Teenaged Games
When I was a teenager there weren’t video games. Instead, some of my friends played board games. A long night of Monopoly was the “standard”, stashing money under the board so no one knew exactly how you were doing. Or when we got older and “cooler”, a penny-ante poker game (and even older came cigars). But in my younger teens, my friends and I played “political” board games. Some friends were enamored with Risk, a “conquer the world” game of alliances, and double-crosses that could take weeks. A few even played Chess, but you had to study to be good at that, and I didn’t want to spend the time.
But there was Stratego (by Milton-Bradley), a conquest game resembling a cross between Checkers and Risk, where a roll of the dice could determine the fate of armies and battles. It wasn’t an “all night” game, but it allowed for “tactical thinking” without committing to months of preparation. It was sort of like my commitment to Algebra II; I’d cram the night before the test, but I didn’t spend daily time worrying about it. My grades were commensurate with the effort.
America First
The board games of my youth are now in dusty boxes on high shelves in a closet. Games of strategy today are on video, and much more “tactile”. The player becomes the soldier on the line, living or dying in Call of Duty by their skill, wile, and luck. And as an adult, I know we live in a world of “Risk”, where alliances are made and broken, and principle is often overcome by national or even personal interest.
I’ve already written about the changes in American policy brought on by Donald Trump (Zero-Sum). The United States of America has made a dramatic about-face in our foreign view, from one of group protection and benefit, to a policy of bilateral negotiation. Our new view is pretty simple: what’s in it for us. It’s a very short-term, Stratego view of world balance, one echoing the isolationism of the 1930’s (the original “America First”). We’ve gone from playing Chess or Risk, to playing Stratego. A look at our twentieth century past demonstrates the potential consequences of the world’s greatest economy “going it alone”.
But here we are. And I’m watching a masterful “game player”. He doesn’t have much money under the board, and he is, to quote the US President, playing from a weaker hand. And the current strategic master is really a gifted amateur. His name is Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
NATO and Russia
In the old world order of two months ago, Zelenskyy’s and Ukraine’s place was clear. The old world order saw NATO, led by the United States, balancing the avowed intention of Russia to re-conquer the Russian “Empire”, the old Soviet Union. It was well-established, the outgrowth of the alliances that stopped Fascism in World War II. America wasn’t isolationist. Instead the US led a world alliance to keep the Soviet Union, and later China, from expanding their empires, cloaked in the cover of the Communist ideals.
When the Communists fell in the Soviet Union, there were briefly replaced by a democracy. But the economic pressures of all of that “public wealth” (the definition of Communism) becoming private caused the rise of an oligarchs. They were rich, and they were powerful, and they wanted control of the nation. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB Colonel, rose to the top of the oligarchic pyramid. He served those with money so well that he became one himself. And now, anyone that stands against him takes that short step out of a 15th floor window. Or their plane explodes: ask Yevgeny Prigozhin.
Biden’s Plan
Over the past couple decades, the Soviet threat, countered by NATO, became the Russian threat. And Ukraine, while not a NATO member, became the perfect place to stop Russian expansionism. Ukraine wanted to fight. They offered up the blood of their young men, and their fertile fields of grain, as the battlefield in the ultimate war to stop Russia. Putin made it clear, that this “Domino Theory” (reminiscent of the arguments to stay in the Vietnam War) was real. Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and the rest are on the block.
That was the “grand theory” of the Biden Administration. They marshalled NATO to back Ukraine, supplying weapons from bullets to F-16’s; everything but the manpower itself to fight the war. And Ukraine and Zelenskyy over three years, stood against the might of “Mother Russia”, giving better than they got, and hanging onto the vast majority of their Nation. It was a “Risk” like plan: use Ukraine to stop Russia, rather than the all-out war that an invasion of a NATO member would require. Fight the smaller battle with Ukrainian lives sacrificed, rather than World War III.
And for Ukraine, it represented national survival. They were getting what they wanted, a nation that was not under the yoke of Russian imperialism. They made their trade: lives for freedom. Ukraine survived, and NATO and the United States benefitted. That was Zelenskyy’s “deal”.
The Beat Down
That isn’t Trump’s view of the world at all. He finds himself more “allied” with Putin’s Russia. Trump, an oligarch himself, sees the ultimate power of the Russian leader as a “model”. Trump doesn’t want to compromise with other (lesser, in his mind) NATO members. He wants to do what Putin does; get the most for the United States, regardless of the impact. It’s a Stratego like view, without the longer-term strategizing of Risk.
What does Trump want? He wants the mineral wealth of Ukraine, much of which is now under Russian control. If he can’t get that from Zelenskyy, he’ll make a deal with Putin. And, of course, Trump has a personal score to settle with Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian dared to defy Trump’s demand for “dirt” on Joe Biden in 2019, the “perfect call” that got Trump impeached by Congress. Trump can’t make Zelenskyy step out a fifteenth floor window (at least, not yet) but he can humiliate him, and cut Ukraine off.
No Bait in the Trap
So he lured Zelenskyy to Washington, dangling the hope of US support in exchange for Ukrainian mineral rights (or “rare earth” as Trump calls it). Then, in the White House, Trump and Vice President Vance did what they always wanted to do. They tried to humiliate the Ukrainian President, knowing he would probably “submit” because he needed the deal. But there really wasn’t a deal on the table for the help Zelenskyy needed. So he didn’t submit.
Instead, Zelenskyy stood up for himself and his Nation. Isn’t that what you’d expect a national leader to do? He called out the disrespect shown by Vance and Trump, and he demonstrated the consequence of their short-term, bilateral thinking. He didn’t throw away a deal, because there wasn’t an acceptable deal on the table in the first place. Trump wanted “rare earth” (old sixties band?) in exchange for vague assurances that didn’t put bullets in Ukrainian guns or protection in Ukrainian skies. When Zelenskyy objected, Trump tossed the Ukrainian President out of the White House.
And then Zelenskyy flew to London, to meet with a majority of the NATO nations. They not only gave him a hug (don’t we all need one) but they offered the assurances he needed to continue his nation’s life and death struggle with Russia. The Europeans made the deal that made sense for them. They too are under the Russian threat and worrying about another global war fought on their home soil. So they stuck with the “Biden plan”, even though the US was no longer part of it.
Risk not Stratego
Zelenskyy is playing Risk, not Stratego. He’s trying to win long-term support to continue the battle for Ukrainian democracy. For the right deal with the US, he would have given up his “rare earth”. But there was no deal; so he went to someone else. Now, Trump is left weaker. NATO is not behind him. And Russia has the minerals he wants. So what is his next tactical move?
Trump’s gaming is tactical, but not strategic. But he’s in a world with much longer-term consequences, and the Risk players are leaving him behind. The outcome could be dire. If Putin determines he can now move against Europe, they will have no choice but to respond, with or without US help, just as their grandfathers did in 1939.
With Trump’s plan, so goes our Nation. We seemed to be “doomed” to repeat the history of the 1930’s. And we know what the outcome of that was. It was the defining moment of my parents’ generation: World War II.
