Looking at "The Debacle" Through Different Lens - and History

Everybody has an opinion of last Friday's legendary Oval Office blowup. Sadly, the reactions are all too predictable. The truth and path forward is somewhere in the middle and nuanced.

For politicos like me with extensive campaign debate experience, I learned early that the debates mattered less than the reaction from the “echo chamber.” It’s why campaigns have “spin rooms” after significant debates.

Most voters don’t watch political debates or Oval Office confabs, nor are they confident in adjudicating them. Still, opinion leaders and the chattering class do, and they’re eager to pontificate. Pundits and op-ed authors hold some power over the public’s reaction.

Most voters, who have real lives, including real jobs and families divorced from politics, rely on analyses from people and media they tend to trust to filter and boil it down for them. And I suspect you’re no different.

This is especially true if you’re neither reflexively pro nor anti-Trump nor knowledgeable on matters involving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’m in that category, and even though I watched the entire 50-minute meeting, especially the last, fatal minutes, there a few experienced observers I turn to for analysis and insights. Even then, I sometimes quibble with them. I especially appreciate writers like Michael Oren, the former Israeli Ambassador to the US during much of the Obama Administration, with historical parallels. More about that in a moment.

I also watched the subsequent interview of Zelenskyy by Fox News’s Bret Baier, undeniably one of the few remaining genuine, fair-minded journalists at a major media outlet in the USA. That, too, was instructive. Zelenskyy occasionally turned to his interpreters to make sure he understood the questions. In such circumstances, I avoid X and Meta, where propaganda, bad takes, and fakes propagate like cancer.

Friday’s infamous Oval Office blowup is no different. Everyone seems to have an opinion about it, and in many cases, they are sadly shallow and predictable. Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers immediately blamed Trump and, to a lesser extent, Vice President JD Vance. MAGA Republicans, who believe Trump can do no wrong, put all the blame on Ukraine’s President. Both reactions are wrong and ignorable. Even stupid.

And then there were other bad takes by well-meaning people. This includes those who believe Zelenskyy should have worn a suit and tie in the Oval Office. It ignores the historical fact that Winston Churchill was spotted leaving the White House in “wartime” attire that didn’t include a jacket and tie during WWII. When complaints about Zelenskyy’s attire emerged, I couldn’t help but mutter, “So what?” Trump even complimented Zelenskyy’s attire in Friday’s ill-fated meeting.

Zelenskyy, like Trump, is a seasoned television performer and also a wartime leader who dresses for the PR effect. There’s also the reality that before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41, Americans were divided between getting involved in “Europe’s war” or at least supporting them. Perhaps this is what Zelenskyy had in mind when he mentioned America being insulated between two oceans but would “feel” the effects of war soon, a statement that needlessly triggered Trump and fears about triggering WWIII.

We need to give Zelenskyy a lot of grace for the world in which he operates. None of us in the US are experiencing Russian and Iranian drones flying overhead our homes and communities to blow up hospitals, apartment buildings, nuclear energy facilities, and other things. None of us here in America knows what that is like, unless we’ve lived elsewhere like . . . Ukraine.

At least Churchill had the advantage of speaking the same language (eloquently and expertly) as President Franklin Roosevelt before the US’s involvement in WWII. I join those who think language challenges and barriers contributed to the Friday debacle and its reaction. While Zelenskyy speaks excellent English, it remains his second or third language, never mind the cultural barriers. Is “playing cards” a thing in Ukraine?

Fortunately, we have a bell curve of opinions. The truth is there, and it takes time to get its boots on. I’m still waiting for some real journalism to break out. One such reality is that events like this have real consequences, sometimes resulting in poor decisions born of pride, arrogance, and even narcissism.

The Obama Administration was praised for trying to “reset” US-Russian relations. Donald Trump, not so much.

What happened on Friday was a big deal—not for its immediate effect on mineral/rare earth rights, Ukraine, or Russia. The world watched and took note, especially Iran and its evil proxies, China, and, of course, the fickle hand-wringers across Europe. Watch this space in the coming weeks.

I blame all three major players: President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Thin-skinned Trump reacted poorly to Zelenskyy’s poorly articulated provocations, and Vance, whom I like very much, should have kept his mouth shut. It was set up to be a big win for everyone, and those players soiled themselves during the final disastrous minutes after a nice start to the meeting.

But frankly, my view matters no more than any layman. Let me share some of the analyses from writers I turn to. Others I know, including Steve Moore, a Substacker who has written extensively and insightfully from his post in Kyiv, Ukraine, have yet to opine - at least, that I’ve seen. I hope he does. Other Ukrainian military blogs I follow are all in for Zelenskyy. They should stick to assessing military movements and actions and leave the geopolitics for others.

