him:

This is not how diplomacy works and it is not how meetings between two (or more) individuals work, (Adding insult to insult, after the meeting the Ukrainian delegation was kicked out of the White House.) It is how one individual seeks to seek dominance and to prove he is the alpha dog. And it is Donald Trump trying to precipitate a physical fight he then would have blamed on the Ukrainian. (Don't buy it? Think of how pleased you are when anyone but a close friend or family member shoves you.) It fell far short of aggravated assault because Trump might not have come out of that unscathed. However, it was an unmistakable act of provocation and classic go-to move of a bully.

Not that anyone has taken notice of that, though, because such things tend to get lost in the despicable words and acts of a uniquely despicable human being. Yet even without referring to that incident, but emphasizing President Trump's acquiescence to Vladimir Putin's plot line- Steve Schmidt summarizes (first sentence at :07, the rest at 6:48 of the video below)

There has never been a moment of greater disgrace that has ever taken place in the Executive Mansion or in the Oval Office than this..... If Donald Trump gets his knife in the back of Ukraine, it's the United States that will bleed out and we'll bury more of our children than we'll be able to count. This is the warning: on this day of epic national disgrace, without question, in my fifty-four years of life, the worst, the lowest, in our history. What today was, was a Donald-Trump inspired 9/11 attack on our values, on

our ideals.

              

Share |

Blaming Zelenskyy

One of the Republican Party's chief snowflakes is at it again.

🚨JD Vance goes BEAST-MODE on Zelenskyy trying to sabotage a Trump Peace deal:

“His country wouldn’t exist without the generosity of the United States of America. Say thank you. It’s stupid. Badmouthing Trump in public will not change his mind. Zelenskyy needs better consultants pic.twitter.com/96yzVIYKYn

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 20, 2025

 "'Badmouthing' the President of the United States?"  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy let Donald Trump off easy. As The Hill recounts

A testy back-and-forth has quickly escalated after Ukraine was left out of talks between U.S. and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, drawing a rebuke from Zelensky.

Trump responded Tuesday with unfounded allegations that Zelensky “started” the war, with the Ukrainian leader responding Wednesday that the U.S. president was living in a “web of disinformation.” Trump sent his angry Truth Social post hours later.

This exchange came with the backdrop of disagreement when recently

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative for Ukraine and Russia, said in an interview that the United States would like to see elections in Ukraine, possibly by the end of the year, following a potential cease-fire agreement: “Most democratic nations have elections in their time of war. I think it is important they do so...

As discussed elsewhere, the prohibition of wartime elections is established in Ukraine’s statutory law. Ukraine’s Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of wartime elections, except for Article 83(4) that provides for the extension of the Parliament’s powers until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Ukrainian Parliament), elected after the termination of martial law or state of emergency. Nothing similar is made with respect to the president. According to one of the drafters of the Constitution, this special treatment of Parliament was originally aimed to enhance Parliament’s standing in the constellation of powers and prevent possible abuses during wartime or national emergency.

Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” (2015) prohibits the holding of elections during martial law and the Electoral Code of Ukraine (2019) ordains suspension of all elections during such period. This is not an arbitrary political decision but a constitutionally viable solution aimed at ensuring stability in times of crisis. The law prevents governance from collapsing into uncertainty while the country is under extreme conditions.

As discussed elsewhere, conducting elections under the current conditions of war in Ukraine can undermine democratic principles and, therefore, is unconstitutional. Holding elections amid ongoing hostilities poses significant challenges to ensuring free and fair electoral processes, potentially leading to democratic erosion. In such volatile conditions, elections may not reflect the genuine will of the people, thereby compromising the legitimacy of the democratic system. Ukraine’s wartime conditions, thus, make elections both unconstitutional and unfeasible, with ongoing hostilities, mass displacement, security risks, and occupied territories undermining electoral integrity and legitimacy.

Though the last paragraph seems to be a bit of rationalization, Ukrainian law evidently encourages this "constitutionally viable solution." Further, knocking Zelenskyy or his nation for not adhering strictly to traditional democratic norms during wartime is a little rich coming from an appointee of President Donald Trump. 

