Thank you for all this analysis Elise! Your breakdown of Trump’s wounded pride as the catalyst makes perfect sense, but it raises some fascinating questions about what’s really changed here.
Remember all the theories from Trump’s first term about why he was so deferential to Putin? The speculation about potential blackmail from the pee tape allegations, the financial entanglements through Deutsche Bank and Russian oligarchs, the theories about compromising material from his Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and all those reports about Trump Organization’s murky business dealings with Russian-connected entities. Where do those theories stand now?
For example, I remember Rachel Maddow extensively covered a suspicious $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale in 2008 where Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev bought Trump’s property for $54 million more than Trump paid for it 4 years prior, after it sat on the market for years with no buyers. It set a record as the most expensive U.S. residential sale at the time. Rybolovlev never even lived in it and eventually demolished the house, but it gave Trump a massive cash infusion right when he was fighting to avoid paying off a big Deutsche Bank loan. Rybolovlev was a major shareholder in Bank of Cyprus, whose chairman was a former Deutsche Bank CEO (the same institution Trump owed money to), and whose vice chairman was Wilbur Ross, Trump’s friend who later became Commerce Secretary. This is just one of many weird Russia stories I remember and I don’t think we have had any resolution on them, other than supporters waving their arms and claiming everything has always been a hoax against Trump.
If Trump’s ego is now the driving force behind this dramatic policy reversal, what happened to all those underlying factors that supposedly explained his previous Putin loyalty? Did those constraints simply evaporate, or were they always less significant than we thought? Maybe we had no idea what we were talking about when we speculated why Trump supported Russia so unconditionally?
But then again, his own Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told Bob Woodward that Trump’s relationship with Putin seemed “so close, it seems like it might be blackmail” and harbored “deep suspicions” that Putin “had something” on Trump. Woodward also revealed that Trump had as many as 7 private phone calls with Putin since leaving office and secretly sent Putin COVID-19 test machines during the pandemic when they were in short supply.
I’m also not entirely convinced that Putin didn’t understand Trump would react this way. Trump’s ego-driven responses are pretty predictable at this point: humiliate him publicly and he lashes out. Unless Putin genuinely believed Trump had no choice but to swallow his pride and stay loyal to Putin regardless of how he was treated, which would suggest some pretty serious leverage still existed. The fact that Putin apparently miscalculated this badly makes you wonder if whatever hold he might have had over Trump has actually weakened or disappeared entirely. Or maybe Trump is calling Putin’s bluff… could there be some kompromat coming to light soon that Putin was counting on to keep Trump in line?
Pivoting now to “news you can use”… what do we do with this information? For people who regularly engage with Trump supporters, this once again creates some interesting vulnerabilities to explore. You’ve got Trump’s tacit support of child trafficking through his association with figures like Jeffrey Epstein (and let’s not forget about Matt Gaetz). That has apparently been a red line for his base. And now you also have him being far more interventionist in foreign conflicts than his base ever expected or wanted. Even though supporting Ukraine happens to be the right policy move, it’s definitely not what his most fervent supporters signed up for when they believed his isolationist rhetoric. This certainly belongs in the “promises not kept” column the next time someone tries to peddle that “promises made, promises kept” nonsense to summarize Trump’s second term. His base voted for America First, not America leading another proxy war, no matter how justified it might be.
When you get two people in a room (or on the phone) alone the likes of Trump and Putin--it's not a stretch to think that the public isn't getting the truth. Both Trump and Putin are "what's-in-it-for-me" individuals. Neither one gives a damn about their countrymen, or legacy. Until I see something to the contrary--I have to believe that Trump and Putin are working a deal under the table to enrich each other at the expense of us all. The fact that Trump is offering "aid" to Ukraine in the form of weapons "sales" to EU nations raises a couple of red flags. Is Trump not only filtering weapons to Ukraine through third-party nations--but also filtering money to Putin through U.S. weapons' manufacturers? Trump's public displays of a wounded ego? Could it be a ruse?
Maybe I'm completely out in left field on this one...but I can't help but see a little "Iran-Contra" in what's going on.
Todd, thanks for bringing up Iran-Contra. That's a parallel that I hadn't considered. I'm not always against “left field” thinking, especially when it's grounded in historical precedent like this, as long as everyone understands we're talking about speculation and treating it as a thinking exercise. The Iran-Contra comparison is compelling because it shows how weapons sales can be used as vehicles for covert financial arrangements. So Trump's theatrical displays of anger could possibly serve as cover for continued cooperation. It's smart to consider these alternative realities, especially given both men's transactional approach to everything and their documented willingness to break rules and betray their country when it serves their interests.
But I can’t imagine it sticking. President Trump has no resolve. Resolve requires convictions. He has none. Everything is for sale. Every situation is viewed as, “what’s in it for me?” He is easily swayed by shiny things and flattery.
However, he is also controlled by his pride, which makes his least-favorite nickname valuable leverage. TACO.
I agree, Amber! I’m also looking forward to seeing writings here in regard to the recent developments regarding Obama, Clinton, et al. It’s looking like there were many things at play in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking office.
You should check out that article that Gina shared, if you haven't had the chance yet! It goes into the newly unclassified documents and why Director Gabbard's claims of inconsistencies don't actually add up - most media outlets aren't going to be covering this extensively because the 'new' information released upholds the information that we already had.
I did take a look at her IG, and I'm still not seeing where it provides the substance to back up Director Gabbard's claims of a treasonous conspiracy. The multiple investigations that have been done already have a consensus that while Russia attempted to influence the election, they did not actively interfere with our voting technology, and while there was some evidence of a Russian preference for Trump as a candidate there was no evidence that the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russia to win the election. From what I can gather, DNI Gabbard believes that saying "Russia actively attempted to influence American voters" + "Russia preferred candidate Trump" = treason?
I think you are missing the points I am referring to. The willful untruthfulness of Obama, H Clinton, Brennan, Comey, etc. is appalling. I find it very upsetting. Not to mention the coverup of Clinton’s health concerns, her offers to exchange favors to various religious organizations in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. All of these players used their positions to attempt to influence the 2016 election in Clinton’s favor. To me, this is as concerning as Watergate.
I have, which is why the fact check is so useful: DNI Gabbard is conflating different intelligence briefings to reach a conclusion that somehow the Mueller Report, the Durham Report, *and* the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report did not reach.
“Two narcissists walk into a bar….” The Western stage isn’t big enough for both of their egos. And neither of them appreciates mutually-beneficial relationships. Their partnership was doomed from the beginning.
I’m not holding my breath. When US weapons are on there way to Ukraine I’ll be convinced Trump is serious THIS TIME. US humanitarian aid to Ukraine would go a long way on the ground and to convince me that this change in policy would last a while.
Aside from trump and Putin-Zelensky has proven, thru courage, sacrifice and sheer hard work- to be a great Leader. I pray Europe, the Baltic states and the UK- continue to back Ukraine. We all need them to win.
Thank you for all this analysis Elise! Your breakdown of Trump’s wounded pride as the catalyst makes perfect sense, but it raises some fascinating questions about what’s really changed here.
Remember all the theories from Trump’s first term about why he was so deferential to Putin? The speculation about potential blackmail from the pee tape allegations, the financial entanglements through Deutsche Bank and Russian oligarchs, the theories about compromising material from his Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and all those reports about Trump Organization’s murky business dealings with Russian-connected entities. Where do those theories stand now?
For example, I remember Rachel Maddow extensively covered a suspicious $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale in 2008 where Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev bought Trump’s property for $54 million more than Trump paid for it 4 years prior, after it sat on the market for years with no buyers. It set a record as the most expensive U.S. residential sale at the time. Rybolovlev never even lived in it and eventually demolished the house, but it gave Trump a massive cash infusion right when he was fighting to avoid paying off a big Deutsche Bank loan. Rybolovlev was a major shareholder in Bank of Cyprus, whose chairman was a former Deutsche Bank CEO (the same institution Trump owed money to), and whose vice chairman was Wilbur Ross, Trump’s friend who later became Commerce Secretary. This is just one of many weird Russia stories I remember and I don’t think we have had any resolution on them, other than supporters waving their arms and claiming everything has always been a hoax against Trump.
If Trump’s ego is now the driving force behind this dramatic policy reversal, what happened to all those underlying factors that supposedly explained his previous Putin loyalty? Did those constraints simply evaporate, or were they always less significant than we thought? Maybe we had no idea what we were talking about when we speculated why Trump supported Russia so unconditionally?
But then again, his own Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told Bob Woodward that Trump’s relationship with Putin seemed “so close, it seems like it might be blackmail” and harbored “deep suspicions” that Putin “had something” on Trump. Woodward also revealed that Trump had as many as 7 private phone calls with Putin since leaving office and secretly sent Putin COVID-19 test machines during the pandemic when they were in short supply.
I’m also not entirely convinced that Putin didn’t understand Trump would react this way. Trump’s ego-driven responses are pretty predictable at this point: humiliate him publicly and he lashes out. Unless Putin genuinely believed Trump had no choice but to swallow his pride and stay loyal to Putin regardless of how he was treated, which would suggest some pretty serious leverage still existed. The fact that Putin apparently miscalculated this badly makes you wonder if whatever hold he might have had over Trump has actually weakened or disappeared entirely. Or maybe Trump is calling Putin’s bluff… could there be some kompromat coming to light soon that Putin was counting on to keep Trump in line?
Pivoting now to “news you can use”… what do we do with this information? For people who regularly engage with Trump supporters, this once again creates some interesting vulnerabilities to explore. You’ve got Trump’s tacit support of child trafficking through his association with figures like Jeffrey Epstein (and let’s not forget about Matt Gaetz). That has apparently been a red line for his base. And now you also have him being far more interventionist in foreign conflicts than his base ever expected or wanted. Even though supporting Ukraine happens to be the right policy move, it’s definitely not what his most fervent supporters signed up for when they believed his isolationist rhetoric. This certainly belongs in the “promises not kept” column the next time someone tries to peddle that “promises made, promises kept” nonsense to summarize Trump’s second term. His base voted for America First, not America leading another proxy war, no matter how justified it might be.
When you get two people in a room (or on the phone) alone the likes of Trump and Putin--it's not a stretch to think that the public isn't getting the truth. Both Trump and Putin are "what's-in-it-for-me" individuals. Neither one gives a damn about their countrymen, or legacy. Until I see something to the contrary--I have to believe that Trump and Putin are working a deal under the table to enrich each other at the expense of us all. The fact that Trump is offering "aid" to Ukraine in the form of weapons "sales" to EU nations raises a couple of red flags. Is Trump not only filtering weapons to Ukraine through third-party nations--but also filtering money to Putin through U.S. weapons' manufacturers? Trump's public displays of a wounded ego? Could it be a ruse?
Maybe I'm completely out in left field on this one...but I can't help but see a little "Iran-Contra" in what's going on.
Todd, thanks for bringing up Iran-Contra. That's a parallel that I hadn't considered. I'm not always against “left field” thinking, especially when it's grounded in historical precedent like this, as long as everyone understands we're talking about speculation and treating it as a thinking exercise. The Iran-Contra comparison is compelling because it shows how weapons sales can be used as vehicles for covert financial arrangements. So Trump's theatrical displays of anger could possibly serve as cover for continued cooperation. It's smart to consider these alternative realities, especially given both men's transactional approach to everything and their documented willingness to break rules and betray their country when it serves their interests.
Timothy, thank you for all of those excellent reminders, and connecting so many dots.
This is a change in policy I am very happy to see. Hopefully one that sticks.
Amber, I am also happy.
But I can’t imagine it sticking. President Trump has no resolve. Resolve requires convictions. He has none. Everything is for sale. Every situation is viewed as, “what’s in it for me?” He is easily swayed by shiny things and flattery.
However, he is also controlled by his pride, which makes his least-favorite nickname valuable leverage. TACO.
Gabe who has written here coined TOOL, Trump is out of the loop. I also like that one.
I agree, Amber! I’m also looking forward to seeing writings here in regard to the recent developments regarding Obama, Clinton, et al. It’s looking like there were many things at play in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking office.
Robn, I was very curious, also. Have you seen the article on factcheck.org?
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/07/gabbards-misleading-coup-claim/
No, I read the actual unclassified documents. Very eye-opening…
Additionally, any media outlet that doesn’t cover this story beyond a mere mention, is one each of us should question.
You should check out that article that Gina shared, if you haven't had the chance yet! It goes into the newly unclassified documents and why Director Gabbard's claims of inconsistencies don't actually add up - most media outlets aren't going to be covering this extensively because the 'new' information released upholds the information that we already had.
I would offer looking at Herearetheheadlines writing on this subject also. You can find it on her IG saved as Russia hoax.
I did take a look at her IG, and I'm still not seeing where it provides the substance to back up Director Gabbard's claims of a treasonous conspiracy. The multiple investigations that have been done already have a consensus that while Russia attempted to influence the election, they did not actively interfere with our voting technology, and while there was some evidence of a Russian preference for Trump as a candidate there was no evidence that the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russia to win the election. From what I can gather, DNI Gabbard believes that saying "Russia actively attempted to influence American voters" + "Russia preferred candidate Trump" = treason?
Her claim that this assessment "contradicts" previous intelligence is exactly what's being debunked here: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/07/gabbards-misleading-coup-claim/
I think you are missing the points I am referring to. The willful untruthfulness of Obama, H Clinton, Brennan, Comey, etc. is appalling. I find it very upsetting. Not to mention the coverup of Clinton’s health concerns, her offers to exchange favors to various religious organizations in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. All of these players used their positions to attempt to influence the 2016 election in Clinton’s favor. To me, this is as concerning as Watergate.
Have you read the documents which were released?
I have, which is why the fact check is so useful: DNI Gabbard is conflating different intelligence briefings to reach a conclusion that somehow the Mueller Report, the Durham Report, *and* the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report did not reach.
I agree. That’s why I’m grateful factcheck.org wrote about it.
“Two narcissists walk into a bar….” The Western stage isn’t big enough for both of their egos. And neither of them appreciates mutually-beneficial relationships. Their partnership was doomed from the beginning.
I’m not holding my breath. When US weapons are on there way to Ukraine I’ll be convinced Trump is serious THIS TIME. US humanitarian aid to Ukraine would go a long way on the ground and to convince me that this change in policy would last a while.
Karen, thank you for both of those points. Trump saying something and doing something are two different things.
What a scary and potentially catastrophic scenario to think that almost all of trump’s decisions are based on his ego.
T.A.C.O. just everywhere. A strongman with a raging ego is so dangerous.
Aside from trump and Putin-Zelensky has proven, thru courage, sacrifice and sheer hard work- to be a great Leader. I pray Europe, the Baltic states and the UK- continue to back Ukraine. We all need them to win.