Author: Barbara

A few days ago I posted a piece about how Henry Kissinger recently wrote.* This is a post about what Henry Kissinger recently wrote. Specifically in his just published book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy. 

Why should we care about what Kissinger says – about leadership specifically? Because though he is controversial, he is one of the leading American statesmen of the second half of the 20^th century. Because he came to know many of the world’s great leaders personally as he crossed paths with them professionally. And because in very old age Kissinger remains an astute observer of the human condition.

Leadership is as its subtitle suggests: a collection of six chapters about six leaders, all of whom Kissinger met and with whom he dealt. The six about whom he chose to write are: Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew, and Margaret Thatcher.

While each chapter contains nuggets about leadership, for students of the subject it is the book’s brief introduction and conclusion that are the most interesting. For it is at the beginning and end of his book that Kissinger distils what he has learned about leadership and wants to pass on.

Here are four highlights – just some of Henry Kissinger’s most trenchant observations and conclusions, about leadership.     

• “Leaders think and act at the intersection of two axes: the first, between the past and the future; the second between the abiding values and aspirations of those they lead.”  
• “Good leaders elicit in their people a wish to walk alongside them. They must also inspire an immediate entourage to translate their thinking so that it bears upon the practical issues of the day.”
• “The vital attributes of a leader in these tasks, and the bridge between the past and the future, are courage and character.”
• “It is the combination of character and circumstance which creates history.”

Finally, for the purpose of this post I quote a section from page 408 of Kissinger’s book at some length because it is so entirely in keeping with my own views about how leadership should be learned. In many of my writings – for example in my book, Professionalizing Leadership – I argue for a far, far more rigorous, and broadly-based process by which leaders should be educated, trained, and developed. Here then Kissinger on the same subject. He starts by referencing the six leaders about whom he has written.

As we have seen, leaders with world-historical impact have benefited from a rigorous and humanistic education. Such an education begins in a formal setting and continues for a lifetime through reading and discussion with others. That initial step is rarely taken today – few universities offer an education in statecraft either explicitly or implicitly – and the lifelong effort is made more difficult as changes in technology erode literacy. Thus, for meritocracy to be reinvigorated, humanistic education would need to regain its significance, embracing such subjects as philosophy, politics, human geography, modern languages, history, economic thought, literature and even, perhaps, classical antiquity, the study of which was long the nursery of statesmen.

How quaint is Kissinger – and how right. We get the leaders we deserve because we do not raise them right. Until we raise them – educate them, train them, and develop them – as we do our doctors and lawyers and teachers and engineers, we will be stuck with far too many leaders who are second and third rate or, heaven forefend, worse. Sad – first rate leaders should not be by accident, they should be by design.

*Henry Kissinger Author – “Leadership” – Barbara Kellerman  

Maybe the debate over whether leaders make a difference, or whether instead they are just pawns on a chessboard is as old as human history. Or maybe it goes back just a couple of hundred years. What’s true in any case is that on this issue U.S. Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Russian President Vladimir Putin are on the same side. They each believe that heroes, leaders, can change history. And they each believe this is a role they personally are destined to play.

Since January 6, 2021, Cheney has taken the position that personal agency matters.  She told one interviewer that we all have a duty to “recognize that we can influence events.” She told another that “elected officials have to make a decision about whether we are bystanders or leaders,” calling it “irresponsible” to act as “though our institutions are self-sustaining, because they are not; it takes us, it takes people, to do that.”  

That Cheney has talked publicly and emphatically about the importance of individual responsibility is in keeping with her behavior. Almost alone among Republicans she has chosen to stand against former President Donald Trump. And almost alone among Republicans she has played a prominent if not dominant role on the January 6^th committee. The woman is putting her money where her mouth is.

Putin is doing the same. Agreed: the consequences of what he is doing to prove his point and the consequences of what she is doing to prove hers are at opposite ends of the moral spectrum. Cheney is trying to save democracy while Putin is trying to destroy it.

Still, the same underlying leadership principle is undergirding what both are choosing to do. Cheney talks about the importance of the individual. Putin compares himself to his hero, Peter the Great, who was nothing if not a supremely powerful leader who bent history to his will, largely by expanding the Russian empire and transforming it into a major European power.