Having encouraged the insurrection of January 6, 2021 to prevent a peaceful transition of power, the man who labeled the Democratic Party the "party of crime," Trump pardoned rioters who "violently assaulted police officers and those with long criminal records." Vice-President J.D. Vance has both defended the pardon of such criminals and denied the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The President who endorses an attempted coup at home so that he can remain in power blames Ukraine for starting the war with Russia and calls its leader a "dictator without elections." And no one in his Administration will concede that Vladimir Putin is himself a dictator.

I would prefer Ukraine hold elections because of the likelihood that, were Donald Trump still to be alive and kicking in autumn of 2028, he will try to remain in office by canceling the presidential election while possibly making a false analogy to Volodymyr Zelenskyy.. (Article 14 of the USA Constitution limits an individual from being elected more than twice. The document is silent on the number of terms or length of time a President can serve.)

But facts are facts, and the fact is that Ukraine was invaded by a country the current American President holds blameless. He has accused his counterpart of having been on the "gravy train" during the Biden Administration and says he "better move fast (or) he's not going to have a country left."  The mob boss masquerading as macho President has tried to shake down Zelenskyy, demanding ownership of 50% of Ukraine's mineral reserves because "I want it back."

Yet, a top representative of this Administration whines about "badmouthing Trump in public." Like President, like sycophant: always the victim.

 

Share |

Same Hymnbook Bad Hymn

Well, now, this sounds familiar. In February, 2020

The United States signed a peace agreement with Taliban militants on Saturday aimed at bringing an end to 18 years of bloodshed in Afghanistan and allowing U.S. troops to return home from America's longest war. Under the agreement, the U.S. would draw its forces down to 8,600 from 13,000 in the next 3-4 months, with the remaining U.S. forces withdrawing in 14 months.

The complete pullout, however, would depend on the Taliban meeting their commitments to prevent terrorism.

The following month, Bruce Reidel of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and the Center for Middle East Policy wrote

The fundamental flaw in this agreement is that the internationally recognized Afghan government, led by Ashraf Ghani, was not included in the negotiations. By accepting the Taliban demand to exclude the Afghan government, the Trump administration betrayed our ally and elevated the Taliban to our equal. It is worth remembering that at the height of their power in 2000, only three governments — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. Excluding the Afghan government is strikingly reminiscent of the Nixon administration’s deal with North Vietnam in 1973, which excluded the South Vietnam government. 

Moving west from Asia, signs point to the same play being run from the same playbook in that on Wednesday

Trump took the world by surprise as he announced the phone call on his Truth Social platform earlier, saying he and Putin had "both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine," using an unconfirmed figure for the toll in the conflict.

The US president said they had agreed to "work together very closely, including visiting each other's Nations" and to "have our respective teams start negotiations immediately" on Ukraine, 

Trump later called Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not included on the call with Putin. 

On a positive note, on Thursday Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth walked back his dangerous remarks of the day before

that the U.S. would not accept NATO membership for Ukraine or provide peacekeeping troops, and warned the country would not return to its pre-2014 borders. He also said NATO peacekeeping troops in Ukraine would not be covered by Article 5, a bedrock principle of the alliance that declares any attack on one nation is an attack on all. 

On a negative note, Hegseth also acknowledged "what he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of President Trump," rendering virtually anything stated by Hegseth as meaningless as we all knew it is in an Administration characterized by a Trump/Musk co-presidency. The two latter guys have plenty on the line with their business interests and ego, and Hegseth is to the elected, de jure President merely an alcoholic who looks good on television.

Putting all this aside:

Again, none of this is a surprise. He blames Ukraine for the war, and he says it’s up to Ukraine to “make peace.” Quit beating around the fucking bush: Donald Trump works for Vladimir Putin. Period. https://t.co/9EaS7LjtcA

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) February 12, 2025

Share |

The Risk of Multiplying Obama's Mistakes

Whenever Donald Trump tells a story which includes an anonymous person addressing him as "Sir," he is lying. However, we're being told here of plans to encourage Vladimir Putin when

Former president Donald Trump ramped up his attacks on NATO on Saturday, claiming he suggested to a foreign leader that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to member countries he views as not spending enough on their own defense.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?,’” Trump said during a rally at Coastal Carolina University. “I said, ‘You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent.’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

Finally, under President Joseph R. Biden, the USA is taking action to stem the threat posed by the world's second greatest superpower. This is occurring after four- no, twelve- years of disregarding the threat posed by Putin's Russia.  During Donald Trump's term, in February of 2018 in a commentary on the Brookings website, the Atlantic's Benjamin Haddad and Alina Polyakova of the Center for European Policy Analysis wrote of our 44th Chief Executive

Throughout his presidency, Obama consistently underestimated the challenge posed by Putin’s regime. His foreign policy was firmly grounded in the premise that Russia was not a national security threat to the United States. In 2012, Obama disparaged Mitt Romney for exaggerating the Russian threat—“the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama quipped.

