Over the years there have been a slew of images and cartoons about Donald Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Here are a few:
The post IMAGES AND CARTOONS ABOUT TRUMP-PUTIN RELATIONSHIP appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
If you watch the entire Oval Office meeting between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, you’ll notice that Trump was thanked by Zelensky, not once, but twice, three minutes into the meeting. Zelensky thanked Trump again at the 7:35 mark. At minute 41, Zelensky said, “God bless, now, Trump will stop Putin.”
Before minute 41 was over, Vice President (sic) JD Vance told Zelensky, “You should be thanking the president.” At minute 44, JD asked, “Have you said ‘thank you’ once?”
Maybe JD should have been studying a brief on recent Ukrainian/Russian history instead of focusing on ambushing Zelenskyy. If he had, then maybe he wouldn’t have suggested something as stupid as “maybe engaging in diplomacy.”
The Minsk Agreements were negotiated and signed in 2014 to end the fighting between Russian separatist groups in Ukraine.
The agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas, and restoration of control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. The agreement was signed, with Russia getting the better end of the deal.
It was signed in September 2014, and in January 2015, the Russian military entered the region to continue fighting with the separatist groups. In 2022, Vladimir Putin declared that the Minsk Agreement “no longer existed” and commenced a full invasion of Ukraine.
In 2019, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a “full and comprehensive ceasefire” that included prisoner swaps, which never happened.
At 4:25, President Zelensky explains this, quite elegantly, to Trump and JD.
Zelensky starts with, “Can I ask you?” Vance says, “Sure. Yeah.”
Zelensky: “OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the –”
Trump: “2015?”
Zelensky: “2014.”
Trump: “Oh, 2014? I was not here.”
Vance: “That’s exactly right.”
Zelensky: “Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it.”
And this is my favorite part.
Zelensky asked, “What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
And that’s where Trump and JD got pissed and the shouting match began, although, the only ones doing the shouting was Trump and JD. This was a planned ambush, and it didn’t go as planned for Trump and JD. They didn’t expect President Zelensky to push back on the “diplomacy” bullshit. That probably made them angrier.
I believe Trump’s proposal to trade military support for Ukraine’s “Rare Earth” minerals was a bluff, and Zelensky called it. Trump is a terrible negotiator. Trump doesn’t want to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia.
For JD Vance to suggest that Ukraine engage in diplomacy is like asking the British and French after Germany broke the agreement signed with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and started World War II, “Have you tried talking to Hitler?”
Hitler should have been a guy easy to negotiate with, right? He was a vegetarian dog lover. Even Trump doesn’t like dogs, and his only vegetable is ketchup. Is it possible that Hitler, who murdered over six million Jews, was more human and likable than Donald Trump? Maybe we could have stopped the invasion of Poland by negotiating over some eggplant lasagne (or maybe living on a diet of nothing but eggplant lasagne (an ex made me some once) is what could start a world war. I bet Neville Chamberlain could have gone for some eggplant lasagne.
Trump and JD have never suggested to Putin that he try diplomacy. For Putin, diplomacy is just another method of swindling.
TO READ THE REST OF THE COLUMN GO HERE.
Visit Clay Jones’ website and email him at clayjonz@gmail.com.
The post THANKS FOR NOTHING (CARTOON AND COLUMN) appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
If there is one certain bipartisan agreement in U.S. politics, then it is this: Touch Social Security and your political career is dead.
To quote economist Michelle Clark Neely, “Frequently called ‘the third rail of American politics’—touch it and you die—social security reform is an issue that prompts heated debates among its supporters and detractors.”
History New Network editor Rick Shenkman provides this tidbit of Social Security history:
“In 1964 Barry Goldwater lost the presidency in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in part because of the perception that Goldwater was hostile to Social Security. But it wasn’t until the early 1980s that Social Security became known as the third rail of American politics. It was House Speaker Tip O’Neill who coined the phrase and O’Neill who, more than anyone, made Social Security murderous to touch.” [Quote Source ]
Now, Elon Musk has entered the Social Security fray by calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
From USA Today : “The CEO of companies including Tesla and SpaceX argued that the U.S. ‘better fix’ its entitlement systems because birth rates have fallen and post-retirement life expectancy has increased.”
In general, Elon Musk is correct about the statistics that he mentions, as indicated by the following graphs.
This blogger understands why Elon Musk would call Social Security a Ponzi scheme. As indicated by the above-shown life-expectancy graph, when Social Security was enacted in 1935, less than 50% of Americans lived long enough to qualify for Social Security. American politicians didn’t have to worry about the fiscal health of Social Security as long as more workers paid into the system than took out of the system.
