All posts by nealaponte

Neal Aponte, Ph.D. is a licensed clinical psychologist in New York who has provided psychotherapy services for over 30 years. He has a master's degree in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. And a master's degree and doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
American Politics

Who Is He Working For?

Leave a comment

Here’s a question.  Does anyone remember the Budapest Memorandum?  No, it’s not the title of a Robert Ludlum thriller or the plot line of a Le Carre novel.  Rather, it’s an agreement that altered the shape of modern history by making Europe and the world a much safer place.  The Memorandum was an agreement signed by Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., and the UK.  Let’s back up a step.  When the Cold War ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine maintained possession of 1700 Soviet nuclear warheads.  In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum stipulated Ukraine would relinquish its entire nuclear arsenal and transfer them to Russia to be dismantled.  Moreover, Ukraine agreed to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.  

What did Ukraine receive in return for its bold action?  Russia, the U.S., and the UK agreed to respect its national sovereignty and to protect it from any foreign aggression.  Yes, you read that right.  Ukraine received a security guarantee from Russia, the US, and the UK when it gave up its nukes.  Ukraine had a security deal guaranteed by the US.  Someone needs to give the current administration a much-needed history lesson.  However, the agreement proved unworthy of the paper it was printed on.  The only signatory that abided by its terms was Ukraine.  Of course, there is significant regret in Ukraine for agreeing to the deal.  In all likelihood, Russia would never have invaded Crimea in 2014 and/or started a full-scale unprovoked war in 2022 if Ukraine remained a nuclear power.  

Russian authorities allege Ukraine violated the terms of the Memorandum by engaging what it termed “extreme nationalist” behavior.  Their claim is reminiscent of how Soviet leaders referred to dissidents as “hooligans”.  Undoubtedly, the Russian leadership took strong exception to Ukraine’s 2014 ouster of its autocratic leader who was an obvious Russian puppet.  He fled to Russia to leave the Ukrainian people to decide their own political fate. And they chose national freedom over Russian domination, or what Russia interprets as “extreme nationalism”.  Clearly, Ukraine’s Western pivot threatened Putin’s desire to reestablish Russia’s imperial dreams in Eastern Europe.  

During his recent ambush in the Oval Office, Zelensky tried to explain to Trump, Vance, and the American people, that Ukraine was fighting for its own survival and resisting Russian aggression on behalf of Europe and the U.S..  This is what Zelensky meant when he said, speaking in broken English, that Trump would feel Putin’s “influence”.  As if engaged in a barroom brawl, Trump berated Zelensky without having a clue about what he meant and then managed to convey his clear affinity for Putin.  

Of course, Zelensky was right.  He understands how Russia wants to reestablish its empire in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and to sow discord in the West.  Prior to the war, Putin fashioned himself as a cross between Peter the Great and Henry Kissinger.  But he revealed himself to be nothing other than a Stalinist dictator but with a twist.  The Soviets used to ally themselves with radical left-wing movements in the West to promote a global socialist revolution.  

Putin does the opposite.  He curries the favor of right-wing nationalist leaders and movements. He referred to Silvio Berlusconi as a dear friend and remains close to others like Marine Le Pen and, yes, Donald Trump.  But make no mistake.  While the alliances are different, the Russian goal remains the same:  to weaken Western liberal democracies that Putin believes are weak, corrupt, and morally bankrupt.  Trump’s astonishing petulant outburst in the Oval Office, coupled with the immediate action to disband important working groups at the Justice Department targeting foreign agent interference and money laundering, and his unconstitutional and illegal actions over the last several weeks, indicate Putin has found an ideal partner to realize his subversive agenda from the most unlikely source:  the president of the United States.  It is time for all concerned Americans to pose Jack Bauer’s insistent question from the hit TV show 24:  Who is he working for?

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

American Politics

All Hands On Deck

Donald Trump is an extremely lucky man.  In the blink of an eye and sudden turn of his head, he survived an assassin’s bullet.  But his good fortune extended far beyond that harrowing moment.  His astonishing election victory also represented a stroke of brilliant luck.  If Trump had lost, he was going to be convicted not once, not twice, but three separate times, beyond his guilty verdict on thirty-four felony counts in New York.  

Anyone who listened to the taped phone call between Trump and Georgia election officials or followed the Florida documents case or the January 6th investigation and prosecution, knows he was investigated and prosecuted for one reason alone.  There was compelling evidence Trump engaged in criminal activity.  Four separate grand juries concluded the evidence assembled against him warranted a criminal trial.  

In other words, if Trump did not return to the White House, he was likely headed for the Big House.  He is the first convicted felon to sit in the Oval Office.  But surely, he would have been convicted of other more serious crimes.  

And now our felon in chief seeks retribution against all those who worked valiantly to hold him accountable for his criminal activity.  We need to be very clear.  And we need to state repeatedly:  there was no weaponization of the FBI or the Justice Department.  There was no witch hunt to destroy Trump’s political career.  The FBI and the Justice Department was not corrupt and partisan.  These are Trump’s big lies.  

Just the opposite was true.  The fact Trump was investigated and prosecuted was powerful evidence our justice system worked as designed.  It proved no one in our country, not even an ex-president, was above the law.  It demonstrated we are still a nation of laws, not of men.  Make no mistake, Trump’s mission to seek revenge on those who investigated and prosecuted him is not merely an attack on the integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department.  It is a frontal assault on the rule of law, on the defining hallmark of our democracy.  

Many were incredulous when Trump chose supremely unqualified people to wield enormous governmental power.  Candidates like Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi and RFK Jr., to say nothing of the obscene nomination of Matt Gaetz to be attorney general, shared one quality:  a slavish loyalty to their boss.  This time around, Trump ensured there would be no adults in the room who would inhibit and constrain him in any way.  This time around, he wanted to appoint sycophants and cronies intent on doing his bidding.  

