Churchill, and his Cold War speech, in Fulton, Missouri (PRA e CLP, 2013)

Reproduzo aqui uma parte de meus registros relativos à parada, no meio da viagem através dos EUA, em 2013, em Fulton, Missouri, a pequena cidade onde Winston Churchill pronunciou seu famoso discurso sobre a "cortina de ferro" separando a Europa ocidental, de democracias livres, da Europa central e oriental, dominada pelo comunismo soviético.
Vou tentar localizar as fotos feitas na ocasião, e que ilustravam a minha postagem, feita a cada noite nos hotéis em que parávamos.
O relato completo da viagem está neste link: 
https://www.academia.edu/12251995/Across_the_whale_in_less_than_a_month_USA_coast_to_coast_2013
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 15/11/2019

Across the whale in a month 

(3): Churchill's Cold War speech at Fulton, Missouri

Numa segunda-feira em que 99,99% dos museus americanos permanecem fechados, tivemos uma sorte danada ao poder visitar o memorial Churchill, localizado na pequena cidade de Fulton, no coração do Missouri, onde o famoso líder britânico da Segunda Guerra Mundial pronunciou o mais famoso discurso da Guerra Fria, na verdade, inaugurando, antecipadamente, a própria guerra fria.

Depois de sair de Saint Louis um pouco tarde, seguimos pela estrada que segue em direção a Kansas City. Exatamente no meio do caminho, e no meio do caminho entre a estrada principal e a capital do Missouri, uma sonolenta cidade de apenas 50 mil habitantes que responde pelo nome de Jefferson City (em homenagem ao terceiro presidente americano), fica esta pequena cidade que abriga o Westminster College (mesmo nome, talvez, do distrito eleitoral de Churchill, na Grã-Bretanha), que formulou o convite com o apoio do presidente Harry Truman, um caipira do Missouri (existe uma presidential library Harry Truman em Independence, pouco antes de Kansas City). 

Sempre tive curiosidade em saber por que, diabos, Churchill teria ido falar sobre tema tão importante quanto a dominação soviética na Europa central e oriental numa cidadezinha sem qualquer importância no plano mundial como essa aldeia perdida na caipirolândia americana. Pois bem, soube agora como isso foi acontecer, um discurso memorável que colocou no mapa do mundo, e da História (com H maiúsculo) esta pequena cidade dotada de um belo museu dedicado ao maior inglês do século 20, um detestável imperialista, um indefectível colonialista, mas um grande líder militar, um estrategista razoável e um grande mestre das palavras. Ele ganhou os ingleses basicamente pela palavra e pelos escritos, pelas frases geniais, cheias de espírito. 

Relato abaixo como isso foi possível, que soube pelo guia do museu, ou doutorando em História dos EUA pelo Westminster College, e pela informação disponível na internet.

Tenho o prazer de apresentar, portanto, o

National Churchill Museum

no subsolo (ou térreo) desta bela igreja inglesa do século 17 (na verdade, do século 11, mas destruída por um incêndio, e reconstruída depois, em 1677), trazida pedra por pedra de Londres, para figurar nesse memorial construído especialmente para servir como uma espécie de panteão especial para Churchill e toda a sua história de vida, desde a juventude, até seu aparecimento inédito em Fulton.

Na verdade, a história cobre até o final da Guerra Fria, e um pedaço do muro de Berlim figura no pátio da igreja, onde falou Gorbachev, em 1992 (ver foto abaixo).

Transcrevo uma informação sobre o local, retirada da atual "mãe dos burros", a Wikipedia.

The National Churchill Museum, (formerly the Winston Churchill Memorial and Library) located on the Westminster College campus in Fulton, Missouri, United States, commemorates the life and times of Sir Winston Churchill. In 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his famous "Sinews of Peace" address in the Westminster Historic Gymnasium. His speech, due to one particularly famous phrase ("an ‘Iron Curtain’ has descended across the continent"), has come to be known as the "Iron Curtain" speech. One of Churchill's most famous speeches of all time, "Sinews of Peace" heralded the beginning of the Cold War.

The National Churchill Museum comprises three distinct but related elements: the Church of St Mary Aldermanbury, the museum, and the "Breakthrough" sculpture.