Inevitably, the war in Ukraine has become, somewhat, normalized. Most days the story does not any longer, at least in the United States, lead the news. Americans have gotten used to the death and destruction in far-away Ukraine, they, we, have gotten used to the millions of Ukrainian lives demolished and disrupted. Important however to remember this is called “Putin’s War” for good reason. It is his war. It was he who decided to invade, and it is he who is continuing relentlessly to batter Ukrainian towns and cities while he sits far away, presumably comfortably, in the Kremlin.

Both Liz Cheney and Vladimir Putin will go down in the history books. Though their legacies will be diametrically opposed, each will forever be remembered for acting on what they believed to be true. That human agency matters and that they alone could make a big difference.  

At the age of 99 Henry Kissinger has just come out with another book, this one right in my wheelhouse. It’s titled: Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy. I will have more to say about the book in a later post. For today all I will do is contrast Kissinger the writer in his late 90s with Kissinger the writer in his mid-50s.

These are excerpts from random paragraphs, both about Richard Nixon, from two of Kissinger’s books. This first is from the book just published, Leadership.

Richard Nixon was one of the most controversial presidents in American history and the only president obliged to resign from office. He also had a seminal impact on the foreign policy of his period and its aftermath, as a president who reshaped a failing world order at the height of the Cold War. After five and a half years in office, Nixon had ended American involvement in Vietnam; established the United States as the dominant external power in the Middle East; and imposed a triangular dynamic on the previously bipolar Cold War through the opening to China, ultimately putting the Soviet Union at a decisive disadvantage.

The second excerpt is from another book Kissinger wrote, this one published in 1979. It is titled, White House Years. Here is how he then described the president with whom he so closely collaborated.  

There was another fanfare and President-elect Richard Nixon appeared at the top of the Capitol stairs. He was dressed in a morning coat, his pant legs as always a trifle short. His jaw jutted defiantly and yet he seemed uncertain, as if unsure that he was really there. He exuded at once relief and disbelief. He had arrived at last after the most improbable of careers and one of the most extraordinary feats of self-discipline in American political history. He seemed exultant, as if he could hardly wait for the [inauguration] ceremony to be over so that he could begin to implement the dream of a lifetime. Yet he also appeared somehow spent, even fragile, like a marathon runner who has exhausted himself in a great race.

Do you see what I see? Two paragraphs that could hardly be more different, even though they were written by same man about the same man. The second paragraph, the one written by Kissinger in middle age, sings. The first paragraph, written by Kissinger in old age, does not. It does not sing. The prose is pedestrian, almost leaden.

None of this is to say that Leadership is bad. Not at all. Nor is it even to say the writing is bad. It is not. It is ordinary, no better, no worse. This though is in stark contrast to Kissinger’s White House Years, which is wonderfully well observed and wonderfully well written. Truth is that Kissinger was one of the greatest writers of all American statesmen – in his prime.  

In Part I of “What Should Leaders Do?” I pointed out that we expect leaders to do something as opposed to doing nothing – especially on problems of major importance. I further pointed out that generally we expect leaders to address problems for which they are directly responsible. We do not expect the CEO of General Motors to fix what’s broke at Harvard University or even, for that matter, at Volkswagen.  Finally, I pointed out that though we expected our political leaders to address the problem of climate change with deliberation and determination, they consistently have failed to do so. Moreover, there is not the slightest evidence this will change.

Given that followers are not equipped to step into the breach; given that technology cannot reach far enough or come fast enough; and given that allowing climate change further to fester dooms us to disaster, the question is, are all leaders part of the problem? Or is it possible that some leaders might be part of the solution? Are there leaders other than political leaders who could take the problem in hand?

Because political leaders seem repeatedly to disappoint, some of us have been looking elsewhere. Some of us have been looking to other leaders to tackle what on the surface is not their problem. Specifically, some of us are looking to business leaders to cure what ails us, even if what ails us is not in their bailiwick.

Writing in the Financial Times, journalist Gillian Tett wrote that “business leaders must speak up for democracy.”  She went on to name some things they should do such as encouraging their employees to get out and vote by, for example, giving them paid time off to go to the polls; and providing proper transparency around political donations and lobbying. Tett concluded her piece: “Let us fervently hope that the 96 percent of companies who say that democracy is good for the economy are actually ready to defend it.”

