Steve Witkoff is teaching a master class to Russian officials on how to get what they want from Donald Trump.
On Oct. 14, Trump’s special envoy advised Vladimir Putin’s top foreign policy aide, Yuri Ushakov, on how the Russian dictator should curry favor with Trump before broaching a proposed peace plan between Russia and war-torn Ukraine, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday.
During the five-minute call, Witkoff told Putin’s henchman that the Russian president should personally phone Trump, 79, ahead of his planned meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—where Zelensky hoped, but ultimately failed, to secure long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles—to congratulate him on the Gaza ceasefire.
Oh yeah no. If your working backwards from the end result I totally get that approach. I’m not making a moral defense here. All I’m saying is that while we’re in it it’s important to understand what’s going on (and perhaps more importantly what isn’t) in his head so that we have an understanding of what’s possible. What he might be thinking. In that world, not that of the IC or one that’s capable of assessing legal culpability, it’s important to draw a distinction between a principled ideologically driven actor and one that’s just floating on the whims of their shattered psyche.
Indeed, different approaches lead to different conclusions. Which isn’t to say either or is exclusively valid. As I always like to say - two things can true at the same time.
Also, I get what you’re saying and didn’t mean to imply you were making a normative statement. I also didn’t mean to imply that the aspect of understanding is not important. It’s fundamental, including from a practical standpoint. In fact, in the past I used to be so much into figuring out the why that I ended up underestimating the what . Then I noticed that different whys can lead to the same or very similar whats, regardless of the content of the whys and I thought that was very interesting. And yet, trying to seperate them beyond the conceptual has tunred out to be nigh impossible.
Anyway, confusing internal monologue over.
Edit: Basically, I am sorta halfway retracting the “distinction without a difference” and going with the always safe “it’s complicated”