Can anyone seriously imagine our nation is safer now from terrorist plots or cyberattacks given the alarming number of layoffs or reassignments at FBI or CIA, and the identity of those leading our law enforcement and intelligence agencies?  Can anyone seriously imagine we are safer from a medical health crisis, say, from a measles or an Ebola outbreak or the emergence of a new coronavirus, with layoffs at the CDC and RFK Jr. running HHS?  Of course, anyone who would pilfer and then hide boxes of highly classified documents pertaining to our nuclear arsenal in his bathroom could never be considered a steward of our nation’s security.  

The president of the United States works for all citizens.  The White House is the people’s house.  And yet Trump does not behave as a public servant conducting business on behalf of citizens.  He remains in the business of enriching himself, his family, and billionaire friends, and keeping his personal brand relevant and lucrative.  Trump’s brazen and corrupt scheme to issue crypto coins in his own and his wife’s name is a stark portent of things to come. Fortunately, his declining poll numbers indicate people are paying attention to his corrupt and unlawful behavior.  Here is a prediction:  the ultimate guardrail against Trump’s authoritarian power grab will be his own recklessness, impulsivity, and foolishness.  More people will realize his constant lies do not merely broadcast outlandish conspiracy theories, but express disturbing figments of his imagination.  It will be increasingly obvious that he simply makes things up.  Recent egregious examples include his proclamation Zelensky is a dictator who started a war against Russia and whose approval rating in Ukraine stands at four percent, or that the January 6th rioters did not attack police officers but were themselves attacked.  

It will become increasingly clear Trump prefers to bully opponents both here and abroad to coerce them to kiss the ring.  But Americans did not go to the polls last November to elect a king.  And they certainly did not vote for a president to act like a kingpin.  But that is who we have.  The next four years will be a grand civics lesson about the fragility of our democracy.  In a recent speech at the Munich security conference, JD Vance lectured European leaders about what he deemed the “enemy within” their democratic societies.  He referred to their stubborn refusal to embrace right-wing populist movements.  But Vance’s abhorrent rhetoric ironically defines an important truth we must recognize about ourselves:  Donald Trump is a cancer on our body politic, a powerful enemy to our democracy.  And it is up to each of us to resist this political threat.  All hands on deck. 

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

American Politics

It’s Time To Debunk Trump’s Narrative

1 Comment

Donald Trump does not fashion himself as a businessman or politician.  He is an entertainer and a masterful storyteller.  He managed his campaign and now directs his administration as a reality television show.  Each week, each day provides his viewing audience, the American public and the entire world, with a brand-new episode.  He is determined to ensure his second term in office remains a compelling drama or “must see” TV.  

Yes, Trump rambles and lapses into bewildering incoherence.  Yes, his stories are filled with half-truths and outright lies.  Yes, many of his speeches are like maladroit jazz improvisations or vulgar stand-up comedy routines.  But Trump tells his underlying story simply, concisely, and repeatedly until his lies and made-up nonsense establish a narrative many accept as truth.  

Here is the central and disturbing challenge we face:  how do we deal with a political leader who knowingly lies every time he speaks, who uses deceit as a central political strategy?  How do we resist a modern-day Caligula?  Fortunately, the answer is clear and simple.  Opponents push back proclaiming the truth.  And by repeating the truth simply, clearly, and repeatedly, until people recognize the big lie as a big lie.  Until the Trump narrative is dislodged and debunked.  This is the most important public service anyone can offer. 

In the 2024 presidential campaign, Democrats had over a billion dollars to spend.  But no one thought to implore someone like Jeffrey Katzenberg to hire a world-class storyteller to create a series of very short films highlighting the triumphs of the Biden administration.  The most progressive president of our lifetime, who passed important bipartisan legislation during a period of profound political polarization that will impact the lives of middle- and working-class Americans for years to come, ended his term with a dismal whimper.   Biden and his administration were atrocious storytellers.  

A YouGov poll published last October asked eight thousand voters to rank policies by the two presidential candidates without identifying who proposed them.  Guess what they found?  The most popular policy positions were associated with Harris, while the least popular were associated with Trump.  One quick takeaway?  A series of very short films promoted on social media laying out clearly and concisely what Harris stood for may have altered the outcome of the election.  

So how does Trump control the political narrative?  The heart of his strategic playbook is rather simple.  There are two main elements.  The first is adapted from Trump’s infamous mentor Roy Cohn:  admit nothing, then attack, attack, attack.  This is what enabled him to survive repeated humiliating revelations that would have destroyed the career of any other politician.  

The other feature of Trump’s strategic playbook is more sinister.  It runs like a red thread connecting his assertion Obama was not a US citizen to his rant about the 2020 election.  And it is a ploy used by all authoritarian leaders:  proclaim a big lie and repeat it until the big lie is adopted as truth. During his 2024 campaign, Trump repeated many big lies.  Here are three salient falsehoods that remain alive and well:  1) Trump won the 2020 election; 2) The election was stolen by Joe Biden via widespread election fraud; 3) While in office, Joe Biden “weaponized” the FBI and the Justice Department to persecute him.   These big lies form the heart of Trump’s false narrative that must be debunked by his opponents.  

The recent confirmation hearings of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel represented golden opportunities to expose Trump’s big lies.  Unfortunately, Democrats muffed their chance.  For example, it was astonishing how Bondi and Patel refused to say Biden won the 2020 election.  Pam Bondi asserted she had been in Pennsylvania and saw disturbing things.  Yet no one thought to ask her exactly what she saw?  And no one saw fit to remind her that she and other election deniers were accorded their day in court.  In fact, they had many days in court.  No one thought to ask Bondi how many lawsuits were initiated to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

So here is a pop quiz.  Can you tell me how many lawsuits there were?  The number may surprise you.  There were sixty-four lawsuits initiated across several battleground states to support Trump’s claim of a rigged election.  That’s right, sixty-four.  Of those sixty-four cases, twenty were dismissed before a hearing, another fourteen were voluntarily withdrawn by Trump’s supporters.  Out of the remaining cases, Trump prevailed in only one, a Pennsylvania case involving very few votes that did not affect the election outcome.  In 2022, a blue-ribbon panel of conservative jurists and politicians reviewed the purported evidence of fraud.  That panel included the likes of John Danforth, J. Michael Luttig and Ted Olsen.  They concluded with 100% certainty there was no evidence of electoral fraud.  In other words, the 2020 election was fair.  Donald Trump lost the election.  

