What would Churchill do?

What’s right v what’s necessary and walking the line v drawing a line

I have never had more hits on a LinkedIn Post than this one, referring to the Winston Churchill bust in the Oval Office that could be seen on the table behind Trump.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-laity-b6b86b6_as-trump-and-his-sidekick-vance-berated-and-activity-7301995621903745024-jMeO/?rcm=ACoAAAEx9sMB64wcSfQ2-uW_LgRrQh7ZIGRuCfM

I asked what Churchill would be thinking if he could see Trump and Vance bullying Zelensky? My guess would be sympathy with Zelensky and shock as well as contempt for the US president and his sidekick.

But I have also asked myself, what would Churchill do as well as think? After all Britain’s position in 1940-41 had many similarities with Ukraine – as well as differences, which we will come to. In his speech to Parliament in June 1940 at the depths of Britain’s crisis his most famous quote still stirs the soul, “…we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

It should also be remembered that he acknowledged the risk of defeat, saying “even if this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving” the struggle would go on to beyond our shores “until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.” In that speech he was referring to the British Empire, but re-reading that today, then that ‘New World’ reference obviously better fits the United States. And, within months, the New World he was calling upon for help was indeed the US.

And he got it, albeit at a price that, until Pearl Harbour, could sometimes hurt. But the one thing he never doubted was that America was on Britain’s side. He may have wanted more, but it never occurred to him that FDR had some fellow feeling and a sneaking admiration for Hitler.

Extraordinarily that is where we are now. Just as Hitler’s invasion of Poland was unprovoked, so also was Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Hitler also came up with some flimsy claims of provocations which were accepted by no-one sentient. Sadly, with regard to Russia/Ukraine, there seem many in the US administration who are prepared to blame Ukraine for being invaded, with Trump telling Zelensky, “You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” Yeah, right.

Neither should we forget that a couple of weeks after Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 then the Soviet Union also invaded. Russia, in its various guises, has form in Eastern Europe.

PRAGMATISM WHEN IN PERIL

Churchill himself loathed the Soviet Union for all sorts of reasons, but once Hitler invaded it in June 1941, then he became a full-on pragmatist – my enemy’s enemy is my friend, or as he elegantly put it on why he embraced Stalin, “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

So, my view is what Churchill would think about that appalling scene in the Oval Office is not entirely what he would act on.

This is not to criticise Zelensky or blame him for that debacle, but that’s last week. It’s more important to move beyond it. Zelensky’s recent statement reflects this exactly, and at time of writing, Trump’s response seems to indicate it’s working.

Risking this post being outdated very quickly, let’s assume there is another meeting to sign the deal.

Firstly, we and he all need to rise above the supposed humiliation. Recent juvenile comments from some of his advisers about ‘goofing off’ and wearing ‘track suits’ say far more about Trump’s acolytes than him, and the rest of the world regard them with contempt.

The same applies to most people’s opinions on last week’s events. In my entire career in the defence and security arena I have never seen such visceral anger and outrage over a single event – and aside from the MAGA cultists almost all aimed at Trump and Vance.

But, handsome is as handsome does, so it’s time for Zelensky to take yet another one for the team. The more they demean you the more the United States’ reputation sinks. Trump may think acting like this makes him the big man and enhances America’s reputation. Quite the reverse. People saw that, and they said we may have to do business with then, but it will be while holding our noses. The ugly American writ large.

ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE

So, let’s assume there can be a meeting and it’s in the White House, I am putting on my Strategic Communications hat and experience of preparing senior leaders for news events.

News events are performance art, and Zelensky is an actor, so he knows the form, but when those performances matter so much it’s easy to forget that it is still a stage.

Firstly, if they want you in a suit, put on a suit. We all know Churchill didn’t always wear a suit at the White House, and it really shouldn’t matter, but if they think it does, frankly, who the hell cares? If it makes them a bit happier then so what? If the more childish sections of the alt-right media crows, then it really doesn’t matter. Whatever.

So, put on a suit, have a US/Ukraine lapel pin, and a tie in the colours of the Ukrainian flag. Even better, try and get a combi with the colours of both US and Ukraine flags – although that might be a bit garish. Then after you leave, put the suit and tie up for auction, proceeds to medical aid for Ukrainian war injured.

Then there’s the news event itself. Here, Trump has introduced some unusual practices on the so-called presidential pool spray. Traditionally, this was when a limited pool of media gathered before the closed meeting took place. It could get a bit rowdy, but was limited in duration, with only a few questions and the whole thing was more to get some images before the closed-door talks. With Trump they’ve got bigger and longer, and become more like a full-blown press conference but far more chaotic.

This is what did for Zelensky.

Not only was the spray way too long but, unlike normal news conferences, it was uncontrolled with questions coming from odd directions and the media being allowed to debate the principals. As a spin doctor, I always knew the longer an event went on the more likely it was to go wrong – we never like anything longer than 30 minutes. Zelensky’s advisers should be pressing for any pre-meeting media opportunity to be short and image-orientated.

INTERPRETING FOR SUCCESS

The informality put Zelensky at even more of a disadvantage, given he is a non-native English speaker. His English is OK, but not really up to a bearpit like that. Also, the longer an event like that goes on, the more strain on speaking English. Notice in the Macron/Trump meeting earlier that week, Macron – whose English is good – had an interpreter at the post-meeting presser.

The aggression of Vance coming out of left field was also completely inappropriate. These events are meant to be limited and only the principals speak. Other officials are there for window dressing. I rather doubt the intention was to entirely collapse the talks, but I have no doubt Vance intended to humiliate Zelensky and at the least grandstand for the MAGA base. If Vance had not intervened I think the deal would have been signed.

