The Blue Country Gazette is the successor to the Rim Country Gazette, reflecting our evolution to a nationwide political blog for readers who identify as "blue," liberals, progressives, and/or Democrats. Our mission is to provide distinctive coverage of issues during a time of extreme polarization in the U.S. We strive to provide side-stories and back-stories that provide additional insights and perspectives conventional coverage often doesn't include.
President Donald Trump welcomes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Friday, Feb. 28, 2025.
Trump and Vance gang up to humiliate U.S. on world stage
By Walter Einenkel
Daily Kos Staff
Friday, February 28, 2025
at 12:42:43p MST
REPUBLISHED BY:
Blue Country Gazette Blog
Rim Country Gazette Blog
Donald Trump and JD Vance teamed up to embarrass the United States on Friday and derail any meaningful efforts toward a peace deal in
the Russia-Ukraine War when they decided to publicly berate Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during what was supposed to be a
diplomatic press conference in the Oval Office.
The ambush began with Vance launching into a rant, criticizing
former President Joe Biden’s handling of Russia’s 2021 invasion of
Ukraine. Zelenskyy seemed to irritate the vice president by reminding
him that “diplomacy” only works when both sides show that they can be
trusted to keep the peace—and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin shattered
that diplomacy when he decided to invade Ukraine.
Tensions quickly escalated when Vance called Zelenskyy “disrespectful” and Trump acted as a Putin mouthpiece,
angrily asserting that Ukraine doesn’t “have the cards” to negotiate,
and both men repeatedly demanded that Zelenskyy be grateful to the
United States for its aid.
For his part, Zelenskyy remained as calm as one can when being berated by two men who lack any integrity whatsoever.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins posted an image of Ukrainian Ambassador
to the United States Oksana Markarova with her head in her hand during
the exchange.
Shortly after the blowup, Trump ran to his Truth Social account to bloviate.
“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today.
Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation
under such fire and pressure,” Trump wrote. “It’s amazing what comes out
through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not
ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement
gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I
want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its
cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”
One of the most prolific figures to emerge from President Donald Trump‘s impeachment saga has returned to TV, raising questions about the commander-in-chief’s motives as he negotiates a peace deal in Ukraine.
Alexander Vindman,
a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army and former National
Security Council adviser who testified against Trump during his first
impeachment proceedings gave the rebuke as he discussed the matter with Morning Joe’s Willie Geist.
“What does Putin have
on Trump that he’s willing to bend over so hard to bend over backwards
to, to really support Putin’s agenda?” Vindman questioned. “It doesn’t
make a huge amount of sense. He’s not getting anything for it right now.
“He’s
giving away the farm. He’s you know, I’m not sure what kind of deal
he’s making, where he’s giving everything that his opponent wants,
nothing in return.”
Vindman was a key witness in Trump’s impeachment for witholding military aid from Ukraine in his quest to frame Joe Biden and his family.
He
was born in Ukraine and emigrated to the U.S. as a child along with his
twin brother Eugene, who serves as a Virginia congressman.
Over the years, Trump and his allies
have criticized both Alexander and Eugene Vindman, triggered by
Alexander’s congressional testimony that Trump abused his power during
his first impeachment trial.
Since his testimony, Alexander Vindman has made no secret that he’s “absolutely a Never-Trumper.” In September, he called Trump Putin’s “useful idiot” during a sit-down with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg
“They may or may not have dirt on him, but they don’t have to use it,”
he said at the time. “They have more effective and less risky ways to
employ him.
He has aspirations to be the kind of leader that Putin is,
and so he admires him. He likes authoritarian strongmen who act with
impunity, without checks and balances. So he’ll try to please Putin.”
Vlady has Donnie by the short hairs. The question is "Why is Trump willing to live Putin's lies?"
Trump has gone over to the dark side by aligning with Putin By Robert Reich/Robert Reich's Substack
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
25 February 25
A brief word today at the end of the fifth horrific week of Trump 2.0.
I know how hard it’s been for you. We are watching what we never
dreamed possible — the apparent transformation of our democracy into a
dictatorship (or, as Trump enjoyed promoting this week, a monarchy).
You may be feeling helpless, powerless, and alone. But you are not.
Most Americans are as disgusted by this as you are. Trump and his regime
want us to feel helpless, powerless, and alone — because that’s Trump’s
way of taking over.
This week, Trump officially went over to the dark side by aligning
himself with Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine war. Trump even said Ukraine
started the war, and he called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a
“dictator.”
By now we all know that when Trump accuses someone of something, he’s
projecting himself onto them. Trump is the one who’s becoming a
dictator. He’s refusing to follow laws of Congress or obey rulings of
the courts — disregarding the two branches that the framers of the
Constitution intended to be co-equal checks on a president’s power.
Americans have never particularly liked government. Ronald Reagan
told us “the government” was the problem. Bill Clinton said “the era of
big government is over.” Trump accuses the “deep state” of being an
enemy of the people.
But we cherish our system of government. We believe in the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and checks
and balances, and we believe no person should be above the law. We
prefer democracy to dictatorship. Our system was founded in opposition
to monarchy.
The genius of our system is that it doesn’t require us to agree on
every issue, but only to agree to be bound by decisions that emerge from
it. We’re free to take any position on abortion, climate change,
immigration, or any other issue, and to vote accordingly — but as
participants in a democracy, we accept decisions that emerge from the
system even if we dislike them.
