SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks during a news conference about lawsuits contesting the results of the presidential election at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday Nov. 19, 2020. (Photo: Sarah Silbiger for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
"Whoever fights monsters," Nietzsche warned, "should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." But as America went "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," ignoring the advice of John Quincy Adams, she lost the struggle not to become a monster.
In fighting terrorists, America adopted the tactics of terrorists. As every foreign problem was solved with soldiers, imagination atrophied and domestic problems, too, began to have soldiers turned on them. So peaceful protesters in Washington felt the deployment of Trump's troops.
But, perhaps, most shockingly, as the solution to every foreign election that didn't turn out the way the American government wanted it to was a coup, so, habituated by years bereft of other solutions, when the American election didn't turn out the way the America government wanted it to, the solution was an attempted coup. In going abroad to fight monsters, America became a monster. And the coup came home.
The modern American coup is a silent coup. No longer carried out by ships and planes, by guns and bombs, the modern American coup comes dressed up as democracy. America's coups are disguised as mass movements in the streets or constitutional movements in the parliaments.
These coups have several variations and several stages. Sometimes they cynically exploit representational democracy, and a minority in the voting booth becomes an impressive looking mass movement in the streets. A minority that could not bring about change in the voting booth makes a case for change by impressive looking mass movements in the street. But, large as their numbers in the streets may be, they are the same minority that lost the election in the voting booth. A mass minority protesting in the streets may produce a cry heard more loudly around the world than a silent majority in a secret and sound proof polling booth.
This strategy was tried in Iran 2009 and again in Venezuela in 2013 and Ukraine a year later. A variant of this strategy was employed again, successfully this time, when Mohamed Morsi was elected by the people of Egypt. And when the monster slayer became the monster, it was tried by Trump in 2020. Habituated into knowing only one way to deal with undesirable outcomes of elections, Trump turned from monster slayer into monster and attempted a coup at home. So far, the first strategy hasn't worked. The "Million MAGA march," which White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany claimed had more than a million marchers, became "hundreds of thousands" in Trump's tweets and then only "thousands" in media reports. But the familiar silent coup strategy was attempted and may still be attempted again.
Sometimes the silent coup masquerades as the constitutional workings of parliamentary democracy. So Honduras' Manuel Zelaya, Paraguay's Frederico Franco, Brazil's Dilma Rousseff and, perhaps most recently, Peru's Martin Vizcarra, were all removed in coups that could not be recognized as coups because they looked so much like the carrying out the legal obligations of constitutional democracy. In Ukraine, both strategies were employed as part of the plan to remove Viktor Yanukovych.
Most recently, this second strategy has taken the form of removing a victorious government by falsely insisting on electoral irregularities. This version of the strategy took its most important test drive in the recent Venezuelan elections. Trump has tried this strategy too. In Venezuela, despite monitors from around the world certifying the elections as fair, the U.S. consistently supported opposition claims of fraud and refused to recognized the winner of the election. The U.S. pressed this strategy in Maduro's first election victory, though the election was certified as fair by no less than 150 electoral monitors from around the world, including the Carter Center.
When coups are the only way you know to solve undesirable elections, by habit and lack of imagination, they become what you reach for when your own elections become undesirable. So, Trump, once again, went from slaying monsters abroad to becoming the monster at home and repeatedly insisted on voter irregularity in the face of certification to the contrary. In the most recent Venezuelan election, monitors said that they "have not observed any element that could disqualify the electoral process." They "emphasize[d] that these elections must be recognized, because they are the result of the will of the Venezuelan people." As Carter had previously claimed that Venezuela's election process is "the best in the world," a joint statement issued by federal bodies that oversee elections and that include people from Trump's own administration has called the U.S. election "the most secure in American history." Like the mass protests in the streets, the silent weapon of voting fraud fired only silent blanks for Donald Trump. But the familiar silent coup strategy was attempted.
The most striking similarity between the silent coup strategies used by the U.S. when it goes "abroad, in search of monsters" and the silent coup strategy unleashed at home is Trump's primary and most frequent claim: that later ballots that were slower to come in or to be counted should not be counted at all.