Yet, it is a bit too much to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, because the latter tells its victims that they can acquire more money than they already have by investing in the scheme. In short, a Ponzi scheme is get-rich-quick scheme, with only the people at the top getting rich.
In contrast, workers who pay into Social Security are expecting to get out of it what they pay into it.
CNBC quotes former Social Security commissioner Martin O’Malley as saying, “I think many people throughout the country are going to start bringing a lot of heat to members of Congress who have been facilitating, supporting, aiding and abetting the breaking of their Social Security and the interruption of benefits that they work their whole lives to earn. These are earned benefits.”
As it turns out, those earned benefits aren’t that much. The Social Security Administration reports, “The estimated average amount changes monthly. For example, the estimated average monthly Social Security retirement benefit for January 2025 is $1,976.” That amount is more than what this blogger receives in monthly SSDI payments, which is his only source of income.
Sure, the Social Security system may need repairs. However, Elon Musk isn’t Fix-It Felix. Instead, he is Wreck-It Ralph minus Ralph’s charm.
The post Social Security: You Touch, You Die appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Journalists covering the Feb. 28, 2025, Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described it as a “jaw-dropping ” “spectacle ” and a “striking breach of Oval Office comity .” Slate’s Fred Kaplan asserted , “Nobody has ever seen anything like it.”
People shouldn’t have been surprised.
The Oval Office encounter was expected to be an on-camera meeting between the president and the Ukrainian head of state before the signing of a crucial minerals deal between the two countries that was meant to be a key step toward ending the war in Ukraine.
But as reporters described it, the initially routine meeting devolved into a “fiery exchange ” in which Trump and Vice President JD Vance “berated ” and “harangued ” Zelenskyy after he pushed back on Vance’s assertion that Trump’s diplomatic skills would ensure that Russian President Vladimir Putin would honor a ceasefire agreement.
Trump’s compulsion to dominate both allies and enemies seems to have caused him to jettison the negotiation the moment that Zelenskyy declined to perform subservient fealty. The meeting, which was ended by Trump with no agreement signed, illustrated why authoritarians are lousy dealmakers, particularly when autocratic instincts are exacerbated by what’s known as toxic masculinity .
Toxic masculinity is a version of masculinity that discourages empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women and associates leadership with white patriarchy. It devalues behaviors considered to be “feminine” and suggests that the way to earn others’ respect is to accrue power and status.
As a communication scholar who studies gender and politics, I have written about Trump’s displays of toxic masculinity and authoritarian tendencies in a variety of situations, during and after his first presidential term.
Trump’s reaction to Zelenskyy in the Oval Office illustrates how these inclinations stymie the president’s purported dealmaking abilities, undermine democratic values and make the world a more dangerous place.
Trump staged the public Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy to showcase his ostensible prowess as – in his words – an “arbitrator ” and “mediator .” Trump insisted during the first 40 minutes that “my whole life is deals ” and asserted that he has what it takes to make Putin conform to a peace agreement with an embattled Ukraine.
Apparently eager to project a persona as a successful diplomat and powerful dealmaker, Trump rejected a reporter’s suggestion that “you align yourself too much with Putin ” and not with democratic values.
Trump contended that in order to successfully negotiate, he couldn’t alienate either Putin or Zelenskyy. “If I didn’t align myself with both of them,” he said, “you’d never have a deal.” Instead, he claimed, “I’m aligned with the United States of America and for the good of the world. I’m aligned with the world.”
Vance initially echoed Trump’s message, casting Trump as a consummate diplomat and arguing , “What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy.”
But Vance’s tone shifted the moment Zelenskyy challenged Trump’s framing.
Zelenskyy provided historical examples of U.S. diplomatic failures and observed that Trump and other presidents had been unable to contain Putin. Vance responded by castigating Zelenskyy for not “thanking the president” and repeatedly instructed him to “say thank you” as the exchange grew more volatile.
Trump, seemingly angered after Vance pointed out Zelenskyy’s lack of deference, dropped his diplomatic tone and informed Zelenskyy: “You’ve got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”
After the meeting, both the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Slate’s Kaplan compared Trump to a mafia don. The Daily Beast writer David Rothkopf suggested he was more like “the Luca Brasi for mob boss Vladimir Putin,” invoking Don Corleone’s henchman in the movie “The Godfather.”
The comparison to famous fictional mafiosos was apt. As a scholar who studies both film and politics, I have observed how both fictionalized depictions of the mafia and MAGA Republicanism are deeply patriarchal and autocratic cultures that demand loyalty , breed abuse and foster corruption .