We can, of course, work to change the politics that prevail in
Washington and state capitals. We’re also free to protest, to engage in
civil disobedience. We can even work to change the system through
constitutional amendment.
If Trump were just attacking the government, many Americans would be
cheering him on. But he’s now attacking our system of government. He’s
moving America from democracy to dictatorship (or monarchy).
Although many Americans agree with his policies, most are coming
to disagree with his attack on the system. The share of Americans who disapprove of Trump’s presidency has risen to 51% in the latest Reuters poll, compared with 41% right after he took office.
As more and more Americans come to understand his attack on our
system of government — rather than the government (or his so-called
“deep state”) — his support will continue to melt.
Christian
nationalism is in full swing after Donald Trump’s Thursday announcement
of a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias,” as well as a new
White House Faith Office led by right-wing televangelist and Trump
"spiritual adviser" Paula White.
The president made the announcement at the National Prayer
Breakfast in Washington, D.C., where he claimed without any evidence
that Christians are under attack in the United States—and that he will
save them.
"The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all
forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal
government, including at the DOJ, which was absolutely terrible, the
IRS, the FBI, terrible, and other agencies," Trump said. "In addition,
the task force will work to fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and
vandalism in our society and to move heaven and earth to defend the
rights of Christians and religious believers nationwide."
Trump added,
“While I’m in the White House, we will protect Christians in our
schools, in our military, in our government, in our workplaces,
hospitals and in our public squares. And we will bring our country back
together as one nation under God.”
Far from being a persecuted minority, Christians are the
largest religious group in the United States, with 68% of Americans
identifying as Christian, according
to Gallup data from March. And as for actual religious persecution,
it's actually Jews—who make up just 2% of the population—who faced the
vast majority of hate crimes in 2023, according to data from the Department of Justice.
Christians overwhelmingly backed Trump in the 2024 election,
with 63% of Protestants and other Christian denominations and 59% of
Catholics supporting Trump, according to exit poll data.
Now that he has reinfiltrated the White House, Trump seems to be rewarding them for their loyalty.
Trump also pardoned a group of Christians who illegally attacked and blockaded a health clinic that provided abortions.
As for the White House Faith Office, it will be led by White, who is off her rocker.
White has claimed that advising Trump is an assignment from God.
“To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God,” White said. “And I won’t do that.”
She also said those who oppose Trump are part of a “demonic network.”
In 2020, when it appeared that Trump lost the election to Joe Biden, White gave a batshit crazy sermon where she spoke in tongues and claimed that “angels” were coming to deliver Trump victory.
"I hear a sound of victory, the Lord says it is done," White said. "For angels have even been dispatched from Africa right now... In the name of Jesus from South America, they're coming here." [Gazette Blog editor's note: That would mean these are angels of color, else they would have been dispatched lily-white from heaven. Deport them.]
And in the 2024 election, she asked Christians to fast before Trump’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
A notable House Republican is lashing out over President Donald Trump’s firing of C.Q. Brown, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Speaking with CNN’s Manu Raju, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) slammed the move to fire Brown — with whom he served personally.
“I
was a colonel and a one star with C.Q. Brown; he did not deserve to be
fired,” Bacon said. He added, “The military is resilient. I’m just
worried about the lack of decency and class.”
This is the second time in a week that Congressman Bacon has come down hard on Trump. Speaking with CNN on Wednesday, Bacon called out the president for calling Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator.
“The
president needs a do-over day – and start again,” Bacon said. “He took a
bad turn. I think what he said is wrong, and it’s a shame.”
Bacon
— a more-moderate Republican who represents a swing district in
Nebraska — is widely considered a crucial swing voter, given the narrow
Republican majority in the House. At the moment, the GOP holds a narrow
218-215 majority in the House — meaning Republicans can only afford to
lose just two votes in order to pass any given measure without help from
Democrats.
Bacon’s vote is a crucial one for House Republicans to keep
in their column, but his recent rhetoric suggests he may be open to
breaking with the party — at least on certain issues.
CNN anchors John Berman and Sara Sidner roasted President Donald Trump as fact-checker Daniel Dale went over some of the “13 biggest lies” of his first month in office.
Dale marked Trump’s first month-iversary of the second term with a list of just the top 13 “lies”:
The tale of the $50 million – no, make it $100 million – in condoms for Hamas
Blaming Ukraine for starting the war on Ukraine
The (non-)uniqueness of birthright citizenship
More up-is-down reversing of the reality of January 6
A gusher of deceit about California water policy
The election lie he refused to let die
That fable about Olympic boxers, again
The president’s fictionalized northern neighbor
Blasting Biden for a program launched under Trump
Relentless deception about who pays tariffs
A wild exaggeration of the increase in autism rates
China’s (non-)operation of the Panama Canal
Trump’s invented dominance with “the youth vote”
On Thursday morning’s edition of CNN News Central, Sidner and Berman each cracked wise after Dale ticked through some of those falsehoods:
JOHN
BERMAN: All right, new this morning, we are seeing the impact of some
of the things that President Trump is saying that are not true, saying
that Ukraine started the war with Russia and more. Russian officials say
they’re laughing at all of this they’re so happy. But Ukraine, Russia,
this is not all the president has been saying that’s not true.