Aí estou eu, refletido no vidro da porta da entrada, para uma visita memorável, que me lembrou em algumas passagens as "catacumbas" do gabinete de guerra de Churchill em Londres, que visitamos um ano e meio atrás, quando fui dar uma palestra sobre o Brasil no King's College

Continuo com a informação: 

Beneath the church is the Churchill museum, renovated in 2006. Through interactive new exhibits, the museum tells Churchill's story, discussing his personal and political life and his legacy. Additionally, the Clementine-Spencer Churchill Reading Room houses an extensive research collection about Churchill and his era.

Outside the church stands the "Breakthrough" sculpture, formed from eight sections of the Berlin Wall. Churchill's granddaughter, artist Edwina Sandys, designed the sculpture in order to commemorate both the "Sinews of Peace" speech and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In 1946, Winston Churchill travelled to Westminster College in order to deliver his famous "Sinews of Peace" address as a part of the Green Lecture series. An extraordinary confluence of circumstances conspired to bring Winston Churchill to Westminster. At the time, the College had a unique connection to U.S. President Harry S. Truman's administration—Major General Harry Vaughan, a graduate of Westminster College. College president Franc McCluer asked Vaughan to see what President Truman could do to induce Churchill to come to Westminster. President Truman thought the idea of bringing Churchill to Missouri (Truman's native state) was a wonderful idea. On the bottom of Churchill's invitation from Westminster College Truman wrote: "This is a wonderful school in my home state. Hope you can do it. I will introduce you."

So it was that two world leaders, Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman, descended onto the little campus of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

Churchill arrived on the Westminster College campus on March 5, 1946 and delivered his address. Churchill's "Sinews of Peace" delineated the complications and tensions of that moment in world history—less than a year after World War II and at the dawn of the Cold War. Churchill had been watching the Soviet Union with increasing concern. Churchill feared another war. "A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory," he said; adding, "whatever conclusion may be drawn from these facts…this is certainly not the liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace."

Churchill noted the tensions mounting between Eastern and Western Europe. "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic," he said, "an ‘iron curtain’ has descended across the continent." Churchill then predicted what he called the formation of the "Soviet sphere.

Agora uma descrição do museu, em si: 

Winston S. Churchill: A Life of Leadership gallery

Renovated in 2006, in honor of the 60th anniversary of the "Sinews of Peace," the Churchill museum strives to bring Churchill to life for new generations born years after Churchill's death. The objective of the museum is to tell the story of Churchill's life, giving due proportion both to his successes and his failures, and to let visitors make their own determinations about the man and his place in history.

This narrative is presented in the form of a "walkthrough" experience, organized chronologically. The exhibition begins with Churchill's birth and proceeds through the major events of his life, alongside an examination of the critical events of the 20th century. The exhibit relates the story of Churchill's entire life—not only his experiences in World War II—examining his pursuits as a politician, soldier, journalist, family man, and painter.

Some of the highlights of this exhibition include the "Admiralty, Army & Arsenal: 1914-1919" room. This portion of the exhibit is housed within a recreation of a World War I trench—complete with barbed wire, sandbags, and spent ammunition—that gives visitors a sense of a British soldier's experience on the Western Front. A periscope mounted on the trench wall gives visitors a glimpse of a real World War I battlescape from period footage. An accompanying ambient audio track plays the sound of soldiers’ conversations interspersed with distant gunfire and shell bursts. The World War I room also examines Churchill's role in the disasters of the Dardanelles and Gallipoli and his contributions to the technology of warfare.

Another highlight of the exhibition is "The Gathering Storm: 1929-1939" room which discusses Churchill's suspicion of Hitler and the Nazi movement. In this room, five video monitors play excerpts from Nazi propaganda films interspersed with images of the impending war, demonstrating how Nazi rhetoric differed from policy. Against this backdrop, the exhibit examines Churchill's view of the Nazis and his disgust for Britain's pre-war appeasement politics.