Of course, Trump’s opponents know and accept this.  But no one thought to tell Bondi and Patel during their confirmation that they had four years to present any meaningful evidence of electoral fraud.  And that it was time to either put up or shut up.  This exchange would have provided a compelling TV drama and an opening salvo to restore faith in our electoral system.  

Another central tenet of Trump’s false narrative involves the audacious assertion Biden “weaponized” the FBI and the Justice Department to persecute him.  This big lie is now being used to hollow out the FBI and to undermine the independence of the Justice Department.   We should be clear about what this means:  we will become more vulnerable to terrorist plots of all kinds, and the rule of law at the heart of our democratic experiment will be undermined. 

Trump’s opponents must begin to systematically challenge and debunk his big lie about the FBI and the Justice Department.  Here again, the Bondi and Patel hearings represented a golden opportunity.  But no one thought to ask Bondi if she believed criminal suspects should be investigated.  Surely, she would have agreed.  And no one thought to ask her if a criminal suspect should go to trial in the face of compelling evidence.  Surely, she would have concurred again. 

After Bondi agreed, Democratic senators could have reached for the jugular.  Trump was investigated and prosecuted for one important reason and for one reason alone:  because he was suspected of breaking the law.  When the evidence marshaled against him was presented in Florida, Georgia, the District of Columbia, and New York, four separate grand juries found the evidence compelling enough to warrant a trial.  Donald Trump was not investigated and then prosecuted because of corrupt FBI agents or overzealous Justice Department lawyers bent on destroying him.  There was no witch hunt organized against Donald Trump.  There was no weaponization of the FBI and the Justice Department. That is a big lie. 

Here is the breathtaking truth that needs to be asserted clearly, concisely, and repeatedly.  The investigation and prosecution of Donald Trump did not signal our justice system was partisan and corrupt.  Just the opposite.  It proved that our system of justice functioned the way it was designed to work.  It proved our justice system worked brilliantly.  The prosecution of Donald Trump affirmed we are a nation of laws, not of men.  It proved that no one, not even an ex-president, is above the law.  

Donald Trump became furious because our criminal justice system held him accountable for his alleged criminal behavior.   His accusation about the “weaponization” of the FBI and the Justice Department are mere expressions of his familiar playbook:   admit nothing, attack, attack, attack.  Currently, he alleges that any judge who opposes him is “weaponizing” our judicial system.  Let us be clear about this. Anyone who resists Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal behavior will be accused of being corrupt.  He will attribute to his opponents what he engages in himself, namely, the weaponization of our justice system to go after political enemies.  

How sinister that Trump rebranded criminals, who violently attacked police officers and invaded the Capital Building to undermine the peaceful transfer of power, as political prisoners and then pardoned them.  Now he wants to prosecute all those who worked to bring those criminals to justice.  FBI agents and Justice Department officials were not simply doing their jobs.  Their work signaled our justice system was alive and well, that no one, including an ex-president, was above the law.   

We cannot afford to equivocate. Trump’s current vendetta is not merely against FBI agents and Justice Department officials. It is a frontal assault on the rule of law at the heart of our democracy. Therefore, it is imperative Trump’s opponents in political life and civil society expose Trump’s big lies as big lies. It is time to debunk his false narrative. The political stakes could not be higher.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

American Politics

America on the Verge

With the upcoming presidential election a few days away, the latest polls indicate the candidates remain in a virtual tie.  There is a reasonable chance Trump could get reelected.  What a remarkable thing to write or even think.  Let’s be clear, Trump has run an extraordinarily poor campaign.  His abject vulgarity knows no limit.  And his rally speeches offer an incomprehensible mélange of non-sequiturs he refers to as “the weave”, a vain and deceitful attempt to describe his rambling presentation as coherent.  Every day, Trump says or does something that would destroy anyone else’s candidacy.  Yet here we are, on the verge of an election still too close to call.   

Here is a profound mistake we make about Trump:  he is not running a political campaign.  He has no interest in doing so.  This explains why his speeches only contain mindless slogans and endless insults, and why he remained an indifferent campaigner this fall, spending many days without a single public appearance.  Rather than organizing a campaign, Trump produces a reality TV show where he gets to be the director and star.  Trump fashions himself as an entertainer, a vulgar insult comedian like Don Rickles on steroids. 

Trump will say and do anything he imagines will boost his ratings.  And here is the sad truth:  his strategy has been very effective.  Audiences laugh when Trump is vulgar. They cheer when he insults his opponent or makes ominous comments about acts of political violence.  And they are amused by his nonsensical stories.  Far too many Americans find all this entertaining. 

Of course, as Trump presents his vulgar “shtick”, the sordid, despicable truth about his character and behavior gets lost.  He defamed the woman he sexually assaulted, he committed widespread fraud in his business, he stole top secret documents and hid them in his bathroom, he fomented a political insurrection at the Capitol Building that threatened the life of his vice president, Nancy Pelosi and other congressmen and women and did nothing to stop the violence on January 6th, he pressured Georgia officials to find him votes so he could overturn Biden’s victory in that state, he lied about losing the 2020 election and still denies the result.  

Donald Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the political heart of our cherished democracy:  the existence of a free press, the belief in the sanctity of free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power.  But the polls indicate that for too many Americans, none of it matters.     

