An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.

–Winston Churchill

I’m not a fan of transactional relationships. It cheapens the meaning of anything received when you expect something in return. But I get it when it comes to business and political interactions. There can’t be an altruism to the thing given because the selfishness and survival instincts of the giver supersede the benefit of doing something good. There is no equivalent of God when a country or company does something for another. Companies don’t receive salvation for a good life at the pearly gates.

This means that leaders need to assign value to both sides of a transaction and evaluate if the thing given is worth the thing received. It’s ok if the value systems are different. This is the basis of a barter system. Dried skins that keep you warm are equivalent to food keeping a family fed. Leaders quantify the measurement based on what they value. Which is why I evaluate a leader’s potential by what they value, not what they ‘promise’. If they share the same values as me, I would trust them to make a deal placing a premium on things that I think carry higher value.

In the context of governments, I place Liberty, Freedom, Sovereignty at the top. But I score these societally, not individually. In the defense of these ideals, I side with Spock, “The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”  Which for centuries has formed the basis of national defense. A few, sacrifice so much for the benefit of the masses.

I’ve come to notice by his language that Trump places life – any life – above all else. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, in some ways I really admire that commitment to life. I wish he were consistent across nationality (Mexicans), religion (Muslims) and Races (Africa as a whole), but let’s put that aside for a second. I take him at his word:

• Both Russia and Ukraine, they’re losing thousands and thousands of soldiers. And a lot of people have been killed too.
• …because I don’t want all these people killed anymore. I’m looking at people that are being killed and they’re Russian and Ukrainian people, but they’re people. It doesn’t matter where they’re from on the whole planet…
• …I want to see if I can save maybe millions of lives.

In respoonse I would ask, what is it that you value in exchange for the benefit of saving these lives? USAid is money spent to save lives in Africa and mostly poor nations. We send arms to Israel, South Korea, Taiwan to defend themselves. NIH, FDA, CDC fund studies for the benefit of humanity. That’s cash. I’m ok with spending money to save lives. Further, I actually agree with Trump that we should score the cost:benefit. “But where is all the money that’s been given? Where is it going? And I’ve never seen an accounting of it.”  The GAO and Inspectors General are tasked with this. Could they use some new guidance and standards? Sure. However, I’m not sure that firing them is the kind of vision and leadership that gets us a better accounting.

Trump is convinced that he can make deals to save lives. “This could have been settled very easily, just a half-baked negotiator could have settled this years ago…”   But as we see with DOGE cuts to programs meant to save lives in other parts of the world, he only wants this solved by tools that don’t detract monetary value from the US Government. So as the consummate deal maker, what is there that has value, but doesn’t cost money? Hint: He’s a real estate developer;

• …settled this years ago without — I think without the loss of much land, very little land, without the loss of any lives, and without the loss of cities that are just laying on their sides.
• …literally these cities look like Gaza. Actually, many have, percentage wise, more buildings knocked down than in Gaza. So, people are tired of it. People want to see something happen.
• You should have never started it. You could have made a deal. I could have made a deal for Ukraine that would have given them almost all of the land, everything, almost all of the land and no people would have been killed and no city would have been demolished and not one dome would have been knocked down…

I’m sorry, is that “land for peace” which is the fundamental theory behind what Palestinians want? Yet Trump green lights Netanyahu to build more settlements, taking more land, preventing peace? I think Hamas are terrorists. But I am curious why Trump wouldn’t tell Benny to give up land to stop the killing of Israelis by Hamas in the same way that he wants Zelensky to give land to stop the killing of Russians and Ukrainians. Why is a Muslim life worth less? How is this magically going to happen? “And by the way, we wouldn’t have had October 7th. You know that. We wouldn’t have had October 7th, either in Israel…” Should Hamas have just approached Trump and say something like; We’re going to attack and kill Israelis unless you give us something. The exchange of land would seem to be the only non-monetary offer that would prevent the Oct 7 killing Trump claims he could have prevented.

It seems he continuously employs this methodology. Think about it, Putin already invaded Crimea, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova when Trump started his second term. There must have been some kind of deal to keep the land without repercussion, as long as there was no more killing. 

• There was no talk of this during the Trump administration. Putin would have never ever done it.

 And

• This is something that should have never happened, would have never happened. And I used to discuss it with Putin. President Putin and I would talk about Ukraine. It was the apple of his eye. I will tell you that, but there was never a chance of him going in. And I told him, you better not go in. Don’t go in, don’t go in and he understood that, he understood it fully…

Understood what?  What would Putin get for not invading and killing people? What deal was made?

Here is where my values lead me to think differently than Trump. It doesn’t make me better or worse, it just makes me different and my opinions stem from a carefully thought out set of values. If you or Trump disagree, ok, that’s fine. But do it based on a set of values.  Tell me what you find important. And if we disagree, that doesn’t make me stupid or ignorant or an idiot. I draw conclusions, by weighing my values based on a set of facts. That is rational. It is logical. Calling me names because we have different opinions without the benefit of a rational argument is weak.

Liberty – You don’t advocate the overthrow of a government because you don’t like the results of an election. Further, those that violate the sanctity of 200+ years of democracy, should never be pardoned for their part in challenging those institutions because they are mad that their guy lost. Justifying those actions on conspiracy theory ‘what ifs’ is not a respect for the law that the Republican party used to cherish.

Freedom – Removing books from libraries because you don’t like the idea, expelling students who challenge ideas, barring the press from covering your government, extorting law firms, colleges and non-profits because you want to shift their ideals:  This is not why the founders wrote a document of contempt (not “love”) to declare our independence from the tyranny of a monarch. “We hold these truths to be self-evident”

Sovereignty – We don’t threatennations with the loss of life, freedom and liberty in exchange for them surrendering their land to us, because we “need it”. (ie Canada, Panama, Greenland). That is an empire. It’s what Hitler tried to rebuild. In the aftermath of that calamity we realized that appeasement of small transgressions leads to the loss of sovereign borders. That’s why we formed NATO as a deterrent to Russian aggression into eastern Europe. We station troops along the DMZ to deter or create structures that deter death from North Korean dictators. Appeasing Russian actions, fearing the loss of life, leads to the loss of civilizations. Sometimes, lives must be sacrificed to maintain the things we value. It’s why Stalin allowed Hitler to march across western Russia, knowing that he would kill the over-extended aggressor for the sake of returning Russian sovereignty. 27 Million died to make sure Russian soil would never be German. What if Putin threatened to launch nuclear weapons at Eastern Europe unless we ceded land to him? If appeasing the aggressor saves lives, is it a good deal? Does Article 5 mean anything?

Seeing “…soldiers lying all over the field, body parts all over the field, they’re all dead” is certainly horrific. That’s the burden of being the leader of the free world. You have to recognize that there must be sacrifice for the greater good.  Defeating the enemy can’t be accomplished by a deal that has no skin in the game hiding behind your oceanic barrier declaring “America First!”  Saving lives today, could mean that those lives will be subjected to a perverse future destiny. Pointing out the reality of that fact is leadership. Trying to get out of a no-win scenario by making Faustian bargain, is not a deal that I see in the best interest of the United States.  A short term win for the sake of a win is myopic. It is appeasement. Making a deal just for the deal’s sake is not a good deal.

[All quotes from Donald Trump at press conference 18 Feb 2025 in Mar-a-Lago transcribed by RollCall]