CNN’s fact checker in chief, Daniel Dale, is with us.
And, Daniel, on cnn.com you list what you call the 13 biggest lies of
the first month. We can’t do all 13, but what are some of the ones that
jump out at you?
DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: John, there
were so many lies from the president of the United States in his first
month that I had a hard time making that list of 13, which I think is
bananas, if you take a second to think about it.
I did make a
list, though, and I had it done. It was edited. And then the president
dropped in probably the biggest lie of the whole month. You’ve been
talking about it on your show this morning. Listen to what he said about
the war in Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think I have the power to end this
war. And I think it’s going very well. But today I heard, oh, well, we
weren’t invited. Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should
have ended it three years. You should have never started it. You could
have made a deal.
DALE: Russia started the war in Ukraine. This is obvious. It barely
needs a fact check. I think the brazenness of this claim, John, is an
example of the president’s willingness to lie about even obvious stuff.
Some of the lies on my list are about complicated policy subjects like
tariffs. But he’s also lying about things we witnessed with our own
eyes.
I’ll give you another representative example. It’s an
example of the president’s years old habit. Something I call
Trump-flation. And that is, making his inaccurate stories more and more
inaccurate over time.
So, listen to how the saga of the imaginary Gaza condoms evolved over the course of about a week.
KAROLINE
LEAVITT, BIMBO WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: DOGE and OMB also found that
there was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door
to fund condoms in Gaza.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We identified and
stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas. $50
million. And you know what’s happened to them? They’ve used them as a
method of making bombs.
$50 million, plus another $50 million for condoms for Hamas. Do you know about that? $100 million for condoms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DALE:
So, we went from $50 million in condoms for Gaza, to $50 million in
condoms for Hamas to make bombs, to $100 million in condoms for Hamas.
None of this was true. The White House had no evidence whatsoever of any
condom purchases for Gaza or for Hamas. So, this was quite a tale.
I’ll
give you a third example on my list. The president has been repeatedly
deceptive about the subject of birthright citizenship, the
constitutional right he’s trying to end. And he keeps saying that the U.S. is the only country in the world that offers birthright citizenship.
In
fact, that’s not even close to true. There are dozens of countries that
also grant automatic citizenship to people born on their soil. And you
don’t have to look far. The list includes Canada and Mexico.
Now,
you might say the president might be confused about this. Well, he’s
been making this same false claim, telling the same lie, since at least
2018. We’ve been fact checking this for more than six years.
BERMAN: Yes, repeating lies does not make them more true.
Daniel
Dale with the facts this morning. Great to see you. Thank you very much
for this hard work. People should go check out your full list on
cnn.com. Sara.
SIDNER: It is a long one.
And speaking of long ones, this buffoon puts Pinocchio to shame. FACT: Whatever else his tiny hands might connote, his lie-o-meter nose operates independently.
The New York Post pushed back on President Donald Trump’s quip that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is a “dictator” with a full front cover image of Russian President Vladimir Putin with an all-caps headline declaring: “THIS IS A DICTATOR.”
Trump claimed this week
that Zelensky “should have ended” the war with Russia earlier, after
its 2022 invasion, and even implied he was responsible for its start.
After Zelensky protested the take as “disinformation” Trump branded him a
“dictator without elections.” The remarks left European allies
scrambling and even had GOP lawmakers pushing back.
The Post, however, a conservative powerhouse and Trump-ally Rupert Murdoch’s
flagship newspaper, has drawn a sharp line in the sand over Ukraine. On
Friday the outlet dedicated its cover to pushing back – U.S. and
Ukrainian flags bordering its masthead – and a double page to columnist Douglas Murray, who sought to set the record by fact-checking the president’s latest assertions.
“President
Trump has a chance to bring an end to this war, to stop the killing.
Maybe even win a Nobel Prize for Peace,” Murray wrote.
He
added: “But he will not be honored if the peace is an appeasement, one
that bows down in the face of evil as it denies obvious truths.”
The
cover was praised by other Trump-supporting media personalities who
have taken issue with the Ukraine pivot, like journalist Piers Morgan.
The move follows a week of criticism from The Post’s editorial board itself, taking direct aim on Trump comments beginning Wednesday
“Hello: Ukraine is the victim of this war, not to mention our ally,” the board declared.
In
defense of Zelensky the board wrote: “He didn’t start it, and he’s had
no chance to end it except by surrendering to the blood-soaked invader:
Whatever negotiating tactics Trump cares to use, turning the truth
completely upside down ought to be beneath him.”
Sooner or later, a right wing entity was going to find the courage to take on the tin-horn dictator. Now, when will a congress person follow suit? Republican? Democrat? Lindsey? Mitch? Chuck? Come on, you cowards.
A rant by Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform attacking President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the Ukraine as a "dictator" was on the receiving end of a barrage of criticism on social media on Wednesday morning.
An
overnight comment by the leader of Ukraine who stated, "Unfortunately,
President Trump, with all due respect to him as the leader of a nation
that we greatly respect... is living in this disinformation bubble,"
appears to have gotten under The U.S. president's skin, and led to a
diatribe where Trump ranted, among other things, "A Dictator without
Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a
Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to
the War with Russia, something all admit only 'TRUMP,' and the Trump
Administration, can do."