But here is my hope.  At critical historical moments, the American public has made the right choice.  Think of the 1860 election as the nation trembled on the brink of Civil War and elected Abraham Lincoln.  Or the 1932 election, when Franklin Roosevelt became president during the Great Depression.  This is the most consequential election of our lifetime.  How will we respond?  Will we greenlight Trump’s abhorrent and dangerous reality TV show for another chaotic season?  Or will we decide he does not have the moral or intellectual stature to become president again?  My gut tells me that in a few short days, we will elect an African American woman to become the most powerful leader in the world.  It’s about time.   America let’s do this.  

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

Israel

An Audacious Peace Plan for Israel and the Palestinians

1 Comment

We know the years by heart:  1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and 2006, the years of major conflict between Israel and its neighbors.  Israel’s creation in 1948 ended the exile of the Jewish people from their ancient land.  Tragically, the end of one diaspora established another, the displacement of upwards of 800,000 people, whose ancestors occupied Palestine for many generations.  Two peoples claimed the right to inhabit and possess one land.  And each side appealed to history to justify their claim to this disputed territory.  

Ending one diaspora by creating another provided a recipe for tragedy and disaster.  The violent years noted above obscure how Israel has lived in a de facto state of war with its neighbors, most persistently with the descendants of Israel’s previous occupants, throughout its entire seventy-five-year history. 

The time has come to accept a sobering truth:  left on their own, Israel and the Palestinians will never establish a lasting comprehensive peace.  It makes no sense to discuss missed opportunities or intransigence in the history of peace making between these two parties.  After seventy-five years of conflict, the time has come to think out of the box.  The barbaric attacks of October 7th carried out by Hamas and the devastating Israeli response in Gaza underscores the urgency to establish, at long last, a lasting peace.  

To this end, here is an audacious peace proposal.  It will, of course, be controversial.  That is always the case with out of the box proposals.  There will be formidable obstacles on both sides to agree to this proposal.  And if the plan is ever implemented, both sides will surely be unhappy with the outcome.  But paradoxically, the unhappiness of both sides will, in my view, reflect the fairness and rightness of the plan’s outcome.  The best outcome will be for neither side to get everything it wants; for each side to relinquish something important, for the sake of an enduring and stable peace. 

What I have in mind is this:  the responsibility for establishing a final peace settlement should be taken out of the hands of both parties.  The Noble Peace Prize committee in Stockholm would be charged to form a committee of Peace Prize winners not affiliated with either side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and who have impeccable credentials promoting the cause of peace and justice.  Possible committee members could include Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, Mairead Corrigan of Ireland, Carlos Belo of East Timor, Ellen Johnson of Liberia, Kailash Satyarthi of India, and Juan Manuel Santos of Columbia.  This committee would take one year to study the outstanding issues between the conflicting parties before issuing a comprehensive peace plan.  Israel and the Palestinian Authority would provide a consultant to the committee to field any questions the committee might have during their deliberations.  

A vitally important aspect of my proposal is that the final peace agreement would be completely binding on both parties.  There would be no negotiation of any terms of the peace plan.  Finally, when the settlement is announced, military personnel from around the world would enforce the peace, including battalions from the US and NATO, from developing countries and China.  Enforcing the peace would become the world’s responsibility.

Would either party ever agree to relinquish responsibility to negotiate a final peace deal?  To address this issue, national referenda would be held in Israel, the West Bank and in Gaza to empower the Nobel Committee to appoint individuals of the peace plan committee.  The wording of any referendum would be critical.  

An example might be the following:   

A Referendum to Establish a Final Peace Settlement between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza: 

“I support empowering the Nobel Committee in Stockholm to appoint a committee of Nobel Peace Prize winners who are not affiliated with either Israel or the Palestinian people, to establish a final peace settlement covering all outstanding issues between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people in the West Bank and in Gaza.  The final peace plan will be completely binding on both parties.  And strict enforcement of the peace will be the world’s responsibility.” Answer yes if you agree, no if you disagree. 

Here is my critical assumption:  I believe most Israelis and Palestinians would agree to this proposal if they truly believed a good enough, rather than a perfect, peace plan could be established and rigorously enforced.  

Why do I believe this?  Because after seventy-five years, it has undoubtedly become clear to most Israelis and Palestinians that neither side possesses the ability to end the endless cycle of violence, retribution, more violence, further retribution, and still more violence.  Because after seventy-five years, both sides have valid claims regarding possession of the land.  And because, and this is critical, I believe majorities on both sides do not want to live with the horrifying fact of actual and/or threatened violence claiming yet another generation of innocent people.  Because I believe a majority on each side simply want, at long last, to live in peace as neighbors. 

Who will be against this peace plan?  Extremists on both sides, Hamas and its sympathizers in Gaza, and extreme right-wing Israeli expansionists, who remain steadfastly opposed to any two-state solution.  For too long, Israel and the Palestinians have remained hostage to extremist political agendas that undermine any hope for a lasting peace.  It is time to marginalize extremists on both sides and to seriously consider a proposal to effect an enduring solution to this tragic conflict. 

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

American Politics

The Spectacle of Donald Trump

In the summer of 2016, Michael Moore predicted Trump’s electoral victory.  He even named the states Trump would carry to secure the presidency.  Moore labeled Trump’s impending triumph as a Molotov cocktail hurled at elites of both major parties. It was a remarkable display of political acumen.  

But now, eight years later, we need to go further than that.  From the start of his resurrected political career, sowing doubt Barack Obama was an American citizen (“you won’t believe what my lawyers are finding out”), Trump said and did things that would have sunk every other politician’s career.  When the Access Hollywood videotape surfaced during the 2016 campaign, even Trump feared his candidacy was fatally damaged.  But remarkably, his lewd misogynistic remarks did not impact his political fortunes.  And during these last eight tumultuous years, his egregious behavior, capped by an election fraud lie and a corrupt gambit to maintain power despite being defeated, has not ended his political career.  At least, not yet.  

