We Were Warned, but Did We Listen? Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Oval Office Meeting, February 28, 2025

We were warned. In 2016, Hillary Clinton warned us that Trump was a “Putin puppet.” We didn’t listen. In 2024, Kamala Harris told Donald Trump that Vladimir Putin was “a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” Yet, did anyone listen? Are Americans more worried about the price of eggs? Immigrant caravans? A bit of inflation? Those concerns dribble into triviality when American foreign policy falls on us like a collapsing dome. Minor issues mean nothing when an American president not only appeases a hostile dictator, but bows before him. Yesterday, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance lambasted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he sought help defending his nation against Russian aggression. 

Betraying Ukraine, a friend, to appease a foe, Russia, appalls common sense. Could it have been stopped? Yes, for we were warned. Trump never kept his pro-Russia views secret. Too few people listened to the truth. Too few people are listening now. Speaking is only half of communication: listening is the other half, and it’s often much harder. Can we listen? 

Zelenskyy Warned Trump

During their White House meeting yesterday, February 28, 2025, Trump and Vance loudly berated Zelenskyy during negotiations over United States aid in the Ukraine-Russian war. The meeting was civil for a while, but Trump lost his temper when Zelenskyy reminded Trump that Russian leader Vladimir Putin threatened the United States just as he threatened Ukraine:

“Zelenskyy: ‘First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –’

“Trump: ‘You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.’”

Zelenskyy’s warning was far from the first!

Trump Himself Had Warned Us

When Vladimir Putin sent an army against Ukraine in 2022, Trump praised him to the skies:

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’”

Trump continued:

“He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”

We Were Already Warned In 2016

The Oval Office exchange should have surprised no one. During Hillary Clinton’s third 2016 presidential debate against Trump, she warned the American people to beware, that Trump’s groveling subservience to Putin endangered American security. For example, noting that 17 American intelligence agencies had confirmed that Putin was interfering in the election, including illegal cyberhacking, for Trump’s benefit, Clinton warned us:

“I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this, and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election. That he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past. Those are the questions we need answered.”

Evading the issue, Trump responded that Putin was smarter than Clinton:

“Trump: Putin from everything I see has no respect for this person.”

Responding, Clinton called Trump a puppet: 

“Clinton: Well, that’s because he would rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

“Trump: No puppet. You’re the puppet.

“Clinton: It is pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks against the United States of America. That you encouraged espionage against our people. That you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do. And that you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race.”

We were warned, but Clinton’s warnings were not heeded.


We Were Warned in 2024

We were warned again just before the 2024 election. During her only debate against Donald Trump, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris warned the voters of Donald Trump’s antipathy for America’s allies and his willingness to surrender Ukraine to the Russians:

“If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now. And understand what that would mean. Because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine.”

Rightly placing the controversy in its geopolitical context, Harris immediately continued:

“Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO. And what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to fight for their Independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe.”

I cannot imagine how she could possibly have expressed herself more clearly, more forcefully, or more accurately. More than a debater, she spoke like a stateswoman.

Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Alas, a spike in the price of bread and eggs horrified the voters in 2024, and they thought everything would be better under Trump. Sadly, bread and eggs remain costly under Trump, while the Cold War alliances that long averted global holocaust are collapsing into a flaming ruin.

The voters were warned. They didn’t listen.

Conclusion: We Were Warned

Clinton warned us. Her warnings sounded rather intellectual and maybe she used too many big words. Still she was clear. Harris warned us. She was precise and forceful. People just didn’t believe her. Or maybe they didn’t trust a woman to keep the nation safe. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

A few days ago, Republican Senator John Curtis decried a UN vote that took Russia’s side: “I was deeply troubled by the vote at the UN today, which puts us on the same side as Russia and North Korea. These are not our friends. This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy.” Sadly, however, most top Republicans still go along with Trump and his bizarre foreign policy. 

