When Bibi collided with Obama in 2011, Rahm Emanuel pounded my chest and barked: ‘Your [expletive] prime minister cannot come into the [expletive] White House and [expletive] lecture the president!’
'Zelensky is today dealing with an administration that views his cause as belonging to “the other side.”'
This is not quite right. The Trump Administration views Ukraine and its case as not America and not America's interest. Nor is Trump siding with Russia. Trump has made it clear that he regards a peace settlement as in America's interest. Among America's interests include some reimbursement for America's vast investment in Ukraine, and not pushing Putin farther into the arms of China.
How about some "reimbursement" for "America's vast investments" in Israel? The U.S. has not championed Israel for the last 75 years as a business investment. Like Israel's founders, it believed in the spirit of Israel as a historical homeland for the Jewish diaspora. What did it cost? Who cares? Israel's founding and success were priceless. You can't put a price tag on the soul of a nation. Only soulless monsters do that...
Having Ukraine defend liberal democracy in Europe would also be considered a "symbiotic relationship" as well. The problem is the Trump administration only sees relationships as transactional. I can assure you there is no "give" in Trump's idea of a 'give and take' symbiotic relationship.
Of course, John, I agree that it would be ideal, in a spirit of generosity, to contribute without expecting any return. Although the Europeans have not done that, their aid to Ukraine in the form of loans. Should America not think about some kind of return? Are you aware that the US is, what, some 34 trillion dollars in debt, and continuing on this course is certain bankruptcy. As for Israel, the US championed it because it was an valuable ally in a dangerous part of the world on which many depended for oil. Don't forget, many American presidents have been indifferent, when not hostile, to Israel, and the State Department has always been an opponent of Israel. Do you think Americans care about "the spirit of Israel"? Don't depend on America to save Israel. That is why the old slogan, sadly forgotten, "Blue and White," is a sounder foundation.
Israel is a Western-styled democracy in the heart of the autocratic Islamic world. The U.S. and EU support Israel because it is a beacon of Western liberal democracy.
The UN, which created Israel, is dedicated to Western liberal democratic values. Some will consider these values as listed in the UN Charter to be naive, but returning to savage great power struggles resulting in two World Wars and millions of casualties is unthinkable.
Americans may disagree with some of Israel's policies throughout its existence, but overall we have been steadfast supporters and benefactors. It is only Trump who wants to turn the nation into a racist Disneyland and condo development.
As for U.S. national debt, it is in line with the GDP percentage of most developed nations. Rather than extorting other nations, perhaps we could devise more equitable tax laws to have corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. Fleecing Ukraine and Isreal while they're fighting for existence will not solve the U.S. budget problems.
I did not say the UN “supports” Israel, I said they “created” it. Israel is a member of the UN and pledged to follow its charter rules. Israel is a modern European country in an inconvenient neighborhood.
Obama had norms he would not cross. He would never, ever have done to Bibi what Trump did to Zelensky. He would also never have completely upended the U.S.-Israel relationship and yanked all aid, (despite his signing the JCPOA and some “signaling” votes about settlements). I also think this essay suffers from a lack of imagination - it doesn’t conceive that Trump may very well turn on Bibi and Israel in the future even if Bibi plays him exactly right. The list of people/groups Trump has not F-ed over at one point or another is very few. If he does, it won’t be for anything as high-minded as a vote against settlements at the security council- it will be because somewhere along the way he was paid more by Russia or Iran or Qatar or other Arab actors behind the scenes to alter his position.
To the contrary. Obama had norms he would not publicly disclose which curtailed his public actions. IMO much better an honest public discourse than back room deal cutting. Obama's tactics are largely responsible for that unelected, heretofore unaccountable bureaucracy known as the Blob, the Deep State, the Swamp, or my preference, traitors.
That’s a lot of buzzwords. Now we have the Grifters, the Incompetents, the Suck-Ups, the Trolls. So much better… :( - and still just as “unaccountable” and, in my opinion, traitorous.
