"Waltz is a "Jaguar". Ukraine is Lucky": Capitol Hill Responds to Trump's FP Picks
You wouldn't believe who'd have been potential Secretary of State under Harris
“Jake Sullivan is like this shitty Lada. Mike Waltz is a “Jaguar” compared to him. And yeah, Rubio and Stefanik are good for Ukraine too.”
This was the opening line of my Capitol Hill contact who agreed to talk to me confidentially about the latest appointments that Trump is mulling over as his administration takes shape. Susie Wallis (Chief of Staff), Elise Stefanik (UN Ambassador to the UN), and Tom Homan (Border Czar) have now become part of it.
Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio are also slated to join it. The former as Trump’s national security advisor and the latter as Secretary of State, the position currently held by Anthony Blinken.
So, are they truly any good, I ask?
Definitely, s/he says.
“If Kamala had won, we’d be looking at Jake Sullivan as Secretary of State. And Jake Sullivan is like this, what you call that shitty Russian car… Lada. Shitty Lada. Waltz is like this top European car if you will. Say, Jaguar”
Ok, but if Rubio and Stefanik, for example, are good, — and there’s evidence to that end and strong statements uttered by Stefanik in particular who called the war “Putin’s genocide” — and they’re definitely not someone like Vivek Ramaswamy and the Kennedy clan black sheep Robert Kennedy Jr. how come they did not vote for Ukraine aid bill in April?
“Primaries. They were afraid that their support would undermine their chances of getting reelected. Yeah, it’s a bad excuse but it’s what it is. When they got reelected, they stopped caring about criticism and voted against Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s offer to discharge aid to Ukraine.”
Let me ask you this then. Trump talks about ending the war swiftly. What if Putin disagrees, what will he do then? What’s the plan?
“Oh, there’s a great chance that he will send a huge package to Ukraine. You see, since spring 2024, representatives of the Baltic States have been visiting Mar-a-Lago recurrently. He’s not in a vacuum.
And Poland is slated to play a huge role too. I’ve recently had a conversation with a Polish top official and s/he made it clear that any Ukraine-Russia negotiations “feature” Poland. And Poland wants 1991 borders.
Plus, hey, the guy is planning to drill, drill, drill. He’ll make Russia go bankrupt with all that LNG.
Because look, the man knows nothing about geopolitics but he’s good with business things. You should’ve seen him seven years ago when Saudi Arabia agreed to buy weapons from the U.S. He stood there with the Power Point presentation, saying “look here” (mimicking Trump). Because it’s jobs, money.”
Sounds good.
“It’s also funny that most of the Europeans who visited Washington D.C. in the past six months expected Trump to win. I was like: what is it guys you know that we don’t?
Regarding China, one European told me that if the U.S. is concerned about it, why not let defeat Russia first, so that we can push against it together? Good perspective.”
Finally, I read that Democrats are considering Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg for 2028 POTUS nominations. Has the Democratic Party learned nothing from this election?
“You’re right.
That said, Ukrainians are tough people. All going to be fine in the end.”
Here’s hoping Lesia - thanks for sharing
Your insider is not particularly inside or objective. Whatever each appointee has said in the past is completely irrelevant to the present and future direction of Ukrainian policy under a Trump administration. Trump demands unquestionable loyalty. He wants yes men no matter who it is and historically thats what he gets from “Jaguars” to goats. Trump is going to screw Ukraine anyway he can. He has to in order to keep his loyalist and Putin happy. Plus, he resents Zelensky greatly. You’re deceiving yourself if you think otherwise. Remember, Elon Musk acts as a foreign agent for Putin and has gained an intimate, roleplaying position in Trump’s inner circle. Have you forgotten what he did with Starlink at a significant, potentially life altering point in Ukraine’s defense of itself? He disconnected Ukraine. I’m a boot on the ground here. You speak from a far. and your source doesn’t understand political nuance. Harris could make the same argument, that she wasn’t expressive about Ukraine because she would have lost more votes than she did. And “potential”, your “sources” term, is just that. It’s not reality. Finally, It’s obvious that your interest in our election results is born surely out of self-interest . You have no interest in the damage Trump will do domestically. Such sentiment will temper public support even further. That’s a shame.