With Ukraine, It’s Personal with President Trump

In her first column, Eileen O'Connor - former CNN and ABC White House and foreign correspondent - writes about the need to suspend logic, facts, values, national interests to 'get' Trump on Ukraine.

BY EILEEN O’CONNOR

People in his first administration, members of Congress, and his own biographer have given this explanation repeatedly over time, and this time is no exception: To analyze the Trump Administration’s policy on Ukraine, you must suspend the logic, facts, values, and national interests that normally guide a nation’s foreign policy. Instead, like with everything else with President Trump, the reason is personal.

Senator Lindsay Graham said publicly that he and other members of Congress warned President Zelensky “not to take the bait” and just say thank you, sign the minerals deal that Trump had come up with, and talk privately about the need for security guarantees. Multiple conservative commentators echoed that sentiment, blaming President Zelensky for “disrespecting” the President and the office by not wearing a suit and not being “thankful” enough.

The President’s former biographer, Tony Schwartz, explained the constant need for adulation and self-justification, along with his disregard for the need of others (like those suffering in Ukraine or the interests of his own citizens) in an essay during the first administration. Schwartz explains it as a result of the constant demands of his father, which taught the President to either dominate or submit, which made everything a transaction and his sense of worth coming only from winning. Which is also why even a bad policy decision, or as a businessperson a bankruptcy, is spun to be a victory caused by his ingenuity.

For President Zelensky, this and the history of his and Vladimir Putin’s relationship with Trump have put him and Ukraine in a no-win situation, despite the danger to his country, Europe, and the rest of the world, especially the United States.

Zelensky got the memo on Trump’s need for adulation and, in a conversation in 2019, he praised the President profusely, telling him that his party’s win in parliamentary elections was due to using “quite a few of your skills and knowledge” and that he, like Trump, wanted to “drain the swamp.” He even agreed at the time with President Trump’s demand that he investigate the false allegation that a Ukrainian prosecutor was stopped from investigating President Biden’s son.

But when that didn’t turn out to be true and Zelensky didn’t launch an investigation into Biden’s son and a Ukrainian company he worked with, Trump threatened to cut off aid. That call led to the first impeachment of President Trump, which he most likely associates with Zelensky as an enemy.

As to Putin, President Trump has repeatedly made clear that he views the Russian President as a “tough guy” who supported him against accusations that Russia helped Trump win his first term. That came out clearly in the Oval Office blow-up, when Zelensky noted security guarantees were necessary due to Putin’s repeated violation of one made in 2014 after its initial invasion. It’s clear that Trump sees Zelensky and Biden as the weak ones by allowing the violations and therefore ‘submitting’ to Russia’s invasion, making Putin the winner. For Trump, breaking a deal is no big deal if you win. It’s allowing it that makes you the loser.

“I don’t know, they broke it with Biden because Biden, they didn’t respect him. They didn’t respect Obama. They respect me,” Trump told Zelensky. Likewise, his love for Putin can be explained by Trump’s view that the Russian President has been personally loyal to Trump against his perceived enemies.

“Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt,” Trump said to Zelensky, adding “He wants to make a deal. I don’t know if you can make a deal,” citing that he, Trump, “empowered you to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States.”

Zelensky’s sin was disagreeing with Trump’s view of reality and, at first, resisting a deal on minerals for the U.S. Schwartz, Trump’s biographer, observed that when Trump feels threatened or his desires opposed, he “moves into a fight-or-flight state,” and that he “reacts rather than reflects, and damn the consequences.” That is certainly a good explanation of what happened in the Oval Office and since, with a “pause” on aid to Ukraine and the cutting off sharing of satellite intelligence, both which threaten Ukrainian lives. In fact, TIME magazine reported only a couple of days later that: “as a result of this pause, there are hundreds of dead Ukrainians.”

As anyone can observe by watching any cabinet meeting, Trump’s need for adulation and agreement means the people in his administration and now in the Republican Party do not dare defy him or face similarly inexplicable reactions. That fear and paranoia is the same in the Kremlin. History has shown such a world view and lack of consideration of competing options leads to reckless and poor decision-making. That is why President Trump’s alignment with Vladimir Putin is particularly dangerous for the world and the United States.

Eileen O’Connor is a former award-winning White House and foreign correspondent for CNN and ABC in Russia and Ukraine, a crisis management attorney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, and former Senior Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation, specializing in issues and places where bad things (or "sh#t") happen(s).

With Eileen we are adding ‘a grumpy old lady’ (her own words 😉) to our team, she will be providing our readers with a Washington perspective on Ukraine, and much more. You can also read Eileen here.