Yet another room, "Churchill's Finest Hour: World War II, 1939-1945", portrays World War II and Churchill's pivotal role in that conflict. Here, a sound and light show replicates an air-raid on London during the "Blitz". Simulated rubble surrounds the room and the room reverberates with the sounds of bombs detonating and air raid sirens sounding. Flashes of anti-aircraft fire and the prodding beams of searchlights illuminate the exhibit. Segments of war-time broadcasts add to the atmosphere. After the conclusion of the Blitz demonstration, a short film, narrated by Walter Cronkite, examines Churchill's role as prime minister during the war. Around the walls of his room, more interactive displays describe the war-time skills of code breaking and plane spotting.

Other museum highlights include "The Sinews of Peace" room and the "Winston's Wit & Wisdom" room. "The Sinews of Peace" tells the story of how and why Churchill came to visit Westminster College. Featured in this exhibit are the lectern and chair used by Churchill during his speech and the ceremonial robes he wore. In "Winston's Wit & Wisdom" visitors sit in a simulated British club while listening to an audio presentation of Churchill stories. Visitors to this room may also search through a database of Churchill's most famous quotations and quips on a host of topics.

Foi, até agora, o ponto alto de nossa travessia pelos Estados Unidos.

Carmen Lícia fez várias fotos do museu, e minhas, fora e dentro do museu. Posto aqui uma delas.

Amanhã, ou melhor, hoje, terça-feira, dia 17, tem mais: vamos visitar o Memorial da Primeira Guerra Mundial em Kansas City, onde tem uma exposição especial sobre os dez anos que precederam a guerra.

A viagem continua.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

130 anos de República - Editorial Gazeta do Povo, Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Do meu ponto de vista, existe apenas um fato objetivo a ser registrado: hoje é UM dia. Ponto.
A República ainda não existe. Algumas das razões estão nesse editorial.
Resumo: o Estado sempre foi grande, e atualmente continua engolindo a sociedade. Os atuais donos do poder não vão mudar isso. Mesmo que tivessem consciência— e alguns não têm a mínima noção do que são políticas de Estado —, não têm convicção nem intenção. Seria preciso que fossem estadistas.
Conclusão: vamos continuar a nos arrastar penosamente em direção à modernidade, com várias bolas de ferro atadas às duas pernas.
Algumas dessas bolas são justamente representadas por alguns dos atuais donos do poder, nos três poderes...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

130 anos de República

Editorial Gazeta do Povo

15/11/201

As bases da república inaugurada há 130 anos ainda estão aí e não foram capazes de lançar a nação rumo ao grupo dos países desenvolvidos

Neste 15 de novembro, a república presidencialista brasileira completa 130 anos desde sua proclamação em 1889, quando um golpe político e militar liderado pelo marechal Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca aboliu a monarquia parlamentarista, destituiu o imperador dom Pedro II e instaurou a república. O Brasil já havia decidido, 77 anos antes, tornar-se livre e responsável por seu destino com a declaração de independência em relação a Portugal, em 1822. Desde então, o país aprovou sete constituições, a “Lei Fundamental” das bases, princípios e normas sob as quais o país e sua população decidem como querem existir e se desenvolver. A primeira Constituição data de 1824, logo após a independência; a segunda, de 1891, menos de dois anos após a proclamação da República; a terceira, de 1934, na chamada Segunda República; a quarta, de 1937, na época do Estado Novo, sob a ditadura de Getúlio Vargas; a quinta é de 1946, voltando às bases da Constituição de 1934, para eliminar os ditames do regime autoritário getulista; a sexta, de 1967, foi elaborada pelos militares que haviam assumido o poder em 1964, com o golpe que depôs João Goulart; por fim, a sétima – e que vigora até hoje – foi promulgada em 1988; apelidada de Constituição Cidadã, ela consolidou a redemocratização iniciada em 1985.

Essas sete constituições e suas emendas resultaram todas da promessa de criar as bases para o desenvolvimento nacional, superar a pobreza e oferecer um bom padrão de vida e de bem-estar social ao povo brasileiro. A Constituição atual, promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988, já teve pouco mais de 100 emendas, entre as ordinárias e as emendas de revisão, e ainda terá várias outras, a julgar pela quantidade de PECs em tramitação no Congresso Nacional. Portanto, não é por falta de normas constitucionais que o Brasil continua com baixo crescimento econômico, elevado desemprego e altos índices de pobreza. O problema não reside na quantidade de normas, mas em seus princípios e sua qualidade.