The truth is, that, a generation earlier, Ronald Reagan warned us (to great ridicule) that Russia was an “evil empire.” But we forgot all the lessons. For decades, the policies of containment and deterrence led to a continuing but uneasy peace between the two great powers. Indeed, the Soviet Empire collapsed under the force of Reagan’s diplomacy.

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan's One Sentence Changed Berlin

"Peace for Our Time?" Neville Chamberlain's Speech about Appeasement

Such world-shaking events now fade into forgotten history. Russia has surreptitiously supported Trump and the Republican Party, often using underhanded electronic means. Robert Mueller’s famous report confirmed this beyond dispute. Attacking the United States from within, corrupting our political system to near collapse, Russia now seems ready to fulfill Nikita Khrushchev’s long-ago chilling threat: “We will bury you.”

(Stunningly, Trump’s newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has just now ordered the Pentagon to shut down its project against Russian cyberhacking. We were warned!)

We were warned. We are still being warned. Remember that utterances are only half of public speaking – the other half is listening. Wise men and women spoke; too few voters listened. Yet, even as the darkness closes on us, never give up. Never lose confidence in freedom. Never believe anything until you have studied both sides. Never lose faith in representative government. And, when good people warn you—listen to them!

It is never too late to learn. We must learn to sort truth from obvious falsehoods. We must shake aside our complacency and face dangers, both domestic and foreign. We must never give up hope. We must learn to hear both sides of controversies. We must listen.

For we were warned about all of this.

by William D. Harpine  

Copyright ©2025 by William D. Harpine

Father Ioann Burdin Cited Christian Values to Oppose the Invasion of Ukraine

Do Christian leaders speak according to the principles of the “Prince of Peace?” Or do they bow to public authorities who are often violent and wicked? Father Ioann Burdin, a small-town Russian Orthodox priest, was recently arrested for breaking a newly-enacted Russian law that prohibits anyone from discrediting the armed forces. Both online and in a sermon to his parish, Father Burdin criticized Russia’s war against Ukraine. Standing up, not only against his own government, but also his church’s patriarch, he called for Christians to resist evil.

There is more to this than we might think. Let us never forget that Adolf Hitler was a Christian Nationalist who rose to power with strong support from Christian conservatives. Religious people of any doctrine face constant temptation to twist religion to evil. Yes, government leaders can use religion to strengthen their own power. Nevertheless, religion is at its best when it challenges wrongful governmental actions.

And, in fact, challenging government is exactly what Father Burdin did, and in no uncertain terms. In translation, his website said:

“Brothers and sisters! In the early morning of 24 February, Russian troops attacked Ukraine. There is shelling of Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities. Russian soldiers are killing their brothers and sisters in Christ. We Christians do not dare to stand aside when a brother kills a brother, a Christian kills a Christian. Let us not repeat the crimes of those who hailed Hitler’s action on 1 September 1939. We cannot shamefacedly close our eyes and call black white, [or] evil good, [or] say that Abel was probably wrong in provoking his older brother. The blood of the inhabitants of Ukraine will remain on the hands of not only the rulers of the Russian Federation and the soldiers who carry out this order. Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approved this war or who simply remained silent.”

A Progression of Moral Ideas

Father Burdin began by stating the facts, reminded his congregation of Christian moral principles, brought up historical precedents, and concluded with a universal call.

First, he described the Russian military’s attacks against Ukraine in cities. He pointed out that many Ukrainians are Christians.

Second, Father Burdin said that Christians should never look away when “a brother kills a brother.” In fact, he said “dare:” Christians should not “dare to stand aside.” It requires courage to resist earthly authorities. In contrast, “dare” suggests that only great arrogance causes one to stand against God’s laws.

Father Burdin was not saying that it is all right for Christians to go to war against non-Christians. Instead, he chose words carefully to help his congregation identify with the war’s Ukrainian victims.

