су́ка блядь
Reading, Watching 03.02.25
This is a regular feature for paid subscribers wherein I write a little bit about what I’ve been reading and/or watching.
I’m going to comment briefly on the disgraceful Trump-Zelensky Oval Office scene, but first…
In case you missed it,
and I hosted political scientist on our intermittent podcast.—
Speaking of podcasts, I’m very excited that next week I’ll be the first guest on Inflection Point, the relaunched Berkeley Political Economy podcast with economist
and sociologist Dylan J. Riley. I’m a longtime follower of DeLong’s blog “Grasping Reality,” which is now on Substack. I’m also an admirer of Riley, particularly his book The Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe, which has influenced my own work a great deal. We are going to discusss When the Clock Broke, how we got here, and what all “this” is anyway. I’ll keep you posted.
In The Verge,
reports from the circus of CPAC. An indispensable view into the state of the American right, particularly about the supposed “fragility” of the coalition:The masses, it seems, don’t see the power struggle happening, and those who do don’t really think it matters. Most of the CPAC attendees I spoke to saw Elon not as a usurper of presidential power but an enforcer of it. The sentiment, expressed time and time again, was that Musk works for Trump and Trump works for us, the American people. DOGE, they told me, is about eliminating waste and fraud in the government — it’s about ensuring that Americans’ tax dollars are spent at home, not on queer puppet shows in Iraq.
…
[The] conflicts and contradictions, heightened as they are, matter little to the average CPAC attendee. Trump is their guy, Bannon is their guy, and now Musk is, too. They believe everyone in MAGAworld is working toward a shared goal: the flourishing of the American people and the vanquishing of all enemies, foreign and domestic. During her conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), which doubled as a taping of an episode of his podcast — at one point he asked everyone in the audience to subscribe — Attorney General Pam Bondi described the Trump administration as a big group of friends working together for the common good. From the outside looking in, it seems more like a royal court full of rival factions helmed by scheming viziers vying for the emperor’s favor. Still, they’re undoubtedly more united than their opposition.
Okay, so what even happened on Friday. Was it all a set up: did the administration prepare an ambush for President Zelensky to deliberately humiliate him, or did tempers really flare and the negotiations get derailed on the fly? Did Zelensky do something courageous but ultimately unwise, considering he needs the support of the United States? Or did he have no choice considering the terrible circumstances?
My basic takeaway is this: what Trump and Vance are trying to accomplish is the political destruction of Zelensky, at least as far as Republicans and Trump-leaning voters are concerned. Zelensky has fallen in the estimation of Republicans, as has the sentiment that we should back the Ukranians to the hilt, but Ukraine remains quite popular among Trump supporters in general and Putin is still rightly seen as the aggressor. And Ukraine and Zelensky retained support among GOP senators. While generally “pro-peace” attitudes are spreading, the blatantly pro-Russian view is essentially a MAGA elite ideological project: it is a belief set for far-right intellectuals and fanatics. So, the decoupling from Ukraine that Trump wants to accomplish takes a bit of political work. One way to do that would be to frame Zelensky in an unattractive light. The obvious go-to formula for such a move would be: “Trump, populist tribune vs. Zelensky, ungrateful foreigner.” They used to speak in the 1990s about “Talk Show democracy,” but that’s exactly what we’re watching, replete with provocative audience plant, in the person of OAN reporter and Marjorie Taylor Greene boyfriend Brian Glenn with his stupid question about the suit. So, we had this Jerry Springer-ish showdown, and quickly thereafter all the podcasters and social media influencers that Trump has cultivated chimed in with their “opinions” about Zelensky’s behavior: “Zelensky was disrespectful of Trump and therefore, you, the American common man. Trump and Vance were more manly by yelling.” It’s clear from Axios that the story the White House wants out there is that Trump got mad about the suit issue. They must figure the furor over diplomatic decorum helps them because they want to frame support for Ukraine as a kind of bougie, college boy (or, really, girl) thing. In reality, it can be hard to get people to understand why Ukraine ought to matter to them. Trump’s general approach to foreign policy unfortunately accords to the sentiments of many people in this country. “Why is this guy being an asshole? We tried to help him but we can just walk away. Fuck him,” is what they want their audience to say to themselves.
The messaging seems highly coordinated, down to the proliferation of video clips of the mic picking up that Zelensky called Vance a “bitch,” which would be true enough, but not really what Zelensky seems to have said. Under his breath, it sounds like he said, су́ка блядь — suka blyat — literally “bitch whore” in Russian, his first language, but it’s an exclamation of dismay or shock, like “fucking hell.” Cу́ка блядь is right... Now, his use of Mat, Russian obscene slang, might also be a little questionable for the Oval Office. This is traditionally the way gangsters talk, but, of course, in reality, everyone does it — usually behind closed doors. If you are getting the gangster treatment you might make recourse to gangster talk. The whole thing is obscene.
Even in “normal” White Houses such things are highly staged, and the administration has the story it wants the media to go with and tries to push it. The Trump White House is trying to accomplish total integration of propaganda and statecraft with prominent media figures getting top spots, so I think we can assume some degree of pre-planned theatrics in all these events. With that being said, I do think there’s another possibility to consider: Vance is particularly hardline and ideological on this issue, and took the opportunity to blow up an already sensitive topic by embarrassing Trump and then making it seem like Zelensky was responsible for the embarrassment.
Another thing to consider: none of these guys are that great at expressing themselves with finesse, which can lead to misunderstandings and acrimony. First, Zelensky is a very effective messenger, but his English is not great, as we saw. Trump has a micropenis of a vocabulary and is unable to express himself with sufficient subtlety for international diplomacy. Vance is the college boy here, but he comes off as an outraged and resentful debate club kid, not as a diplomat. He didn’t have an answer for Zelensky’s forceful but not at all impudent question, so he started yelling. All of them in fact, perform a certain lack of decorum for popular consumption: Zelensky in his fatigues and with his comedian’s wit, Trump with his streetwise, tough-guy talk, and Vance with his rather crude dressing downs of “elite” sacred cows. It might seem odd that this came down to manners: “please” and “thank you,” but diplomacy is highly mannered. None of these guys are exactly refined, but Vance and Trump seem to this college boy downright uncivilized. But then so does their entire political project.