That led to a pile-on
from Trump critics, with former MNSNBC host Mehdi Hasan firing back,
"Put aside the nastiness of this post, & the way in he attacks
Zelenskyy as a dictator but says not a word about his pal Putin, &
just focus on the way it is written: would you hire this weird person to work for you? Would you trust this odd person to teach your kid in school?"
MSNBC's Kyle Griffin bluntly wrote, "Trump just said in response that Zelenskyy is a 'Dictator without Elections.' That is not true."
On the Lincoln Project's Bluesky account, the group wrote, "Trump is a Russian stooge.
Putin may as well written this himself. And any Republican in Congress
who said they support our allies before, but are silent today over this,
are worthless."
Journalist and author
Steve Beschloss wrote, "That Trump is now calling Pres. Zelensky a
'dictator' and talked the U.S. into spending $350 billion (a lie) for a
war Ukraine started (another disgusting lie) should remind you the White
House occupant is mentally deranged and must be opposed at all times."
The
New York Times' Eric Lipton contributed, "Trump goes after President
Zelenskyy of Ukraine...Turning a relationship with this foreign nation upside down."
"So
many threads to pull here; the atrocious grasp of history &
geopolitik, the glib lie about how the war in Ukraine began, the
disgraceful abandonment of European allies. But it’s the alignment with
the war criminal Putin, no friend of ours, that sticks out. What won’t Trump do to harm us?" asked former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.
Co-President Donald Trump is greeted by Sen. Marco
Rubio (R-Fla.) upon his arrival in Miami, Florida. (photo: Kevin
Lamarque/Reuters)
Ukraine can crush Russia...if Trump and Musk will let it
Mark Hertling/The Bulwark19 February 25
Ukraine still has an opportunity to win the war—if the Trump administration will let it.
I’M AN ETERNAL OPTIMIST. But my gut, informed by a
career spent studying and implementing American foreign policy, tells
me this week will not go well. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to
meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rubio’s diplomatic experience is limited to his time in the Senate,
during which he served on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence
Committees. He has primarily focused on Latin American policy.
Lavrov,
on the other hand, has been Russia’s foreign minister since 2004, which
makes him the longest-serving foreign minister in modern history. Before
that he was a career diplomat. He is known for both his diplomatic
savvy and his mastery of deception.
The subject of the Rubio-Lavrov discussions will be Ukraine, a nation
that will not have a representative at these alleged peace talks.
President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that any decisions made during these
talks without Ukraine's participation are unacceptable.
Representatives from NATO, the EU, or any European nation have not been
formally invited to take part in the sessions. Perhaps my gut is just
reflecting my bias toward Ukrainians being allowed to defend their
territorial sovereignty and their nation’s independence.
In late February 2022, as Russian tanks rumbled toward Kyiv and the
world braced for Ukraine’s collapse, I had a gut reaction, too. While
many analysts and even some U.S. government officials expressed concern
that Ukraine would collapse within days, I publicly predicted that
Ukraine would not just hold their own but repulse the invasion, which
they did.
My assessment was based on my experiences
with both the Russian military (which I said at the time was inept) and
Ukraine’s fledgling army (which had shown significant improvement since
the early 2000s). Ukraine’s unique culture, spirit, resolve, and
refusal to bow to tyranny have since become world famous.
OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS, with a map in my home office and paying
dogged attention to open-source intelligence reports from the war zone, I
outlined what military leaders usually describe as “phases of a
campaign.” While these are not universally or even publicly recognized
by others, these serve as my description of the last three years of the
war.
So far, there have been nine phases. Some of them overlap—the
aerial campaigns overlapped with ground and naval campaigns, etc.—but
each had its turn as the most significant part of the war. Here are
succinct descriptions of each phase:
Phase 1—The failed Russian invasion (February–April 2022):
Designed to be a lightning strike—seizing Kyiv, decapitating Ukraine’s
leadership, and forcing a swift surrender—the initial Russian invasion
was dysfunctional for a variety of reasons: poor generalship, lack of
junior leaders, bad doctrine and tactics, lousy equipment, little
logistical planning, and overwhelming hubris, just to name a few.
Ukraine, armed with Javelins, Stingers, iron will, and clever
leadership, halted the assault with a mix of conventional operations,
guerrilla tactics, and population determination. The Battle of Kyiv
ended in a humiliating Russian retreat.
Phase 2—The Russian shift to the East (April–July 2022): After
its failure in Kyiv, Russia recalibrated, focusing on the Donbas, where
it thought it could make better use of its traditional
strengths—artillery and massed infantry. Ukraine, outgunned but not
outmatched, used mobile defenses, precision strikes, and newly provided
precision HIMARS systems to blunt Russian advances. The battle for
cities like Severodonetsk and Lysychansk showed Ukraine’s ability to
trade space for time—a key factor in any active defense—and contributed
to severe Russian losses.
Phase 3—The Southern counteroffensive and Kherson’s liberation (August–November 2022):
Ukraine seized the initiative, launching a counteroffensive in the
south. U.S. intelligence and Western-supplied weaponry stopped Russian
logistics and maneuvers, forcing them to abandon Kherson without a
costly urban fight while also demonstrating that Ukraine could retake
lost territory, boosting morale and shifting global perceptions. Russian
forces also managed to avoid being surrounded, living to fight another
day and demonstrating that the Russian Army is also capable of
adaptation, even if not as quickly as the Ukrainians.