You stated this, "By contrast, when Trump says “don’t,” neither Israel nor Ukraine should dare to try." Does that apply to Hamas too? After all, he did say that there would be hell to pay unless ALL the hostages are released. He gave a deadline and renegaded twice on that threat. While I think Zelensky was out of line as the guest in the White House, Trump does not inspire confidence or fear if he doesn't follow through on his words. Xi and Putin are making notes of Trump's inaction.
Trump has always been very weak. If the words “bluster” were a person that would be him - more bluster than real consequence. He’s also used to getting his way simply through bullying/siccing his supporters on his adversaries. That is more use in domestic politics, and definitely won’t work here with Hamas, the PA, and Arab States.
I think you are correct. But I also think that is why Trump wants the Ukraine matter settled. So that the US can stop hemorrhaging resources on a stalemate that pushes us ever closer to WWIII and concentrate on Hamas and its puppetmaster without being spread ridiculously thin.
I think some of the framing of the incident and comments have missed the larger context within which the scandal in the Oval office took place.
Zelenskyy has promised his people total victory for Ukraine, but lacks a realistic plan to achieve this outcome. The reasons are many, the chief one being not getting enough support from Team Biden throughout the war and especially lady year. It is no secret at this point that Ukraine is in a tight control of Zelenskyy’s regime; not the dictatorship ala Putin, but very far from democracy.
Legitimate political opposition is in exile, in jail, or under legal charges. There is no freedom of media, and conscription is forced, often under torture or jail. Corruption is rampant and even those who became public faces of financial scandals are usually able to get away with dismissal. Verkhovna Rada is a rubber stamp for Zelenskyy administration – does not exercise any real oversight, but able to provide helpful notes, like proclaiming Zelenskyy a real president until he determines that "peace is lasting and stable" at which point elections could be held.
Three years into the war there is still no military plan but the rampant corruption of Western funds continues.
Signing the deal to officialize the development fund for rare minerals did not require presidential signatures at all, yet Z turned it down twice insisting on coming to the White House in person. There was no need for this document to involve anyone higher than the minister of finance (which was the original plan). Trump was reluctant to schedule the meeting, but Macron of France convinced him to proceed. Hmm.
What unfolded is a classic case of entrapment. Zelenskyy played the role of an aggrieved president of an embattled country—not that Ukraine isn’t at war, but in this instance, he did not behave in the best interests of his country. Immediately after, media outlets worldwide began signaling that Trump and Vance are siding with Putin, they are against Ukraine, they are abandoning Ukraine, it is all unprecedented etc. The outrage swept half the world in the blink of an eye.
Luckily for Ukraine, someone must have advised its president that even all of Europe combined cannot provide the arms and support Ukraine gets from the US.
Unfortunately, this incident will make the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine a lot more difficult and heated.
You make many good points. I didn’t realize that Trump was hesitant to schedule the meeting. I don’t recall seeing a commercial contract being discussed and signed in public before. I think they are usually signed by lower level officials and the public part, if there is one, is just a formality with everyone smiling and shaking hands. Not sure why this was on TV and there was a Russian journalist there as well, apparently. Why were they let in? At any rate, the Oval office blowup weakens the Ukrainian’s position- and they do have very limited options. I’m not sure it made Trump look good either. Moscow seems too pleased. Biden already signed a security contract last year to continue to supply weapons and financial support (the one that Trump just paused) and this commercial mineral deal was unlikely to contain any such guarantee but it could have been a gateway to another agreement of that sort. Also the US would likely want to protect its interests there. There is nothing about democratic ideals here but it’s reality. All the good will in the world won’t help the Ukrainians right now but this mineral deal might.
It didn’t make Trump look good, but I don’t imagine he is anti Ukraine. He is not pro Ukraine either - he wants a deal, he wants to restrain Putin and pull Russia away from China, and he has multiple other priorities in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. Yes, he could have handled it better, but he is not fighting a war.
