Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Defenders?
It’s amazing how men who prided themselves on strength and toughness will submit to a gangster.
IN 2022, AFTER RUSSIAN TANKS ROLLED across an international border into Ukraine and missiles pierced the quiet of cities like Kharkiv and Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky earned worldwide acclaim for his courage and heroism. Famously, in response to an American offer of a safe exit, he replied “I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition.” Former President George W. Bush expressed what many were thinking when he declared that Zelensky was the “Winston Churchill of our time.”
But perhaps no one was more pro-Ukrainian than Sen. Lindsey Graham, who exulted in an arrest warrant the Russians had issued against him:
I will wear the arrest warrant issued by Putin’s corrupt and immoral government as a Badge of Honor. To know that my commitment to Ukraine has drawn the ire of Putin’s regime brings me immense joy. I will continue to stand with and for Ukraine’s freedom until every Russian soldier is expelled from Ukrainian territory.
Last Friday, after mad king Donald and his scheming viceroy, JD Vance, performed a tag-team ambush on Zelensky in the Oval Office, Graham sounded a different note. “A complete, utter disaster,” he told reporters, which is okay as far as it goes. But then it became clear that he had inverted victim and aggressor. He continued, “Somebody asked me if I was embarrassed about President Trump. I have never been more proud of the president. I was very proud of JD Vance for standing up for our country.”
Disgusting. A politician whose identity was forged as a hawk and staunch defender of liberty and democracy now praises the most powerful man in the world for sandbagging the beleaguered leader of a bleeding ally, a victim of aggression? That’s standing up for America?
Ditto Marco Rubio, that gelding who has likewise transformed himself from a champion of freedom into an obedient toady to the man whose project is to destroy the Western alliance.
We live in an upside-down world where the far greater man, Zelensky, is being hounded to apologize to the gangster who behaved abominably.
Consider that even before the Oval Office debacle, Trump and his team had been grossly disrespectful and abusive toward Zelensky and Ukraine. Trump called him a “dictator” (though he declined to say as much about Putin) and lambasted him for failing to hold elections. (It is not permitted under Ukrainian law to hold elections during wartime.) He did not mention Putin’s failure to hold free elections for 25 years. Trump then repeated Putin’s propaganda that Ukraine, not Russia, had started the war. Secretary of Defense (God help us) Pete Hegseth pronounced that it would be unrealistic for Ukraine to win back its own territory. Vance told a European audience that he feared “the threat from within” far more than Russia or China. And then Trump proposed a “deal” that amounted to extortion, demanding the right to mine rare earth elements (which Trump called “raw earths”) on Ukrainian soil in return for . . . nothing. At first, Trump claimed that it was to compensate the United States for aid already donated, and though there were later iterations of the deal—all of which were blown up when Zelensky was ejected from the White House—the essential nature of the proposed agreement was clear. It was a shakedown. As Trump unguardedly admitted when he lost his temper, he regards Ukraine as a target for extortion because they “don’t have any cards.” Without the United States, Trump thundered, “you have nothing.”
It was the most shameful moment in American presidential history in at least a century. And while the focus of opprobrium should be on Trump and his smarmy understudy, a special shame also attaches to the explainer class of analysts who, without even the excuse of fearing voters, perform pirouettes on their principles.
AS RECENTLY AS JUNE 2023, Marc Thiessen had seen his role differently—that of guide to help MAGA types remain on side with Ukraine. He outlined an “America First Case for Supporting Ukraine,” arguing that “a Ukrainian victory would help deter China”; that a “Russian victory would further popularize the ‘decline of the West’ narrative, eroding U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia”; and that a Russian victory would “mean more nuclear states and more wars of aggression.”
But now, when the leader has pivoted, so has Thiessen. “The blow up was Zelensky’s fault,” he wrote. Trump had begun the meeting graciously, and was kind enough to overlook the fact that Zelensky had “refused a White House request to wear a suit.” Seriously? Assuming such a request was made (and with this White House, that’s always open to question), everyone knows that Zelensky dresses in fatigues to remind the world that his country is under attack. So the request is the offense, not the attire. And are we really arguing that clothing is a reasonable matter to consider in matters of life and death and the crushing of a free nation?
Thiessen then excoriated Zelensky for “fact checking” the president in real time. “He summarily dismissed Trump’s idea of an immediate ceasefire—something that is extremely important to Trump, who is committed to stopping the killing—because he said Putin had already broken ceasefires 25 times.”
But that’s a key stumbling block, isn’t it? Trump is demanding a ceasefire without security guarantees for Ukraine, which is an open invitation to Putin to sign the deal and then regroup and attack again as he has done repeatedly. Is it unacceptable for Zelensky to point that out? Thiessen was quick to accuse Zelensky of disrespect but didn’t notice the key part of an exchange he himself highlighted. When Zelensky noted that Putin had broken previous agreements, Trump interrupted to say, “He never broke to me. He never broke to me.” Putin’s agreement was not with Trump. But Trump’s narcissism, solipsism, and moral obtuseness were painfully obvious in that exchange. As an ally, Trump should be concerned that Putin, with whom he imagines he will negotiate, has broken his agreements many times.
Thiessen further scolded Zelensky for contradicting Trump in front of “the entire world.” Well, it was Trump’s decision to invite the cameras, not Zelensky’s. It was Trump’s show. As he boasted afterwards, it was “great television.” Thiessen was referring to a moment when Trump was repeating Russian disinformation about how all of Ukraine’s cities have been destroyed. Zelensky was the soul of restraint. He did deny this, but in the gentlest way, urging “No, no, you have to come, Mr. President, you have to come and to look. No, no, we have very good cities,” adding that despite the hardships, Ukrainians continue to work, to attend concerts, to go to coffee shops, and to attend school, though in some hard-hit regions, classrooms have been moved to bomb shelters.
Trump is deaf to such appeals as he was indifferent to the photos of starving Ukrainian POWs Zelensky had brought along. Throughout the latter part of the meeting, when it became heated, Trump’s favoritism toward Putin showed through. He scowled when Zelensky called Putin a war criminal, and when a member of the press asked whether Trump saw himself as “in the middle” between the warring parties or “on Ukraine’s side,” Trump said he was not on Ukraine’s side and went on to scold Zelensky for his harsh words about Putin. “It’s wonderful to speak badly about somebody else,” he noted sarcastically, “but I want to get it solved.” Later, he said about Zelensky “You see the hatred he’s got for Putin. It’s very tough for me to make a deal.”
Trump is a soulless sociopath. This is not news. But without the Vances, Rubios, and Thiessens of the world, he would not be quite the danger to the Atlantic alliance, peace, and security that he is.