A Neanderthal Commenting on Cavemen

It's been more than a month since the Signal Group Chat scandal broke. This Politico piece from the end of March is dated but still relevant. Waltz has now been shifted over to UN Ambassador and Hegseth has invited further scandal. Some believe his days are numbered.

And once again John Bolton is in the news. He's more popular now than he was when he was in the Bush and Trump administrations. He has become the elder statesmen commentator - but I cannot fathom why. His opinions have not changed. He exhibits no growth or development in terms of wisdom.

It's clear from the leak that Hegseth and Vance represent not just America First but the the very ignorance that is Trumpism. They clearly do not understand how the American Empire has worked nor even the very nature and dynamics of power. By viewing the operations against the Houthis vis-a-vis Europe in mere transactional terms they are clearly amateurs and small-minded thinkers. One is left to wonder how many officeholders both past and present operate on this level?

It reminds me of the discussions over the Deep State. The mainstream dismisses the idea but I often find it's often being defined differently which just adds to the confusion. For some the Deep State is simply the entrenched bureaucracy - the people who actually understand how things work and transcend the passing phases of political appointee leadership. With ignorant and short-sighted leaders like Hegseth and Vance, it's easy to see why career apparatchiks simply circumvent them in order to keep the machine running.

But there's another Deep State concept - one of elites inhabiting the various circles of power that are able to exert influence on this lower bureaucratic concept. They are indirectly giving orders to the apparatchiks in order to steer the ship of state. But that's a big discussion and for another time.

Bolton as expected espouses various delusional views about the US and what it stands for. He knows better but he also knows there's a value in maintaining the narrative and the pretense of principled and thus moral thought. This is not to say Bolton is intelligent. He is to a point, but more so he's an idealist and in Christian terms, morally deficient. His loyalties are clear - the US Empire and its prominence are Bolton's version of the Kingdom of God. He is cunning, effective, and at times he's been dangerous - but he's not necessarily a profound thinker.

But compared to Hegseth and Vance he's able to come across as a sage. We live in a time of midgets - not giants.

My eyebrows went up when the interviewer asked Bolton about Vance and Europe - assuming Bolton would disagree. I wouldn't assume that. I would expect Bolton to be pro-NATO for sure but like the late Donald Rumsfeld, far more excited about the newer members, the ex-Warsaw Pact states rather than Germany and France. And a big part of that strategic thinking has always been directed at Russia.

His unilateral framing of the issue expressed as much while also trying to dodge an express condemnation of Europe. I will say this - at least he's being honest and arguing that US actions are about US interests. He's disdainful of humanitarian geopolitics as many of us are simply because it's a lie. The humanitarian veneer given to Kosovo, Libya, and Syria is just plain deceitful. As are the after-the-fact attempts at re-casting the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In every case the humanitarian angle proved obscene as the wars made the situation worse. Some might dispute that with regard to Kosovo, but the story of former Yugoslavia and the Balkans hasn't ended yet and full know the real story. The effects of the US interventions of the 1990's are still in play. Croatia and Slovenia have exited the story but Bosnia, Serbia, and the other former Yugoslav states as well as the Southern Balkans in general have not.

Bolton doesn't want to openly state it but 'freedom of the seas' allows the US to make a global (and thus imperialist) claim. Whether the US acts or not is something the Washington leadership can decide but it's a tool the empire has that it can utilize if it wants to - and it blocks other nations from making similar claims. By removing that tool, the US ties its own hands and allows other nations to step into the gap - giving them tools, tools that once belonged to the United States.

Bolton couches this raw power dynamic in terms of some lofty principle - which is pure rubbish. But he's right - Hegseth and Vance are too provincial, pedestrian, and just plain ignorant to even grasp this. The Libertarian and Trumpite movements have completely misunderstood and misread the nature of globalism. They see it is a conspiracy to undermine US sovereignty. In reality it is a paradigm that expanded US power to the corners of the Earth and shapes peoples lives - even their hopes and dreams. I don't lament that it's being broken but I laugh at those who think that in doing so they will make America strong.

I continue to appreciate Bolton's bluntness regarding Trump's reasoning and approach to strategy and policy questions. He's absolutely right when he says Trump does not think in conceptual terms. I think that's plain for all to see but Bolton who has spent time interacting with him face to face would certainly know better and it's refreshing to hear someone speak with such candor. It's important to understand because I hear many Right-wing pundits talking about Trump's plans and strategies. I hear this and start laughing. It's absurd. Someone with the attention span of a goldfish cannot think on that level. Apparently he can't even sit through daily intelligence briefings. It's beyond him. For most presidents those briefings were gold - information that brought real power and delight in knowing things about the world that others don't. For Trump it's all meaningless. He reminds me of the Americans I would see in places like Venice and Rome. They don't know what they're looking at because they don't know what the Roman Empire was. They don't understand the Renaissance. They don't know enough basic history, geography, art, or the history of ideas to even grasp what they're seeing. It's just a bunch of old buildings and ruins. It's wasted on them.

Bolton also makes an important point about Trump's understanding of US relations. For him it's all about his personal relationship with this or that leader. Putin certainly thinks Trump is a buffoon. And when he states the Ukraine War wouldn't have happened if Trump was president - it's a statement mean to stroke Trump's infantile ego but it's also true in that there would have been no need. With Trump in office, NATO is not advancing but stagnating if not retreating. Under Biden, NATO had been reinvigorated, was expanding, and represented a threat to Moscow. As such, the political situation in Ukraine worried him enough to drive him to act as he did with the February 2022 invasion. It was wicked, but far from being the 'unprovoked' attack that is portrayed in the media.

I heard one Asian commentator recently state that Trump is resigned to the emergence of a multi-polar world and is trying to set up the US for that reality. Maybe so. If so, that's hardly making America great again. It's a downgrade. Biden on the other hand was opposed to the emergence of a multi-polar order and was doing everything he could to prevent it - one of those things being a renewed emphasis on Atlanticism. Atlanticism is what leads to conflict with Moscow. Trump rejects the concept and as such the situation with Ukraine while tense, would not have driven Putin to engage in a full-scale invasion.

While I couldn't care less about TikTok and I don't think it really matters, I think Bolton is partly right on explaining Trump's approach and desire to make the deal of all deals. However, as not a few analysts have pointed out - this is 2025 not 2005. China has gone global and the US is not critical to its survival. Losing the US will hurt but Beijing can weather it. The United States cannot and Trump has likely painted himself into a corner. He might get a deal but it won't be the victory that he will claim. Whatever the result, the Trump people will spin it.

In closing, I have loathed John Bolton since the 1990's. I find him morally bankrupt and a promoter of evil. His idolatry blinds him not just in terms of ethics but in his very thinking. That said, things have degenerated to such an extent that Bolton comes across as sane even savvy. Clearly the United States is under judgment - as is the Church that supports and looks up to the likes of Bolton, Trump, Hegseth, and Vance.