John and I Agree on the Ukraine War. So Why Are We Arguing?

with John McWhorter

In this clip from my most recent conversation with John McWhorter, we argue over the now-infamous Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. But it’s a strange argument, because on the most important issue—whether the US should help Ukraine pursue an unqualified military victory or broker a ceasefire—we agree. Ukraine can’t win outright, and funding more war would only abet pointless death and destruction. A ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia must be brokered, and the US is the party best positioned to do that. We agree on that.

So what are we arguing about? You might say we’re arguing over the way that Trump made his case. But that’s not quite right either, because I agree that Trump was blunt, a bit rude, and insensitive to Zelenskyy’s position. Zelenskyy could have handled himself better, too, but that doesn’t excuse Trump’s bad manners.

I think what we’re really arguing about is the significance of Trump’s style. John, of course, has many substantive policy disagreements with Trump. But ending the war isn’t one of them. He objects to Trump’s lack of compassion, by which he means his unwillingness or inability to publicly empathize with Zelenskyy’s personal plight. Quite simply, I don’t think a performance of empathy is all that important, even though I do personally empathize with Ukrainians, who did not ask for this war and got it anyway. But what’s done is done. Getting Zelenskyy and Putin to sign on the dotted line is the most important issue now. Doing a deal for mineral rights in Ukraine will ensure that the US maintains an interest in the country, and that will make the prospect of another invasion unappetizing to Putin.

To me, that’s it. That’s what matters, not Trump’s style. Democrats want to shame Trump for being mean to Zelenskyy. Meanwhile, they’re happy to send Ukraine money and weapons forever. All that’s going to do is lead to more dead soldiers and civilians, further our own involvement in the war, and increase the chances of escalation.

---

This is a clip from an episode that went out to full subscribers earlier this week. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

---

GLENN LOURY: I must say I'm amused a little bit by this reaction. I heard on the News Hour David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart comment to similar effect. They were appalled. They were disgusted. Bad manners. What bad people Trump and Vance are. And I thought, okay, I see where they're coming from.

Ukraine, poor defenseless country invaded by Russia. They are the victims here. They are our ally. We treat them with disdain. We don't show respect. And I thought it does feel Trump Derangement Syndrome-esque to me. It feels like a personalization and a characterological account of something that's really geopolitical, and it has to do with the relationship between the United States and the European Union and NATO.

And it has to do with the ending of this conflict and the perception, the narrative that one tells about this conflict. A lot of things happened there in that extraordinary encounter. It wasn't just the tone and attitude of the interlocutors. It was playing out on live television.

It was Zelenskyy saying—this is what I heard. Everybody just take note. I am not an expert on foreign policy. I'm just a guy. Okay, I'm a listening and intelligent, reasonably well-informed layman to what's going on. And this is what I heard. I heard Zelenskyy saying, “We want to fight. We want to fight. We want to fight. We're the victims here and we want to fight.”

And I heard Trump saying, “This is over. I'm here to negotiate a secession of hostilities. This war is going on too long.” When he said to Zelenskyy, “You don't have any cards”—I'm not talking about his tone, I'm not talking about whether or not he talked over him or whether his voice was too loud. I'm talking about what he was saying, the content of the argument. “Your country is in big trouble. You don't have any cards here. You're being devoured. You're losing. We're your only shot. You come in here and you tell me you don't want a ceasefire. I want a ceasefire.” That's what I heard, I could be wrong. I heard the Trump mantra being end the conflict.

Now, those are my terms. That's what I insist upon. I'm the most powerful man in the world. I'm holding all the cards. And we're going to end this conflict. I'm going to negotiate an end to this conflict. I heard Zelenskyy saying, “I'm in the right! I'm in the right! History's on my side! I thought you were my ally! This is unfair!” And I heard Trump saying—did you hear when he said, “Putin has suffered just like I have through the Russia bullshit?”

So anyway, let me not go on too long here. I saw the tectonic plates shifting. That's my go-to metaphor. I saw the structure of global political association and military commitment shifting. And I saw this horrific war come to an end. Trump says to Zelenskyy, you're playing without any cards and you're gambling World War III, you're gambling nuclear war, and we're not going there. I am going to come to an accommodation with Vladimir Putin. I don't care what kind of names you call him.

And he was talking not just to Vladimir Zelensky, he was talking to the foreign policy and military establishment of the United States and of the European Union. And he's the most powerful man in the world. That's what I heard.