Israel’s attitude of indifference to Ukraine’s fight against authoritarian Russia is isolating Israel from the West. It is attaching itself only to a whim of one American president. New generations of Europeans and Americans who are watching Ukraine as a Western democracy fighting against barbaric authoritarian regime are seeing Israel cynically siding with Russia. These young people are learning the opposite about Israel from the older generations, who grew up viewing Israel as a Democracy and one of their own. Israel cannot survive this for long. It is too small and surrounded by hostile neighbors.
Is Ukraine supporting Israel in the fight against its multiple enemies? And how is Israel siding with Russia? Israel has its own war to fight and Russia’s influence over Syria is necessary for Israel’s intelligence gathering.
Great article. Thx for sharing the story of what happened with Emanuel. Don't know if this is true but I saw on X that the powers that be in the Dem party told Z to not give in to Trump's demands.
I really liked this piece. Both in tone and content. But I think you do Netanyahu a disservice. He may be the leader of a small country but he is an exemplary leader with a vision and Israel is a very important nation. Zelynskyy is an actor with a Napolean complex. Or maybe just visions of grandeur. And a very bad poker player.
The timing and accuracy of today's "Clarity" by Dr. Oren is very relevant regarding the recent blow-up of Ukraine-USA relations at the White House. I'm currently listening to Dr. Oren's audiobook "Ally", published in 2015, which details his journey across the US-Israeli divide. The meeting between Obama and Netanyahu in 2011 was eerily similar to Zelenskyy meeting with Trump last week. Well done, Dr. Oren.
Zelenskyy got what he deserved!! His dialogue with the Democrats prior to meeting Trump didn’t help him at all. They played him for their own interest and he like a rag doll fell for it!! Now he’s coming back begging!! What utter stupidity! As for Obama/Netanyahu, well, that was no match!! The guy was a community organizer, that’s all he knew! pathetic!
I hear you, Michael, but disagree about Zelensky's cards. The US is on a collision course with Europe set independently of Ukraine, and China is laying in wait. Zelensky can offer the same mineral rights (or even less) to China in return for China calling its vassal-state of Russia back. Europe can step back its years of towing the US-led line on China. Those are cards that could be well played.
I'm a 'fan' of neither Obama nor Trump. Both, in my opinion, reflect a very imperfect understanding of geostrategy; and both use an analytical paradigm that does not reflect long-run American interests.
Obama was taken in by the notion that certain left-leaning advisers tried to promote, the idea that 'human rights' can be defined in isolation and apolitically. This approach resulted in a weakening of the US position as it appeared to cede ground in various arenas, including the Middle East, where it culminated in the foolhardy JCPoA.
Trump seems to be driven by the long-discredited notion of isolationism and the idea that all foreign policy is transactional. While in some ways the latter driver is preferable to either the Democrats' human rights focus or the Republicans' 'democracy' focus, it is very incomplete in not understanding the role of ideals in conflict, whether or not those ideals are objectively valid. As for isolationism, the fear is that as in the periods prior to both twentieth century world wars, isolationism caught the nation unprepared for the tremendous sacrifices it needed to make as the wars finally touched the US. This problem is especially acute in the case of Ukraine, as Europe fears that Russian advances there threaten the European heartland.
To the point of the article, a great leader does not get led astray by his or her personal dislike for a foreign leader, but rather keeps his or her nation's interest in mind at all times. The fundamental problem with this article is that it appears to justify that.
'Zelensky is today dealing with an administration that views his cause as belonging to “the other side.”'
This is not quite right. The Trump Administration views Ukraine and its case as not America and not America's interest. Nor is Trump siding with Russia. Trump has made it clear that he regards a peace settlement as in America's interest. Among America's interests include some reimbursement for America's vast investment in Ukraine, and not pushing Putin farther into the arms of China.
