West Winging It

FULL Body Language Analysis of Trump and Zelenskyy's MELTDOWN

During the turn of the Century, The West Wing was a popular political Comedy/Drama about the Presidency of the United States of America. It was fiction, so the progressive president (Martin Sheen) could come out looking a little better and his conservative foes a little worse than might be the case in, say, the real world.

President Zelensky of Ukraine started his political life with a similar program. You get to write the script. The clever things you say and do ultimately work out in your favor -- regardless of the mid-show hilarious hiccups. Unfortunately, starring in a "West Wing" style show is poor training for sitting in the almost sacred setting (for most Americans) of the West Wing Oval Office while dealing with President Donald Trump. During that meeting, he wanted commitments from Trump in public, in front of the world, that he couldn't get in private. Unfortunately, Zelensky wasn't writing the script.

Abraham Lincoln, during the Dark Days of the Civil War, said, "We must disenthrall ourselves." I read that as a fourteen-year-old boy and wondered what "disenthrall" meant.  To be enthralled was to be emotionally caught up in a book or a movie or a love affair. So, to "disenthrall" means to disengage your emotions and try to look at the situation you are in objectively. President Zelensky was not capable of doing that. Indeed, he wanted to "enthrall" Donald Trump and perhaps everyone else.

His inability to view the world objectively has set him up for failure. Hopefully, he will leave the scene soon and accept the gratitude of his grateful nation before that turns to loathing.

By and large, commentators assume that if Kamala Harris were President, the largess towards Ukraine would continue. Why? It was Biden's administration that pushed the war, largely as a part of their anti-Putin morality play (See Ukraine's Color Revolution, Hunter and Burisima, Trump's first impeachment, etc.). Democrats are the party of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's "Russia-US Reset Button" (this after Russia took part of Georgia -- not the US state). After that little show, Putin grabbed Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and Obama shrugged. In its first days in 2021, the Biden Administration stopped the arm shipments to Ukraine that Trump began (they wanted to engage with Russia diplomatically). That was like ringing the lunch bell for Vladimar Putin. He geared up for war, not diplomacy.

If Harris had won on Nov. 5, the American Media would have started the distancing process on Nov 6. It would be time for "a new look." It would go on from there, and it would be ugly. There would be story after story of Ukrainian corruption. Many of these stories might actually be true (truth is not a priority in a political operation). Why would this happen? Because our involvement in the War in Ukraine is a political loser. Why are the "experts," who shrugged off the Crimea invasion when they were in power, war hawks now? Why did they manipulate Zelensky into confronting Trump in the Oval office to effectively repudiate the very agreement he was there to sign? It's part of the political operation. They want to regain power. Blowing up the peace deal hurts Trump and helps them. Any leader who can "disenthrall himself" would see that and avoid the trap.

Zelensky did confirm what I wrote about in the Post "Ukraine's Thriving Enterprise." He said the Ukrainian people are actually doing all right despite the hardships of war. This is why Trump is offering them an alternative prosperous future. We can get rare earths from our 51st state -- Greenland, Canada, maybe Cuba. Who wants to be first?

Z-mania

 Breaking: President Trump and VP Vance Spar with Zelensky in the Oval Office

In the past, the US made agreements with Joseph Stalin, Breshnev, and Mao -- but Zelensky warns the US about making a deal with Putin. He also tells JD Vance that his intelligence breifings are crap (which may be the case -- unless they are focused on LGBTQ matters). But hey, Z, Marco Rubio knows his dictators.

By lecturing on Putin's untrustworthiness, Zelensky wanted Trump to give a public "reassurance" that could be spun into a security guarantee. It blew up in his face.

Europeans don't understand the US. Trump went way out on a limb for Ukraine. His supporters -- you know, the people who got him elected -- oppose massive aid for Ukraine, and they certainly don't want US corporations economically entwinded there (and their employees being human shields in the border lands). Many are outright hostile to our involvement, which goes back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first Trump impeachment over that "perfect Ukrainian phone call" -- to Zelensky, as fate would have it.

Now, European "intellectuals" try to score "we stand with Ukraine" debating points after Zelensky wants to tell the US who it can negotiate with. What's the reaction of most Americans to all this? Fine, it's your problem now.

Zelensky played a leader on TV, where he got to write the script and the clever ending. Well, not today. Today he screwed the pooch. The American people will never support a forever war in the middle of Eurasia. Trump went further with this deal than is politically wise.

Ukraine's Thriving Enterprise

 Putin makes huge mistake as Trump’s comments backfire | Former senior advisor to Zelenskyy

First, non-native speakers of "American" need to know that "Being in the Disinformation Space" is a synonym for "Shut up, you ignorant fool." So, if the Z-man meant to say that to the President, well, he did. Trump probably gained another million supporters as a result. 