The zinger was "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years." It was a mistake in judgement easily made, and I personally fell for the line. Haddad and Polyakova continue

This breezy attitude prevailed even as Russia annexed Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, intervened in Syria, and hacked the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Obama’s response during these critical moments was cautious at best, and deeply misguided at worst. Even the imposition of sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine was accompanied by so much propitiation and restraint elsewhere that it didn’t deter Russia from subsequent aggression, including the risky 2016 influence operation in the United States. Obama, confident that history was on America’s side, for the duration of his time in office underestimated the damaging impact Russia could achieve through asymmetric means.

Obama’s cautious Russia policy is grounded in three conceptual errors: a failure to grasp the true nature of the Russian threat, most clearly visible in his administration’s restrained response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; a “long view” of historical trends which in his view inexorably “bent” toward liberalism; and the perception that formidable domestic political obstacles stood in his way when it came to crafting a response to Putin’s assault on the elections in 2016.

Haddad and Polyakova acknowledge

Obama’s much-ballyhooed “Reset” with Russia, launched in 2009, was in keeping with optimistic attempts by every post-Cold War American administration to improve relations with Moscow out of the gate. Seizing on the supposed change of leadership in Russia, with Dmitry Medvedev temporarily taking over the presidency from Vladimir Putin, Obama’s team quickly turned a blind eye to Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia, which in retrospect was Putin’s opening move in destabilizing the European order.

The twelve years of failure may have been more like twenty years because

Like George W. Bush before him, Obama vastly overestimated the extent to which a personal relationship with a Russian leader could affect the bilateral relationship. U.S.-Russia disagreements were not the result of misunderstandings, but rather the product of long-festering grievances. Russia saw itself as a great power that deserved equal standing with the U.S. What Obama saw as gestures of good will—such as the 2009 decision to scrap missile defense plans for Poland and the Czech Republic—Russia interpreted as a U.S. retreat from the European continent. Moscow pocketed the concessions and increasingly inserted itself in European affairs. The Kremlin was both exploiting an easy opportunity and reasserting what it thought was its historic prerogative.

The analysis has application to the ongoing war Russia initiated four years later in eastern Europe because

Though Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was the final nail in the coffin of the Reset, President Obama remained reluctant to view Moscow as anything more than a local spoiler, and thought the whole mess was best handled by Europeans. France and Germany spearheaded the Minsk ceasefire process in 2014-2015, with U.S. support but without Washington at the table. The Obama administration did coordinate a far-ranging sanctions policy with the European Union—an important diplomatic achievement, to be sure. But to date, the sanctions have only had a middling effect on the Russian economy as a whole (oil and gas prices have hurt much more). And given that sanctions cut both ways—potential value is destroyed on both sides when economic activity is systematically prohibited—most of the sacrifice was (and continues to be) born by European economies, which have longstanding ties to Russia. In contrast, the costs of a robust sanctions policy have been comparatively minor in the United States; Obama spent little political capital to push them through at home.

"Obama spent little political capital...." can be applied to much of his time as President. But in their balanced evaluation of the President's actions toward Russia, the analysts add

The Obama administration also sought to shore up NATO’s eastern flank through the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), which stationed rotating troops in Poland and the Baltics while increasing the budget for U.S. support. Nevertheless, the president resisted calls from Congress, foreign policy experts, and his own cabinet to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine that would have raised the costs on Russia and helped Kyiv defend itself against Russian military incursion into the Donbas. As Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg, he viewed any deterrent moves by the United States as fundamentally not credible, because Russia’s interests clearly trumped our own; it was clear to him they would go to war much more readily that the United States ever would, and thus they had escalatory dominance. Doing more simply made no sense to Obama.

