Dem
47
GOP
53
Again, it's all-Ukraine day.
Oh, and if you are still working on the headline theme, we'll observe that a punch in the nether regions might awaken you to the answer.
C.J. in Lowell, MA, asks: Why is there talk of negotiating a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine? As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable end, without which peace should be off the table, is that Russia entirely and unconditionally withdraws (and, even better, pays for the damage they have done). Also, why is the U.S. trying to get something out of this?
(V) & (Z) answer: Do not interpret this as a defense of anyone. However, the really messy circumstance in wars is when they enter into a stalemate in which neither side seems to be able to secure victory. The leadership of the aggressor country does not want to give up and go home, because they don't want to face the uncomfortable question: "What was the point of all the blood that was spilled and treasure that was lost?" But they also can't secure the win.
This state of affairs was reached in World War I (before the U.S. entered, and tipped the balance), and in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan (both the Russian invasion of that country and the American one). The Russo-Ukrainian War has clearly entered this phase, as well. Under current circumstances, Vladimir Putin can't win. But he also can't withdraw and tell his people "Hey! We tried!" So, he lingers, in hope that eventually world events will allow him to secure some version of a win.
As to your final question, the foreign policy of the U.S., like that of other nations, is always at least partly self-interested. Every other president of the last 75 years understood that, in helping the nations of Europe to resist the U.S.S.R./Russia, the United States gains substantially. Because Donald Trump is a "businessman," and because he's not much of an abstract thinker, he is apparently unable to grasp any "gain" that is not in some sort of tangible form that can be converted into money.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: If we end up being able to count the number of pro-Ukraine Republican members of Congress on two hands, and if Congress cannot proceed to get a budget passed during the next 2 weeks, resulting in a shutdown, do you see any chance of these pro-Ukraine Republicans switching parties to solve the budget problem? You only need one or two.
I am trying to figure out incentives, such as whether it helps or hurts the reelection prospects of someone like Don Bacon (R-NE) if he switches parties.(V) & (Z) answer: Switching parties, especially in today's polarized climate, is generally political suicide. Members of the person's previous party see them as a traitor, and members of the person's new party see them as a phony. The only time it works is when the demographics of the district/state have shifted, such that an area that was once Democratic no longer really is, or that was once Republican no longer really is. The example that most readers will recall is the Southern Democrats who became Southern Republicans, mostly from 1965-2010.
If one or more Republican members turn against Trump, they will be falling on their swords in service of some greater purpose than their own political careers. While you should not hold your breath, it's also not impossible that some members will make this choice. Former representatives Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and Justin Amash all did so during Trump v1.0.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: One of the fairly standard assumptions in U.S. politics is that foreign policy has a very limited impact on elections. Also, it was surprising how many people only realized that Donald Trump is a convicted felon after the election. Given these two factors, why do you think this would have any meaningful impact? Outside of the people who are following what is happening, do you think a lot of the low-information voters will care about this in a year's time?
(V) & (Z) answer: We will offer up three observations for your consideration. First, because American voters effectively have only two choices in presidential elections, it can be hard to tease out exactly what factors led a party to defeat. Second, every presidential election in the 21st century, save one (2008), was fairly close. Small changes in a party's support can be decisive. Third, Joe Biden was clearly hurt by the Afghanistan withdrawal, and our guess is that if Ukraine falls, that will be seen as many orders of magnitude worse. Add it up, and it's entirely plausible Ukraine could hurt the Republicans at the polls in 2026 or 2028, and without anyone really knowing for sure how much.
All of this said, if Ukraine survives (and maybe wins) with mostly European support, then this probably won't be an issue in 2026 or 2028. It might even end up as a feather in the caps of the GOP, along the lines of, "See, we finally got Europe to do its fair share."
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: You wrote that confusing 2014 with 2015 for the year that Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea is a sign of mental decline on the part of Trump. Perhaps, but what was up with Trump constantly saying "raw earth"? Is he stupid, and does ne not actually know that all his repeated demands have been for "rare earth minerals," or is he cognitively slipping? Imagine if Joe Biden repeatedly misstated something like that, and how much crap he would have gotten about being senile. Don't you think that repeatedly referring to "raw earth" is more of a sign of decline than mixing up a date—especially given the fact that "rare earth minerals" is the centerpiece of the deal being Trump is trying to get?