So, the lesson here is that Zelensky should always use an interpreter. This will not only slow the pace of proceedings but enable him to give more controlled answers. He can even tell the White House that it was his poor English that led to his ‘regrettable’ answers, and there’s actually a lot of truth in that.

This may already be a lesson learned in that when he engaged with the media in the UK he did speak through an interpreter. It may be less newsworthy in some ways, but in this context that’s a good thing.

REHEARSING THE PERFORMANCE

Then there’s preparation. Macron and Starmer were very well prepared. This was a performance, and they had rehearsed. I rather doubt Zelensky was as well prepared. Also, he had travelled by train for about 10 hours then another eight on a plane with a massive time difference. His body clock would have been all over the place and he’s been a war leader for three years.

As a spin doctor, we sometimes used to ‘murder board’ our principal to give them a hard time, red team the participants, and refine messages. One thing I always told anyone I advised was to NEVER debate a point. A news conference is not a debating chamber, with fair rules of engagement, but a place where you make your point and stop. Zelensky probably didn’t expect to be put in the position he was, but he still ‘broke’ the debating rule. By extension, such events are not for sophisticated arguments. Keep it short, keep it simple and then stop.

AVOIDING THE TRIGGER POINTS

Part of the murder board would be to identify and mitigate potential triggers points. All the worst Zelensky/Trump clashes have been on known trigger points. Again, this is all about preparation, saying what needs saying without pushing a button. Both Macron and Starmer managed this, albeit in easier circumstance.

When Zelensky said Trump was in a disinformation bubble he was right, but he was implying the world’s thinnest-skinned, self-identifying stable genius was being fooled. Following that statement was when Trump called Zelensky a dictator.

During the White House debacle, after Vance said Ukraine was having problems with its conscripts, Zelensky said the US in a similar position would have the same problem. Suggesting to the America First president that Americans might be less than totally 100% wonderful was the point at which Trump fired off, having up to that point not intervened between Vance and Zelensky.

Most recently, Zelensky said a peace deal could be a long way off. This was a trigger to a president who originally promised to end the war in a day, and still believes he can deliver a quick peace deal. The pause of arms supplies to Ukraine quickly followed.

To be clear, none of this should matter, or would to anyone but Trump – but it’s grist to the mill of the anti-Ukraine acolytes inhabiting the White House and dripping poison into his ear.

DETAILS THAT DERAIL STRATEGY

If this all seems a bit tactical, then sometimes tactical events have strategic effect – as we saw last week.

Trump lives on the public stage, so managing that public stage assumes outsize importance.

To emphasise, I do not blame Zelensky for last week or accept he somehow provoked Trump & Vance. Vance wanted to be ‘provoked’. Blaming Zelensky for any mis-steps rather reminded me of the domestic abuser, who blames his partner, saying ‘you made me hit you’.

Unfortunately, Zelensky doesn’t have the option of walking away.

So, once again he will have to walk the line – but where’s the line he cannot cross?

The minerals deal itself had already been agreed, just not signed. If it hasn’t been changed (I wouldn’t put it past Trump) then it’s effectively no change. It’s also clear there’ll be no US security guarantees, but again that’s no different from last week.

A ceasefire in place has also been sort of accepted already and, quietly, that some occupied territory is going to stay occupied. The real Ukrainian red line is sustainable and real independence for what’s left, not some pause for Russia to build up its forces for Round 3 somewhere down the road.

Where it gets difficult is gaining security guarantees from anyone else to act as a deterrent to Russia. The supposedly great dealmaker has done zero to encourage Russia to make concessions, quite the reverse – hence the growing belief he is not mediating but take sides with the aggressor.

FIGHTING FOR PEACE

We need to get beyond any simple-minded applause or nodding of heads for anyone who says, ‘we just want peace’. It’s most often a debating tactic and rarely to be taken seriously. There’s nowhere more peaceful than a graveyard, but no-one wants to live in one. There are things worth fighting for, and the kind of peace Ukraine wants is very different from the kind of peace Russia wants. Frankly, we shouldn’t have to say something this blindingly obvious, but it appears we do.

It means at this stage the Russians are rejecting any European troops being placed in Ukraine, while the US is more or less refusing to provide the so-called ‘backstop’ of some critical support such as intelligence.

All that said moving beyond a signature on the minerals deal means we can at least start putting Russia on the spot with discussions about what a ceasefire means and how it can be made to last. At the moment they can just laugh at us.

WHO WAS THE REAL LOSER?

And of course they are laughing even more loudly at Trump. He is the man with gossamer-thin skin who craves respect, and yet the Russians will just regard him, in their terms, as a ‘useful idiot’. In his terms, he’s a sucker.

Meanwhile, we – his supposed allies and friends – are horrified. As a communicator who regards narratives as a driving force in how we do business and relate to the world, last week may be a story for the ages.

Aristotle’s three core elements of communication are: Logos; Pathos; Ethos – Argument: Emotion: Credibility. Most important of them is Pathos, and what most of the world saw was deeply unpleasant and distasteful. Second is Ethos, and what America’s traditional allies saw was someone who can no longer be trusted, or even be on our side. Last is Logos, and what we saw was a nation we currently need, but one that doesn’t care about us, so we had better find ways to reduce that need.

This current America First administration may not care, and probably even glory in its swaggering, brutalist strength, but it has turned its back on the world of eight decades that it largely built and was the prime beneficiary of. A world where it led allies and friends in supporting it to do pretty much what it wanted.

Last week’s display symbolised the turning of that page. Who knows when America will ever need our support, but it will inevitably come, and when it does I hope they will make clear what’s in it for us and express their gratitude loudly and frequently.