When to Kick over the Table

European politics with intelligence and dignity is within reach

Perhaps we all remember the tale from Sherwood Forest in which Robin Hood, the first people's hero in modern times, steals from the rich to give to the poor. The karmic perspective of that tale is that stealing from the rich isn't morally wrong after that rich have become rich precisely because they've stolen from the poor.

Much later, in gangland Chicago of the 1920s, every neighborhood of the city had a speakeasy, a hidden liquor serving bar and entertainment venue that was forbidden during the era of Prohibition.

There's a scene in the film “Robin and the Seven Hoods,” a version of that fable transposed to the depression era gangland Chicago, where Robbo (the modern Robin Hood, played by Frank Sinatra, recreated as a gangster who owns a speakeasy) is visited by Little John (played by an impeccably charming and impish Dean Martin), who wants to join Robbo’s gang of men. Robbo informs Little John that the better odds are with another hood, Guy Gisborne (Peter Falk as a rival gangster played so perfectly that Falk can even afford to make fun of the character as he's playing him). Robbo and Gisborne have become archenemies since Gisborne arranged for the murder of Robbo's close friend, "Big" Jim Stevens, undisputed boss of the Chicago underworld (in the best cameo Edward G. Robinson ever played). Because of that hit, says Robbo, Gisborne now has most of the action in the city, and many more hoods ready for violence than Robbo, who is now a small David to Gisborne’s Goliath.

Undaunted by the odds, Little John offers Robbo some advice: “When your opponent's got all the aces...there's only one thing to do: kick over the table.” At that point, Robbo's fortunes begin to improve; he strikes Gisborne’s own speakeasy without waiting any further.

It's a fact of life that many of us are destined to face an opponent who at some point along the way appears to hold all the aces. The crucial question: do we sit through the rest of the card game, watching our losses mount, or do we find a hasty, unconventional way out of the quagmire?

Earlier yesterday, the president of Ukraine found himself sitting at a card game in the White House where a deal was to be signed giving the US enormous rights for rare minerals in exchange for…. what?

What Ukraine needed most, as it found itself facing defeat against its three year Russian invasion, was precisely was it was not going to get in this deal: security guarantees from a former ally. Many American newspapers have criticized Zelenskyy for having walked out of the deal after a shouting match with a man who vowed to bring American democracy to its final chapter. We should recall that the man facing Zelenskyy yesterday is the same man who announced that “you won't have to vote again” to a crowd during last year’s presidential campaign, clearly implying a strategy by which he will remain in place after his four year term expires. That strategy, incidentally, will be no secret: a false state of emergency will be declared at the right moment, as the justification for American elections to be cancelled. In any case, yesterday's White House shouting match in front of the world press reveals much that should have already happened that didn't, and much that shouldn't have happened but did.

The American leader in power currently has repeatedly expressed the view that the US has been paying for the world's security and getting mistreated in the process. Of course, this position is exactly the opposite of what has actually been happening. To date, the US has provided $65.9 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Assuming it would have invested twice the amount of money, it would have allowed a foreign military force to degrade the Russian military twice as much. The degradation of your adversary is always a victory for you, especially when you don't have to lose any of your own military personnel in the process. This is exactly what NATO funding is supposed to do, and even if Ukraine is not a NATO member, it became the enemy of our enemy. Degrading the Russian military is an ideal position for the West to support, for since the end of WWII, no European country has invaded Russia (including the USSR which was Russia's government), whereas Russia has invaded and occupied parts of several countries, including Moldova (Transnistria), Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia), Ukraine, and, as the USSR, it invaded Poland in Europe during World War II, dividing the country with Nazi Germany as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Russians also invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia during the Cold War to maintain communist control in the region. Let us count: that is six invasions in 86 years, a record unmatched by any country in the modern world except for Nazi Germany, which in 1940 invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Norway, and later the United Kingdom within a few months. Before Nazi Germany, the only other country having invaded six or more other countries is the Roman Empire, which at its peak, controlled a vast territory across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, conquering numerous nations including Gaul (modern France), Britain, parts of Spain, Greece, and large portions of the Middle East.