Vários erros foram cometidos pelo país ao longo de sua história, e eles fazem parte da explicação sobre o atraso e a pobreza, a despeito das riquezas naturais abundantes. Sempre são invocadas causas como a formação nacional, a cultura, os hábitos e a mentalidade da população – temas que são objeto de profundas controvérsias –, aos quais se juntam erros conhecidos. Um deles, a industrialização tardia e a permanência do país dependente de um setor agrícola pobre e sem tecnologia, como resultado do fato de que, embora a independência tenha ocorrido em 1822, somente em 1844 foram instalados os primeiros pilares para a industrialização.

Outro erro foi a demora em abolir a escravidão, o que ocorreu somente em 1888, retardando o surgimento de uma classe de trabalhadores livres, necessários para o novo ciclo de desenvolvimento baseado na indústria e nas tecnologias surgidas a partir da Revolução Industrial décadas antes. Os trabalhadores livres teriam sido importantes para formar uma classe com renda capaz de significar uma nova classe de consumidores, necessária à formação de um mercado consumidor interno. Para agravar o quadro, o terceiro erro foi a não criação, junto com a declaração da independência, de um sistema de educação básica pública e gratuita para todos os brasileiros. A omissão do Estado em relação à educação, desde a expulsão dos jesuítas em meados do século 18, foi talvez o mais grave dos erros. No tempo da colônia, os jesuítas atuavam na educação brasileira, mas, após um longo histórico de problemas com a Coroa portuguesa, o rei dom José I, aconselhado pelo Marquês de Pombal, decidiu pela expulsão dos jesuítas do reino português e suas colônias em 1759, sem que o governo – seja o português, até a independência, seja o imperial, depois de 1822 – assumisse a tarefa de montar um moderno sistema educacional.

Embora a industrialização tardia, a demora em pôr fim à escravidão e a inexistência de um sistema educacional tenham dado causa à pobreza e ao baixo desenvolvimento que vigoram até hoje, esses fatos da vida nacional não respondem sozinhos pelo atraso do país. As bases da república inaugurada há 130 anos ainda estão aí e não foram capazes de lançar a nação rumo ao grupo dos países desenvolvidos. Um dos problemas é que, a cada Constituição implantada, aumentava o inchaço do setor estatal; mais o governo passava a interferir na vida dos indivíduos e nos negócios, mais a burocracia estatal se tornava cara, ineficiente, sufocante e corrupta, de forma que se acabou criando uma sociedade a serviço do Estado, e não o inverso, que seria o correto.

Ulysses Guimarães, presidente da Câmara e da Assembleia Nacional Constituinte na promulgação da Constituição de 1988, chamou a carta magna de “Constituição Cidadã” sob o argumento de que ela trouxe o cidadão para dentro da lei fundamental, alegando que isso iria servir aos pobres e melhorar as condições sociais. A intenção pode ter sido boa, mas o que se viu, ao longo desses 130 anos de República e 31 anos da Constituição de 1988, com suas mais de 100 emendas, foi um país amarrado, lento, fechado e pouco inovador. O povo não foi trazido para dentro da Constituição: pelo contrário, o Estado subiu nos ombros do povo para tributá-lo e controlá-lo. O resultado é que nem os 130 anos de República, nem os quase 200 anos de independência (a completar em 2022), e muito menos a Constituição Cidadã foram suficientes para tirar o país do atraso, superar a pobreza e melhorar o padrão de bem-estar social médio dos 208,5 milhões de habitantes a ponto de tornar o Brasil um país desenvolvido. O desafio de cumprir os objetivos declarados na Carta Magna continua aberto, à espera das reformas que efetivamente coloquem o Estado para servir o cidadão.

Leia mais em: https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/editoriais/130-anos-de-republica/?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=midia-social&utm_campaign=gazeta-do-povo

Copyright © 2019, Gazeta do Povo. Todos os direitos reservados.

Como os EUA salvaram russos da fome e do canibalismo 100 anos atrás

A century ago America saved millions of Russians from starvation

The story of “The Russian Job” contradicts the bellicose histories preferred in both countries

The Economist, November 9th 2019

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/11/09/a-century-ago-america-saved-millions-of-russians-from-starvation?cid1=cust/dailypicks1/n/bl/n/20191114n/owned/n/n/dailypicks1/n/n/NA/343149/n

The story of “The Russian Job” contradicts the bellicose histories preferred in both countries

The Russian Job. 
By Douglas Smith. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 320 pages; $28. Picador; £25.