Phase 4—The Battle of Bakhmut and Russian attritional warfare (December 2022–May 2023):
With Wagner Group forces leading the charge, Russia turned to brutal,
high-casualty attrition warfare. Ukraine held Bakhmut for months before
the city eventually fell, drawing Russian forces into a costly fight and
inflicting massive casualties. This led to the inactivation of Wagner
and an unfortunate Russian “accident” of the group’s leader, Yevgeny
Prigozhin.
Phase 5—The 2023 summer counteroffensive (June–September 2023):
Attempting to quickly train and incorporate Western-supplied armored
vehicles, Ukraine launched a long-anticipated counteroffensive.
Unfortunately, Russia had time to construct layered defensive
fortifications protected by meticulously planned long-range fires and
drones. Having seen even the best of armies attempt the kind of combined
arms maneuver and complex obstacle breeches Ukraine was attempting to
employ, my gut told me then it would not go as well as many anticipated.
Phase 6—The deep-strike campaign (October 2023–February 2024):
Russia continued relentless attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets—a war
crime—while Ukraine began using long-range missiles and newly produced
drones to target Russian supply hubs, airbases, and the Black Sea Fleet.
Russia, forced to stretch its defenses and redeploy resources, bowed to
Ukraine’s ability to hit deep behind enemy lines.
Phase 7—The winter of drones and electronic warfare (February–May 2024):
Both sides ramped up the use of drones and electronic warfare. Ukraine
used small-unit combined-arms teams, deep strikes, special operations,
NATO-provided intelligence, and improved electronic countermeasures to
outmaneuver Russia’s superior numbers and thwart Russian advances.
Phase 8—The 2024 spring-summer battlefield maneuvers (June–September 2024):
With renewed U.S. financial support after a congressional delay, Ukraine
launched targeted offensives to exploit Russian weaknesses, forcing
Russia to shift defensive positions repeatedly and further eroding their
ability to sustain the fight. Ukraine launched a campaign into the
Russian region of Kursk, taking a chunk of land the size of Los Angeles
and a small city, proving that their capacity for surprise and offensive
operations had not been depleted.
Phase 9—Betting on allies (October 2024–January 2025). Russia
deploys North Korean forces to try to reduce the Ukrainian salient in
Kursk. While the Ukrainians lost ground and consolidated their lines,
the North Korean forces not surprisingly proved mostly ineffective. The Russian economy increasingly showed signs of weakness as Zelensky for the first time signals openness to peace talks.
We’re now entering what some might call Phase 10, the inflection point. The Trump administration appears to be turning away
from eight decades of a strong U.S.-European strategic alliance. At the
same time, my gut says we may be approaching a critical turning point:
Russia is weakened, and Ukraine seems to be gaining strategic momentum.
The path the U.S. government chooses in the next few weeks could
contribute to Ukraine’s long-term success, continued support of
alliances and partnerships that have contributed to our nation’s
security and prosperity in the past, and a world order that promotes
global stability, prosperity, and national sovereignty.
Throughout these phases, U.S. and NATO support to Ukraine has been
pivotal, even when some have criticized the tempo and amount of that
support. The question now is whether that commitment will hold firm or
waver at this crucial moment in history.
THE MEETING BETWEEN RUBIO AND LAVROV will not be one of equals. As a
senator, Rubio was, until late in his tenure, a strong supporter of aid
to Ukraine. But he now must represent a more transactional president
whose skepticism of Ukraine and friendliness to Russia go back years.
Lavrov represents a paranoid, aggressive, authoritarian regime that
still sees itself as engaged in a long-term war against the United
States and Europe. The hastily announced meeting being held in Saudi
Arabia—an authoritarian Gulf Arab state—may have repercussions far from
the war that is ostensibly being settled.
The Trump administration and
Ukraine must both be struck by the parallels to a previous Trump peace
agreement in which another inexperienced secretary of state made a deal
with a more seasoned enemy to end a war without any American allies in
the room—Trump’s Doha Agreement with the Taliban.
Trump has claimed
that the American withdrawal from Afghanistan—which his Doha Agreement
guaranteed—inspired Putin to invade Ukraine. If that’s the case, he
should consider what lessons others, like Xi Jinping, might take from an
American abandonment of Ukraine.
Back in February 2022, the night before tanks rolled across the
border of Ukraine, all intelligence indicators suggested that Russia was
indeed about to invade, but I remember thinking no one in their right
mind would be so foolish as to start such a war.
But because of what
I’ve learned about Putin over decades serving in Europe, watching him
become increasingly emboldened, my gut told me he would be just that
rash and reckless. Putin did give the order, his troops indeed crossed
into a sovereign country, and the costs to Russia will take generations
to recover.
The United States and NATO can counter Putin’s criminal action and
restore international order—not just in Europe, but anywhere an
aggressive, authoritarian country might be considering a land-grab. I
hope this time my gut is wrong, and that our support for Ukraine
continues.
This regional Delta Air Lines jet crashed, burst into flames and flipped over while landing yesterday. Miraculously no one was killed. This latest air crash is the fifth since Trump and Musk ascended to the presidency just one month ago. Of course, they take no responsibility despite firing hundreds of critical FAA employees.WHOSE FLIGHT IS NEXT: Trump and Musk are blowing the country up in more ways than one.