After Trump suspended negotiations, canceled lunch and expelled the Ukrainian delegation from the White House, Reuters reported that “most Republicans rallied behind Trump and Vance.”
Democrats, a few Republican outliers and the majority of European leaders backed Zelenskyy.
Trump cemented his reputation as an accomplished dealmaker in the 1980s, when he published the largely ghostwritten New York Times bestseller “Trump: The Art of the Deal .”
Many of his supporters voted for Trump in 2016 because they wanted a “dealmaker in chief ,” as one poll characterized it, who could get things done in a fractured Congress.
In his second term, despite having a Republican congressional majority , Trump has established himself as the nation’s sole authority, embracing toxic masculinity’s theory of power and respect. Doing an end run around Congress and flouting the law , Trump initiated scores of policy changes via executive order and asserted that neither lawmakers nor judges have the authority to challenge or constrain him.
Trump’s blow-up at Zelenskyy is much more than a foreign policy snafu. It’s a preview of what will happen when toxic masculinity drives U.S. foreign policy.
In his meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy modeled a version of masculine strength characterized by empathy, discipline and mutual respect. Focusing on the needs of his people, Zelenskyy showed Trump pictures of Ukrainian prisoners of war abused in Russian custody and advocated for the return of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia .
Trump initially acknowledged that Russian abuses were “tough stuff,” but concern for Ukrainians seems to have vanished after Zelenskyy politely challenged Trump.
Decrying Zelenskyy’s insufficient gratitude and escalating the conflict, Trump asserted : “You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”
Vance similarly shifted focus from the needs of Ukrainian civilians to paying homage to Trump, demanding that Zelenskyy “offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who is trying to save your country.”
A common tactic employed by abusers is to demand that the person they are bullying show them gratitude .
In their berating, bullying and humiliation of Zelenskyy, the president and vice president used the language and rhetoric of abusers in an apparent attempt to try to force the proud and dignified leader of a country at war to grovel and get in line.
Their lack of discipline and decorum also upended the negotiation, jeopardizing a deal aimed at halting the fighting in Ukraine and advancing U.S. interests.
In my view, the toxic masculinity on display in the Oval Office on Feb. 28 was a bald demonstration of something new and alarming to a public accustomed to decorum and diplomacy in that formal setting.
For many, the enduring image of that meeting is an anxious Zelenskyy being hectored by a furious Trump.
But there’s another image that captures
equally well the dynamic unfolding in the room. Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova sat in a chair just in front of the assembled members of the media. Papers held steady in her lap with one hand, the normally unflappable member of the diplomatic corps buried her head in her other hand, unable to even look at what was happening.
Karrin Vasby Anderson , Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .
The post How Trump’s compulsion to dominate sabotages dealmaking, undermines democracy and threatens global stability appeared first on The Moderate Voice .
Sean Gallup/Getty Images
“Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?”
The question was famously attributed to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and refers to the historical inability of the political entity of Europe to coordinate on a united front in the global arena.
And despite decades of integration under the European Union , who speaks for Europe – or what the bloc desires to be – is perhaps less clear now than at any point in recent years. Internal cleavages over immigration , right-wing nationalism , Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s return to the White House all challenge the notion of what Europe is and should stand for.
Friedrich Merz, the expected next chancellor of Germany, offered one continental vision shortly after his conservative party triumphed in the country’s national elections. “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA ,” he said.
Merz’s apparent desire for a stronger German role could portend a balance shift back to Germany’s preeminent place in the EU, a position it has pulled back from in recent years . But it remains an open question as to what extent Europe can be unified given the continent’s political landmines – or even what kind of Europe it would be.
A German leader has, in living memory, succeeded in providing something approaching a singular European voice that the White House could deal with. Europe was long synonymous with Angela Merkel, Germany’s long-lasting – and only female – chancellor, who was known by affectionate nicknames like “Mutti Merkel ,” or “Mommy Merkel,” and, during Trump’s first time in office, was even referred to by some as the de facto leader of the free world .
Her legacy – Merkel served from 2005 to 2021 – was defined in part by strong commitments to clean energy , welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees during the 2015 European migrant crisis and championing German leadership of the European Union. In the process, she became something of “Europe’s engine .”
Merkel collaborated especially well with France’s Emmanuel Macron , a passionate fellow Europeanist, communicating a vision of a united Europe and its core values to the rest of the world. Dubbed “Merkron ” by commentators, the pair were seen as the EU’s power couple.