How about some "reimbursement" for "America's vast investments" in Israel? The U.S. has not championed Israel for the last 75 years as a business investment. Like Israel's founders, it believed in the spirit of Israel as a historical homeland for the Jewish diaspora. What did it cost? Who cares? Israel's founding and success were priceless. You can't put a price tag on the soul of a nation. Only soulless monsters do that...
The US does benefit from its ties to Israel though. Commercially. Technologically. Academically. Militarily. It is a symbiotic relationship I think.
Yes it does, and Michael Oren talks about it in his book Ally. Highly recommend!
Having Ukraine defend liberal democracy in Europe would also be considered a "symbiotic relationship" as well. The problem is the Trump administration only sees relationships as transactional. I can assure you there is no "give" in Trump's idea of a 'give and take' symbiotic relationship.
Of course, John, I agree that it would be ideal, in a spirit of generosity, to contribute without expecting any return. Although the Europeans have not done that, their aid to Ukraine in the form of loans. Should America not think about some kind of return? Are you aware that the US is, what, some 34 trillion dollars in debt, and continuing on this course is certain bankruptcy. As for Israel, the US championed it because it was an valuable ally in a dangerous part of the world on which many depended for oil. Don't forget, many American presidents have been indifferent, when not hostile, to Israel, and the State Department has always been an opponent of Israel. Do you think Americans care about "the spirit of Israel"? Don't depend on America to save Israel. That is why the old slogan, sadly forgotten, "Blue and White," is a sounder foundation.
Israel is a Western-styled democracy in the heart of the autocratic Islamic world. The U.S. and EU support Israel because it is a beacon of Western liberal democracy.
The UN, which created Israel, is dedicated to Western liberal democratic values. Some will consider these values as listed in the UN Charter to be naive, but returning to savage great power struggles resulting in two World Wars and millions of casualties is unthinkable.
Americans may disagree with some of Israel's policies throughout its existence, but overall we have been steadfast supporters and benefactors. It is only Trump who wants to turn the nation into a racist Disneyland and condo development.
As for U.S. national debt, it is in line with the GDP percentage of most developed nations. Rather than extorting other nations, perhaps we could devise more equitable tax laws to have corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. Fleecing Ukraine and Isreal while they're fighting for existence will not solve the U.S. budget problems.
John, you have very weird ideas about Europe and the UN and their "support" for Israel.
I did not say the UN “supports” Israel, I said they “created” it. Israel is a member of the UN and pledged to follow its charter rules. Israel is a modern European country in an inconvenient neighborhood.
Spot on Philip.
Obama had norms he would not cross. He would never, ever have done to Bibi what Trump did to Zelensky. He would also never have completely upended the U.S.-Israel relationship and yanked all aid, (despite his signing the JCPOA and some “signaling” votes about settlements). I also think this essay suffers from a lack of imagination - it doesn’t conceive that Trump may very well turn on Bibi and Israel in the future even if Bibi plays him exactly right. The list of people/groups Trump has not F-ed over at one point or another is very few. If he does, it won’t be for anything as high-minded as a vote against settlements at the security council- it will be because somewhere along the way he was paid more by Russia or Iran or Qatar or other Arab actors behind the scenes to alter his position.
To the contrary. Obama had norms he would not publicly disclose which curtailed his public actions. IMO much better an honest public discourse than back room deal cutting. Obama's tactics are largely responsible for that unelected, heretofore unaccountable bureaucracy known as the Blob, the Deep State, the Swamp, or my preference, traitors.
That’s a lot of buzzwords. Now we have the Grifters, the Incompetents, the Suck-Ups, the Trolls. So much better… :( - and still just as “unaccountable” and, in my opinion, traitorous.
It's absurd to compare Zelensky with Netanyahu. Netanyahu's power with Trump comes 100% from rich American Jewish donors, of which Zelensky has none.
But are they rich enough to counter the Qataris or the Russians?