Somewhat similarly, prominent business executive Maurice Greenberg wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lamenting the “deteriorating state of affairs between the U. S. and China.” It is in our national interest, he continued, to “do all we can to improve U.S.- China relations.” How though might this be done? Greenberg does not think political leaders are ready and willing to take the problem on, so he turns to business leaders to pick up the slack. As the Journal headline put it, given that U.S.- China relations are too important to leave in the hands of political leaders, who have proved ineffectual, it is business leaders to whom we must turn. It is they can who “help restore trust.”

A third recent example of someone drawing attention to the broader role that business leaders might play on complex social and political issues, is Professor Molly Worthen who, writing in the New York Times, described the (somewhat) changing role of business schools. Rather than clinging to traditional metrics such as profits, they are increasingly being encouraged, including by their students, to be more expansive. Worthen writes it’s time for business schools to admit that “measuring and modeling are not the same as understanding,” and that attending to, for example, the environment, is not “politically fashionable hand-waving but a call to center the M.B.A. on big hard questions.”     

Climate change is not usually thought of as a problem for which corporate leaders are responsible. Up to now we have assumed that political leaders would take the matter in hand. But given the assumption was misplaced, now what? Now leaders other than political leaders must step up to the plate – a challenge that corporate leaders are best placed to meet.  

Not all corporate leaders, of course, but some, a few.

• Those who are deeply informed about and genuinely interested in the problem.
• Those who lead large, global companies.
• Those who have extensive personal and professional multinational connections.
• Those who are as comfortable with, and as familiar with, political leaders as business leaders.
• Those who have a track record on environmental sustainability.
• Those who are good at networking and have demonstrable interpersonal skills such organizing and persuading.
• Those who are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
• Those who are prepared to commit significant amounts of their personal and professional capital to a problem for which they are not directly responsible.
• Those who have already made their mark in business and are hungry to do more.
• Those who are so hungry to do more on the problem of climate change they will not rest until they do. And then they will try to do more.

The World Economic Forum (Davos) points out that C-suite executives worldwide recognize the need for business to take climate action. It further states that one-fifth of companies are already taking steps on sustainability. It touts these facts proudly – not, apparently, recognizing they are no more than the proverbial, pathetic, drops in the bucket.

If business leaders are to lead on climate change, they will have to have ambitions that are global, not parochial. They will have to be from all corners of the globe and commit to work together to save the planet. They will have to do what they have never done before. First, envision collaborations that transcend the usual boundaries. Second, envision implementations that transcend the usual boundaries.  

The Democratic Republic of Congo just announced that it would auction off vast tracts of land – land that is precious, environmentally sensitive, old-growth rainforest – for drilling oil and gas. While this will lead to what one expert called a “global climate catastrophe,” the president of Congo is undeterred. Our priority, he said, is to support the people of Congo. “It is not to save the planet.”

Some American business leaders have already, in one or another way, made fighting climate change a priority. They include Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), and Larry Fink (BlackRock). But they have done so as individuals, not as members of an organized group with a global vision and limitless ambition. Another leader who could play a role such as the one I describe is Bill Gates. His first act was technology.  His second act was philanthropy. Is he done? Or does he have a third all-important act?

Heaven knows planet earth needs a secular savior. Several secular saviors.

For the sake of this discussion let’s just say that leaders are people in positions of authority. Therefore, they are people who usually – though, granted, not always – have the power to act. To do something as opposed to doing nothing.

Given they (usually) have the power to act, what do we expect them to act on? In general, we expect them to act on issues of major rather than minor importance. We want potholes to be repaired. But repairing potholes matters less than protecting us from violent crime.

Of course, all leaders are not responsible for all our problems. We do not expect our potholes to be repaired by religious leaders, or educational leaders. Typically, leaders have domains within which they exercise their power, authority, and influence. And, typically, we expect them to stay in their lanes.

Which raises the question of what happens when leaders, people in positions of authority, fail to do what they are supposed to do? Fail to act on problems of major importance for which they clearly are responsible? In other words, what happens when leaders – either because they don’t care or care enough, or because they are hamstrung by their circumstance – will not or cannot lead on a matter of great urgency even though it is directly in their bailiwick?