(V) & (Z) answer: We did not assign much significance to "raw earth." That phrase conjures up a similar mental image to "rare earth," and once a person has a close-but-not-quite phrase stuck in their heads, it's easy to repeat it.
The problem with the year is not that Trump was wrong, it's that he kept insisting he was right. If (V) said that the Civil War started in 1860, and (Z) said it was actually 1861, (V) would not argue because (Z) obviously knows better. If (Z) said that MINIX was released in 1988, and (V) said it was actually 1987, (Z) would not argue because (V) obviously knows better. This is normal behavior, particularly when speaking with someone whose expertise clearly outstrips your own.
However, people who are suffering from dementia, or other forms of cognitive decline, will often insist on their version of facts, even if their version is wrong. That is because admitting that they are in error is, in effect, admitting to their incapacity.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: After the events of Friday, it's certain to me that any possible deal between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is dead.
My question is: When Trump cuts off arms supplies fo Ukraine, can't U.S. arms manufacturers go around Trump and sell directly to European allies to give to Ukraine instead? If we are not at war with countries like the U.K., France, and Poland, there shouldn't be any barriers to supplying them with weapons, which could then be given to Ukraine. Most Europeans understand it is essential that Ukraine wins this war, or they could be under Russia's thumb again as they were in the 20th century.(V) & (Z) answer: You are not going to like the answer to your question. The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (supplemented by other legislation) gives the president the authority to review arms sales by American companies to foreign countries. The president is specifically instructed to make certain that: (1) the arms are being purchased for self-defense purposes, and (2) the arms will not lead to the escalation of an existing conflict.
So, if RTX or General Dynamics or Northrop was planning to sell a bunch of stuff to, say, the U.K., with the knowledge (or a strong suspicion) that the U.K. was going to turn the materiel over to Ukraine, then Trump would not only be able to kill the deal, he would have a legal obligation to do so.
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: Can Donald Trump unilaterally prevent Ukraine from joining NATO?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. For a new member to be added to NATO, their admission requires unanimous support from existing members. Remember how Turkey had to be "persuaded" (with a bunch of military "aid," mostly in the form of American F-16s) to allow Sweden to join.
J.Y. in Salem, OR, asks: I just got through watching our POTUS and VP act like schoolyard bullies today when Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the Oval Office. Afterward, I heard the response from European nations condemning it and affirming their commitment to Ukraine. I am aware that the U.S. contributes a great deal to NATO, but the E.U. has to be sick and tired of dealing with the Orange Menace. It made me wonder how feasible it might be for NATO to be proactive and kick the U.S. out and let Ukraine join?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is not easy to kick a nation out of NATO. That is particularly true of the U.S., which is the founding member. In fact, the NATO charter essentially says that if the U.S. leaves, NATO is no more.
However, there is nothing stopping the non-U.S. members of NATO from forming a new alliance and not inviting the U.S. to join. Surely this is the path they would pursue, should they decide that America is no longer a worthy partner.
S.M. in Warren, MI, asks: I was appalled, just as many were, by the absolute disaster that occurred between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Many of the European leaders have signified their continued support for Ukraine.
My question is two-fold: (1). Do you see Europe as a whole chipping in as a whole to give Ukraine support? and (2) Do you now think that the world will begin to isolate away from the United States—and that a new much stronger Europe is in the works?(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, and yes. Because Donald Trump is either a man of limited vision, or is a Russian stooge, or both, he does not appreciate that if the goal is to resist Russia, it's way easier to let someone else do it than to do it yourself. Not only does that spare your nation's populace, infrastructure, etc., it also saves from having to spend countless billions or trillions in future veterans' benefits (both pensions and healthcare). The nations of Europe are not limited/compromised in this way, and will see that they can either contribute money and arms to Ukraine now, or be at serious risk of having to do the fighting themselves a few years down the line.
