'Trump has taken on an economic colony and declared that no-one would dare attack it as a result.' Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty.
“We tell ourselves stories in order to live,” observed Joan Didion. Yet politicians are different. They tell stories not so much to live, but to survive. Stories give leaders an aura of purpose and control, imbuing their decisions with great meaning; ushering in new beginnings and, of course, new ends. And then, sometimes, we just stop believing in them. That is what happened in the White House yesterday. The story of the West melted away and all that was left was power.
Watching Donald Trump over the past week has felt like one of those moments when history was being made: new narratives emerging out of the old. For a few days at least, Europe seemed to have been jolted out of its complacent malaise. “Germany became Gaullist, France became British, and Britain became European,” joked one French diplomat. The fear of America’s withdrawal from Europe had seemingly prompted a revolution. Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington to rescue the old world and seemed to succeed: our American Caesar offered his clementia and all was well, apparently. But then Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in the Oval Office and it was not American withdrawal that was on offer, but American supremacy, uncloaked — angry, imposing, imperial. Do what we say or we will hand you over to your executioners.
This has been the story of the past week. One moment, Europe is in a spin as Zelensky is denounced as a dictator; the next, it is happy as Ukraine hands over half its natural resources to America. And then it heads into the weekend with feelings of sadness, shame and even humiliation. Zelensky, the weakest of Europe’s leaders, was treated as every European leader would be were they not as craven as our own.
The end result is a mixture of embarrassment — that of the schoolchild who avoids being bullied — and lasting geopolitical unease. What does diplomacy matter in a world where all that counts is power and you are a supplicant? Starmer may have flown back to Britain happy that he had secured a public commitment from Trump for Nato’s mutual defence clause. But does anyone now believe that anything the President said yesterday really matters? Perhaps more profoundly, does anyone — deep down — believe that it is acceptable to be so dependent on Trump’s whims or those of his nation? Ukraine can hardly be blamed for being so weak. Britain and the rest of Western Europe have no such excuses.
In the end, everything has changed and nothing has changed. Trump means what he says when he says it — and then doesn’t. The US is both withdrawing from Europe and expanding at the same time. An epoch of ambiguity has arrived and it’s far more dangerous than we realise.
Take the “minerals deal” between Zelensky and Trump that was supposed to be signed yesterday, but so painfully wasn’t. Far from acting as a brake on American imperial overreach — which many in Washington have called for — the agreement would have essentially extended US interests even further into Europe. Under the terms of the deal as proposed, the United States gains a 50% stake in Ukraine’s mineral wealth in perpetuity: a permanent stake.
Trump acknowledged the importance of the proposal before his blow-up with Zelensky. He indicated that the deal would serve as a security “backstop”, ensuring Putin did not restart his war for control of Ukraine. “I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers,” Trump declared. The new doctrine, it seemed, would be “peace through economics”, as Le Monde put it. Zelensky would be forced to the table through an acceptance of partition and extraction. The strategy is not new — Britain was forced to abandon its imperial trading system in return for American support in the last world war. But what is unusual here is the steel being displayed without any sheath of idealism. This was a display of imperial power that was hard to unsee.
Even if the minerals deal were to be saved, the “security” it would offer Ukraine — and Europe — is far from clear. The implication is that Trump wants to take on a new economic colony in the knowledge that Russia would not dare attack it. But is that the case? Russia knows that an attack on any Nato country would risk sparking — in theory — a war with the United States and its allies, a direct confrontation it could not win. But an attack on a country in which the US simply had mining interests would not be the same. The response that such a provocation would trigger has been left entirely uncertain.
To clear up the ambiguity, Britain and France have offered to send troops to Ukraine to secure whatever peace agreement Trump can strike with Putin, and with it America’s new interests. But why would Russia now accept the informal absorption of rump Ukraine into the American economic sphere with its new assets protected by its clients, the British and French? Especially after witnessing that display in the Oval Office yesterday.
The idea of a sustainable peace agreement consequently remains remote, even if the breakdown in relations between Zelensky and Trump can be patched up. Without American support — assuming Europe fails to fill the gap — Ukraine would be forced to sue for peace on Russian terms. But once Trump carves out his stake in Ukraine, the peace negotiations enter a new phase: to the winner the spoils, literally.
You have to wonder what the likes of Elbridge Colby must make of Trump’s handling of events. Colby is one of the most eloquent exponents of American “restraint” in Washington, hired by the President as the policy lead in the Department of Defense. Colby argues that the US has become overstretched by its imperial commitments, and needs to focus less on Europe and more on what he considers the principal threat to America’s global primacy: China’s ambition to retake Taiwan. Colby’s argument is not “isolationist” in any sense, nor civilisational like Steve Bannon’s, who wants the US to form a Christian-Nationalist alliance against globalist China. Colby is arguing for a form of imperial prioritisation which would push for Europe to become more independent. Yet Trump is seeking a minerals deal with Ukraine that would draw him further into Europe — even as he mocks and berates its most embattled leader.
