The political fallout of the remarkable Trump-Zelenskyy White House fiasco is still accumulating. To paraphrase Winston Churchill (whose bust ominously glowered at both presidents in the Oval Office via his patented, Churchillian disapproval), “This is not the end. This is not the beginning of the end.”
And it’s not even the end of the beginning.
Not yet.
We’re still in the rapid inflation period of the story: this will be the gift that keeps on giving for some time.
There’s a delayed reaction between people, events, and political calculations. The Internet is instantaneous, but our brains take time to process new information. Right now, we’re still in the “WTF did I just see?!” phase.
But we can assume a couple of things:
- The Ukraine war is now a partisan issue. And that’s a shame: war, death, and America’s national security ought to be a bipartisan concern. The Democrats were already predisposed to favor Ukraine; according to Gallup, 84% have a favorable opinion of the country (compared to a 4% approval for their own president). Over the next few weeks, can expect the Democrats to try to score political points by strengthening their support for Ukraine (at least rhetorically), and Republicans doing the opposite.
- Zelenskyy was discredited on a world stage. It was a humiliating, demeaning moment for the Ukrainian president — and by extension, for the Ukrainian people. He came across as petty, stubborn, and small. And it’s probably worth noting that Donald Trump wasn’t the first U.S. president to lose his temper with Zelenskyy:
Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting. Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude. [emphasis added]
- Trump was diminished as well. For all the “atta boys!” and “it’s ‘bout time!” by the MAGA boosters, this played poorly internationally. Seemed less like an “Art of the Deal” negotiating tactic, and more like a chaotic, disjointed tempter-tantrum.
- Europe, in particular, is being pushed into a corner — and this is where the story gets REALLY interesting! Trump basically drew a line in the sand and told the EU: We’re no longer your partners in war; we want to be partners in peace. So, if Europe wants to continue to fight, they can certainly do so. And if that’s the case, then the American position is — to quote Eric Cartman — “Screw you guys! I’m going home!”
Which means, there will likely be a renewed push for the formation of a new European military alliance: One that’s of Europe, for Europe, and specifically excludes the United States. And that’s both good and bad.
A strong, stable Western European military would deter Russian aggression. It would mean American men and women wouldn’t have to die in another stupid, pointless European war.
But on the other hand, the consequences of a militarized Europe wouldn’t be limited to Ukraine and Russia. Instead, as America pulls back, Europe would fill the void, in pursuit of its own agenda.
Historically, when Europe does that, it doesn’t always work out so well for everyone else.
Kaja Kallas was Estonia’s prime minister; she’s currently the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (which is a helluva title). Yesterday, she posted on X:
Ukraine is Europe!
— Kaja Kallas (@kajakallas) February 28, 2025
We stand by Ukraine.
We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the agressor.
Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.
Kallas is an anti-Russian hawk who supports Ukraine, “de-Russified” Estonia, and under her leadership, “per GDP, Estonia has donated far more to Ukraine than any other nation.” (Albeit her husband’s ties to Russia have drawn criticism.)
If I were Estonian, I’d want the United States to fight for me, too. And if that didn’t work, I’d want Europe to fight for me: the total population of Estonia is less than 1.4 million people.
Can’t fault Kallas for trying.
But I’m not an Estonian, nor am I European. I’m an American. And it’s absolutely moral and legitimate for an American president to do what’s in the best interests of the American people.
Besides, despite Kallas’ pleas for a new leader of the free world, that job isn’t available. It’s not subject to democratic role calls! Instead, it’s the inevitable byproduct of America’s might — our military, culture, economy, and history.
You wanna replace America? Fine: go to the moon and bring back our flag! If you can do that, I’d be delighted to hear your ideas. But if not, then maybe it’s wiser to avoid biting the hand that feeds AND protects you.
One last thought: we began this essay with an allusion to Winston Churchill’s bust, which Trump returned to the Oval Office. But forget about his bust: Churchill himself spent over 100 days in the White House as a presidential guest. He was unfailingly polite, appreciative, respectful, and deferential. Famously, when President Roosevelt entered Churchill’s guest room and caught a glimpse of Winston’s naked, pink body, the American president apologized and quickly turned to leave. But Churchill beckoned him to stay: “The Prime Minister of Great Britain has nothing to conceal from the President of the United States!”
Liberals like comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill… but diplomatically?
Sadly, Zelenskyy is no Churchill.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member