Leigh Kimmins/The Daily Beast17 February 25
Donald Trump
has made good on a promise to slash hordes of workers from the Federal
Aviation Administration, despite four deadly air crashes during his
short second tenure as president, according to CNN.
A raft of termination emails were reportedly fired off on Friday,
with the numbers of probationary employees facing dismissal in the
“hundreds,” according to trade union center AFL-CIO.
CNN reported that staffers could even be blocked from entering FAA
facilities on Tuesday when they return from the Presidents Day break.
David Spero, national president of The Professional Aviation Safety
Specialists, or PASS, said the move to cull probation workers is a
“dangerous” one.
“Staffing decisions should be based on an individual agency’s
mission-critical needs,” Spero told CNN. “To do otherwise is dangerous
when it comes to public safety. And it is especially unconscionable in
the aftermath of four deadly aircraft accidents in the past month.”
The move comes less than three weeks after a U.S. Army helicopter collided with a passenger jet that was about to land in Washington, D.C., killing 67, and an air ambulance crashed in Philadelphia, killing seven. Ten people died when a regional flight in Alaska went missing and was found crashed,
earlier this month. Days later one person died in Scottsdale, Arizona,
when a plane veered off the runway and collided with a parked aircraft. Then yesterday, a Delta Air Lines flight with 80 aboard crash-landed, burst into flames and flipped over.
Just a day after he was sworn in, Trump signed the executive order
“Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation,” eliminating DEI hiring procedures
in aviation. This motion also aimed to initiate performance reviews for
“individuals in critical safety positions.”
Trump has fired the TSA Administrator and Coast Guard Commandant, as
well as members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, who advise
on aviation security.
CNN reported in May last year that air traffic control stations were facing a shortage of 3,000 controllers.
It comes after reports that DOGE head Elon Musk
and his minions will be allowed to oversee air traffic procedures,
according to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Duffy said on Fox’s Hannity
show earlier this month that he is ready to let the cost-cutting squad
shape a new air traffic control system at “the speed of business, not
bureaucracy.”
“They are going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system,”
tweeted Duffy days earlier, in a message re-shared by Musk. He added
that DOGE “aim[s] to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic
control system.”
Part of the American Airlines regional jet wreckage is visible in the Potomac River as rescuers search for bodies. All 67 on board died.
Donald Trump intends to rule as an autocrat. On this, his statements and past conduct are clear. As we saw in our last installment, he will have considerable leeway to follow through on this aim.
If he and his allies approach the task astutely (admittedly a tall
order in their case), they can transform the executive branch into an
instrument of his will. They can then use key federal agencies, along
with deputized state and local law enforcement and thuggish extremists
like the Proud Boys, to try and sideline his opponents.
Any laws they break in the process are of little concern. Chief Justice John Roberts and his band of enablers saw to that last summer in Trump v. United States, when they effectively anointed (Republican) presidents elected kings.
Trump’s freedom of action is not absolute, however. His bid to become
a dictator will run up against some serious obstacles, including
federalism, a vibrant civil society, his own unpopularity, and others we
will cover today. These obstacles serve as loci of potential
resistance. If democratic Americans, including but not limited to the
Democratic Party, exploit them to their full effect, they can thwart the
coming lurch toward authoritarianism.
To help identify these various points of leverage, we will draw on
the experiences of other countries where aspiring autocrats put
democracy at risk. In places like Belarus, Hungary, India, Russia,
Turkey, and Venezuela, elected strongmen overpowered their opponents and
forged authoritarian regimes. In others, like Brazil, Poland, Slovakia,
and Ukraine, oppositions were able to frustrate such efforts, allowing
democracy to survive.
Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way distinguish between two types of nondemocratic rule. The first is full authoritarianism,
in which the opposition has no viable prospects for gaining power
through legal channels and is instead forced underground. This scenario
is doubtful in the U.S., as the constraints on Trump are too onerous to
permit the outright elimination of formal political contestation.
A more viable alternative is what Levitsky and Way call competitive authoritarianism.
Under this arrangement, leaders rig elections, curb civil liberties,
and deny the opposition access to resources, media, and fair legal
arbitration. Unlike full authoritarianism, however, there remain legal
channels through which opposition parties can compete for office. They
can nominate candidates, run campaigns, and place campaign ads, albeit
at a distinct disadvantage to incumbents. Elections, while unfair, are
nevertheless competitive enough that incumbents face a real chance of
losing power.
To make competitive authoritarianism durable, Trump will have
to overcome some major impediments. Many of the structural advantages
held by other autocrats are either unavailable in his case or can be
rendered so if his opponents act accordingly.
The question is whether Trump can entrench a state of competitive
authoritarianism across multiple election cycles—or whether the initial
move toward competitive authoritarianism gets pushed back and democracy
maintained.
The coming years will likely witness at least some elements of
competitive authoritarianism. If Trump captures the executive branch, we
may well see arrests of Democratic politicians, criminal probes of
activist organizations, attacks on independent media, the violent
repression of protesters, and mass deportations without due process,
among other authoritarian tactics.
But will he manage to stack the decks to such an extent as to
forestall any prospect of a Democratic victory in 2026 and 2028? Or will
elections be sufficiently competitive to leave the outcome uncertain?