The new President’s defenders would argue that Trump will eventually bully his way to the best of all worlds, extending America’s power and economic dominance at very little cost. Indeed, Ukraine will, in all likelihood, eventually agree to become an American economic protectorate irrespective of the President and his ambitious Vice President. The alternative — national elimination under Putin — is worse. Yet it strikes me that — first — Europe’s voters will not be able to unsee what they have just witnessed. And — second — the United States itself has made a curious bet that it can project its power into Ukraine without any real idea of the force necessary to accompany its new economic interests.
The situation reminds me of the build up to the Suez crisis in 1956, when Britain withdrew its forces from the canal zone in Egypt, while insisting its economic interests remained secure. The Tory MP Enoch Powell warned the then government that any agreement with Egypt would not be “worth the parchment on which it is engrossed” because the remaining British technicians in the canal zone would be hopelessly vulnerable to, and ultimately forced out by, terrorism and harassment. Can we really say that Trump’s potential miners in Ukraine without American military protection would be any different?
But we do not yet know the strength of America’s commitment to Ukraine. For this reason it is worth playing out the scenario in which Zelensky swallows his pride and Russia acquiesces to the partition of Ukraine. In this scenario — under the current terms being pushed by Starmer and Macron — British and French troops would find themselves massing somewhere in Eastern Europe, if not in Ukraine itself, with the stated aim of deterring Russian aggression, based on some vague promise of American air support which might or might not exist. Is this really enough to deter Russia anymore than it was to deter Colonel Nasser in 1956? And what if it isn’t? Are we prepared to go to war with Russia for Ukraine? From Taiwan to the Donbas, ambiguity mixed with menace now reigns.
Stories allow us to live because they turn daily chaos into something hopeful or inspirational; it’s a tale that offers explanation or revelation — or, at the very least, comfort. Yet what is emerging from Donald Trump’s unpredictability looks like a fable that no-one with any self-respect can believe in any longer. Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Volodymyr Zelensky all flew to Washington this week looking for a story they could tell to their expectant nations at home. Two succeeded — for a few hours. But all we will remember is the drama of the failure.
Tom McTague is UnHerd’s Political Editor. He is the author of Between the Waves: The Hidden History of a Very British Revolution 1945-2016, due to be published in September 2025
TomMcTague 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe fig leaf of idealism is removed to reveal the micropenis of naked imperialism. Bully boy gangsters in the oval office working for kleptocratic foreign interests. The blackest day in modern history since 9/11. That old Chinese curse about ‘interesting times’ seems more apposite each passing day.
Even this usually sure-footed author is struggling right now. He’s written articles on the machinations within the Labour party to put a sheen on how Starmer can present himself to the country, based on the kidology from the likes of Morgan McSweeney. We can see through it.
What we’re seeing now is the kid gloves coming off. The limits of diplomacy have been stretched beyond breaking point, but if this is how things are going to be, i welcome it. So much spin and deception has been the undoing of us. Trump and Vance were just telling it as it is.
Of course, the Democrats reaction has been to try to make political capital out of it. They talk of the “shame” that Trump brings to America, but no – shame on them. They still obviously don’t get it. Again, we can see through it.
Zelensky is already backtracking to the media, and i suspect the US will get their mineral rights deal, simply because Zelensky has no alternative apart from being over-run by the Russian army. It was a very harsh lesson for him, but then, he’s used to having European leaders fawning over him so perhaps he thought he was in a stronger position in front of the cameras.
I disagree, I thought it was utter cowardice on Trumps part.
If the Americans don’t want to arm Ukraine then that’s their right, but be open about it. Be honest about the fact the decision you’ve taken will throw 40 million Ukrainians under the yoke of the Kremlin. Don’t choreograph faux outrage and try and pin the outcome of your policy onto Zelensky and the Ukrainians themselves. To me thats morally repugnant.
Zelensky asked one question “what diplomacy?” which is a perfectly acceptable question, seeing as Trump has been boasting he could come up with a peace plan in a day and simultaneously locked Ukraine out of the peace talks with Russia
Come on BB aren’t you getting a little bit too emotional? This is ‘realpolitik’ at its very best, and frankly about time to.
This is an unwinnable war for both sides and a compromise peace is the only answer.
Mr Trump has inherited this mess from the previous cretins, and at least he has the courage to ‘cut the Gordian knot’. Good luck to him!
I don’t disagree a compromise is inevitable, Zelensky has said as much since Trump came to power.