The time has come to confront a sobering reality about Trump’s candidacy.  And we need to do so immediately as presidential primaries begin.  It is not simply that Trump stokes a distemper in our land, as Moore smartly observed.  We need to reckon with the astonishing and remarkable fact that with each criminal indictment, Trump’s popularity has increased.  No other politician would survive even a fraction of the legal trouble Trump faces.  And yet, he continues to thrive.   How can we understand this unprecedented phenomenon? 

Trump believes he can do anything he likes, any time he likes, to whoever he likes.  The rules and laws governing the behavior of others, do not apply to him.  Recall Trump’s infamous comment that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and people would still vote for him.  It turns out he was exactly right.  Why?  Because his followers experience a vicarious satisfaction when he gets away with things he knows, and they know, are wrong.  They delight and support his ability to get away with things they cannot in their own lives.  As a result, Trump’s popularity is not enhanced despite his egregious behavior, it is enhanced because of it.  Most people understand they cannot do whatever they want, to whoever they want, in their own lives and get away with it.  Trump supporters have attached themselves to someone who does.  This defines the not-so-secret ingredient of his puzzling political “superpower”.  

What is lethal for every other politician provides fuel for Trump’s political fortunes.  The vicarious satisfaction Trump supporters experience when he behaves in ways they know are wrong, is reinforced by their scorn for all those who want to hold him accountable. His supporters affirm the narrative that every attempt to hold him to account represents a witch hunt, a campaign of political and personal persecution.  

But Trump goes one step further to seal the deal with his supporters.  He represents a toxic combination of George Wallace and his politics of anger, and Roy Cohn, who advocated a scorched earth response to anyone who dared oppose him.  Trump proclaims that when political elites and their fake media allies persecute him, they persecute them too.  He presents himself as a victim of a sophisticated witch hunt perpetrated by the “deep state”.  And just as it opposes and hates him, the deep state opposes and hates them too.  In this way, Trump presents a compelling narrative that lashes their interests to his.  While his campaign moniker remains Let’s Make America Great Again, the underlying agenda is clear:  what’s good for Trump is good for the nation.  

How do we reckon with Trump’s toxic political presence?  We address it head on. We must assert repeatedly that not only did Trump lose the election, and to say otherwise is a great lie, but that Trump knew he lost the 2020 election on election night.  He has always known he lost the election.  And dozens of court decisions affirmed what he knew to be true.  The man is not delusional.  So, why did he lie about the election result?  Was it out of some noble concern for the will of the American people?  Of course not. Trump lied about the election result because it was good business for Trump.  His persistent lie kept him in the news.  It maintained his status as a major political player and a Republican party kingmaker.  And all this sustained his primary interest:  to keep his personal brand relevant and lucrative.  Trump’s worst nightmare is to become invisible.  That is a fate worse than death.  And in the service of keeping his personal brand relevant and profitable, he has played the nation and his supporters as fools and “suckers”.  His supporters are willing enablers who even pay his legal bills, so he does not have to spend a large chunk of his own alleged fortune to keep himself out of jail.   

In this explosive and pivotal political season, we need to change the narrative about Trump.  We need to turn the tables and recast him as the ultimate cynical huckster who pretends to promote the national interest while he enhances the value of his personal brand.  For the diehard faithful, nothing will dissuade them from supporting Trump.  But for many other Republican and Independent voters rebranding Trump as someone who pursues his own interest at the expense of theirs, offers an important opportunity to expose him as a cancer on the American body politic, willing to undermine a hallowed aspect of our democracy, a peaceful transition of power effected by free and fair elections deemed legitimate by the public.  It is imperative we expose Trump as an emperor with no clothes.  

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

War in Ukraine/Russia

Understanding and Responding to Putin’s Threat Regarding Nuclear Weapons

When Putin invaded Ukraine, he believed occupying Kyiv, toppling the Zelensky government and replacing it with a friendly regime, would be accomplished quickly.  Of course, Putin knows what the world knows.  The war has been an unmitigated disaster for Russia.  Poor planning and dubious military strategy, insufficient boots on the ground, substandard performance of military equipment and inadequate munitions, contributed to Russia’s woes on the battlefield.  

But the essential story involves the grit and determination of the Ukrainian people to defend their country.  Certainly, a massive amount of western military aid was important to Ukraine’s defense.  But consider how the Afghan army, armed and trained for a generation by the US, proved incapable of defending the country from Taliban forces.  

Given Russia’s poor performance on the battlefield, Putin reframed his military offensive as a tenacious defense of the motherland.  Satanic Western forces are out to destroy Russia.  And Putin has warned he will use every weapon to rebuff this existential threat to Russian security.  These are unsettling words from the leader of a country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.  At no time during the Cuban missile crisis did Russia threaten to use nuclear weapons.  

Putin’s nuclear saber rattling is being taken very seriously.  But how are we to understand it?  What prompts Putin to make this threat?  We would be wrong to conjure images of Richard Nixon’s “crazy man” strategy, that Putin is trying to “out crazy” the west, as one commentator put it.  He is not crazy, nor is he trying to sound like someone who is.  

Let’s take a step back.  Putin referred to the dissolution of the Soviet Union as one of the great tragedies of the 20th century.  He is the ultimate Russian patriot who experienced this as a personal humiliation as well as a national catastrophe.  Over time, he defined his political and historical ambition to repair Russia’s national psyche by avenging Russian humiliation and restoring the country to its rightful preeminent place on the world stage.  

We must keep in mind there are several important sources of Russia’s humiliation.  A military defeat in Afghanistan, the dissolution of the Soviet empire, and the loss of the cold war.  And perhaps the most insidious humiliation involves how their erstwhile Chinese communist comrades engineered the greatest capitalist transformation over the last forty years, while the Russian economy remained stagnant and dependent on the extraction of minerals and oil.  