This timid realpolitik was mixed up with a healthy dose of disdain. Obama dismissed Russia as a “regional power” that was acting out of weakness in Ukraine. “The fact that Russia felt it had to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more,” Obama said at the G7 meeting in 2014. This line has not aged well. Obama’s attitudes on Russia reflected his administration’s broadly teleological, progressive outlook on history. Russia’s territorial conquest “belonged in the 19th century.” The advance of globalization, technological innovation, and trade rendered such aggression both self-defeating and anachronistic. The biggest mistake for America would be to overreact to such petty, parochial challenges. The 2015 National Security Strategy favored “strategic patience”. But was it patience… or passivity? As its actions in 2016 proved, Russia is very much a 21st century power that understands how to avail itself of the modern tools available to it, often much better than we do ourselves.

"Disdain" is a fitting term given that Barack Obama nonetheless managed to get re-elected, in part because of the disdain many of us voters have for the importance of foreign policy. His term in office, however, made it far more difficult for a Democrat to succeed him in office as

The same intellectual tendencies that shaped Obama’s timid approach to Ukraine were reflected in his administration’s restrained response as evidence of Russian electoral interference began to emerge in the summer.

Statesmen were inadvertently and intentionally sacrificed, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney respectively, for President Obama's foolishness.  His was a good faith stumble into bad foreign policy, though with ramifications continuing to this day.

However, naivete about Russia's intent is reaching a whole new level. Donald Trump long has made his intent clear. At the NATO summit in Brussels in 2018,  President Trump had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Secretary draw up orders for the USA to withdraw from NATO despite their opposition and only at the last minute pulled back.  In a video on his campaign website, Trump promises to "finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATO's purpose and NATO's mission."

From a generally insightful author comes an opinion is that Trump's policy is grounded less in ideology than in self-interest:

Well, no, because Trump is not confused. He’s a Kremlin asset with decades of transnational organized crime ties. He and his partners would benefit from the annihilation of NATO. Trump’s been discussing it since 1987.

Quit pretending people are confused when they’re corrupt. https://t.co/vYbcpVt1BI

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) February 11, 2024

Eastern Europe became more dangerous because of President Obama's policies, though the impact has been felt only the last couple of years. The effect of the approach, whether impelled by self-interested or misguided principle, in the second term of a Trump Administration would be devastating not only to Ukraine- and thereafter, probably to its neighbor(s), It also would open a new front in east Asia if mainland China is emboldened to invade Taiwan.

Until then, we have a President, old and accused of senility, who understands the world better than the last Democratic President and infinitely better than the guy who wants to beat him in November.

Share |

Right, As Usual

The Mueller report explicitly chose not to exonerate Donald Trump for anything, did not find anything approximating a "hoax, neither the Inspector General nor Mueller "rubbished" the Steele dossier, and if Miranda Devine believes that a presidential candidate warning the nation of the threat from Russia "put us through hell," she has a rather limited perspective on hell.

“Deniers”?!! Her whole Steele Dossier-pee tape-Alpha Bank-Russia collusion hoax was thrown out by the two year $32 million Mueller investigation and further rubbished by the DOJ-IG and Durham probes. She put the country through hell and still clings to her lies to salve her ego.… https://t.co/RLcMEwQaUP

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) September 25, 2023

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) September 25, 2023

 

John Durham's probe into the FBI investigation into a possible connection between the Trump campaign and Russia produced no evidence of what Trump had called the "crime of the century." Ken Starr's investigation of the sex habits of Democratic president Bill Clinton's sex habits cost $52 million. 

And yet in July of 2018

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein announced that a grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment presented by the Special Counsel’s Office. The indictment charges twelve Russian nationals for committing federal crimes that were intended to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of  the Russian military. These GRU officers, in their official capacities, engaged in a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" and through another entity

Hillary Clinton tells Jen Psaki

That is his modus operandi in the sense that he hates democracy, he hates the West, and he particularly hates us and he has determined that can do two things simultaneously. He can try to continue to damage and divide us internally and he's quite good at it and sadly he has a lot of apologists and enablers in our own country, people who either don't see the dangers or dismiss it out of hand and/or maybe agree with some of the position he's taken on certain things, including his barbaric invasion of Ukraine. So, dividing us and then trying to seize territory in such a brutal way to try to expand his reach, to try to restore the Russian empire, if not the former Soviet Union, that is who he is.

I've said that for years. Part of why he worked so hard against me he didn't think he wanted me in the White House and part of where we are....

