Where
would Trump be without his spineless defenders?
Without the Lindsey Grahams, Marco Rubios and JD Vances of the world,
Trump would not be the danger to the Atlantic alliance and peace that he is.
By Mona Charen
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 Volodymyr
Zelenskyy earned worldwide acclaim for his courage and heroism. 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.”
But after mad king Donald and his scheming viceroy, JD Vance, performed a
tag-team ambush on Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, Graham sounded a different
note.
“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, Zelenskyy, is
being hounded to apologize to the gangster who behaved abominably.
Trump, the ‘soulless sociopath’
Consider that even before the Oval Office debacle, Trump and his team had
been grossly disrespectful and abusive toward Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Trump
called him a “dictator” (though he declined to say as much about Putin). Trump
then repeated Putin’s propaganda that Ukraine, not Russia, had started the war.
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. 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.”
It was the most shameful moment in American history in at least a
century, and a special shame attaches to the explainer class of analysts who,
without even the excuse of fearing voters, perform pirouettes on their
principles.
Marc Thiessen used his perch as a Washington Post columnist to excoriate
not Trump for this blatant betrayal of 80 years of American world leadership,
but Zelenskyy.
As recently as June 2023, Thiessen had seen his role differently — that
of guide to help MAGA types remain on the side of Ukraine. He outlined an
“America First Case for Supporting Ukraine.” But now, when the leader has
pivoted, so has Thiessen. “The blowup was Zelensky’s fault,” he wrote. Thiessen
excoriated Zelenskyy for resisting a deal without security. “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. Thiessen was quick to accuse Zelenskyy of disrespect but didn’t
notice the key part of an exchange he himself highlighted. When Zelenskyy 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.
Thiessen further scolded Zelenskyy for contradicting Trump in front of
“the entire world.” Well, it was Trump’s decision to invite the cameras, not
Zelenskyy’s. As he boasted afterward, 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. Zelenskyy was the soul of
restraint, saying, “No, no, you have to come, Mr. President, you have to come
and to look.”
Trump is as deaf to such appeals as he was indifferent to the photos of
starving Ukrainian POWs Zelenskyy had brought along. Throughout the latter part
of the meeting, when it became heated, Trump’s favoritism toward Putin showed
through. He scowled when Zelenskyy 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 Zelenskyy 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 Zelenskyy “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.
Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the “Beg to
Differ” podcast.