But this wasn’t realpolitik, it was a pathetic spectacle from a showman.
Realpolitik would be working behind the scenes trying to find a compromise both sides can live with, this was about as real life as Love Island
ALL politicians are “showman”, it goes with the job, from Alcibiades to Boris, some are just better than others.*
*I didn’t rate your own, beloved, “Jacinda the Hun” much I must say.
Are some “showmen” a tad more badly dressed than others; or is battle- gear black the new black tie on the horizon?!
Unfortunately yes!
I think the last thing people should be worrying about is what the guy was wearing. If that’s your thing, look at the red carpet awards attire being paraded in the faces of those stupid enough to watch them.
Maybe the issue is we don’t normally get to see realpolitik played out on the open? I have found the last week something of a rollercoaster.
One point – I don’t think Trump is cutting a Gordian knot. He’s trying to make sure the knot is his favourite. Or to be more literal – the US gets the mineral rights and Europe gets to foot the defence bill.
Some sources state that the knot was untied and not cut, so perhaps that is what we are witnessing?
If you are correct I think Europe is only getting its “just deserts”, and frankly not before time.
I have no argument at all with Europe, incl UK, spending more on defence. But that isn’t all that this is about.
I’m rather sceptical on increasing Defence spending.
We already have far too many ‘one stars’* and above in both the Army and Navy.
Recent combat experience has shown that most are utterly useless, and yet exude a level of arrogance that is hard to comprehend. How on earth the Americans put up with us is a complete mystery.**
*Brigadiers in Army terminology.
**I gather we were known as “the Borrowers” by the US forces in Iraq because we were so badly equipped.
Well, one way to stop us being so badly equipped is to increase spending.
Maybe we do have too many one stars. There’s too much management everywhere in the public sector so it wouldn’t surprise me. But if you need to up defence spending, you need to up defence spending.
European Politicians don’t know what Minerals are, let alone what Mineral Right are. Are they similar to Human Rights? 🙂
And Supply Chains are even further from their understanding, as has been shown by their performance during the military operations in Ukraine.
Obama didn’t give a sh!t about Ukraine. Biden didn’t give a sh!t about Ukraine. And Trump doesn’t give a sh!t about Ukraine. Every single one of them were serving their own interests. At least Trump is somewhat honest about it.
He does, since he wants peace. Where is the problem?? That he wants a slice of the investment for the US back???
I’m honestly hoping the faux outrage was just tactics on behalf of Trump to get Zelensky to sign the minerals deal. Horrifically brutal tactics, and morally repugnant, but if it works, it works?
Maybe it is just so disconcerting because we don’t normally get to see it?
Zelensky was acting stupidly, if he wanted to sign only under the premisses he will get guaranties, he should have expressed it before or stay at home.
He’s only disgruntled now because it looks like his grift may be coming to an end as Trump has seen right through him. Takes one to know one.
He has expressed it before, on multiple occasions. Starmer and Macron will also have stated it in their meetings earlier in the week. The US doesn’t want to give those assurances.
No, it’s disconcerting because it is, as you say, morally repugnant. This isn’t diplomacy, it’s a protection-racket. (“Nice country you’ve got here Mr. Zelenskiy. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.”) And what’s even more disconcerting is how completely normalized this sort of carpet-bagging behavior has become. The corporate, transactional mind-set and vocabulary has infected absolutely everything. Looting the wealth of the vulnerable has been redefined as merely sound business practice.
That said, I agree with those who don’t think Ukraine can win this war, and to continue it will result in an even weaker bargaining position for Ukraine than what it currently has, in addition to causing needless civilian casualties. Since the EU cannot and the U.S. will not ante up for Ukraine’s security, it might be time for Ukraine to explore another option: a very scrupulously-maintained neutrality. It would be interesting to see who would find the prospect of a neutral Ukraine more alarming, Russia or the west.
Trump explained in the meeting why Zelensky was not in the meetings with Russia, and you’d have seen it if you watched the entire video.
To paraphrase Trump, Zelensky can’t contain his anger and hatred for Russian leadership. His emotional outbursts aren’t conducive to negotiations.
Just like Trump can’t hide his adoration for and sycophancy toward Putin.
Trump has been very ‘open’ about it. He never minces words. And he’s more than transparent. That’s what so shocking about him. Remember the scene in ‘A Few Good Men’…”you can’t take the truth”.
The only shame the US has earned in the last twenty five years was the completely unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the WMD fantasy that apparently ‘justified’ it. That event was worthy of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler.
Otherwise they have nothing of any consequence to be ashamed about.
That particular US shame lingers like a noxious fart in a lift to this day, given its aftereffects like ISIS and the emboldening of Iran. For God’s sake, it allowed France to assume the moral high ground!