The answer, we will see, depends on us.
To make competitive authoritarianism durable, Trump will have to
overcome some major impediments. Many of the structural advantages held
by other autocrats are either unavailable in his case or can be rendered
so if his opponents act accordingly. We will examine each of them in
turn.
Just as Trump cannot establish authoritarianism unless he
exploits the tools available to him, so must small-d democrats utilize
their own advantages if they are to stop him.
Constitutional changes are not an option: In Hungary,
India, Russia, and Venezuela, authoritarian leaders were able to amend
or even replace their countries’ constitutions. But the means by which
they did so—electoral supermajorities, relatively viable amendment
procedures, or some combination thereof—are off the table for Trump.
No controllable media market: In all four of the countries above,
rulers were able to rein in the press through the selective
distribution of state advertising funds. Loyal outlets received
advertising money while disloyal ones were left to wither on the vine.
What made this tactic possible in the first place was the media’s
heavy reliance on public advertising. But ad revenue for American
outlets comes overwhelmingly from private, not public, sources, thus
depriving Trump of a key tool wielded by other autocrats.
No controllable business elite: Business leaders in Hungary,1Russia, and Venezuela
lacked the collective economic heft to resist state influence. They
were also highly dependent on overpriced tenders, a rigged regulatory
environment, and personal connections to state officials. This made them
vulnerable to autocratic pressure, forcing them to act as supplicants
who did the president’s bidding.
But the resources and competitiveness of the U.S. business sector
lends it a degree of resilience its foreign peers lacked. America’s
leading companies are also far less reliant on government access. Put
simply, the state needs them more than they need the state. Good luck
running a dictatorship without Microsoft’s cloud services or Intel’s
chips.
That is not to mention their exquisite interdependence with the
global economy. If Trump is too dumb to grasp the ramifications of an
attack on NVIDIA, the market reaction will be enough to teach him.
Federalism: Because American federalism leaves so much
power to the states, Trump will not be able to construct an
authoritarian regime without their help. Absent the collaboration of
state and local governments, his ability to intimidate election
officials, limit political organizing, deport millions of people, and
restrict media freedom will be severely limited.
As of this writing, Democrats have complete or partial control of half of all statehouses.
Additionally, a number of Republican governors have demonstrated a
willingness to resist Trump in the past. Whether by withholding records
on prospective deportees or refusing to authorize law enforcement
cooperation with federal agencies, state and local officials can
disregard any illegal orders from Washington. In fact, they are
constitutionally bound to do so, explains Corey Brettschneider, a political scientist at Brown.
When faced with mass protests, Trump will undoubtedly respond
with unchecked repression and brutal violence. This will only serve to
undercut his legitimacy and mobilize opposition to his rule.
Federalism has stymied autocrats far abler than Trump. Take India,
where, until recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi enjoyed a
legislative supermajority. Despite such advantages, he has been forced
to send his agents from state to state, kidnapping local deputies by the hundreds, in order to bring provincial governments into line. A decade into his rule, a number of regions remain stubbornly defiant.
Trump lacks overwhelming public support: Successful
autocrats such as Modi (India), Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), Recep Erdoğan
(Turkey), Alyaksandr Lukashenka (Belarus), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and
Vladimir Putin (Russia) all benefited from huge levels of popular
support during the early stages of their rule. This proved critical to
their ability to bulldoze democratic institutions. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explain:
When an elected leader enjoys, say, a 70 percent approval
rating, critics jump on the bandwagon, media coverage softens, judges
grow more reluctant to rule against the government, and even rival
politicians, worried that strident opposition will leave them isolated,
tend to keep their heads down. By contrast, when the government’s
approval rating is low, media and opposition grow more brazen, judges
become emboldened to stand up to the president, and allies begin to
dissent. [Peruvian president Alberto] Fujimori, Chávez, and Erdoğan all
enjoyed massive popularity when they launched their assault on
democratic institutions.2
Trump’s own popular support does not begin to approach what many of
his foreign counterparts had at the start of their tenures. He will have
to navigate a much more hostile terrain as a result.
Incompetence, impulsivity, and personal abrasiveness:
Of the many terms that can describe such leaders as Putin, Orbán, and
Modi, “hot-headed moron” is not one of them. These autocrats are known
for their political skill and tactical prowess, attributes they employed
to great effect in the course of eroding democracy and consolidating
their rule.
Trump lacks the shrewdness of a figure like Orbán, whose deftness
allowed him to split his opponents and anticipate defections before they
occurred. Nor does he have Orbán’s restraint. When faced with mass
protests, Trump will undoubtedly respond with unchecked repression and
brutal violence. This will only serve to undercut his legitimacy and
mobilize opposition to his rule. At that point, the people he depends on
for support—federal bureaucrats, elections officials, army leaders, his
GOP allies, and others—might decide to play it safe rather than follow orders that are patently unlawful.
This dynamic has proved many an autocrat’s undoing. Take former
Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, whose stupidity and imprudence
much resembled Trump’s own (by way of illustration, he once bragged to
German chancellor Angela Merkel about all the money he had stolen).
When leaders break the rules with abandon, they lose their
legitimacy. This opens the door for other political actors to remove
them by any available means, legal or not.