That strategy is striking because it is precisely the strategy employed in the most recent U.S. supported coup that removed Evo Morales from office in Bolivia. As Trump would claim that he was clearly winning after the "legitimate" early votes were counted and then "inexplicably" lost after the "illegitimate" later votes were counted, so the majority U.S. funded Organization of American States would fraudulently declare that voting irregularities were sufficient to reverse the Bolivian election because of a pattern of reporting that showed a "hard-to-explain change" in the voting trend in Morales' favour between the termination of the earlier preliminary count and the reporting of the later official count.
But as in America, so in Bolivia. The "hard-to-explain change" was not hard to explain at all: it was the result of simple geography, not nefarious fraud. Voting in Bolivia is all manual. So, rural districts take longer to report, and their results are included later. Morales dominates in the poorer and more indigenous rural areas. So, while opposition votes came in early, Morales' votes came in later. Trump's "hard-to-explain change" is no harder to explain. The necessary ballots were not suddenly found, and the election was no more stolen than Bolivia's. Just as slower counts brought in Morales' rural and indigenous votes, so slower counts brought in Biden's mail in votes.
Each of the strategies deployed by Trump to overturn a democratic election and cling illegally to power is a strategy perfected in experiments with America's new generation of silent coup. A silent and defeated minority moves from the ballot box to the street where it takes on the disguise of a mass popular movement; claims are made that the election should be overturned because of electoral irregularities; and the call is made to stop the count because late results are illegitimate. When you deal with a problem in only one way for long enough in the way you treat your enemies abroad, that one way eventually becomes the one way you possess to deal with your enemies at home. Be careful fighting monsters... lest you become one yourself.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
"Whoever fights monsters," Nietzsche warned, "should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." But as America went "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," ignoring the advice of John Quincy Adams, she lost the struggle not to become a monster.
In fighting terrorists, America adopted the tactics of terrorists. As every foreign problem was solved with soldiers, imagination atrophied and domestic problems, too, began to have soldiers turned on them. So peaceful protesters in Washington felt the deployment of Trump's troops.
But, perhaps, most shockingly, as the solution to every foreign election that didn't turn out the way the American government wanted it to was a coup, so, habituated by years bereft of other solutions, when the American election didn't turn out the way the America government wanted it to, the solution was an attempted coup. In going abroad to fight monsters, America became a monster. And the coup came home.
The modern American coup is a silent coup. No longer carried out by ships and planes, by guns and bombs, the modern American coup comes dressed up as democracy. America's coups are disguised as mass movements in the streets or constitutional movements in the parliaments.
These coups have several variations and several stages. Sometimes they cynically exploit representational democracy, and a minority in the voting booth becomes an impressive looking mass movement in the streets. A minority that could not bring about change in the voting booth makes a case for change by impressive looking mass movements in the street. But, large as their numbers in the streets may be, they are the same minority that lost the election in the voting booth. A mass minority protesting in the streets may produce a cry heard more loudly around the world than a silent majority in a secret and sound proof polling booth.
This strategy was tried in Iran 2009 and again in Venezuela in 2013 and Ukraine a year later. A variant of this strategy was employed again, successfully this time, when Mohamed Morsi was elected by the people of Egypt. And when the monster slayer became the monster, it was tried by Trump in 2020. Habituated into knowing only one way to deal with undesirable outcomes of elections, Trump turned from monster slayer into monster and attempted a coup at home. So far, the first strategy hasn't worked. The "Million MAGA march," which White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany claimed had more than a million marchers, became "hundreds of thousands" in Trump's tweets and then only "thousands" in media reports. But the familiar silent coup strategy was attempted and may still be attempted again.
Sometimes the silent coup masquerades as the constitutional workings of parliamentary democracy. So Honduras' Manuel Zelaya, Paraguay's Frederico Franco, Brazil's Dilma Rousseff and, perhaps most recently, Peru's Martin Vizcarra, were all removed in coups that could not be recognized as coups because they looked so much like the carrying out the legal obligations of constitutional democracy. In Ukraine, both strategies were employed as part of the plan to remove Viktor Yanukovych.
Most recently, this second strategy has taken the form of removing a victorious government by falsely insisting on electoral irregularities. This version of the strategy took its most important test drive in the recent Venezuelan elections. Trump has tried this strategy too. In Venezuela, despite monitors from around the world certifying the elections as fair, the U.S. consistently supported opposition claims of fraud and refused to recognized the winner of the election. The U.S. pressed this strategy in Maduro's first election victory, though the election was certified as fair by no less than 150 electoral monitors from around the world, including the Carter Center.