This pitiful precedent is why Europe knows that Russia cannot be trusted to curb its aggression. But don't try telling that to American conservatives currently in power, it will be like talking to the wind for all the good it will do you. The real danger in the world today is of a new kind over which reason, history, or friends have no sway, and it is this: Never has such a powerful nation been so naive.

In fact, the price of American and European defense stated earlier is a bargain by any measure. Every US dollar sent to Ukraine factually and directly eroded the Russian military, making the West stronger. By contrast, since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.313 trillion on the war (https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022), and at a cost of 6,000 military and US contractor lives, and gotten absolutely nothing for it (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/09/world/middleeast/afghanistan-war-cost.html). Russia today isn't just Europe’s adversary; it is, despite what the American administration wishes to fantasize, America's adversary first. Perhaps the US, which has always liked to think big, preferred to spend 33.28 times what it sent to Ukraine, even if it came back as nothing.

But back to the shouting match. One thing that happened, which shouldn't have, is Zelenskyy heading to Washington in the first place. The deal waiting for him on that White House table was a complete setup, and all that Zelenskyy wanted was precisely what that deal didn't have: security guarantees. What's the point of signing a contract that doesn't give you what you want?

To some of us, this was an incredible case of déjà vu. When the USSR disintegrated in 1989, Ukraine didn't merely have a few Soviet nuclear weapons in its territory – it held the world's third largest nuclear stockpile. In December 1991, when Ukraine gained independence, President Kravchuk signed agreements in Minsk and Almaty, transferring operational control of the nuclear forces within Ukraine to the newly established Commonwealth of Independent States, headquartered in Minsk, Belarus. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and security assurances from Russia, the United States, United Kingdom and France to respect Ukrainian independence. Ukraine wanted security guarantees, but instead it allowed itself to be persuaded to accept assurances. Had it insisted on guarantees, and imposed a method for enforcing them, it wouldn't be in its compromised position today. And so, returning to Washington for more assurances rather than guarantees. The obvious question of course is, what worth would even a guarantee have to an American administration that has abandoned its current European, Canadian, and Mexican alliances. The only country to which it has made any overtures of friendship and support is, incredibly, Russia, the modern record holder for most prolific invader.

Now to what Zelenskyy didn't do that he should have done.

If someone wants something you have, the best arrangement isn't always to sell it to him directly. In this case, Ukraine’s rare metals are coveted by many nations. The ideal bargaining position is to offer it to any country that can provide military protection and support. That could include China, even if Europe correctly understands that Chinese influence is a corrosive agent in world affairs. Alternatively, Ukraine can sell the mineral rights to Europe which can itself make the security guarantees, for it is now obvious that the only way to deal with Russian invasion is with military resolve. A coalition of ten countries will form a block that Russia cannot defeat, especially now.As of February 2025, estimates indicate that Russia has suffered significant military losses during its invasion of Ukraine. According to Ukrainian sources, approximately 875,610 Russian military personnel have been killed since the conflict began in February 2022. Regarding equipment losses, reports suggest that Russia has lost 10,233 tanks and 21,249 armored fighting vehicles. These losses have significantly impacted Russia's operational capabilities in the conflict. Admittedly, these figures are based on Ukrainian assessments (http://index.minfin.com.ua) and may not be independently verified, but American military analysts support them (https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116768/documents/HHRG-118-ZS00-20240130-SD002.pdf).

Importantly, the minerals deal should only have been made with Europe, since the American leader offhandedly stated that Europe was giving the guarantees. Ideally, Europe would show courage at the moment of Russia’s greatest weakness and then sell the minerals itself to the US at a steep markup for that security guarantee. In this scenario, Europe takes a stand, makes money, sells the minerals at profit, and protects Ukraine. The only play for Russia at that point is a nuclear response, which the US cannot, regardless who is in power in Washington, accept. No US military leader would sit idly by and watch Europe take a nuclear attack.

So I'm extremely glad that Ukraine has stood up for itself, even, if necessary, facing defeat with integrity. Now it is time for both Zelenskyy and Europe to kick over the table.