To these questions are several answers. The first is whatever the matter of great urgency it remains unaddressed. It is allowed further to fester. The second is that followers take the lead when leaders fail to do so. Good idea, to a point. Trouble is that while followers can draw attention to an issue, mostly they cannot pull the levers of power. They simply do not have the requisite resources or access to the requisite resources.  The third answer is that if leaders do not act on a matter of great urgency, even though they are the ones directly responsible, other leaders pick up the slack. That is, leaders who are not directly responsible nevertheless step into the breach.  

Which brings us to the issue of, the problem of, climate change. Without going into the reasons why, by now it seems obvious that political leaders are not up to the job. Political leaders around the world have failed dismally to make sufficient or even significant headway toward solving a problem that every year is getting obviously, palpably, worse. Heat, drought, rising sea levels, floods, mass extinctions, failed crops, felled forests – you name it, we have it. We have it now – which is, as we all know, nothing compared to what we will have five, ten, and fifty years into the future.

What is to be done? Political leaders have proven more or less useless. Try as they might, the Greta Thunbergs of the world cannot save us from ourselves. Nor is technology the answer – it cannot reach far enough or come fast enough. Where then to turn – or to whom? Are we doomed to climate change out of control? Or is there another avenue to explore?

OK, so there’s an exception to the general rule – a leader I recently wrote about, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (A Zelig – Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – Barbara Kellerman.) He’s had a good week.

Erdogan, along with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, scored what is widely regarded as a diplomatic coup. Together they are credited with having brokered a surprising and significant agreement between Russia and Ukraine to free 20 million tons of grain stuck in Ukraine, thereby alleviating sky high food prices and the mounting threat of hunger crises, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

But Erdogan stands almost alone. Most European leaders are having a bad spell. Not only is the European continent suffering (only worse) from some of the ills plaguing the United States – such as high inflation, the threat of recession, and climate change – Europeans have problems that are uniquely their own. These include declining currencies, in several cases a dangerous reliance on Russian oil and gas, and, of course, a major land war on their Eastern flank.

More specifically:

• Widely disrespected Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned a couple of weeks ago, effectively hoisted by his own petard.
• Widely respected Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi resigned this week, victimized by the unstable politics that forever plague Italy.
• French President Emmanuel Macron suddenly faced calls for a parliamentary inquiry into his dealings with Uber when he was French economy minister.
• German Chancellor Olaf Scholz interrupted his vacation hurriedly to announce his government was taking a 30% stake in Uniper, the German energy giant otherwise threatened with bankruptcy on account of its dependence on Russian gas.  
• Volkswagen’s longtime Chief Executive Officer, Herbert Diess, was pushed from his perch. Key shareholders joined with powerful labor leaders unceremoniously to oust Diess, just when he was poised to turn Volkswagen into a global leader in the sales of electric vehicles.

There is no new lesson here. This litany is no more than, though no less than, a sober reminder of how leading in a liberal democracy has become a tough row to hoe.

            At Thursday night’s January 6^th committee hearing was an invisible man. Nevertheless, he was the star. We did not hear him, and we saw him only fleetingly (in a video clip). Still, Vice President Mike Pence was at the center of the narrative. President Donald Trump’s behavior toward him on January 6, 2021 – and his obsession with him during the weeks just before and immediately after – were not only at the heart of the story. They were the most vivid single examples of Trump’s craziness and malevolence.

            As the hearing made clear, there was an approximately 15-minute period on January 6^th when the life of the Vice President was genuinely in danger. The rioters were getting close, they were targeting the vice president (“Hang Mike Pence”), and Pence’s path to safety was unclear. Even his secret service agents feared for their lives.

Was Trump concerned? Not hardly. Just the opposite. At that moment, from his bunker in the White House, he tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” As former White House communications aide, Sarah Matthews, put it at the hearing, Trump’s tweet was like “pouring gasoline on a fire.” She promptly resigned on account of it, as did another one of Trump’s longtime assistants, Matt Pottinger.    

Why did Trump single out Pence for special abuse? Why for that matter did the rioters target Pence particularly, with murder on their minds? Ironically, it was precisely because they had all come to expect that Pence would without question follow where Trump led. Would without question do what Trump told him to do. Would without question obey Trump’s authority – which in this instance meant he would overturn or at least forestall the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Both Trump and the mob had good reason to expect that Pence would do as instructed. For in a world full of Trump toadies no one, and I mean no one, was more of a toady than Pence. For more than four years Pence had been follower-in-chief; sycophant-in-chief; toady in chief; fawner, flatterer, and flunky-in-chief.