She has said it for years, and Vladimir Putin had good reason to help prevent the former Secretary of State from being elected. Five days before the 2016 presidential election, The Washington Post reported

In one of her last acts as secretary of state in early 2013, Hillary Clinton wrote a confidential memo to the White House on how to handle Vladimir Putin, the aggressive and newly reinstalled Russian president. Her bluntly worded advice: Snub him.

"Don't appear too eager to work together," Clinton urged President Obama, according to her recollection of the note in her 2014 memoir. "Don't flatter Putin with high-level attention. Decline his invitation for a presidential summit."

It was harsh advice coming from the administration’s top diplomat, and Obama would ignore key parts of it. But the memo succinctly captured a personal view about Putin on the part of the future Democratic presidential nominee: a deep skepticism, informed by bitter experience, that will be likely to define U.S.-Russian relations if Clinton is elected. Her lasting conclusion, as she would acknowledge, was that “strength and resolve were the only language Putin would understand.”….

Clifford Kupchan, chairperson of consulting firm Eurasia Group and Russia expert who attended private meetings with Vladimir Putin while Clinton was Secretary of State, stated "It may well be useful that she has a tough image. Mrs. Clinton has been through the same journey that a lot of us have gone through on Russia, which is dashed hopes" and "she doesn't wear deeply tinted sunglasses of any kind."

The NATO alliance, which President Trump had attempted to scuttle, has rallied to President Biden's call for a united front against the Russian attack on Ukraine. By contrast, Biden's immediate predecessor in March of 2022 had attributed the invasion two-and-a-half weeks earlier to "a lot of love" on the part of the Russian president. The invasion may have been deterred, making the leadership of our 56th President unnecessary, had Hillary Clinton, who warned Obama about Putin, not lost to Donald Trump, who would have only encouraged and supported Vladimir Putin's territorial ambition. But her emails!

 

Share |

A War Not Only for Ukraine

It's a a contest of incredibility between the presidential contender who employs the phrase "actualization of their dreams" and an individual who claims to have been banned from Twitter in 2022 and "resurrected" in 2023.  The Jesus figure comes out on top because she chooses to believe comedian and political pontificator Jimmy Dore.

Jimmy Dore puts Presidential candidate and self-help guru Marianne Williamson, in the hot seat. Damn. He’s on fire tonight. 🔥🔥🔥Lol. pic.twitter.com/QSOjK0XFba

— Erin Elizabeth Health Nut News 🙌 (@unhealthytruth) August 10, 2023

Dore slams the federal government for aiding Ukraine "while there are people living under every bridge in America."  Every bridge in America? The problem is particularly acute in temperate areas such as coastal Pacific Northwest.  Where I live, in an area more temperate than virtually everywhere in the USA outside of that region, not every homeless person lives under a bridge and not all bridges feature individuals living beneath it. Homelessness is too serious a problem to lie about.

In a variation of Donald Trump's "people tell me," Dore contends "$100 million which they say could end homelessness in the United States" is a much better investment than supplying weaponry to Ukraine. Where he gets the $100 million figure is anyone's guess, and he chooses not to tell us. Neither does he enlighten us as to the policies or programs, on the federal, state, or local level, which would accomplish that.  Moreover, as Williamson and Dore both understand- but as Dore pretends not to- if our nation's assistance to Kyiv ended tomorrow, that money would not automatically be applied to homelessness or to anything else. Little or none of it would be used to address the issue of homelessness- and "little" is on its way out-of-town.

But the crux of Dore's complaint is the war in Ukraine, a country which he unbelievably charges is "the most corrupt in Europe."  Ukraine is no paragon of virtue. In its annual Corruption Perceptions Index, Transparency International ranked 180 nations from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("very clean"). Ukraine is tied with six countries as the 116th cleanest and a score of 33. However, Russia is worse, tying two countries as the 137th best and a score of only 28. (The USA is 24th.)

So Ukraine is no paragon of virtue but is closer to it than Russia, whose President decided to have his forces invade Ukraine in early 2022. The threat from Russia is much more real to its eastern European neighbors than to Jimmy Dore or other fans of Moscow. This applies not only to the government in Warsaw but also to its citizens, who prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine had been generally immigration-averse. It is significant that as of November of 2022, there had been 6.8 million border crossings from Ukraine to Poland and as "Poles rushed to welcome the newcomers"

Some analysts attribute the Poles’ change of heart to a cultural or ethnic similarity with Ukrainians and longstanding ties between the two countries. But when asked why they did what they did, many Poles talked about a sense of solidarity with opponents of their longtime adversary, Russia, perceived by many to have posed a threat since medieval times. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” one Polish man explained to the author. “Ukraine is fighting for Poland as much as for Ukraine, fending off both our countries’ age-old enemy, Russia.”