TO MOST PEOPLE shaped by the cold war—and today’s icy relations—Russia and America may seem always to have been sworn enemies. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 America celebrated victory. When Vladimir Putin set out to avenge history and make Russia great again, he whipped up anti-American hysteria and scorned Washington’s overreach. For his part, Donald Trump—who thinks America has in the past been a soft touch—in effect concurred with Mr Putin’s criticism, pledging to put narrow American interests first.

In recounting America’s biggest ever humanitarian effort—to save millions of lives in the nascent Soviet state a century ago—“The Russian Job” by Douglas Smith repudiates the modern mythologies of both countries, and their leaders’ twisted histories. Already ravaged by wars and revolution, in 1920-22 Russia was hit by droughts and faced one of Europe’s worst ever famines. It was partly self-induced: terrorised by the Red Army and threatened with requisitions and executions, Russian peasants drastically reduced the land under cultivation, sowing the minimum required for their own survival.

Acutely aware that food meant power, Vladimir Lenin abandoned War Communism in favour of a new economic policy that replaced requisition with taxes and made some concession to capitalism. But it was too late. By the end of 1921, the vast territory along the Volga succumbed to starvation and cannibalism.

Having come to power on the promise to provide bread and end war, the Bolsheviks confronted the prospect of being swept away by hunger. Unable to feed their own people, the leaders of the proletarian revolution turned to the West for help. Maxim Gorky, a Bolshevik writer who had once demonised American capitalism, appealed to “all honest European and American people” to “give bread and medicine”.

The appeal struck a chord with Herbert Hoover, founding chief of the American Relief Administration (ARA). The future president responded not out of sympathy for the “murderous tyranny” of the Bolshevik regime, but from faith in America’s mission—and ability—to improve the world. If children were starving, America was obliged to ease their suffering. “We must make some distinction between the Russian people and the group who have seized the government,” Hoover argued.

The ARA’s insistence on complete autonomy made the Soviet government suspicious, as did its pledge to help without regard to “race, creed or social status”. After all, the regime had liquidated entire classes of citizens and nationalised not only private property but human life. Still, given a choice between losing face or losing the country, the Bolsheviks conceded the ARA’s conditions—while putting the operation under surveillance by the secret police.

Mr Smith’s book is not a political history, however. It is principally a reconstruction of the lives of those ARA men, many from military backgrounds, who over two and a half years in effect took over the functions of civil government in Russia, feeding some 10m people. In the Volga region, where residents were driven by hunger to boil and eat human flesh, the ARA organised kitchens and transport, distributed food and rebuilt hospitals.

The misery they encountered in Russia strained their nerves to the point of breakdown and despair, but also imbued their careers with meaning. “It is only by being of service that one can be happy,” an ARA officer wrote. “The help given by the Americans can never be forgotten, and the story of their glorious exploit will be told by grandfathers to their grandchildren,” grateful Russians told them.

Yet the duplicity and paranoia of the Soviet government haunted the ARA’s operation to the very end. While publicly Bolshevik leaders showered the Americans with praise and thanks, the secret police instructed local officials: “Under no circumstances are there to be any large displays or expressions of gratitude made in the name of the people.” No sooner was the Russian job done than the authorities began to expunge all memory of America’s help.

The edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1950 described the ARA as a front “for spying and wrecking activities and for supporting counter-revolutionary elements”. Modern Russian textbooks barely mention the episode. But it is not just Russia that needs to be reminded of this story—so does America, which derived much of its 20th-century greatness from its values rather than military power. As Gorky told Hoover: “The generosity of the American people resuscitates the dream of fraternity among people at a time when humanity needs charity and compassion.” ■

This article appeared in the Books and arts section of the print edition under the headline "The kindness of strangers"

A degradação da Política Externa dos EUA por Trump - Max Boot (WP)

Trump’s corrupted foreign policy: Coddle the dictator, abuse the ally

Max Boot

The Washington Post, November 14, 2019

The Trump administration’s corruption and degradation of U.S. foreign policy were on shameful display on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue on Wednesday.