Zelenskyy has all of Europe and their ironclad support. Netanyahu has none of it.
That’s my suspicion too.
You stated this, "By contrast, when Trump says “don’t,” neither Israel nor Ukraine should dare to try." Does that apply to Hamas too? After all, he did say that there would be hell to pay unless ALL the hostages are released. He gave a deadline and renegaded twice on that threat. While I think Zelensky was out of line as the guest in the White House, Trump does not inspire confidence or fear if he doesn't follow through on his words. Xi and Putin are making notes of Trump's inaction.
Trump has always been very weak. If the words “bluster” were a person that would be him - more bluster than real consequence. He’s also used to getting his way simply through bullying/siccing his supporters on his adversaries. That is more use in domestic politics, and definitely won’t work here with Hamas, the PA, and Arab States.
Z, is that you?
I think you are correct. But I also think that is why Trump wants the Ukraine matter settled. So that the US can stop hemorrhaging resources on a stalemate that pushes us ever closer to WWIII and concentrate on Hamas and its puppetmaster without being spread ridiculously thin.
I think some of the framing of the incident and comments have missed the larger context within which the scandal in the Oval office took place.
Zelenskyy has promised his people total victory for Ukraine, but lacks a realistic plan to achieve this outcome. The reasons are many, the chief one being not getting enough support from Team Biden throughout the war and especially lady year. It is no secret at this point that Ukraine is in a tight control of Zelenskyy’s regime; not the dictatorship ala Putin, but very far from democracy.
Legitimate political opposition is in exile, in jail, or under legal charges. There is no freedom of media, and conscription is forced, often under torture or jail. Corruption is rampant and even those who became public faces of financial scandals are usually able to get away with dismissal. Verkhovna Rada is a rubber stamp for Zelenskyy administration – does not exercise any real oversight, but able to provide helpful notes, like proclaiming Zelenskyy a real president until he determines that "peace is lasting and stable" at which point elections could be held.
Three years into the war there is still no military plan but the rampant corruption of Western funds continues.
Signing the deal to officialize the development fund for rare minerals did not require presidential signatures at all, yet Z turned it down twice insisting on coming to the White House in person. There was no need for this document to involve anyone higher than the minister of finance (which was the original plan). Trump was reluctant to schedule the meeting, but Macron of France convinced him to proceed. Hmm.
What unfolded is a classic case of entrapment. Zelenskyy played the role of an aggrieved president of an embattled country—not that Ukraine isn’t at war, but in this instance, he did not behave in the best interests of his country. Immediately after, media outlets worldwide began signaling that Trump and Vance are siding with Putin, they are against Ukraine, they are abandoning Ukraine, it is all unprecedented etc. The outrage swept half the world in the blink of an eye.
Luckily for Ukraine, someone must have advised its president that even all of Europe combined cannot provide the arms and support Ukraine gets from the US.
Unfortunately, this incident will make the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine a lot more difficult and heated.
You make many good points. I didn’t realize that Trump was hesitant to schedule the meeting. I don’t recall seeing a commercial contract being discussed and signed in public before. I think they are usually signed by lower level officials and the public part, if there is one, is just a formality with everyone smiling and shaking hands. Not sure why this was on TV and there was a Russian journalist there as well, apparently. Why were they let in? At any rate, the Oval office blowup weakens the Ukrainian’s position- and they do have very limited options. I’m not sure it made Trump look good either. Moscow seems too pleased. Biden already signed a security contract last year to continue to supply weapons and financial support (the one that Trump just paused) and this commercial mineral deal was unlikely to contain any such guarantee but it could have been a gateway to another agreement of that sort. Also the US would likely want to protect its interests there. There is nothing about democratic ideals here but it’s reality. All the good will in the world won’t help the Ukrainians right now but this mineral deal might.