Meanwhile, former U.S. President Barack Obama often described Merkel as his closest ally , praising her humanitarian vision of refugee politics and even decorating her with the Medal of Freedom , the highest honor that the U.S. can award to a foreign national.
Merkel was visionary, too, especially regarding the former superpowers of the Cold War and their controversial leaders. A child of East Germany, she never trusted Russia’s Vladimir Putin . She also experienced great difficulties collaborating with Trump during his first presidency. Somewhat anticipating Merz’s recent comments, Merkel in 2017 warned that neither Germany nor the EU could rely on the U.S. the way they used to, urging her fellow Europeans to take their fate and their interests in their own hands.
But in some ways Merkel was more popular abroad than at home .
The so-called “German question ” – or the inability of the Germans to unify as a nation in its leadership and “Leitkultur ,” or “guiding culture” – has been tormenting the country since the 19th century and gained renewed relevance during the years of German reunification following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Years on from the so-called “Miracle of Merkel ,” Germany’s increasing internal political divisions – especially pronounced between the country’s West and East – mirror the broader divisions facing the EU at large, including over who should claim the mantle of political leadership and around what vision.
To regain the gravitas within Europe it had under Merkel, Germany now would need a similar kind of strong and visionary program that resonates with the continent. The country’s political, economic and social challenges in 2025 demand clear national leadership, something that in my opinion neither the unemotional and uncharismatic outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz nor the opposition right-wing leader and soon-to-be successor Merz has demonstrated in public over the past couple of years.
Although Merkel and Merz represent the same political party, the CDU, their visions for Germany and the EU are strikingly different. A wealthy former business lawyer, Merz’s signature book, “Dare More Capitalism ,” is a blueprint for a policy agenda that prioritizes reduction of government intervention, less bureaucracy, lower taxes and pro-market reforms. Merz also wants to strengthen German borders with restrictionist immigration politics , a reflection of how the country has moved far to the right on the issue amid the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) , with whom Merz has at times flirted .
Yet in Merz’s relatively different agenda, he similarly advocates for both Europe and NATO, and wishes to refashion Germany into the powerhouse it was in the Merkel years and make it again the envy of Europe.
Given the current “America First” attitude of the Trump administration and the rise of far-right populism across the EU and the world , it is thought-provoking – some would say alarming – that Trump declared the results of an election that saw strong gains for the far right – propelling it into second place – as a “great day for Germany .”
Whether it is great for Europe depends on what vision of the continent one has in mind. Merz, although more right wing than Merkel, nonetheless has advocated for a strong Europe, led by Germany, that could promote a Europe independent of U.S. influence, appearing to follow in the steps of former French President Charles de Gaulle , who sought to cleave Europe from American dominance .
During his recent speech at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance warned of a European “threat from within,” disparaging continental governments for their retreat from “fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America ,” while defending far-right populism and policies on the continent. Elon Musk subsequently posted on his social platform X: “Make Europe Great Again! MEGA, MEGA, MEGA!”
Despite the bewilderment and dismay expressed by the European leaders at such statements, today’s tormented and divided Europe can hardly claim it is a problem-free environment, nor that many of the continent’s leaders don’t likewise support such politics.
The rise of populism and nationalism across Europe poses a huge problem for what could unceremoniously be described as “Old Europe ,” especially now, when it is seemingly drifting apart from its former ally and protector , the United States.
With Russian influence and authoritarian politics growing in Central Europe – especially in Hungary and Slovakia – and ultra-nationalist and far-right ideas likewise strong in Austria , Germany , France and elsewhere, today’s Europe is hardly a unified political, economic and cultural totality.
In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing political chameleonism , combined with her defense and praise of both Musk and Trump , is also a problem for those searching for a Europe unified more toward the political center.
Less than a year ago, France’s Macron, the still-passionate Europeanist, marked a somber note in suggesting : “We must be clear on the fact that our Europe, today, is mortal. … It can die, and that depends entirely on our choices.”
Among other things, what Macron’s warning points to is the unresolved question of what the European bloc desires to be. So long as the answer to that question remains unclear, Kissinger’s question could be rephrased to, “Is there even a Europe to call?”
And, given the Trump administration’s emerging hostility to a host of EU policies, including on the war in Ukraine, foreign aid, regulation and trade, there is a further worrying interpretation for EU leaders, even if there were “a Europe to call”: Would Washington bother picking up the phone?
Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager , Associate Professor of Critical Cultural & International Studies, Colorado State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .
The post Is a united European voice possible in the age of Trump, Putin and far-right politics? Germany’s new leader intends to find out appeared first on The Moderate Voice .