One of the many advantages that
democracy has over autocracy (i.e., dictatorship) is that the dispersion of political
power among elected representatives and even between branches of government
(i.e., checks and balances) reduces the impact that one personality can have on
diplomacy. Even in a republic in which power is concentrated in a president or
prime minister, one personality can matter. Given the foibles of human
psychology, the risks associated with a volatile personality “at the top” in a
nuclear age are significant. Kant’s advocacy of a world federation includes a caveat
that world peace would only be possible rather than probable. Given the probability
of anger and associated cognitive lapses in even an elected president or prime
minister, a world order premised on absolute national sovereignty is itself
risky; hence the value of a semi-sovereign world federation with enforcement authority.
The impromptu press conference between U.S. President Trump and Ukraine’s
President Zelensky on February 28, 2025 demonstrates the risks in countries
being in a Hobbesian state of nature (i.e., not checked by any authority above
them).
In the Oval Office at the
White House, “a remarkable scene was unfolding. President Donald Trump and Vice
President JD Vance had begun berating their guest, Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky, in a hitherto unseen public implosion of a key global
relationship.”[1] The
implosion was between two people—the two presidents—rather than of the alliance
itself, but the former was indeed capable of impacting the latter. Put another
way, two people, rather than two countries, were arguing. “The state is moi”
is not a relation of identity in a republic. That it was a host who was
shouting and berating a guest went largely unnoticed in the press, in
part because the host was on the offensive in pivoting from an (orchestrated?)
question from a journalist; his question contained the insult that Zelensky’s
wearing of his military uniform in the sacred Oval Office was
disrespectful even though Elon Musk had worn t-shirts there even that month.
Unlike Musk, Zelensky was at war—one caused by Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine. Showing visual comradery with generals and troops by wearing a uniform
is laudatory rather than indicative of an intent to disrespect other
presidents. Ironically, Trump had installed flags of all of the U.S. military
branches in the Oval Office.
In short, the Ukrainian
president may have unwittingly walked into a pre-arranged “turkey shoot.” That
Trump had his counterpart thrown out of the White House—the invitation to lunch
notwithstanding—evinces not only anger, but sheer rudeness in place of hospitality.
That such human foibles could upend a deal between two countries even though
one stood to gain access to rare earth-minerals with commercial applications
and the other country was in dire need of a third-party to broker an end to the
devastating war. The political philosophy of international business, wherein
commercial interests reduce the likelihood of war, was implicitly reputed as
Trump shouted accusations at his guest.
What enraged Trump was
Zelensky’s claim that if the U.S. (and the E.U.) don’t stand up to Putin’s
invasion of Ukraine, Russia would not stop with that country. As in the case of
World War II, an ocean could not keep the U.S. out of war as Hitler was
invading countries. That Zelensky had a valid point was utterly missed by the
angered American president. Adding insult to injury, Trump refused to let his
guest speak, and Vice President Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful,
even though the president had thanked America for its military aid on several
occasions.[2]
Any implicit disrespect in Zelensky’s military garb in the Oval Office was more
than made up for by the dignity of that president in constraining himself from
insulting Trump and Vance. In contrast, it was Vance’s rudeness and Trump’s verbal
hostility toward a guest that were below the dignity of the American presidency
and the sacred room.
Zelensky’s point that American
could eventually be drawn into another European war is valid—this point should
be made perfectly clear. It was not Zelensky who was risking another world war;
rather, it was Trump’s lack of emotional self-control that made such an event
more likely, for Trump’s rash cancelation of the agreement for U.S. military
and diplomatic help in exchange for access to rare earth-minerals in Ukraine
made it more likely that Russia would absorb the Ukraine militarily and perhaps
then go into the Baltic states and perhaps even Poland. It was Hitler’s invasion
of Poland that brought Britain into war with Germany, and that in turn involved
the U.S. militarily in its lend-lease agreement with Britain. Trump did not
grasp this point that Zelensky was making, and this cognitive lapse in turn triggered
Trump’s temper. This is precisely why a world-order founded on absolute
national sovereignty is dangerous.
As titillating as a brawl is
to watch, I contend that a wise electorate looks beyond such flash-points to
keep one eye on fundamental implications. The structure and foundation of the
world order was vulnerable to rash personality conflicts between presidents of
sovereign countries even in the context of war, especially since post-World War
II institutions such as the UN were waning given their lack of enforcement
authority. Fortunately, the world was shifting off of the bi-polar hegemony of
the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, and it was not lost on the E.U.’s
foreign minister, Kaja Kallas, who wrote on the day of the brawl, “Today, it
became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans,
to take this challenge.”[3]
She even reminded the world that Russia, not Ukraine, was the aggressor, as Trump
implicitly contracted this point in accusing Zelensky of risking World War III
by not being grateful. A world order in which the U.S. is the world’s “police department”
was, fortunately, becoming antiquated, for, given President Trump’s lack of
emotional self-control, such a unipolar structure with the U.S. at the hub was
indeed dangerous, given the impact that personalities can have on diplomacy.
1. Kevin Liptak and Jeff Zeleny,”Inside
the 139 Minutes that Upended the US-Ukraine Alliance,” CNN.com, March 1,
2025, italics added.
2. Daniel Dale, “Fact
Check: 33 Times Zelensky Thanked Americans and US Leaders,” CNN.com,
February 28, 2025.
3. Malek Fouda, “European
Leaders Unite Behind Ukraine Following Trump-Zelenskyy Confrontation,” Euronews,
February 28, 2025.