Putin fashions himself to be a cross between Peter the Great and Henry Kissinger.  But the self-proclaimed savior of Russia’s national pride and dignity, engineered a disastrous military campaign that turned Russia into a pariah state.  A leader whose mission was to alleviate national disgrace exposed his country to greater scorn.  This is intolerable and unacceptable to Putin.

Putin will do everything in his power to stave off this outcome.   This is not the reasoning of a madman.  It is the reasoning of someone who realizes he exposed his beloved Russia to global ridicule and disdain.  Putin knows what the world knows: that he failed abysmally in Ukraine.  He knows he is ultimately responsible for the national humiliation associated with Russia’s poor military performance.  Of course, he will consider any means possible to remedy the situation, to avoid any further military and political damage, including the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. What is unthinkable for Putin is not the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but the possibility of sustaining a military defeat that heaps further humiliation upon Russia.

What is to be done?  We are dealing with an extreme nationalist leader who damaged his country’s political and military prestige in the world community.  The diplomatic challenge here is to engineer an acceptable diplomatic offramp for Putin to save face in a way that will also be palatable to Ukraine.  This is not about appeasement.  This is not about placating a war criminal.  This is about making it possible for Putin to stand down in Ukraine.  Ukraine and the West must be able to offer something of value to Putin that will allow him to say to himself and the Russian people, “mission accomplished”.  

What could this be?  First and foremost, diplomatic pressure must be applied to Ukraine to renounce any desire to join NATO. The timing is awkward, given Zelensky’s recent announcement to petition NATO to fast-track Ukraine’s membership.  But Ukraine must relinquish this ambition.  Further, Ukraine must proclaim its political and military neutrality a la Finland during the cold war. But one might ask, what about Ukraine’s future security needs?  Given the tenacity of Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, there should be no doubt about Ukraine’s resolve to protect itself.  Russia is not likely to invade Ukraine ever again.   

Next, it is extremely unlikely Ukraine will expel all Russian troops from Ukrainian soil.  Prior to the invasion, there were regions in eastern Ukraine that appeared to favor reunification with Russia.  A condition of any peace settlement should be an agreement to hold binding internationally administered referendums to determine if any regions of Ukraine prefer annexation to Russia.  

Like all Soviet leaders before him, Putin feared being encircled by hostile powers.  Over the course of years, Putin voiced persistent concern about NATO expansion eastward. Ukraine’s declaration of neutrality would go a long way to addressing Putin’s fear.  Removing any prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and securing a legal means to potentially annex some territory in eastern Ukraine could be enough to declare a ceasefire and bring Putin to the negotiating table.  And the promise of resumed access to some $300 billion in foreign currency reserves, currently frozen in the west, could be an additional powerful incentive to entice Putin to negotiate.   

Would all of this be acceptable to Ukraine?  Clearly, they defied the odds and resisted Russian aggression on their soil.  Would a declaration of neutrality and the possibility of ceding some territory in the east be too hefty a price to pay for peace?  That is something Ukraine would have to decide for itself.  But agreeing to these conditions would give them an opportunity to end this dreadful war and to direct their national attention towards the urgent task of rebuilding their gravely damaged country.  

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

War in Ukraine/Russia

A Way Out of the Ukraine Crisis

Time is of the essence.  Many lives hang in the balance.  Will the fate of Kyiv and Kharkiv conjure Aleppo and Grozny?  The Ukrainian resistance to the reprehensible and vicious Russian invasion has been heroic.  But continued Ukrainian bravery and the considerable financial and military support offered by most of the world will not change the eventual outcome.  The inability to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine will ensure an eventual Russian military victory.  If necessary, Russian forces will destroy and capture Kyiv.   Of course, defeating an army and capturing a city remains quite different than controlling an entire country.   

Ukrainian resistance demonstrated to Russia and the entire world that Ukraine will not become Belarus.  The capture of Kyiv, the removal of the Zelensky government and the establishment of a puppet regime, will immediately trigger a fierce and determined partisan guerrilla war.  Maintaining a loyal government will require a permanent Russian occupation that will become the target of continual violent attack.  Russia does not have the ability to vanquish Ukrainian resistance.

Despite the utter futility of his extraordinary military gamble, Putin remains determined to pursue his current course of action.  While his decision to invade represents the most significant strategic blunder of his political tenure, Putin will double down on his military offensive if necessary.  Accordingly, the Zelensky government has an important choice to make.  It is an awful choice, but one that must be made immediately to save many lives and maintain Ukraine’s political sovereignty.  Zelensky should renounce any desire for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. In effect, Zelensky must declare Ukraine’s political and military neutrality.  

Zelensky must be persuaded to accept the geopolitical significance of how Ukraine borders Russia.  Ukraine is not Canada.  Russia’s perception of Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat must be recognized and respected.  Would Biden or any president accept Mexico or Canada establishing a military alliance with Russia?  We must understand Russia’s insistence on Ukraine remaining neutral as asserting its version of the Monroe Doctrine.  

Zelensky’s choice before the Russian invasion remained stark and clear:  to decide to become Finland or risk sharing the fate of Czechoslovakia in 1968, when Russian tanks rolled into Prague.  Finland remained neutral during the cold war and avoided Russian invasion, while remaining an independent democratic nation.  Ideally, all sovereign nations should enjoy the freedom to determine its political alliances.  But the world has never worked that way.  The Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz, who ruled Mexico before its Revolution in the early 20th century, once said:  Poor Mexico, so far away from God, so close to the United States.  With rueful wisdom, Porfirio simply acknowledged how countries living in the shadow of a great power must respect the interests of that power.  The same holds true for Ukraine today.   