Third, he compared the Ukraine-Russia war with the horrors of World War II. Hitler’s army invaded Ukraine during that horrible conflict, spreading devastation while committing horrible massacres in Ukraine itself. That army, as Russians well remember, soon swept into Russia itself. Father Burdin reminded his congregation that many people “hailed Hitler’s actions on 1 September 1939.” That bold statement implied that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was equally wrong. Furthermore, it implicitly condemned people of today who praise Putin’s actions. We all know that Hitler was evil. Since we don’t always recognize evil in ourselves, Father Burdin showed the similarities between Hitler in 1939 and Putin in 2022.

 

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

Fourth, Father Burdin pointed out that the entire nation is responsible. Not only are Russia’s rulers and soldiers guilty of shedding Ukrainian blood, but also “Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approved this war or who simply remained silent.”

Russia is a constitutional republic only in name, as Vladimir Putin rules the nation with an iron fist. Yet, Father Burdin said that anyone who endorses the war, even by silence, is morally responsible. (How much more are Americans responsible if they stay silent in the face of evil?)

The Russian authorities arrested this troublesome priest and sentenced him to pay a fine, which was covered by his parish’s donations.


Moral Courage Is Rare

Yet, not much earlier, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, the spiritual leader of Russian Orthodoxy, praised Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He supported Putin because he wanted to avoid moral deterioration and Gay Pride parades. (Doesn’t that sound like the American Christian right?) Patriarch Kirill’s pro-war stance is sparking stark divisions in the Russian Orthodox Church.


Religion and Government

It’s not just Christians. Will religious leaders, of whatever sect or denomination, stand up for what is right? Or will they let the lust for power corrupt their sacred teachings? History gives us many examples of both paths. In the United States, our own Christian Right continues to seek political power, often abandoning their own religious principles in the process. In 2014, Rev. Franklin Graham did not exactly praise Putin, but did speak favorably of Putin’s anti-gay-rights philosophy. He used that opportunity to attack Barack Obama for defending gay people’s rights. Christian Right author Eric Metaxas blamed the Ukraine war, not on Putin, but on an American Deep State conspiracy. 

So, at risk to himself, Father Burdin stood up to a ruthless dictator. He reminded his congregation about Christian values of peace; of brotherhood and sisterhood. He warned them not to repeat the mistakes of those who supported Hitler. He urged them not to watch evil deeds in silence. Furthermore, he reminded the world to speak up to do the right things. If religion and government become too close, both inevitably become corrupted. Father Burdin, a small-town priest, spoke up for what is right. So far, his government isn’t listening. Are we?

Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents

In Warsaw, Biden Warned the World of "The Long Fight Ahead"

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

Joe Biden, White House photo

Dishonest political propaganda is nothing new. In the ancient Roman Republic, Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus) smeared Mark Antony by stamping propaganda slogans onto coins. People who handled the coins could read that Antony was a corrupt, promiscuous drunk. Unfortunately, in the 21st century the only change is that technology enables governments and media figures to spread disinformation better than ever. Nothing can stop liars from telling lies, but can people learn to stop believing them ? Even minimal critical thinking can help people reject disinformation. This works, however, only if people think about the propaganda.

Yesterday, February 18, 2022, United States President Joe Biden used a White House speech to warn the world that Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to invade Ukraine in the next few days. Frightening news indeed. Biden spent much of his speech discussing a Russian disinformation campaign. Russia falsely accuses Ukraine of starting the conflict. The disinformation campaign presumably helps to solidify Russian public opinion while spreading confusion around the world. The disinformation provides an imposing (but false) moral justification for the impending war. At the same time, however, Biden pointed out that Russia’s disinformation campaign defies logic. That’s no surprise.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has ancient roots. Europe’s rulers have for centuries divided Ukraine into pieces and kicked the country around like a soccer ball. Many Ukrainians, especially in the east, speak Russian, not Ukrainian, at home. As civil war breaks out, some eastern regions seek to align with Russia. Russia has already annexed the Crimea. A huge Russian army surrounds Ukraine and violence has already broken out. Ukraine’s problems are complex. The propaganda that Biden discussed is not. 

