Thank you for your inattention to this matter

In 1961, Daniel Boorstin coined the term pseudo-event — an event staged for its own sake. The goal is not to say or do anything meaningful, but to keep the public engaged. The observer’s attention becomes the objective.

The pinnacle of the pseudo-event category is professional wrestling, sometimes called "athletic theatre". No one is actually competing. The crowd cheers, picks favourites and watches victories. But nobody truly wins anything, it's theatre.

To me, watching politics in recent years feels like watching pro wrestling. Recent announcements that “Trump is finally fed up with Putin” are the perfect example. 

I get questions from the press: “Is this real? Is White House policy changing?”

I mean, come on… let’s look at the substance.

Take the Reuters headline: a possible $300 million delivery of equipment to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia announces next year’s defense budget — roughly $300 billion. It’s like we’ve donated a phantom weapon to fight a very real war. But the headlines are nice. They keep people reading. And those who seek hope can keep hoping — maybe this time, it’s real. 

A few weeks ago we were asking — have the Iranian nuclear bomb sites really been destroyed? Or was it just one more episode of the show? We might never know the truth. We only know what was shown in last week's episode. It is quite possible that Iran might continue to develop their bomb, not entirely unhappy about the script. All they had to do was accept the role of “the country that was defeated” and then continue to escalate against their neighbours and Ukraine.

You could say this is just Trump’s show. But it’s happening on both sides of the Atlantic — and it has been for a while. Remember the “coalition of the willing” and their “crippling sanctions”? It looked like a stunt slap: missing the opponent just enough not to hurt him.

Taurus missiles? I am starting to doubt that they even exist. And remember Biden’s big announcement: Ukraine will finally get ATACMS. Headlines roared. Days later we found out: Only eleven missiles were delivered.

Why is the spectacle necessary? Who demands it?

In the US, the answer is simple — the electorate demands a good show. Politicians produce it. Their goal is to keep people entertained, buzzing about the last episode, on tenterhooks for the next. Who’s the villain this week — Zelensky or Putin? Who gets hit next — Canada or Brazil?

For the producers of this show — it is just professional wrestling. What is unfortunate for us viewers is that real life continues nevertheless. 

Putin doesn’t care if he’s called a villain this week. He’s not emotionally moved by such categorisation. He wants to obliterate Ukraine anyway, with or without our theatrical framing.

Outside the US, other Western leaders continue the theatrics. Are they really trying to scare Putin? That would be naive. It’s not difficult for him to see through their press-releases and figure out what’s really happening. Crippling sanctions? One call to Budapest or Bratislava to check if all is well, and, as always, it is. *laughs in putin*

Five percent in ten years, except for anyone who doesn’t feel like it? Weeell good luck, comrades.

Ten Patriot missiles out of thirty that were supposed to go to Ukraine? Weeell, that is indeed “a step in the right direction”, from Putin’s point of view. 

Perhaps the real aim is to demobilise supporters in the West that genuinely want to help Ukraine. Public pressure is asking for a stronger position and more assistance, so pseudo-events of pseudo-value are created to satisfy demand. The truth takes a while to come out — especially when governments declare all future support “classified.”

And that’s how it works. You’re told something is being done, but unless you’re ringside and viewing from exactly the right angle, how can you tell if the wrestler actually landed that jump? Or missed by a foot?

In past wars, governments had to rally their populations — to convince them why it mattered. Today, some of the messaging seems designed to avoid real mobilisation. Instead of geopolitical strategy, we get entertainment, but the real world doesn’t stop. We’re just seeing less of it.

If you are looking for an example of real action, look at the current German debate on defense spending. It’s real. If the proposals are implemented they will make a real difference. The Chancellor is struggling to defend it in the Bundestag, and he has to put his own political future on the line — but that’s precisely what makes it matter. If he pulls it off, Europe just might be safer.

For further examples of real action, take Denmark, Sweden or Finland silently but openly sending new tranches of support to Ukraine. Not for headlines and attention but to help Ukrainians win the war. 

But what is scary is that there are so few of these examples — the last remnants of good old responsible statecraft.

What to do?

We must demand less show, more substance. A “good headline” should be one about significant and game-changing amounts of support being already on the way to the front lines, not awaiting a meeting about a vote about a signature in two weeks.

To win in Ukraine we need to commit to much, much more than even our biggest current commitments can cover. New programmes, new initiatives, new money. This requires embracing life in the reality which pseudo announcements are not altering. One shipment of rockets is a good thing… which in no way changes the trajectory of the war. 

Staying the current course fundamentally signals conciliation with defeat. This is worse than mere appeasement. We are not even trying to win, or to prevent a larger war. Many who should be making difficult decisions are hoping that theatrical distractions will cover the tracks of their inaction long enough for the problem to disappear or to become someone else’s problem.  

The reality we live in isn’t a reality show. But if we keep treating it like one, then the fires in Kyiv will become the season finale.