Even at this moment, Ukraine might be able to maintain its political sovereignty, its freely elected government and independent civic institutions.   But it must safeguard these right now by renouncing any desire to join the Western alliance.  It must become and remain officially neutral to protect the Ukrainian people and its cities from further devastation.  

Some will consider this to be a policy of appeasement.  But there is a great difference between appeasement and acknowledging brute geopolitical reality. Where a country is physically located in relation to a great power has enormous consequence.  The world has united in its opposition to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.  We are operating from a position of strength not weakness, the way Chamberlain approached Hitler in 1938.  Biden should get on the phone right now to tell Putin he cannot win.  In fact, he should add, no one wins.  Everyone loses.  Russia, the West and the entire world loses, if he continues with his invasion.  Perhaps Putin has received that message from friends like Erdogan and other leaders like Macron. It is a message that bears repeating.  

To those who want to continue to arm Ukraine, what is the goal of that strategy?  To defeat Russia on the ground?  To engineer a stalemate forcing Russia to negotiate?  That is extremely unlikely. Meanwhile, many more Ukrainians will be killed and whole cities will be destroyed.  The West and the world must accept the fact that no matter how many weapons Ukraine is given, the grim military outcome will remain the same.  Offering Ukraine’s political and military neutrality in exchange for an immediate end to the violence is a deal worth making.  

Zelensky’s decision to publicly declare Ukrainian neutrality would be exceedingly difficult and painful.  It would have to be explained not as a surrender, but as an acceptance of geopolitical reality and the inevitable military outcome.  It would have to be framed as the best decision to save lives and Ukraine’s continued sovereignty.  In exchange, Russia would have to withdraw its troops and accept the Zelensky government as expressing the will of an independent Ukraine.  And the Minsk accords would be reaffirmed by all parties.  Would Russia accept these terms?  Ukraine and the world would do well to find out.  If Putin refused, it would reinforce his political isolation, expose Russia to the full weight of economic sanctions and elevate the risk of political instability at home and in friendly countries like Belarus and Kazakhstan.  Time is of the essence.  Zelensky must make his decision.  Many lives and cities, and Ukraine’s political sovereignty itself, hangs in precarious balance.  

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano   

War in Ukraine/Russia

Will There Be War in Ukraine?

If Vladimir Putin decides to invade Ukraine, it will represent the biggest political gamble of his tenure and his most profound strategic blunder.  There are a few compelling reasons why Russia should refrain from launching a military strike.  If Russia invades, it will face a hostile population that has enjoyed political freedom for a generation.  There will be a fierce and determined armed resistance, in support of Ukraine’s independence, opposed to any Russian occupation.  A prolonged insurgency against Russian forces broadcast to the world could embolden the political opposition in countries allied to Russia, like Belarus and Kazakhstan.  It should be noted that the Kazakh regime recently needed Russian “peacekeepers” to end a week of violent protests about rising fuel prices.  And there is smoldering resentment in Belarus towards its president, who most consider illegitimate because of widespread voter fraud in their last election. Putin’s military adventure in Ukraine could trigger an “Arab Spring” like reaction in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Then there is the issue of how Russian citizens would respond to a war in Ukraine.  While many believe the West, and more specifically the US, is provoking Russia into war, Russians are also fearful of war.  How will citizens respond to Putin’s decision to invade if the body count begins to rise significantly and after the West imposes new and unprecedented economic and financial sanctions?  Consider too that Russia’s largest trading partner is the EU, representing about 40% of Russia’s trading revenue. Russian aggression against Ukraine would diminish trading revenue and, when coupled with sanctions, might spark a financial crisis.  Could public uneasiness about the consequences of war be exploited by Putin’s political opponents?  Would they question his decision to invade and end up challenging his continued grip on power?  

While the drum beat of war resounds across Ukraine, how can the West deter Russian aggression at this late hour?   Emmanuel Macron was right when he said Europe cannot be secure if Russia is not secure.  We must consider NATO expansion to Ukraine as equivalent, say, to Mexico or Canada establishing a military alliance with Russia, resulting in the presence of Russian troops and/or missiles there.  No American president would tolerate this.  Accordingly, the perception of Ukraine’s NATO membership as an existential threat must be understood as Russia’s version of the Monroe Doctrine.  Putin has a valid point. The West should acknowledge it by placing a twenty-five year moratorium on any NATO expansion.  

But the broader political and diplomatic goal involves persuading Russia that its political and economic future remains bound up with Europe, not China.  The West should pursue a political rapprochement with Russia that, over the long-term, could make Ukrainian membership in NATO irrelevant to Russia.  Or better yet, the West should work to create an environment whereby the rationale for NATO, to deter Russian aggression, becomes obsolete.  We would do well to remember that thirty years ago, Putin’s predecessor Boris Yeltsin visited Washington and delivered a message of hope and friendship in a speech to Congress.  This seems like a fairy tale now, but it did happen.  An appealing array of trade deals, arms control negotiations and new agreements on a range of issues ranging from the climate crisis, fighting global terrorism to cyberattacks, could change the current political narrative and entice Russia into the European fold.  

Finally, the West needs to recognize that Putin’s military build-up reflects Russia’s political and military humiliation in recent decades. It suffered a disastrous military intervention in Afghanistan.  And it sustained the loss of its empire with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  Putin’s aim remains quite simple:  to make Russia great again, to restore Russia to its rightful place as a respected political and military actor on the world stage.  His military build-up is not a bluff. It is a desperate attempt to get the West to recognize and respect Russia’s security needs.  A moratorium on NATO expansion and an attractive assortment of deals that lashes Russia’s interests to Europe, would enable Putin to declare “mission accomplished” and initiate a troop withdrawal.  Allowing Putin to savor his “victory” should not be construed as placating a ruthless authoritarian leader.  Rather, it represents the first step in a long process to persuade Russia that its economic, financial and political future rests with Europe and the West.  This will be essential to avert war now and to defuse future political and military tensions in Europe and around the world.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano

War in Ukraine/Russia

Resolving the Ukraine Crisis

 The Ukraine crisis feels like déjà vu all over again.  Russian troops poised to invade a neighboring country.  American threats of unprecedented economic sanctions.  Russian demands that NATO never expand eastward.  American troops on high alert.  Russian threats to place nuclear weapons near America’s coastline.  Thirty years after the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia and the West are engaged in a second cold-war.  