When coups are the only way you know to solve undesirable elections, by habit and lack of imagination, they become what you reach for when your own elections become undesirable. So, Trump, once again, went from slaying monsters abroad to becoming the monster at home and repeatedly insisted on voter irregularity in the face of certification to the contrary. In the most recent Venezuelan election, monitors said that they "have not observed any element that could disqualify the electoral process." They "emphasize[d] that these elections must be recognized, because they are the result of the will of the Venezuelan people." As Carter had previously claimed that Venezuela's election process is "the best in the world," a joint statement issued by federal bodies that oversee elections and that include people from Trump's own administration has called the U.S. election "the most secure in American history." Like the mass protests in the streets, the silent weapon of voting fraud fired only silent blanks for Donald Trump. But the familiar silent coup strategy was attempted.
The most striking similarity between the silent coup strategies used by the U.S. when it goes "abroad, in search of monsters" and the silent coup strategy unleashed at home is Trump's primary and most frequent claim: that later ballots that were slower to come in or to be counted should not be counted at all.
That strategy is striking because it is precisely the strategy employed in the most recent U.S. supported coup that removed Evo Morales from office in Bolivia. As Trump would claim that he was clearly winning after the "legitimate" early votes were counted and then "inexplicably" lost after the "illegitimate" later votes were counted, so the majority U.S. funded Organization of American States would fraudulently declare that voting irregularities were sufficient to reverse the Bolivian election because of a pattern of reporting that showed a "hard-to-explain change" in the voting trend in Morales' favour between the termination of the earlier preliminary count and the reporting of the later official count.
But as in America, so in Bolivia. The "hard-to-explain change" was not hard to explain at all: it was the result of simple geography, not nefarious fraud. Voting in Bolivia is all manual. So, rural districts take longer to report, and their results are included later. Morales dominates in the poorer and more indigenous rural areas. So, while opposition votes came in early, Morales' votes came in later. Trump's "hard-to-explain change" is no harder to explain. The necessary ballots were not suddenly found, and the election was no more stolen than Bolivia's. Just as slower counts brought in Morales' rural and indigenous votes, so slower counts brought in Biden's mail in votes.
Each of the strategies deployed by Trump to overturn a democratic election and cling illegally to power is a strategy perfected in experiments with America's new generation of silent coup. A silent and defeated minority moves from the ballot box to the street where it takes on the disguise of a mass popular movement; claims are made that the election should be overturned because of electoral irregularities; and the call is made to stop the count because late results are illegitimate. When you deal with a problem in only one way for long enough in the way you treat your enemies abroad, that one way eventually becomes the one way you possess to deal with your enemies at home. Be careful fighting monsters... lest you become one yourself.
"Whoever fights monsters," Nietzsche warned, "should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." But as America went "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," ignoring the advice of John Quincy Adams, she lost the struggle not to become a monster.
In fighting terrorists, America adopted the tactics of terrorists. As every foreign problem was solved with soldiers, imagination atrophied and domestic problems, too, began to have soldiers turned on them. So peaceful protesters in Washington felt the deployment of Trump's troops.
But, perhaps, most shockingly, as the solution to every foreign election that didn't turn out the way the American government wanted it to was a coup, so, habituated by years bereft of other solutions, when the American election didn't turn out the way the America government wanted it to, the solution was an attempted coup. In going abroad to fight monsters, America became a monster. And the coup came home.
The modern American coup is a silent coup. No longer carried out by ships and planes, by guns and bombs, the modern American coup comes dressed up as democracy. America's coups are disguised as mass movements in the streets or constitutional movements in the parliaments.
These coups have several variations and several stages. Sometimes they cynically exploit representational democracy, and a minority in the voting booth becomes an impressive looking mass movement in the streets. A minority that could not bring about change in the voting booth makes a case for change by impressive looking mass movements in the street. But, large as their numbers in the streets may be, they are the same minority that lost the election in the voting booth. A mass minority protesting in the streets may produce a cry heard more loudly around the world than a silent majority in a secret and sound proof polling booth.