JOHN MCWHORTER: Glenn, I hear you. I understand what you mean, that maybe we need to accept that Trump is bringing in a new world order and we need to change our sense of what's important, of how things are going to go, who wields power and how.

I get that maybe we need to look at all of this with a certain amount of imagination. I doubt if we're going to come out of it feeling very good, but I understand this open mind, partly because it's probably healthier day-to-day, and partly because it exhibits more imagination than I think a lot of people have.

There is a tribalism involved in despising Trump. It has become a mark of intelligence, a mark of intelligence and moral character among people I know. You have to resist that sort of thing from whatever direction. But in this case, yeah, I agree with you. Ukraine can't win. I don't think that's a nervy thing to say. They can't win this. Being funded, they would keep doing this for 25 years. There's no way to win this.

However, the way to inform Zelenskyy of this, was not to yell at him in that summer camp kind of way. No, I was never traumatized, folks, by summer camp, but I remember that general tone. That yelling at him, literally raising their voices, Trump in that bent over position he uses in the chair, where what's going on is that the greater part of the nation is being destroyed, and Ukraine was invaded by Russia.

This pretense that Ukraine was the invader and that Zelenskyy is a dictator, our president is tossing these things off, and then when asked in a press conference whether he said Zelenskyy was a dictator, pretends not to remember having said it. Glenn, this is a gorilla and a clown. And for him to be sitting in that office and yelling at this man who has been invaded and able to hold the very worst off but is now facing Trump allowing Russia to take some of that territory. And Trump clearly admiring Putin because he's strong. Trump doesn't have a problem with what Putin did.

Now, I understand that maybe we need to wear different glasses and just face that a large power might decide to eat up another one. And that's what happens between politics and human beings. And we need to stop being so namby pamby and hope that'll never happen again. That's going to take a lot for me.

But if that's the way it's going to be, then we do get into manners. People are dying, and Trump and Vance are in there yelling at Zelenskyy because they think of him as small and because he's not wearing a suit and because he is in a kind of denial. They have no compassion. Let's not say manners. They have no compassion. It's disgusting.

Do you remember the photographic images of people waving the Ukrainian flag on the floor of the United States House of Representatives?

I do.

I thought about that—those years, that mood, that posture—when I saw the spectacle that you're appalled by yesterday. And I thought, what a sea change. And I asked myself, which would I rather have? Would I rather have my government waving the Ukrainian flag and fighting a proxy war against the nuclear-armed Russia over the issue of extending the influence of the North Atlantic alliance, NATO, up to Russia's boundary, which they found unacceptable and went to war to prevent?

Would I rather have that or the spectacle that I saw it when the interest of my country—perhaps wrongly understood, perhaps rightly understood—but nevertheless, the interests of my country were being put first. Somebody was saying $300 billion-plus of armament have already gone down the drain. Somebody was saying we're going to get quid pro quo for anything we do going forward. Somebody was saying I'm going to put this thing to rest. I am not going to play with fire here in a constant confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. I was hearing somebody say, “I'm not on his side. I'm on our side.”

And I thought to myself, I vastly prefer the latter. I vastly prefer vigorous—I almost want to say “manly”—defiant assertion of my country's interests as they are understood by the assertor, who is the most powerful man, endorsed by a democratic process to lead this country, than faddish sycophancy and a kind of subcontracting of my security to the narrative of, “Putin is going to take Latvia. Putin is going to take Estonia. Putin is going to move into Poland. Putin must be stopped. Putin is Hitler. Putin is evil. Putin is a dictator.”

Frankly, I liked it that Trump wouldn't kowtow to the people who are urging him, “You called Zelensky a dictator. Would you call Putin a dictator?” And he says, I'm not into name calling here. I'm into getting to yes. I'm into getting an agreement that gets the killing stopped. I'm dealing with Putin because he's the guy who's running Russia. I didn't say he was a nice guy. This is not about him being a nice guy. This is about the realities of global power, and I'm accommodating them to the extent that I am because I have the interest of my country at heart. Something like that.

Now, a lot of people get mad at me. They're gonna tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. They're gonna say I'm the sycophant, too intoxicated with the aura of power that surrounds this imbecile, this idiot, this venal man, this child. And I'm thinking, first of all, he's the leader of my country. My country. I'm on the side of my country. Not the global elites, not the World Economic Forum. I'm on the side of my country.

---