Pence was first among Trump’s underlings. As I wrote in my book, The Enablers, Pence will forever be viewed as “an abject subordinate who, among his other failings, not once corrected or contradicted the president’s numberless lies.” His sole qualification for his job was his fealty, his feckless and pathetic, craven, and cowardly, fealty. Or, as Mark Leibovitch put it in his recent book, Thank You for Your Servitude, “Pence was the unquestioned maestro of this top-level symphony of sycophancy…, He stood by his man in the most nakedly servile of ways.”   

Small wonder that Trump was so aghast and enraged when for once Pence was different. When for once – on January 6^th no less – Pence refused to do what Trump told him to do.

Poor president. He had every reason to expect otherwise. Poor vice president. He never understood how blind obedience is a risky business – sometimes even a fatal weakness.

It’s been reported that corporate leaders around the world are increasingly concerned about possible war in Taiwan. That China will attempt to take over Taiwan by force. While this threat seems not to be imminent, only a leader who is a fool would ignore the several warning signs. These signs should be read not only abroad but at home, by leaders within Taiwan not just by leaders without. They include:

• China’s recent takeover of Hong Kong, which originally was promised decades more of independent rule.
• China’s increasing displays of militarism, including stunts such as flying warplanes in close proximity to Taiwan.
• China’s shift from authoritarianism to totalitarianism, President Xi Jinping having by now established total control and brooking no display of dissent.   
• China’s alliance (for the moment) with Russia.
• Russia’s unforeseen and entirely unprovoked war against Ukraine – a reminder if any were needed of how in an instant the world can change.

Taiwan is officially known as the Republic of China. It is democratically ruled and thinks of itself as an independent country. Trouble is it is not similarly seen by the People’s Republic of China – the PRC, mainland China – and certainly not by Xi who not only is president but head of the once again all-powerful Chinese Communist Party. Xi sees Taiwan not as the Taiwanese do, but as an upstart and a renegade. A breakaway province that does now and always has properly belonged to China – his China.

Xi Jinping has ruled China for a decade. He shows not the slightest sign of surrendering even a smidgeon of power. In fact, he is constantly questing for more. Given the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, leaders the world over with any interest in Taiwan are well advised to pay attention.

For the last seven years, when Americans thought about the presidency of Donald Trump, they thought about him. Just him. Our fixation has been on this single individual as opposed to on the legions who followed where he led.

But in recent weeks – largely because of the January 6 Committee hearings – this has started to change. The hearings feature not Trump himself; instead they focus on his followers.  One after another of Trump’s erstwhile disciples have come before the committee to testify to their fealty to the former president – until he betrayed their trust. In fact, so strong was their tie to Trump, that in some cases, such as Arizona Republican Rusty Bowers, they testified that despite his betrayal they would vote for him again.

The other thing that happened in recent weeks is that my own book on Trump’s followers, The Enablers, which was published in 2021, finally does not stand alone. The Enablers focused on how Trump’s followers enabled his wretched performance as it pertained to the pandemic. Who exactly were these followers? It was a large cast of characters, some members of Trump’s tribe; some members, those who enabled him day to day, members of Trump’s team. In other words, The Enablers constructs a mosaic that consists of many pieces, each a person who played a particular part in the pandemic.

The two books that just joined mine – they are also about Trump’s followers – pay no attention to the mosaic that is the whole. Their lens is more narrowly trained, nearly entirely on those among Trump’s followers who are eminent. Tim Miller’s Book, Why We Did It, focuses on a few people, most long time, and top-ranking members of the Republican party. He singles out those who had always seemed to him, a former Republic Party operative himself, reasonably smart and sane, and wonders how it came to pass they sold themselves to the devil.

Somewhat similarly Mark Leibovich’s new book, Thank You for Your Servitude.  As its title implies, it also focuses on Trump’s invariably subservient underlings, though again mainly those in the upper ranks, Republican “careerists who catapulted to Trumpism to preserve their livelihoods.”

I am glad to have some company, two other close observers who focus on Trump’s followers. But their canvas is too small.

It’s at least as important we understand a follower who is an ordinary man, like Stephen Ayers, as a follower who is an extraordinary man, like Lindsay Graham. So hats off to the January 6th Committee for having Ayers testify.