This strategy was tried in Iran 2009 and again in Venezuela in 2013 and Ukraine a year later. A variant of this strategy was employed again, successfully this time, when Mohamed Morsi was elected by the people of Egypt. And when the monster slayer became the monster, it was tried by Trump in 2020. Habituated into knowing only one way to deal with undesirable outcomes of elections, Trump turned from monster slayer into monster and attempted a coup at home. So far, the first strategy hasn't worked. The "Million MAGA march," which White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany claimed had more than a million marchers, became "hundreds of thousands" in Trump's tweets and then only "thousands" in media reports. But the familiar silent coup strategy was attempted and may still be attempted again.
Sometimes the silent coup masquerades as the constitutional workings of parliamentary democracy. So Honduras' Manuel Zelaya, Paraguay's Frederico Franco, Brazil's Dilma Rousseff and, perhaps most recently, Peru's Martin Vizcarra, were all removed in coups that could not be recognized as coups because they looked so much like the carrying out the legal obligations of constitutional democracy. In Ukraine, both strategies were employed as part of the plan to remove Viktor Yanukovych.
Most recently, this second strategy has taken the form of removing a victorious government by falsely insisting on electoral irregularities. This version of the strategy took its most important test drive in the recent Venezuelan elections. Trump has tried this strategy too. In Venezuela, despite monitors from around the world certifying the elections as fair, the U.S. consistently supported opposition claims of fraud and refused to recognized the winner of the election. The U.S. pressed this strategy in Maduro's first election victory, though the election was certified as fair by no less than 150 electoral monitors from around the world, including the Carter Center.
When coups are the only way you know to solve undesirable elections, by habit and lack of imagination, they become what you reach for when your own elections become undesirable. So, Trump, once again, went from slaying monsters abroad to becoming the monster at home and repeatedly insisted on voter irregularity in the face of certification to the contrary. In the most recent Venezuelan election, monitors said that they "have not observed any element that could disqualify the electoral process." They "emphasize[d] that these elections must be recognized, because they are the result of the will of the Venezuelan people." As Carter had previously claimed that Venezuela's election process is "the best in the world," a joint statement issued by federal bodies that oversee elections and that include people from Trump's own administration has called the U.S. election "the most secure in American history." Like the mass protests in the streets, the silent weapon of voting fraud fired only silent blanks for Donald Trump. But the familiar silent coup strategy was attempted.
The most striking similarity between the silent coup strategies used by the U.S. when it goes "abroad, in search of monsters" and the silent coup strategy unleashed at home is Trump's primary and most frequent claim: that later ballots that were slower to come in or to be counted should not be counted at all.
That strategy is striking because it is precisely the strategy employed in the most recent U.S. supported coup that removed Evo Morales from office in Bolivia. As Trump would claim that he was clearly winning after the "legitimate" early votes were counted and then "inexplicably" lost after the "illegitimate" later votes were counted, so the majority U.S. funded Organization of American States would fraudulently declare that voting irregularities were sufficient to reverse the Bolivian election because of a pattern of reporting that showed a "hard-to-explain change" in the voting trend in Morales' favour between the termination of the earlier preliminary count and the reporting of the later official count.
But as in America, so in Bolivia. The "hard-to-explain change" was not hard to explain at all: it was the result of simple geography, not nefarious fraud. Voting in Bolivia is all manual. So, rural districts take longer to report, and their results are included later. Morales dominates in the poorer and more indigenous rural areas. So, while opposition votes came in early, Morales' votes came in later. Trump's "hard-to-explain change" is no harder to explain. The necessary ballots were not suddenly found, and the election was no more stolen than Bolivia's. Just as slower counts brought in Morales' rural and indigenous votes, so slower counts brought in Biden's mail in votes.
Each of the strategies deployed by Trump to overturn a democratic election and cling illegally to power is a strategy perfected in experiments with America's new generation of silent coup. A silent and defeated minority moves from the ballot box to the street where it takes on the disguise of a mass popular movement; claims are made that the election should be overturned because of electoral irregularities; and the call is made to stop the count because late results are illegitimate. When you deal with a problem in only one way for long enough in the way you treat your enemies abroad, that one way eventually becomes the one way you possess to deal with your enemies at home. Be careful fighting monsters... lest you become one yourself.
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."