_____________________

Earlier Post: How Do Political Bots Spread Propaganda?
_____________________


The Russian Disinformation Campaign in Ukraine

Biden pointed out that the Russian government is flooding their own public with false information. Let us be clear that disinformation is not just wrong information. Disinformation intentionally replaces truths with falsehoods. Disinformation attempts to remove reality from public discourse. 

Why would Russia spread disinformation? Well, no sensible public actually wants to fight wars. Biden’s point was that the Russian government spreads false information to overcome the public’s natural reluctance. Thus, the Russian government can launch small attacks and blame them on Ukraine, hoping that the fog of war will conceal their intentions. Similarly, the Russian government can claim that Ukraine is marshalling an attack against Russia, hoping that patriotism will blind Russian citizens to the more troubling reality. 

Disinformation must be countered. So, Biden discussed how Russia used misinformation to spread confusion about recent Russian atrocities:

“For example, a shelling of a Ukrainian kindergarten yesterday, which Russia has falsely asserted was carried out by Ukraine. We also continue to see more and more disinformation being pushed out by — to the Russian public, including the Russian-backed separatists, claiming that Ukraine is planning to launch a massive offensive attack in the Donbas.”

What about Critical Thinking?

Biden next showed the obvious holes in the Russian propaganda. His first point was that no evidence supported the Russian perspective. That, in itself, is unlikely to persuade anyone. Disinformation specialists know how to create false evidence. Realizing that, Biden next pointed out that the Russian propaganda was illogical. A moment’s reflection shows that Ukraine has nowhere near the military capacity to take on a major power like Russia. (Propaganda artists, of course, work hard to make sure that their listeners never engage in the tiniest moment of reflection.) Biden explained those points simply:

“Well, look, there is simply no evidence of these assertions, and it and devies [sic] — it defies basic logic to believe the Ukrainians would choose this moment, with well over 150,000 troops arrayed on its borders, to escalate a year-long conflict.”

Continuing, Biden reviewed more of Russia’s falsehoods:

“Russia state media also continues to make phony allegations of a genocide taking place in the Donbas and push fabricated claims warning about Ukraine’s attack on Russia without any evidence. That’s just what I’m sure Ukraine is thinking of doing — attacking Russia.”

Will Biden’s point persuade people? In the 21st century political world, I’m beginning to despair that people will slow down for even a moment to think about basic logic. That, however, is exactly what Biden asked his audience to do.


The Propagandists’ Playbook

Biden next discussed the consistent Russian trend of proposing pretexts to justify their planned invasion. Biden’s persuasion tactic was to establish a trend. Since people expect the future to resemble the past, Biden sought to help people see that the Russian propaganda is not an isolated event, but rather part of a long-standing pattern of deception:

“All these are consistent with the playbook the Russians have used before: to set up a false justification to act against Ukraine. This is also in line with the pretext scenarios that the United States and our Allies and partners have been warning about for weeks.”

Yet, disinformation often works. People often accept it, willingly and uncritically. The New York Times reports that most Russians believe the crisis is not Russia’s fault. Their government’s relentless propaganda campaign has bore fruit. People can, of course, choose to believe one government or another. Or, they can engage in critical thinking to sort good information from bad. 

So, Biden established that the Russian propaganda follows a long-standing pattern. That simple act of logic should, one would hope, help people realize that Russia was spreading propaganda. But will that work? Every time? Will it work this time? Who is listening? Who is thinking independently? 

_____________________

Earlier Post: European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Earlier Post: Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Worked Hard to Establish Her Credibility 

_____________________


Is Logic Persuasive?