In the White House, President Trump was fawning over Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a vicious anti-American dictator who has ethnically cleansed the Kurds in northern Syria, locked up his domestic critics and established close ties with Russia. “You’re doing a fantastic job for the people of Turkey,” Trump gushed. Of course he did: By Trump’s lights, this is how a leader should behave.

Trump even praised Erdogan for having “a great relationship with the Kurds,” which will come as news to them. The United States reportedly has drone imagery showing atrocities committed against Kurds by pro-Turkish militias in Syria; I’d hate to see how Erdogan treats someone he has a lousy relationship with. Once again Trump put his extraordinary gift for Orwellian doublespeak to use on behalf of an odious autocrat.

In the Longworth House Office Building, meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee was hearing damning evidence of how Trump had mistreated a democratic ally threatened by another one of his favorite dictators—Vladimir Putin. The facts are incontrovertible: This summer Trump blocked military aid that Ukraine desperately needs to force its government to announce a sham investigation of Joe Biden. Ukraine eventually got its military aid, as Republicans repeatedly pointed out, but this only occurred after the whistleblower came forward. And while Trump did meet Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September, the democratically elected president of Ukraine still has not gotten the kind of White House welcome that the Turkish dictator has twice received.

In recounting this sordid story for a television audience, diplomats George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. were utterly credible and totally devastating witnesses. They pointed out what an important ally Ukraine is and what a heavy price it paid in the lives of its soldiers when the military aid was withheld.

Republicans were left sputtering about crackpot conspiracy theories that blame Ukraine, not Russia, for 2016 election interference. Even if that’s true (and it’s not, as Kent and Taylor noted), how would that justify Trump soliciting a bribe? The Republicans talked so much nonsense because they could not challenge the damning evidence about Trump’s corruption of U.S. foreign policy.

At one point, committee counsel Daniel Goldman asked Taylor: “Have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the United States?” “No, Mr. Goldman,” the veteran diplomat testified. “I’ve not.”

But while Trump’s disreputable and dishonorable actions in Ukraine were unprecedented when compared with other presidents, they are utterly routine for this one. Trump recognizes no separation between public and private: He thinks “his” officials are there to serve him, not the U.S. government. He demands personal loyalty even at the cost of violating the law, and when he does not get it, he fires appointees such as James B. Comey as FBI director and Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

Knowing what we now know about how Trump operates, I cannot help but be suspicious of his motives in kissing up to Erdogan. According to NBC News, former national security adviser John Bolton recently said that “he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue.”

Trump himself admitted that he has a “little conflict of interest” with Turkey because of the Trump Towers in Istanbul. A New York Times article spells out those conflicts by exposing the cozy links between Trump’s son-in-law and shadow secretary of state, Jared Kushner; Erdogan’s son-in-law and finance minister, Berat Albayrak; and Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, the son-in-law of Trump’s Turkish business partner, Aydin Dogan, who built the Trump Towers Istanbul and still pays Trump for the use of his name.

As a result of their “backdoor diplomacy,” the Times notes, “the Trump administration has balked at aggressively punishing a state-owned Turkish bank for evading American sanctions against Iran” and “also deferred legally mandated sanctions against Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for installing Russian missile defense systems.”

Eric Edelman, a former ambassador to Turkey and undersecretary of defense under President George W. Bush, told the Times that “Trump is replacing formal relations among nations in several cases with family-to-family relationship, or crony-to-crony relationships.”

Whether in Ukraine or Turkey or elsewhere, Trump invariably seeks to cut deals with the most corrupt cronies he can find. Zelensky’s misfortune is that he is trying to fight corruption while Trump is promoting it. Hence Trump’s outrageous attempt at blackmail. Unless Trump is removed from office by either impeachment or election, he will continue to corrupt U.S. foreign policy on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

Asli Aydintasbas: Erdogan’s close ties with Trump might be good for him — but they hurt Turkey

The Post’s View: Trump’s Syria decision reflects his stunning ignorance of the situation

David Ignatius: As Trump abandons Syrian Kurds, a top commander pleads for U.S. support

Jennifer Rubin: The corruption of U.S. foreign policy