It didn’t make Trump look good, but I don’t imagine he is anti Ukraine. He is not pro Ukraine either - he wants a deal, he wants to restrain Putin and pull Russia away from China, and he has multiple other priorities in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. Yes, he could have handled it better, but he is not fighting a war.
In other words, you counsel total capitulation. So much for the greatest generation and all they fought and died for.
I have to agree with Michael Oren for his closeness to the realistic situation, much as I would like for Ukraine to recover it lost ground.
Israel’s attitude of indifference to Ukraine’s fight against authoritarian Russia is isolating Israel from the West. It is attaching itself only to a whim of one American president. New generations of Europeans and Americans who are watching Ukraine as a Western democracy fighting against barbaric authoritarian regime are seeing Israel cynically siding with Russia. These young people are learning the opposite about Israel from the older generations, who grew up viewing Israel as a Democracy and one of their own. Israel cannot survive this for long. It is too small and surrounded by hostile neighbors.
Is Ukraine supporting Israel in the fight against its multiple enemies? And how is Israel siding with Russia? Israel has its own war to fight and Russia’s influence over Syria is necessary for Israel’s intelligence gathering.
Great article. Thx for sharing the story of what happened with Emanuel. Don't know if this is true but I saw on X that the powers that be in the Dem party told Z to not give in to Trump's demands.
I really liked this piece. Both in tone and content. But I think you do Netanyahu a disservice. He may be the leader of a small country but he is an exemplary leader with a vision and Israel is a very important nation. Zelynskyy is an actor with a Napolean complex. Or maybe just visions of grandeur. And a very bad poker player.
The timing and accuracy of today's "Clarity" by Dr. Oren is very relevant regarding the recent blow-up of Ukraine-USA relations at the White House. I'm currently listening to Dr. Oren's audiobook "Ally", published in 2015, which details his journey across the US-Israeli divide. The meeting between Obama and Netanyahu in 2011 was eerily similar to Zelenskyy meeting with Trump last week. Well done, Dr. Oren.
Zelenskyy got what he deserved!! His dialogue with the Democrats prior to meeting Trump didn’t help him at all. They played him for their own interest and he like a rag doll fell for it!! Now he’s coming back begging!! What utter stupidity! As for Obama/Netanyahu, well, that was no match!! The guy was a community organizer, that’s all he knew! pathetic!
I hear you, Michael, but disagree about Zelensky's cards. The US is on a collision course with Europe set independently of Ukraine, and China is laying in wait. Zelensky can offer the same mineral rights (or even less) to China in return for China calling its vassal-state of Russia back. Europe can step back its years of towing the US-led line on China. Those are cards that could be well played.
Excellent piece.
Never was your Substack more aptly named.
A wise voice of reason. Thank you!
I'm a 'fan' of neither Obama nor Trump. Both, in my opinion, reflect a very imperfect understanding of geostrategy; and both use an analytical paradigm that does not reflect long-run American interests.
Obama was taken in by the notion that certain left-leaning advisers tried to promote, the idea that 'human rights' can be defined in isolation and apolitically. This approach resulted in a weakening of the US position as it appeared to cede ground in various arenas, including the Middle East, where it culminated in the foolhardy JCPoA.
Trump seems to be driven by the long-discredited notion of isolationism and the idea that all foreign policy is transactional. While in some ways the latter driver is preferable to either the Democrats' human rights focus or the Republicans' 'democracy' focus, it is very incomplete in not understanding the role of ideals in conflict, whether or not those ideals are objectively valid. As for isolationism, the fear is that as in the periods prior to both twentieth century world wars, isolationism caught the nation unprepared for the tremendous sacrifices it needed to make as the wars finally touched the US. This problem is especially acute in the case of Ukraine, as Europe fears that Russian advances there threaten the European heartland.
To the point of the article, a great leader does not get led astray by his or her personal dislike for a foreign leader, but rather keeps his or her nation's interest in mind at all times. The fundamental problem with this article is that it appears to justify that.