Believe it or not, persuasion experts have argued for decades about whether logical argument even persuades people. Of course, disinformation succeeds only if people abandon logical thinking. So, it was reasonable that Biden attempted to engage his audience’s rational thought processes.

That might work. Accepted persuasion theory suggests that logic can persuade people, but, alas, only under certain conditions. Logic might persuade people if the audience members feel qualified to analyze the issue and are willing to take the time to do so. Generally, in the absence of logical thinking, people might instead believe whatever they have heard most frequently, or to believe things because they find the source attractive. By trying to get people to think about how illogical the Russian misinformation is, Biden took the high road. Let us hope that more and more listeners take the high road as well. Reason is humankind’s greatest gift. Will we use it?

Biden asked a lot from his listeners. Many people know little about foreign policy, and Ukraine (my maternal grandparents’ home country), seems so far away. Many people worry more about their own finances or health than they do about foreign affairs. Still, a republic’s citizens owe it to themselves to understand matters of world-shaking significance. Will we learn to evaluate propaganda, or will we just swallow whatever is fed to us? Let’s hope for the best.

_____________________

Research Note: The Elaboration Likelihood Model, which I have discussed several times in my blog, says that there are two routes to persuasion. Listeners use the Central Route when they devote time and energy to evaluating the evidence, weighing arguments and counter arguments, and considering whether an argument makes logical sense. Otherwise, people are inclined to respond to persuasion by the Peripheral Route, which requires less effort, but produces less solid attitude and behavior change. You might want to read this excellent explanation written by the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s creators.

Historical Notes: Over the centuries, Russia’s spy agencies have become incredibly skilled at producing sophisticated, often hateful disinformation. This dates all the way back to the czars. Russian governments come and go, but Russia’s secret services live on. 

You might want to read this fascinating article about the Russian government’s 19th Century racist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article is written by my communication colleague Marouf Hasian, Jr. Hasian is one of America’s top scholars of public persuasion, and I’ve had the privilege of appearing on the same panel as him a couple of times at communication conventions. The article hides behind a paywall, but most libraries should be able to get you a copy.

On a broader scale, this article by Seth Jones reviews Russian disinformation aimed at corrupting American elections over the past 60+ years. Indeed, the Russian government has long been skilled at spreading propaganda. 

How complex is Ukraine’s cultural history? Just as an example, both of my maternal grandparents considered themselves to be 100% Ukrainian by birth. Yet, neither was born under Ukrainian sovereignty. My grandfather was born in a Ukrainian-speaking area of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  His hometown is part of modern Ukraine. (I have not yet been able to trace my grandmother’s birth.) As I said, rulers have kicked Ukraine back and forth throughout its history. We are all, I suppose, created by our past. 

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

One of public speaking’s most important purposes is to create unity, to bring people together. That is why European Union President Ursula von der Leyen called for unity against the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Von der Leyen, President of the European Union, spoke on February 16, 2022 to the European Parliament Plenary. Russian leader Vladimir Putin has been threatening to attack Ukraine and annex some of its provinces. In response, von der Leyen’s theme was that Europe needs to be unified against the Russian threat. Indeed, she felt that unity, not armed resistance, was the solution.

Von der Leyen laid out policies strikingly similar to those that United States President Joe Biden has advocated. She promised that the European Union would respond to Russian aggression by imposing economic sanctions, restricting technology, and increasing energy independence. Most important, she promised solidarity. She expressed a view that united action could help preserve peace. Armed conflict among nuclear powers seems unthinkable.

International Cooperation 

That, no doubt, is why von der Leyen pleaded that the purpose of international cooperation is, ultimately, so that nations may stay at peace with one another:

“The very reason why our Union was created is to put an end to all European wars. So it is particularly painful for me to address you today, as we face the largest build-up of troops on European soil since the darkest days of the Cold War.”

