In the movie Gladiator, Maximus, a fallen Roman general, fights and defeats a group of gladiators in an arena to the amazement and shock of the crowd. Confused and slightly angry at their silence, Maximus then delivers one of the most memorable lines from the movie: “Are you not entertained?” [1]
His challenge confronts spectators who, despite paying for blood and spectacle, feel unsettled by the grim reality unfolding before them. The clash between brutal spectacle and the moral unease that the crowd suddenly felt highlights a dilemma that seems eerily reminiscent of the recent political theater in Washington D.C.
For President Trump and Vice President Vance, the crowd they look to entertain isn’t a group of stunned Roman citizens, but rather a small subsection of MAGA Republicans and a media hungry for drama. They would rather entertain this audience than do any real substantial work. Instead of creating a path forward to work with Ukraine and their president, Volodymyr Zelensky, they seem more drawn to theatrical grandstanding, as if asking viewers the same question: “Are you not entertained?”
The February 27th meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky and the ensuing acts of retribution against Ukraine bore more resemblance to a staged performance than a real diplomatic discussion. Zelensky, who arrived in Washington hoping to strengthen partnerships and secure meaningful commitments, found himself the unexpected co-star in a television drama. Trump referred to Russian President, Vladimir Putin as a leader who “respects” him while labeling Zelensky ungrateful and too emotional [2]. Vance jumped in to tell Zelensky that he and the rest of Ukraine were irresponsible for continuing a war that affected millions [3]. The moral and geopolitical consequences of those stances went seemingly ignored.
Soon after their meeting, Trump announced a pause in military aid to Ukraine. Prime Minister of Ukraine, Denys Shmyhal, pledged that Kyiv still had tools to manage on the frontline (for now), but leaders across the world voiced alarm and criticism of this retaliation from the U.S [4]. Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the decision could push Kyiv toward the peace process [5]. Really?
In truth, the thirst for spectacle drives this unfortunate saga. The modern-day mob devours viral put-downs and zinger one-liners, which leaves actual diplomacy and other methods of soft power to take a back seat. When Trump boasted, “This is going to be great television,” at the end of the meeting, he all but confirmed his focus on rousing and pleasing an audience rather than helping an ally [6].
The American public now risks taking over the role of the Colosseum crowd. Social media erupts with applause for snappy insults and nightly news highlights the most outrageous (and offensive) lines. Meanwhile, Zelensky, squeezed by reduced military assistance and struggling to preserve his nation’s sovereignty, must also be asking the now-famous question: Are you not entertained? He may also be wondering: Are you not all ashamed?" With leadership fixated on making headlines and aligning itself with Russia, who will commit to pushing back against Putin?
In Gladiator, the crowd feels a pang of conscience after Maximus’s outburst, slowly realizing the human cost feeding their bloodlust. So far, no such epiphany has shaken our modern arena. Trump’s decision to halt aid may worsen the conflict’s human toll, but many remain enthralled by the drama. While some may ask why the United States should involve itself in a war that “doesn’t include them” (and it can be very easy to ask that question), U.S. officials have released multiple answers for why this war does include America, stating that the war in Ukraine has inflicted immense suffering on Ukrainians and also poses a significant threat to global stability. This conflict has disrupted global energy markets and food supplies, leading to higher gas and grocery prices in the United States, directly affecting American families' security and economic interests at home. [7].
With the war in Ukraine affecting us in the United States, it would be helpful to have leaders that recognize the global impact that this war is having. Had Trump and Vance chosen genuine collaboration, they could have crafted foreign policy that balanced American interests with upholding democratic ideals. Instead, their public mockery culminated in a freeze on aid, feeling much more like a sideshow than a real strategy for addressing Europe’s biggest land war since World War II [8]. While the aid was reinstated a few weeks later (after Trump felt that Zelensky had apologized and groveled enough), does it not worry us that the support that the United States gives hinges on whether or not Trump feels like his opponents (or allies) have sufficiently kissed the ring [9]?
The question, “Are you not entertained,” now hangs over our political stage. Will we allow foreign policy to become a spectacle, or will we insist on moral clarity and unity against aggression? Will we keep chasing the next viral quip? Do we feel comfortable forfeiting our values and global standing to be entertained for a few days before some new outlandish story takes over?
This is a crossroads moment. When a president frames the pause in military support as a prime-time event, we see whose priorities matter most. Zelensky, like Maximus, lifts his arms and wonders how many more lives must be lost before we recognize the difference between hollow theatrics and real human tragedy. If we choose to keep applauding, we become the crowd in a modern coliseum, blind to the misery at our feet, and the final act could cost far more than any of us can really afford.