Graham’s benefits from Trump-toadying are obvious. He gets to hang out at Mar-a-Lago and play round after round after round of golf with Donald. But what was in it for Ayers? Why did Ayers, an average Joe, sign on with Donald Trump? Why did he head to Washington in January 2021 to support Donald Trump? And why did he end up storming the nation’s Capital in a last-ditch effort to prolong Trump’s presidency? While the January 6th committee did not even try to plumb Ayers’s psyche, we do know that men and, yes, woman get seized by Trumpism for various reasons, including ideology and psychology.

Prominent Republicans (Graham) stand on the Republican base (Ayers). If it cracks, they fall. For years, this base has been comprised of people like Ayers, who describes himself as a family man who worked for the same company for 20 years, and enjoys camping, playing baseball, and spending time on social media. It’s why what he had to say this week in Washington was so important.

Ayers had no reason to worry about being in the company of far-right groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, because he thought,

Hey, they’re on our team; good…. I thought it was a good thing.

Only in retrospect did he get angry about Trump’s promotion of the Big Lie, that he had won the election. Why? Because for months he, Ayers, had believed the Big Lie. That it was correct to claim the election was stolen.

I was hanging on every word he {Trump] was saying. Everything he was putting out, I was following it. I mean if I was doing it, hundreds of thousands or millions of other people were doing it, or maybe even still dong it.  It’s like he said about that, you know, you got people still following and doing that.

Finally, is Ayers in retrospect, now all too well aware of how badly his life was damaged by what Trump wrought.

The biggest thing is I consider myself a family man, and I love my country. I don’t think any one man is bigger than either one of those. I thank that’s what needed to be taken, you know. People dive into politics, and for me I felt like I had, you know, like horse-blinders on. I was – I was locked in the whole time. Biggest thing for me is to take the blinders off, make sure you step back and see what’s going on before it’s too late.

There you have it. Finally, public testimony from a follower who was a rank and file member of Trump’s Tribe, explaining how it was this treacherous if not treasonous leader came to pass.

A few facts:

• Erdogan was prime minister of Turkey from 2003 to 2014.
• Erdogan has been president of Turkey from 2014 to the present.
• Erdogan was a democratic leader.
• Erdogan became in time an autocratic leader.
• Erdogan has a lust for power – he will not surrender it and his thirst for more cannot be slaked.  
• Turkey is part of Europe.
• Turkey is also part of Asia.
• Turkey is, because of its strategic location, at the crossroad of Europe and Asia, one of the most important countries in the world.    
• Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.
• Turkey drives every other member of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance nuts.
• Turkey is however pivotal to the Alliance – to NATO.
• Turkey is important to NATO not only because of its strategic location, and not only because it has one of NATO’s largest armies, but because it is a majority Muslim country.
• Because Turkey is majority Muslim, and because Erdogan himself is a practicing Muslim, he can relate better to some leaders in some Middle Eastern countries than any other Western leader.   

Which brings us to where we are now. Just when the rest of the West was ready, again, to tire of a major irritant, Erdogan, he has managed, again, to make himself seem indispensable. This time it is the war in Ukraine that has put Erdogan back at center stage.

Some of this is simple geography. Turkey shares the Black Sea coast with both Russia and Ukraine. And some of this is history. For years Erdogan has nurtured his ties with Moscow, both as leverage within NATO and out of a keen awareness that while Russia is an unreliable neighbor, it is nevertheless a powerful one. And, finally, some of this is the exigency of the current moment.

Since the start of Putin’s War Erdogan’s role has been central. On the one hand he has worked harder than any other single leader to negotiate an end to Russia’s blockade of more than 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain. And on the other hand, he used his leverage within NATO to block, if only temporarily, the admission of Sweden and Finland.

Erdogan has long been a thorn in the side of the West. But here he is now, poised next week not only to meet personally with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but to do so in, of all places, Tehran. Within days, therefore, Erdogan will be shaking hands with America’s two archenemies: Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s President, Ebrahim Raisi.

A Zelig is a chameleon-like person who seems always, somehow, to be at the center of the action. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a leader who is a Zelig. He gets no medal for being a decent democrat. Impossible though to deny him his capacity and tenacity.