In vivid language, she placed blame for the crisis squarely where it belongs, on the Russian government:

“The people of Ukraine are bravely trying to get on with their lives. But many of them keep emergency bags by their front doors, with basic clothes and important documents, in case they have to rush away from home. Others have stockpiled food cans to prepare for the worst. Some have even set up shelters in their basements. These are not stories from the 1940s. This is Europe in 2022. And this is happening because of a deliberate policy of the Russian leadership.”

For her proposed solution, she described the high level of international cooperation – of unity:

“President Macron [of France] and Chancellor Scholz [of Germany] have travelled to Kyiv and Moscow. Several others are also speaking to both sides. I am constantly exchanging with all of them, as well as with President Biden, Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Johnson. The Transatlantic Community has for a long time not been so united.”

Will Economic And Political Unity Be Enough?

Von der Leyen also described Europe’s efforts to gain at least temporary energy independence. Since few European countries have commercially useful oil supplies, they need to import almost all of their oil. In normal times, much of Europe’s oil comes from Russia. Therefore, von der Leyen described a joint European plan to stockpile oil reserves, ensuring adequate supplies from non-Russian sources.

Nearing her speech’s end, von der Leyen offered a message of hope. On the one hand, Russia could, she suggested, precipitate a terrible war. On the other hand, Russia can cooperate with other nations, bringing peace and prosperity to everyone. Here message of hope came with a stark choice:

“This is a crisis that has been created by Moscow. We have not chosen confrontation, but we are prepared for it. We now have two distinct futures ahead of us. In one, the Kremlin decides to wage war against Ukraine, with massive human costs – something we thought we had left behind after the tragedies of the twentieth century. Moscow's relations with us would be severely damaged. Tough sanctions would kick in, with dire consequences on the Russian economy and its prospect of modernisation. But another future is possible. A future in which Russia and Europe cooperate on their shared interests. A future where free countries work together in peace.”

And she added that, “Europe will be united, on the side of Ukraine, on the side of peace, on the side of Europe's people.”

I often reflect that we, the people of the world, and particularly the United States, have filled ourselves with overconfidence. Although we have had very few years of true peace, we have, for decades, avoided another world war. Many people seem oblivious to the danger – having forgotten that the history of the 20th century was, for the most part, a history of unimaginable brutality and mass-produced suffering. During World Wars I and II, entire towns ceased to exist and disease, starvation, massacres, and, of course, military combat, killed people by the millions. Peace continues only if human beings show some modicum of goodwill and common sense. History gives me little reason to be confident about either. Wisdom is, after all, not a universal human trait.

The President of the European Union does not really have a lot of political power. She does, however, have the power of rhetoric. When she speaks, people listen. Are we listening enough? Von der Leyen appealed for unity. We need prominent speakers to talk about that kind of thing more and more often.

_________________

Earlier Post:  President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award
_________________

Political Note: Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France all have thermonuclear arsenals. No one wants to use them. Nevertheless, a return to the nuclear brinksmanship of the 1960s could easily become a terrifying prospect. The horrors of 20th century wars were unspeakable. World War III could end human civilization. Children today have active shooter drills. In my childhood, we had nuclear attack drills and took lessons about how to improvise a bomb shelter in 20 minutes. Not that either would do any good.

The political issue in Ukraine is by no means clear-cut, as Ukraine itself is not unified against the Russian threat. Solving that problem, however, is far beyond the expertise of a retired public speaking professor like me. My maternal grandparents were born in occupied areas of Ukraine in the early 1900s. I certainly hope that their homeland can yet avoid disaster. Ukraine has suffered so very much for so many centuries. 

_________________

Note to My Fellow Americans: Here in the United States, we are hearing a lot about what President Biden plans to do about Russia. In contrast, Von der Leyden reminds us that the free nations of the world are in this together.

_________________

Research Note: My former professor, Charles Urban Larson, wrote that persuaders can use a unifying style or a pragmatic style. The pragmatic style can lead to conflict. The unifying style gives us a chance to work together.