Zelenskyy should follow advice from experts like Moore and less from numbnut partisans like US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), with whom he met before the White House debacle (along with other Senators) and suggested support if not advocacy for scuttling the mineral rights deal (he later denied that in a subsequent X post). Senate Democrats have a long and sordid history of interfering in US foreign policy by Republican presidents, including reaching out to Russians and even the KGB to oppose official US policy and interfere in a US election.

These are excerpts. Click the links for the full articles.

Military Historian, Author, and Hoover Institute Fellow Dr. Victor Davis Hansen:

Zelensky did not grasp—or deliberately ignored—the bitter truth: Those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Pennsylvania campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump. . .

Zelensky might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding ceasefires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelensky. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never have interrupted and berated a host and patron president in the White House before the global media. . .

If Ukraine has alienated the U.S., what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Europeans? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelensky’s cards he seems to think are a winning hand?

If one carefully views the whole 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelensky started correcting Vance and then Trump. By lecturing his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naive for such a supposedly worldly leader.

March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelensky is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus, and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in spring 2025.

Quo vadis, Mr. Zelensky?

American Enterprise Institute Fellow and former GW Bush speechwriter, Marc Thiessen:

The blowup was Zelensky’s fault. To understand why, one needs to watch the entire 50-minute meeting unfold. Trump greeted Zelensky graciously, praising the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people, and dismissed their earlier rift as “a little negotiations spat.”

Even after Zelensky refused a White House request to wear a suit, Trump praised his outfit, saying, “I think he’s dressed beautifully.” Trump extolled the minerals deal they had reached and said, “We look forward to getting in and digging, digging, digging.” He publicly pledged to continue military aid to Ukraine and even held out the possibility that he “could conceivably” commit U.S. troops alongside British and French troops to provide security after a peace deal was reached.

This should have been music to Zelensky’s ears. He should have taken the win. Instead, about 24 minutes in — long before his terse exchange with Vice President JD Vance — Zelensky started criticizing Trump in front of the assembled reporters.

American Enterprise Institute Fellow Danielle Pletka, cohost of “What The Hell is Going On” podcast and Substack:

Two answers to the question of how it went to hell: First, Vice President J.D. Vance inserted himself combatively in the conversation, and accused Zelensky of not appreciating Trump’s diplomacy. Second, Zelensky fell directly into Vance’s trap, and began arguing with both Trump and Vance.

I’d share the entire transcript, but you won’t find it, because the legacy media doesn’t want you to read the hopeful and positive statements from Trump at the outset. They want you to believe this was a pure set up. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was in on a set up; if anyone, it could have been Vance. But that’s not the point here. Bad people do bad things.

Would we like our president and vice president to recognize the intrinsic value of a democracy in Ukraine, and the need to defend it? Of course. Would we like our leaders not to yell on camera at foreign leaders? You bet. Would we like our president to be more like Ronald Reagan and less like Joe Rogan? Indeed.

But you go to war with the president you have, not the president you wish you had. And at the end of the day, the imperative for Zelensky, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, suit or olive drab, is support from the United States for this war. That’s the prize, the goal, the necessary outcome . Not winning a spat with Donald Trump, not owning JD Vance. Did Zelensky truly believe he should educate the elected leaders of the United States, whether or not they need an education?

The key to managing in a complex and hierarchical world is to understand who has the power. In the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, it is the United States, and the president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. Don’t like it? Doesn’t matter. Wishful thinking doesn’t win wars, and it doesn’t deliver arms.

And, finally, a history lesson from Ambassador Oren:

Zelensky complained about the administration’s policy toward Putin only to have Trump and Vice President Vance dress him down for showing ingratitude to the United States and weakness—“you hold no cards”—to the Russians. Later, rather than retreat, Trump insisted that Zelensky apologize publicly. The Ukrainian president has been left to retweet supportive statements from European leaders and Justin Trudeau. That’s not good news for Ukraine.

Times have changed since 2011, of course, and so have the personalities. Bibi is not Zelensky and Obama patently is not Trump.

Yet, like Bibi then, Zelensky is today dealing with an administration that views his cause as belonging to “the other side.” And the latest Oval Office lecture reminds me of the lessons I learned from the last one—and which Zelensky would do well to heed.