Reversing Trump’s bid for autocracy will require a similar
effort on the part of Americans. Civil society in the U.S. has more than
enough strength, independence, organization, and financing to meet the
moment. The only question is whether it has the will.
A civil society too big, entrenched, and diffuse to sideline:
Attacks on protesters often yield the opposite of their intended
effect. This is a lesson Yanukovych learned the hard way. Rather than
intimidate people into silence, repression tends to galvanize societal
opposition and result in bigger, more radical protest movements.
Trump, of course, is too dense to understand that. He is also
congenitally incapable of handling any problem in a measured and
considered manner. When he inevitably overplays his hand, the reaction
he provokes will likely far exceed his ability to control it.
Civil society is a term political scientists use to describe
the various groups that represent citizens in relation to the state.
They include labor unions, interest groups, religious organizations,
professional associations, social movements, political parties, and
other non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Successful authoritarians, from Chávez to Orbán,
were able to marginalize civil society through a mix of controlled
repression and co-optation. Others, like Yanukovych, responded with
disproportionate violence and ended up mobilizing civil society against
them.
Trump will likely do the same—only the civil society he is up against
is far more formidable than anything Yanukovych encountered. As a
consequence, he may find himself in a very dangerous position.
Of all the factors that might undermine his grab for power, the
strength of America’s civil society is arguably the most important. The
Civil Society Participation Index, compiled by the V-Dem project,
measures the overall vitality and influence of civil society. The index
grades each country’s civil society on a scale from zero (weakest) to
one (strongest).
The table below shows the strength of civil society in a given
country the year before an autocrat came to power. Although places like
India and Venezuela boasted respectable numbers, the U.S. stands heads
and shoulders above the rest, attaining a near perfect score of 0.98.
Civil society participation the year before an autocrat came to power in a given country. Source: V-Dem
In recent decades, countries that successfully fended off would-be
dictators typically did so on the back of widespread and sustained
mobilization by civil society. Such activism was pivotal to stopping Vladimír Mečiar’s campaign
to become a dictator in Slovakia during the mid-1990s. It was even more
critical to Ukraine’s months-long revolt against Yanukovych in 2013-14.
Civil society also thwarted Jair Bolsonaro’s authoritarian gamble in Brazil. From rooftop panelaços
(pot-banging protests) to activists who gained seats in local municipal
chambers, civil society paved the way for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s
victory in the 2022 elections.
Similarly, when Poland’s would-be autocrat, Jarosław Kaczyński, tried
to form a commission empowered to disqualify electoral candidates in
June 2023, he sparked massive protests that forced him to abandon the initiative. In the election which followed that October, he and his party were trounced by the center-right Civic Platform.
Reversing Trump’s bid for autocracy will require a similar effort on
the part of Americans. Civil society in the U.S. has more than enough
strength, independence, organization, and financing to meet the moment.
The only question is whether it has the will.
Just as Trump cannot establish authoritarianism unless he exploits the tools available to him, so must small-d democrats3 utilize their own advantages if they are to stop him.
The instruments at his disposal are formidable, as we saw in part 2.
But he cannot use them to any effect unless a complacent public lets
him. Without the acquiescence of state and local leaders, he cannot rig
elections. Absent the collaboration of blue cities, he cannot round up
and deport millions of immigrants. Unless people stay home out of fear,
he cannot defeat a protest movement. If not for elections officials,
district attorneys, business leaders, and universities “obeying in
advance,” he cannot intimidate them into furthering his reactionary
agenda.
Unfortunately, some of those in a position to spearhead the
resistance are, as of now, not up to the job. The legacy media will not
be able to defend the values on which its existence depends so long as
it maintains its delusional conceit of providing “balance.” The
Democratic Party cannot meet the Republican threat with the boldness
required if it remains stuck in its self-imposed prison of performative bipartisanship and bland, kitchen-table priorities.
Democrats tend to treat Republicans like a conventional party, one
which differs from their own merely on matters of policy. By doing so,
however, they obscure the GOP’s mission to upend the constitutional
order, thereby protecting Republicans from themselves.
Hungary’s opposition has enabled Orbán in much the same way. “Torn
between considering his reign in terms of ‘bad government’ or as an
illegitimate system,” Bálint Magyar observes, Orbán’s critics have come
“nowhere close to a diagnosis, not to mention a cure.”4
The Ukrainians who unseated Yanukovych, on the other hand, had a very clear notion of what they were fighting against: proizvol,
a Russian term denoting a combination of “arbitrariness and tyranny,
the condition of being made an object of someone else’s will,” explains
Marci Shore.5
Whether the Democratic Party will follow the failed approach of the
Hungarian opposition or the successful one Ukrainian democrats used
remains to be seen.
If, by some miracle, Trump defies his explicit vows and past record
and actually adheres to the Constitution, his legitimacy will remain
intact. In this case, Democrats can simply nominate an opposing
candidate and contest a normal election in 2028.
Of course, Trump will not abide by the Constitution and will instead
try to become an autocrat. When that happens, small-d democrats,
including the Democratic Party, will face a choice. Will we allow a
degenerate criminal who mocks and assaults the nation’s ideals install a
personal dictatorship? Or will we uphold the tradition of our civil
rights forebears and resist?
The fate of the republic lies in our hands. It is up to us to decide what to do with it.
Cartoon By Pedro Molina Friday, February 14, 2025
at 6:30:04a MST