Poles realize Vladimir Putin has had his eyes on  their country.  If Poland were invaded by Russia, United States forces (as well as those of other nations) undoubtedly would be deployed to Poland under terms of  Article 5 of the founding treaty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

American men and women would be killed, and a lot of them. Ukraine is putting up much more of a defense than most of us thought it could and can succeed only with continuing- probably increasing- support from the USA. That cost is high- but far less, in both physical and human capital, than the alternative.

Share |

Walking It Back, Subtly

Donald Trump is hearing footsteps. Of the three individuals- Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, and Chris Christie- who have a reasonable chance of denying Trump the presidential nomination- only the discredited, former New Jersey governor has been loudly criticizing the ex-President, as he tries to goad Trump into stepping onto the debate stage.

Christie has attacked Trump over "grifting," the documents case, and American support for the Ukrainian government.  In March, before he entered the presidential race, Christie told right-wing, loyal Republican radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt

He’s afraid to get on the stage against people who are serious. And I’m sorry to see that he’s that afraid of it. If he’s that afraid of that, how can we count on him to do any better with President Xi than the failures he had in his first term with China? How can we expect him to do any better with Putin than having set the groundwork for the invasion of Ukraine, which his conduct towards Putin certainly helped to establish? This is a guy who seems like he’s afraid. And if he’s afraid, he has no business being president.

The failed ex-governor has contended that he would support Ukraine more enthusiastically than has President Biden, remarking "We need to send them the military hardware that they need to be able to fight the war against Russia and we need to make sure that this war is ultimately resolved on terms that are acceptable to Ukraine."

At a town hall meeting on Fox News on June 1, Trump promised "and I’ll stop that war, mark my words, I’ll stop that war in 24 hours." Supporter or critic, no one in the country, the world, or the planet failed to understand that he meant that he would put supreme pressure on Kyiv to surrender or at least agree swiftly to end the war on Moscow's terms. Yet, he wisely avoided spelling it out.

If Chris Christie is not the one Republican most likely to steal the nomination from Donald Trump, his relentless, borderline bellicose, criticism threatens to draw the ex-President into an argument neither may escape unscathed.  Thus, when asked on Fox News (at 2:41 of the video below) on July 16 by Maria Bartiromo "you said you would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. How would you do that?" Trump responded

I know Zelensky very well. I felt he was very honorable because when they asked him about the perfect phone call that I made, he said it was indeed, he said it was. He didn't even know what they were talking about. He could have grandstanded–" Trump said before Bartiromo cut him off.

"That's not going to be enough for Putin to stop bombing," she pointed out. Trump then explained how he would get Russia and Ukraine to end their conflict.

"I know Zelenskyy very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day," Trump responded.

Previously assumed- accurately- to be implying that as President, he would twist Zelenskyy's arm long and hard, Trump now maintains that he would severely pressure both parties.

This blunts criticism from Christie, who along with Asa Hutchinson- whom no one notices- is the only GOP candidate who won't kiss Trump's ring. Another advantage of Trump's pivot is that the 45th President has now planted himself firmly, resolutely, and defiantly on the fence- a convenient place to sit until he needs to pivot again. It is reminiscent of the promise made by presidential candidate Richard Nixon of "peace with honor," which got him elected before he presided over a humiliating defeat in the Vietnam War.

This fellow Trump is both smarter and slicker than he appears to his opponents. He's similar to a quarterback who sees the entire field or a linebacker who recognizes the play before it develops.  He has a good sense of whom his friends are, whom his enemies are, and how to respond to his advantage.  Those traits weren't enough to win a second presidential election because it took place as the USA was being crushed with a coronavirus which had stricken 9.3 million persons and claimed 232,627 lives.

SARS-CoV-2 now has killed over 1,134,000 Americans, nearly three times as many as the 392,428 lost before Trump turned the White House over to Joe Biden on January 20, 2021. And assuming Trump is nominated, Biden will be facing an opponent who knows a thing or two about strategy, including how to pivot effortlessly on the major foreign policy challenge of the day.,... and that's without even considering the Vice President.

 

Share |