What is Putin thinking?  What will he do?  An aura of inscrutability surrounds him in the West.  No one can predict his next move.  Upon closer inspection, the mystique dissipates like mist.  He is an authoritarian nationalist leader of a humiliated country.  He aims to restore Russia to its rightful place on the world stage as a military and political force to be reckoned with.  There is nothing mysterious about Putin’s aim:  to make Russia great again by restoring its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.   

The sources of national humiliation are several.  Its military adventure in Afghanistan ended in dismal failure.  Zbigniew Brzezinski crowed the US would turn Afghanistan into a Russian Vietnam. Thwarted by Mujahadeen guerillas, engulfed in an interminable military quagmire, the Russian military suffered an ignominious defeat and the Soviet puppet regime in Kabul was removed.  

With the stroke of a pen, Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991.  Its de facto empire, ranging from the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe to its satellite republics in Central Asia, suddenly and unceremoniously vanished.  Some years later, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin agreed Warsaw Pact nations were free to pursue NATO membership.  Putin referred to the demise of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20thCentury.  His personal experience as a KGB agent working in East Germany awaiting orders that never came from Moscow was personally devastating.  

But there is another enduring source of humiliation sustained by Russia.  And this rarely gets mentioned.  In 1979, Deng Xiaoping pronounced the Chinese would become capitalist roaders.  Hamstrung by Maoist policies, China remained a poor economic backwater.  Deng envisioned a radical departure.  

During the last forty-five years, the Chinese engineered the most breathtaking industrial transformation in human history.  It became an economic and financial superpower and the world’s largest exporter.  Meanwhile, Russia’s economy remained dependent on extracting its vast natural resources like oil and gas and the production of metals, like steel and aluminum.  Being eclipsed by their erstwhile Communist comrades represents an enduring national humiliation for Russian leaders.  

While 2022 reprises the political tensions of 1962, we should recall another pivotal year.  In 1992, Boris Yeltsin came to Washington to address a joint session of Congress.  He extended a hand of friendship, proclaiming an end to enmity between Russia and the United States.  Politicians from both parties applauded vigorously and leapt to their feet chanting his name.  It is astonishing to recall that moment almost thirty years later.   

Equally remarkable is the fact that shortly after being appointed Yeltsin’s successor, Putin consulted Madeleine Albright in 2000 about Russia joining NATO, but was flatly rebuffed. For almost twenty years, from 1991 to 2008, the West was afforded an extraordinary opportunity to bring Russia into the European community.  Vanquished in the Cold War, the post -Soviet leadership, first Yeltsin then Putin, wanted to join the winning side.  While Western leaders would not allow their ex-communist adversary to join NATO or the EU, a Marshall Plan for Russia in the 1990’s or 2000’s might have done wonders to cement ties between Russia and the West.  Unfortunately, that opportunity was not recognized and seized. 

Putin once said Russia’s mistake was trusting the West.  He added the West’s mistake was trying to take advantage of that trust.  There is truth in Putin’s observation.  Russia was not going to become a Western style liberal democracy, a new-fangled version of the UK or France, no matter what the circumstances.   But a program of economic liberalization and market reform introduced gradually in the immediate post-Soviet era, not a doctrinaire program of shock and awe, involving fiscal austerity and a significant decline in living standards, could have generated an economic engine for political liberalization.  Of course, we will never know what that may have accomplished.  

Currently, the West is reaping the bitter harvest of that missed opportunity.  Putin fears, as all Soviet leaders did, that Russia will be surrounded by hostile forces.  But here too Putin has a point.  Imagine a regime change in Mexico or Canada that resulted in a military alliance with Russia.  Any American president would invoke the Monroe Doctrine to overcome the threat, as Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis.  

So what does Putin want?  He wants to restore Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and diminish NATO’s presence on his doorstep.  Think of it as Putin’s equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine.  But we should not assume Putin wants to invade Ukraine.  Consider the consequences to Russia if he did.  Installing a puppet regime in Kyiv would subject Russian occupiers to a tenacious armed resistance.  Sustained violent opposition to Russian occupation broadcast to the world would probably embolden political dissidents in other countries like Belarus or Kazakhstan, to renew calls for regime change, generating a potential Eastern European/Central Asian “Arab Spring”.  Ukrainian resistance to Putin’s invasion could even fuel resurgent opposition at home and threaten his grip on power.  Moreover, the financial toll of an invasion would likely be enormous and unpopular with Russian citizens, even if they construe Ukraine to be a legitimate part of Russia.  

We can be sure Putin has considered all this extensively.  Perhaps the troops at Ukraine’s border are designed to announce to the world that Russia is, once again, a significant political and military force.  If nothing else, Putin has conveyed how its national interests must be considered and respected by Europe and the US.  

Mindful of Russia’s enduring national humiliation and the threat posed by NATO expansion to its border, the West should consider imposing a moratorium of, say, 25 years, on any NATO expansion, while asserting the West would respond swiftly and severely to any threat to Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  Moreover, the West should propose ways to help Russia become more competitive in the global marketplace, perhaps establishing mutually beneficial trade agreements.  If Putin can extract these important concessions, Russian citizens would applaud his show of strength.  And the West would avert a military conflict in Ukraine.  Finally, the West should view the current crisis as a valuable opportunity to engineer a rapprochement between Russia and the West including a new round of arms control negotiations.   This would alleviate a potent source of Russia’s national humiliation and reduce geopolitical tensions in Europe. 

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano