Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 23: The art of political tragicomedy – Zelensky’s playbook

European leaders on war footing flocked to the White House to plea for protection. Ukraine’s president brought self-parody to center stage.

A specter is haunting Europe: imperialist cannibalism à la Russe.

Old Europe’s pro-Ukrainian forces have forged an uneasy alliance to exorcise this specter of a revanchist Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron branded it a “predator, an ogre” at the continent’s doorstep, eternally ravenous. At the heart of the perceived menace lies Russia’s alleged relentless irredentism, the hunger to devour lands thought to belong to the homeland, leaving nothing but fear and defiance in its wake.

Rather tellingly, even respected media outlets twisted Macron’s TF1-LCI interview after his visit to US President Donald Trump on 18 August 2025, claiming the French leader had called Russian President Putin - not Russia - a “predator” and “ogre.” A slip of fact, or wishful thinking by Western information warriors?

Be that as it may, the real-world toll exacted by the ceaselessly repeated tale of Russia’s insatiable imperial hunger is stark: The European backers of Ukraine are trapped in a frantic rat race for security, relentlessly pitting themselves against a phantom in the East and perpetually chasing elusive targets. Defense plans pile up, military exercises multiply, budgets soar - and yet true security always seems just out of reach. The faster the self-appointed protectors scurry, the farther the finish line drifts away, mocking every step.

1. Racing to the brink: Old Europe’s war footing

Horrified by the specter of becoming Putin’s midnight snack without Daddy Donald’s mighty hand and stretched out arm, EU decision-makers panicked, rushing through colossal pan-European defense spending packages. In parallel, individual countries in Europe approved massive additional expenditure to bolster their own arsenals, with NATO members boldly hiking their military spending target from 2% of GDP to a staggering 5% by 2035.

Few grasp the jaw-dropping scale of the new defense benchmark. To get a rough idea of what a 5% defense target means, take Germany as an example. In 2024, with a GDP of €4.3 trillion, such a commitment would have required €215 billion for defense in a single year - rather than €86 billion under the 2% benchmark. Put differently: Spending 5% of GDP on defense would, by itself, have consumed 45% of the €475 billion federal budget, dwarfing other priorities: ten times more than education and research, thirteen times more than health.

Behold the preposterousness: The land of poets and thinkers flaunts its pacifism while preaching prudence, moderation, and balance to the world. Yet in this dystopian scenario, Germany would be forced to sacrifice a disproportionately large share of its vital resources just to prepare for a war of annihilation with an assertive nuclear superpower. And in the process, it would be ruining itself economically - ironically, while still lecturing the world on wisdom.

The truth is, Berlin is playing sleight-of-hand, spinning the NATO defense target like a magic trick to deceive citizens. It shrinks the staggering absolute figure of €215 billion to a “mere” 5% of GDP, using the large base of national income rather than the smaller, more relevant federal budget, which would reveal the target as 45% of government spending. Worse, the benchmark is left completely uncontextualized. Yet only by comparing it to other budget items does the true scale hit home.

Read more

Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 14: ‘Whatever it takes’ revisited – Euromaniacs exploit threat bias again

As if defending themselves were not already a monumental task, anti-Russian warriors in Europe display a near-obsessive eagerness to shield another country. The hawks’ latest fixation is cloaked in the magic words “security guarantees,” chanted like a mantra in Western corridors of power. A self-styled coalition of the willing is plotting to bolster Ukraine’s army and forge a multinational “reassurance” force for their protegee - hardly reassuring news for Russia.

In a tragicomic display of political, military, and diplomatic autism, European zealots barrel ahead with these pet projects - dismissed as shenanigans by critics - despite the stark absence of a peace treaty with Russia.

Their ambitious defense plans would require a settlement permitting foreign security assistance to Ukraine. However, such a provision currently seems rather unlikely, given Russia’s repeated, emphatic rejection of Western encroachment. After all, such a concession would strike at the heart of the Special Military Operation (SMO), directly undermining its core objectives of a demilitarized Ukraine and contained NATO.

2. The hidden price of safety: Lost standing, Zelensky-style

The relentless quest for the holy grail of robust security guarantees for Ukraine comes at a punishing cost. Old Europe’s own mega-defense packages have already unleashed a highly toxic fallout; the expansive safeguarding operation in the East drains state coffers further. But the true costs cut even deeper: Quixotic in nature, the security crusade of the anti-Russian bloc shatters the prestige and guts the dignity of individual European figures - and, cumulatively, Europe’s hawkish core - a staggering loss of invisible yet vital capital. The perilous absurdity of the self-careening drift was laid starkly bare for the world to see when European leaders flocked to the White House on 18 August 2025.

That day was, as the cliché goes, “historic” - not for tangible results, which were essentially nil, but for epitomizing the self-abasing posture of Europe’s supporters of Ukraine, seemingly propelled more by emotion than reason. Their theatrics evoke a striking ritual of supplication from Greek antiquity: the hiketeía (ἱκετεία), a vital safeguard in the absence of a “rules-based liberal order”. The Greek noun hiketeía derives from the verb híkō (ἵκω), meaning “to come to”, semantically befitting the analogous occasion, with the ritualized gestures now mirrored, almost comically, by the European leaders’ pageant-like own coming to the White House.

In the original practice of hiketeía - an institution of Greek sacral law - the formal act of entreaty was designed to place the supplicant under the protection of a more powerful figure. Commonly performed on sacred ground, this highly structured ritual hinged on socially recognized rules, including prescribed gestures, exposing the petitioner’s vulnerability in full view: kneeling, clutching the benefactor’s knees - the supposed seat of generative vitality - touching his chin or beard, and offering symbolic gifts. The supplicant fate hung in the balance, often teetering at the crossroads between life and death.

For Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, the 18 August 2025 White House visit was not only a simple act of supplication, but also an elaborate rite of self-effusing penitence, summoning the full arsenal of the former actor’s theatrical skills. The carefully orchestrated spectacle seemed to transport him straight into the Middle Ages.

Read more

Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 15: Kakistocratic defense splurgers destroy Europe

In that grim yet majestic period, contumacious rulers were ritually stripped of dignity: clad in coarse sackcloth, marked with ashes, scourged, and, after prolonged fasting and begging forgiveness, paraded barefoot before their communities - sometimes voluntarily, often under duress. Perhaps the most famous example of such enacted confession is Emperor Henry IV’s Walk to Canossa in 1077. The purpose of the dramatic ritual? A public display of both the submission of the wayward and the restored authority of the powers that be.

The ostentatiously contrite Ukrainian supplicant, quivering on the brink of political extinction, stooped abjectly - hardly surprising, apprehensive as he was of another traumatic White House ambush, like the one on 28 February 2025. What defied belief, though, was the overwhelming profusion of his fawning: grotesque sycophancy, carried to the point of theatrical self-parody in the eyes of a critical observer.

Trading his military fatigues, long his trademark, for a designer outfit utterly unsuited to the context of war, Zelensky performed the role of a contrite penitent, swapping robes to signal submission. The gesture, aimed squarely at ingratiating himself with Donald Trump, raised eyebrows, not least because it amounted to the surrender of meticulously crafted identity.

Yet regaling the US president with a blingy golf club - a pale modern reflection of the olive branch in ancient Greek supplication - in the midst of a bloody conflict is unfathomable, like offering a fireman a box of cigars while your house is still in flames.

The bestowal of such a sumptuous yet unbecoming token, paradoxically meant as a serious diplomatic gesture, was in itself astounding. But it was paired with a clip capturing the staged moment in which an elated Trump - ever eager for theatrics - offered effusive thanks for his new trophy, brandishing the enervating keepsake before a map marking Ukraine’s lost territory.

The compounded effect created an incongruous spectacle so grotesque it almost loops back to comedy: as if a single gesture of charm could halt the world from unraveling. In that iconic moment, esteem was lost, admittedly - yet nonetheless, for all its ludicrousness, a star was born: Zelensky, the world’s political tragicomedian.

US President Trump showcasing a putter presented to him by Vladimir Zelensky in the White House on 18 August 2025

Zelensky’s self-humiliation reached a new level in his almost childlike awe before the fateful, ominous map of loss - and his plea, which some saw as verging on begging, to take it home. The scene unfolded like surreal theater: a self-styled warrior, stripped of honor, clutching his country’s setbacks like a personal memento, much like a defeated gladiator entreating the right to carry off his dented shield as a trophy.

The Ukrainian president’s tittuping act before a global audience - a clownish strut to his critics - baffled not only for the keepsake farce. This, after all, is a wartime leader, once lionized at home and abroad for spitting fire, boldly rejecting a US evacuation with the defiant line, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” Why would this man now reduce himself to bowing and scraping with excessive thanks before Donald Trump?

The apparent motif for this travesty, plain and simple: an unheroic struggle for survival, each of the Ukrainian president’s gesture a rehearsed plea to dodge another haunting White House mauling for supposed ingratitude. The fact that Trump, meanwhile, earned plaudits merely for not shouting at his guest speaks volumes - an unexpectedly tame king in a theater of absurdity.

For ravaged Ukraine, showering Trump with endless thanks seemed oddly out of place. Just days earlier, the US president had applauded Putin, the man who invaded Zelensky’s homeland. Trump, perpetually craving credit, also repeatedly bragged about not spending a dime on Ukrainian aid, instead reaping profits from arms sales to the embattled nation – without any discount, as he insists. He even flaunted his pride in seizing back the free assistance that the previous administration had given to the struggling country. The 47th president appeared oblivious to the fact that taking rare earths from the erstwhile protegee might be construed by detractors as lucrative extortion against a vulnerable nation.

Taken in the larger view, Donald Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, does not enter the fray as a staunch supporter of Ukraine. By and large, the former businessman poses as a neutral mediator - even for the Nobel committee - claiming to care only for peace.

Critics argue Trump champions Russia’s positions, pivoting to its demands at will. Case in point: after meeting Putin, he insisted on a lasting peace treaty, despite having called for an immediate ceasefire for months. His partisanship shows, critics say, in squeezing painful concessions from Ukraine, a war-torn country, while asking nothing of Russia.

Against this backdrop, Zelensky’s tragicomic groveling, in the final analysis, reads as an impotent wink to power, masquerading as self-effacing gratitude, which ultimately rendered his second White House visit in 2025 a repeat fiasco.

[Part 3 of a series on European defense. To be continued. Previous columns in the series: Part 1, published on 19 March 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 14: ‘Whatever it takes’ revisited – Euromaniacs exploit threat bias again & Part 2, published on 14 May 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 15: Kakistocratic defense splurgers destroy Europe]