Let's assume Ukraine in the 2020s is not a corrupt Banna Republic, but rather a "poor but honest" nation. They don't want to live under Russian domination (who would?). Their European neighbors need to keep an expansionist Russia from their borders -- in fact, all of NATO shares that interest. As a result, this "Poor but Honest" nation receives massive amounts of aid for its war effort.  Soon, the decent people of this honest nation are employed in industries and businesses whose continued prosperity depends on continued war. Career prospects and promotions become dependent on continued war. The politicians in control have a support network dependent on divvied-up war aid. Would the decent people of this poor but honest nation lean toward the most favorable war aims, even if this means further fighting? Because, yes, while they are decent, they are also human.

Of course, not every person in every nation is decent. Corrupt officials and fraudulent businesses can be found everywhere. Realistically, "Corrupt Banna Republic" is a more accurate descriptor of Ukraine's ruling class -- which is more Kleptocratic than Aristocratic. Unsurprisingly, much of the massive infusion of aid is stolen or misallocated. Peace becomes a threat to prosperity. To get Ukraine on board the "peace train," the rulers need to see the war "gravy train" pulling onto the siding. Promises of peacetime opportunities for graft will, no doubt, be required. Their cooperation cannot be bought, but perhaps it can be rented.

While Ukraine's rulers may face a (financial) loss with the end of fighting, Russia's rulers have much to gain. The ending of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets, for instance. Is it possible that Trumps negotiators sensed a stubborness in Ukraine that was lacking in their discussions with the Russians?

 

Them that Are Suck-up-ceptible to Diplomacy

Part of being a bureaucrat is identifying the real enemy.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses one Thomas "give Bush the" Fingar, the very model of the modern and methodical (and very much a prodigal) "impartial intelligence analyst." He's the fellow responsible for the NIE that determined Iran was no longer pursuing Nukes (as discussed in an LA Times piece). He claimed to be creating a "Just the facts, no matter where they lead" environment. They don't promote policy positions over at his place, you see. From the LA Times:

The draft concluded that Tehran was still pursuing a nuclear bomb, a finding that echoed previous assessments and would have bolstered Bush administration hawks. Then, just weeks before the report was to be delivered to the White House, new intelligence surfaced indicating that Tehran's nuclear weapons work had stopped.

New intelligence, eh? So you toss out the first report and quickly whip up a second one. No reason to suspect an ulterior motive there.

But did Mr. Fingar call the Iranians evil, thus compromising his "objectivity"? Let's see. It does sound like he is complaining.

"The unhappiness with the finding -- namely that the evil Iranians might be susceptible to diplomacy -- adroitly turned into an ad hominem assault," Fingar said.

Hmm. Or is that the clever use of irony by Mr. Fingar? Maybe the Iranians -- who've done him no harm -- are not the evil ones; maybe it is the unhappy ones, those who issue ad hominem assaults, who are evil. Perhaps he uses Sarcasm. Which means the Iranians, far from being evil, are susceptible to diplomacy. But this sounds like he is promoting a policy position through the adroit use of sarcasm. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should think of Mr. Fingar as the Shadow National Security Advisor.

Mr. Fingar sounds like a typical left intellectual. They don't have policy preferences, just superior insight and knowledge. They are "the reality based community" because they can make two plus two equal their preferred sum simply by using a clever retort and changing the subject.

Is Mr. Fingar advising the Obama campaign? We'll find out when he's fired for some politically off the mark remark. There will be no whining as he departs. And he certainly will not call Barak Obama a politician.

And now, allow me to flash forward: a year, more or less. I expect less.

In search of peace, President Obama goes to Tehran and says "You had me at 'screw you!'" The Mullahs coax him to wear his new gift: a diamond studded, "Death to America," lapel pin. Does he refuse to wear it because of the empty symbolism involved? Or does he put it on in the furtherance of world peace, the way he would wear any other bit of native costume?

He'll offer them the Zero option: "We'll gladly give up our 12,000 nukes today if you give up yours -- how many you guys got anyways? -- on Tuesday."

They say they will consider this if we give up our missile defense first, as a sign of good faith. He'll say, "Too late, already done that. What else can we do to show our good faith?" They will suggest we withdraw from Iraq. He'll say "Operation skedaddle is already in skedaddle mode. Sorry. Come up with something else." They'll say, give us time to think and we'll make a list. He'll say, can I make suggestions? They'll say, why not?

And he'll think, I cut my teeth facing down US auto executives, US Oil Companies, and US Presidents. These guys are nothing.