First, know who you’re addressing. For all his popularity, Obama—who sought a reset with Putin the year after he invaded Georgia—never struck Netanyahu as a particularly strong individual. As with Biden later, Obama could say “don’t”—most memorably to Syria regarding its use of poison gas—without imposing consequences once the red line was crossed. Why would America’s allies fear to tread where its enemies walked with impunity? By contrast, when Trump says “don’t,” neither Israel nor Ukraine should dare to try.

For Zelensky, this lesson will prove especially difficult. After all, he was the president who addressed the Knesset in 2022 and alienated all Israelis by comparing Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine to the Holocaust and claiming that Ukrainians defended Jews in World War II. Zelensky similarly antagonized Republicans by campaigning for the Democrats last summer in Pennsylvania. Little wonder that, in addition to its strategic disagreements with him, the White House has scant affection for Zelensky. As a former actor, you’d imagine he’d be better at reading his audience.

To the Trump-deranged, I know these excerpts don’t comport with your delusional worldview. I’ll also admit that I don’t necessarily agree with everything they say. But know that none of these people are “MAGA Republicans,” and all have been openly critical of Trump at various times and to different degrees over the past decade. All are thoughtful experts and clear-eyed analysts.

It strikes me that Zelenskyy still lives off the remarkable Biden-era support and hero worship he received shortly after Putin’s invasion in 2021 following the Biden Afghanistan debacle. If you don’t think the two are related, think again. He was even featured in a song. His polling numbers in the US are on the decline.

It also strikes me that Zelenskyy is ignoring good advice or accepting terrible advice from former Biden and Obama Administration people and congressional Democrats, who seem more eager to deny Trump a political win and perhaps preserve grifts from a historically corrupt country. To deny that possibility is to pretend the whole Hunter Biden-Burisma scam (Burisma is the Ukrainian gas company Hunter was paid $85,000 per month to serve on its board) is fiction. At the same time, Biden was Obama’s point person for Ukraine. And to be honest, operatives from both political parties have gained or sought to gain from Ukraine grifts.

Some facts are just undeniable. America has spent at least $177 billion (Trump says $350 billion) on Ukraine over the past three years, about half of that in ammunition and military equipment via American defense contractors who appreciate the business (apparently, Zelenskyy can’t account for or claims not to have received about $100 billion in US aid, spurring all kinds of rumors). Most of that aid was dribbled out slowly and piecemeal by the Biden Administration with conditions that tied Ukrainian hands. Europe has contributed at least another $100 billion more, much of it in loan guarantees.

Millions of lives have been lost on both sides, innocent civilians and military personnel alike, neither of whom seems to have a clear path to victory. Most everyone is growing weary of the Ukraine-Russia meatgrinder/slaughterhouse. There are certain realities everyone needs to embrace, including the fact that Ukraine is going to lose a lot of control over territory and that it’s not going to be part of NATO. More than a decade ago, France was the first to oppose Ukraine's membership in NATO, which the US then stupidly supported.

It’s also true that Vladimir Putin is an evil, wickedly smart, and untrustworthy war criminal.

Let’s also posit that Ukraine matters. It was once the breadbasket of the former Soviet Union and (once) a major exporter of grain, fertilizers, and minerals. The war has hurt world food prices. The Trump-Zelenskyy pending agreement over mineral rights would cement Ukraine as a matter of American national interest. I hope cooler and wiser heads eventually prevail and the deal gets signed (reportedly this Friday).

Bill Clinton signed an agreement - the Budapest Memorandum - with Russia’s Boris Yeltsin, Ukraine’s Leonid Kravchuk, and Britain’s John Major to defend Ukraine’s borders in exchange for them giving up their Soviet-era nuclear weapons. How did that turn out?

The signing of the now-worthless Budapest Memorandum in 1994 by Russia’s Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, Ukraine’s Leonid Kravchuk, and Britain’s John Major. Russia breached the agreement in 2014 with its Obama-era invasion of Crimea.

Like most wars, this is a proxy war. The acceleration of unmanned drones and other technologies is giving future wars—and there will be others, most assuredly—a different look, along with cyberwar and other realities. Lessons are being learned in Beijing, Tehran, Tel Aviv, Washington, and capitals across the globe. Navy and Army War College curriculums are being revised.

And people who reflexively complain that Trump is a Putin stooge or too aligned with him are stupid ignoring history or at least being quite selective. It smacks of partisan gaslighting, the recent United Nations General Assembly vote aside. The US position is clearly to mediate an end to the conflict without overtly criticizing either party.

This debacle is complex; as we all know, nuance confuses the press and partisans. Still, last Friday’s blowup remains consequential and worth following, but be careful whom you trust with facts and analysis. May I recommend the five aforementioned people as a start?

If only real adults were in charge. Where’s Richard Nixon when you need him?