As to moving away from the United States, we have a hard time seeing how that does not happen, because the U.S. has proven to be an unreliable partner, and because one of the two major political parties is now fundamentally xenophobic and isolationist. We suppose that the fact that the U.K. left the E.U. is a slight barrier to European cooperation, especially since that is a byproduct of xenophobia and isolationism among some segment of the British public. However, we suspect that barrier will be overcome, one way or another.
E.S. in Providence, RI, asks: Given that the selling out of Ukraine is now complete, and that Donald Trump is completely in Vladimir Putin's pocket, is it possible for the highest-ranking pro-democracy officials at the Pentagon to start a military takeover of the Executive Branch and arrest POTUS, VEEP and Musk for treason?
(V) & (Z) answer: A military coup, even if you agree with the motivations, is still a military coup. If this did come to pass, that's the end of the republic.
B.H. in Southborough, MA, asks: Between turning against our ally in support of Russia and installing a Cabinet intent on destroying their respective organizations, it's clear now that Donald Trump works for Vladimir Putin, who is set on destroying our country. How do we remove him from office?
(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably this question was rhetorical, but we thought we'd answer it nonetheless, because it pairs with the previous question.
The U.S. Constitution affords three ways of ending a president's time in office: (1) impeachment and conviction, (2) removal by the Cabinet under the terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and (3) the expiration of the president's term. You could plausibly add a fourth item to this list, namely removal under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, but under current jurisprudence that ends up being a similar thing to impeachment, since SCOTUS says an enabling act from Congress is required.
Beyond that, Trump could choose to resign, for whatever reason. Or he could die, either a natural death, or a Second Amendment sort of death.
Most of the items above are not within the power of the average voter right now (and the one that arguably is, we certainly would not advocate). If public opinion aggressively shifts against Trump, particularly if he becomes plainly senile, then maybe Congress will eventually be persuaded to take action, but it is very unlikely.
S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: Can you explain the letters "TCF"—as in TCF v1, TCF v2, etc.? I guess I missed it and I have searched the site for it but to no avail. For what it's worth, I read it as Trump Cluster F**k. How close am I?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not too close. While we don't use such acronyms, many readers (and many, many other people) had taken to referring to Donald Trump as "TFG" for "The Former Guy." However, he's not former anymore, at least not at the moment. On the other hand, he IS a convicted felon. And so, "TFG" was replaced by "TCF," for "The Convicted Felon."
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: If every MAGA politician and voter magically disappeared from the United States overnight, how long would it take the country to recover from the damage that has already been incurred?
(V) & (Z) answer: A long time, we fear. The problem isn't just Trump, it's that the U.S. system allowed for him to be elected twice, and then to act with near impunity. Even if he dies or leaves office, how can anyone be sure it won't happen again?
Domestically, it's going to be hard to rebuild the agencies that have been torn asunder by Trump's appointees and his other lackeys (e.g., Elon Musk). If you are a current federal employee, wouldn't you be looking for private sector work right now? And if you are a future federal employee, wouldn't you have to think twice about taking that kind of gamble with your life and your career?
In foreign affairs, it's the same problem. Most prominent Republicans today, and certainly the ones who aspire to the MAGA throne, are isolationists and xenophobes. The next Republican president could be just as unreliable a partner as the current one is.
This is a grim assessment, but we do see two ways that maybe things will bounce back more quickly than might otherwise be expected. First, if the courts and the Congress eventually get themselves in gear, and start reining Trump in, then maybe people can persuade themselves that the U.S. system works, even if it's sometimes delayed. Also, if the worldwide trend toward populist reactionaries (Trump, Viktor Orbán, Javier Milei, etc.) peters out, then maybe it will lead to the conclusion that Trump was just the product of a historical moment whose time has passed.
R.B. in Santa Monica, CA, writes: Abdur Rahman Khan, Emir of Afghanistan, to his son Habibullah Khan, in 1901, from the elder Khan's deathbed: "My last words to you, my son and successor, are: Never trust the Russians."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.