personalism in politix

a few thoughts

Without a sturdy ego, I can't imagine someone submitting to the political process anywhere. It's brutal, whether we talk about the British tabloids or the investigative journalists dogging every political figure.

Journalism is good for transparency, but it is notably lacking, as I have mentioned repeatedly in China or Russia, where Xi and Putin, respectively, destroyed that method of working towards accountability (Russian journalists have been particularly prone to fall out of windows inexplicably).

Strong egos tend to stress, unsurprisingly, the personal strength these individuals bring to their positions. Absolutely nothing about that should shock any of us. I recall a dinner in 2009 or 2010 with a political appointee-turned-critic who raked his erstwhile boss, Barack Obama, for putting relatively young children through the White House experience because it was rough and tumble. I suspect presidents shield their children as best possible, partially because they enjoy the limelight.

Again, there is nothing new about this with U.S. presidents or the many foreign leaders they engage.

What is different, upon reflection, is that President Trump's personalism in foreign policy does not include interest in or knowledge of prior events—or associated premises. History is not, repeat not, the future but a synopsis or study of what occurred in the past. Knowing what transpired is valuable for getting to the heart of national interests.

It's those national interests rather than personal ties motivating leaders around the world. Therein lies a challenge for our current Chief Executive. More often than not, he operates on his contemporary judgment rather than recognizing the forces driving others. This is odd because Mr. Trump's style repeatedly highlights actions of others he finds hurtful, dismissive, and inappropriate. Yet, he shows no interest in determining how those same factors could inform others' decisions. Instead, he believes his will and charisma, characteristics of many politicians, are sufficient to achieve his goals.

This explains why he fundamentally misjudged any chance of ending the Ukraine conflict as rapidly as he pledged during the 2024 campaign. Candidate Trump certainly intended to demean his opponent's capabilities in negotiating (among other things), but subsequent events indicate that President Trump likely believed in his own words.

Trump's about-face on "little rocket man," North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, was evidence of the miscalculation of relying on personal ties rather than considering interests. The Trump administration entered office highly critical of the Obama regime for not deterring North Korean nuclear weapons, with Trump coining the pejorative about Kim as forces appeared ratcheting higher in 2017.

Trump decided in mid-2018 to respond to Kim's attempts at personal diplomacy, shocking many of us around the globe. The stocky North Korean met Trump in Singapore for a 2018 summit, followed by two in-person meetings the following year. Both sides held their ground, proving that personal ties would only bring the two states together in conversation but not necessarily in agreement. Today, the North Koreans still retain their nuclear weapons and are helping Russia against Ukraine.

Without appreciating either Vlad the Impaler's rewriting of history or Volodmir Zelenskyy's ardent nationalism for a sovereign nation outside Russia's clutches, Trump overpromised what he could accomplish—within a day (as promised) or now after nearly three months. The Russian attack on Sumy this weekend, killing dozens of Ukrainians on Palm Sunday, is a grim reminder of Vlad's determination to achieve his subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. I strongly suspect POTUS did not anticipate this for several reasons.

Vlad certainly does not want Ukraine to be yet one more state along his border, joining Finland and the Baltics in NATO. A Slavic state within that Alliance, especially one with a democratic government, represents quite a threat to his image and his determination to recreate a Soviet sphere of influence in that portion of the world.

Russian-Ukrainian ties, as proper for all Slavic societies in Central and Eastern Europe, were already complex before the conflict commenced in February 2022. I don't specialize in the bilateral history between these states, but Russia generally dated its history to Kyiv in the 9th century. That means Kyiv needs to be a part of Russia to validate the tale, but Ukrainian is a separate language; the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not synonymous with the Russian Orthodox Church, and—most illuminating—Ukrainians chaffed under Russian dominance that dismissed Ukraine's separatism.

Vlad may be in his twenty-fifth year of running his country, but his rule increasingly harkens to a past of Russian glory that is long gone. The country's demographics are terrible; it is a mono-culture export economy built on extractive minerals and energy, and he depends on his buddy in Beijing to support a fragile military in its efforts to defeat the markedly smaller but agile and trained Ukrainians. Putin's interests are staying in power, assuring Russia's aspirational recapture of greatness will include removing a democratic Ukraine on the western border. Vlad is increasingly marred in that trap, much as Xi is stuck in the CCP's narrative about China inevitably reuniting a recalcitrant Taiwan with the motherland.

President Trump seems blissfully unaware of these basic premises in Moscow. He dismisses Ukrainian aspirations for a nation whole and free because his relationship with Vlad demands a different outcome. The two men operate superficially based on mutual respect as great men (and egos), with no likelihood of Vlad finding any acceptable terms short of achieving his goal of neutering Ukraine.

This ahistoricism would not matter, but the preference for personal ties over an appreciation of history pervades U.S. challenges globally. India will never cozy too close to Washington, despite Narendra Modi's preferred strong hand for Hindus, because neutrality is as core to the world's largest populated state as is Trump's antipathy for Hillary Clinton. India understands the threats posed by China, but succumbing to another immense power is an even more dastardly pursuit than any government in New Delhi can pursue.

Similarly, the unmitigated mess in Gaza reflects history as much as anywhere in the world. Without appreciating why history drives populations and leaders to action, solutions are a chimera. Trump's close ties with Netanyahu are further evidence that close ties between sturdy egos can make the world a hard place to diminish conflict.

None of that is to say there is a single history on most if not all, subjects. But, on the 160th anniversary of John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln, no one responsible denies it occurred as the 16th president died the following day, further complicating a nation's future following a devastating civil war. Interpretations are one thing, but denying that events motivate, whether they occurred or are "alternate facts," is preposterous and ultimately never succeeds.

None of this begrudges POTUS his strong ego, but it is a caution that personalism has its limits. We have been seeing that played out daily lately.

History is a foundational piece of foreign relations. It is not determinative but informative for leaders and those they govern. Instruments may work around history if orchestrated appropriately, but rarely do personal ties—no matter whose egos are involved—actually conclude ongoing frictions.

I welcome your thoughts on this or any other topic. Dialogue, my goal throughout writing Actions Create Consequences, requires more than my voice so please chip in your thoughts.

Thank you for your time today. I appreciate the subscribers to this column as you offer me the financial resources to read so broadly. $8 a month or $55 a year makes you a subscriber which I not only appreciate but depend upon.

I think spring returned to stay in the Chesapeake. It was a spectacular, colorful dawn.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Brendan Cole, “Donald Trump Said He’d End Ukraine War in First 24 Hours. He Hasn’t”, Newsweek, 25 January 2025, retrieved at https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-trump-war-2018906

Thomas Graham, “What Does Putin Really Want in Ukraine?”, cfr.org, 16 May 2024, retrieved at https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/what-does-putin-really-want-ukraine

Muqtadar Khan, “India’s Claim of Pursuing ‘Strategic autonomy’ in its foreign policy is a façade”, TheHindu.com, 13 November 2024, retrieved at https://frontline.thehindu.com/world-affairs/india-foreign-policy-geopolitics-diplomacy-democracy-us-china-israel-gaza-modi-government/article68814890.ece

Philip Rucker, Simon Denyer, and Davd Nakamura, “North Korea’s foreign minister says country seeks only partial sanction relief, contradicting Trump”, WashingtonPost.com, 28 February 2019, retrieved at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-kim-downplay-expectations-as-key-summit-talks-begin/2019/02/28/d77d752c-3ac5-11e9-aaae-69364b2ed137_story.html