…. maybe watch this speech of Jefferey Sachs… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA9qmOIUYJA
I think the article is actually a pretty good asessment of the situation, especially given he’s pulled that together in quite a short time. Congratulations to Tom and UnHerd.
One aspect I would disagree with is the analogy to Suez. In my understanding it wasn’t the situation on the ground in Egypt that ultimately forced withdrawal, it was US pressure. Which makes it a different situation that won’t apply in Ukraine.
To address one of your points – are you sure that meeting wasn’t just another form of spin? It looked like a set-up to me, with Vance jumping on any slight transgression from Zelensky. He’s now ‘backtracking’ in the same way a bullied child ‘backtracks’ when dragged into the toilets to say sorry to his bully for some supposed transgression.
It may well just be a brutal display of reality, and maybe it was nothing more than what normally goes on behind closed doors to get deals passed, but it was disturbing to watch.
This article completely ignores the fact that we have been paying for the protection and economic development of many countries for decades. Trump and his team have made it clear in several different arenas that they intend to change this. It is a sign of ingratitude when someone is willing to take and take but not give back.
You suggest that European countries have been treated like children. Perhaps it’s because they’ve been acting like them.
Long term who do you think will be more damaged by a change to the status quo? If Europe does become more self sufficient and stops buying American weapons, and if countries have no need to favour a purely transactional US over the likes of China then Americas power and influence will wane considerably. Once that happens Americas debts snd deficits suddenly become a large problem
I have adult children. They still ask for help from time to time, but it’s not continual, not constant. They can stand on their own feet a bit more and a bit better. We still get along for the most part, and I’m still Dad, but I’ve got more time and resources to keep my own house in order.
Good for them, but entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
The fact is the status quo has been mutually beneficial for both parties.
Europe got its defence on the cheap, and in return helped prop up the dollars supremacy and allowed America to run huge deficits and fund a military and projects it couldn’t afford otherwise.
If that falls apart Europe will have to spend and extra few % of GDP on defence, but if they stop backing the yanks as a result then the Americans could find themselves having to massively rein in their spending or face bankruptcy.
Of course, it was a metaphor. We are trying to rein in our spending, exactly. I’m not quite so pessimistic about our chances in this world as you seem to be.
There is no European budget to spend the money. Everyone wants to pay less that everybody else.
How can it be ‘mutually beneficial for both parties’ when both are in such a mess?
The mentality of the recent, and not so recent administrations, both sides of the Atlantic, are in self destruct mode. And Europe is bordering on the Industrial Tipping point that will only hinder political renewal, is it the other way round?
There’s the Population Replacement Agenda and the NET Zero Agenda that are still embedded in UK and EU Political Bubble. Nothing is out of reach for destruction.
The Telegraph has a headline that Rachel from Accounts is thinking about cutting Britain’s mini nuke programme:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/28/reeves-eyes-cuts-to-nuclear-in-spending-review
In the Torygraph and anti-Labour – must be true then!
America is already facing bankruptcy.
Furthermore, Americas’ planetary hegemony is threatened chiefly by internal division, much of which is caused by the dollar’s world-reserve currency status making it unnaturally strong, leading to destruction of US manufacturing. Sure it can run giant deficits to fund social and corporate parasites and import stuff cheaply; how does that help any Americans who aren’t in the FIRE strata?
As for getting defence “on the cheap”, post-WWII most of Europe were vassal states, many of them still occupied by US troops and comprador elites. Who can forget Scholz’ sht-eating grin after their great “defender” blew up the gas pipeline they needed to make their economy competitive?
When Cookies said “Fvck the EU” she wasn’t kidding; that’s exactly what the US did to their EU “partners”, and Europeans better wake up and smell the coffee… and make nice with Russia. Otherwise they can kiss industrial civilisation goodbye.
That’s fair. Trump might actually push these clowns into actual self reliance and ultimately reduce American hegemony. Just like his tariffs might do the same thing. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for feckless European and Canadian leaders to put on their big boy pants.
Not going to happen because Europe is not a country.
Certainly EU, is already in trouble. The liberals are loosing on all ends, the people got enough of Ukraine, war, gender, etc. There is less and less democracy in the EU, VdLeyen and all the other heads of commissions were never elected, elections they do not bring the expected result get canceled, Romania, also.
…remember that the US is largely self sufficient economically, especially in energy. It also controls global liquidity through the USD. Realignment of balanced trade (the aim of the tariff warfare) and end of dangerous Rules Based World Order ambitions, will enable deficit reduction. That makes the US stronger not weaker, and the world a safer place. Diversity is us human’s strength y’know.
The world cannot be a safer place as long as the USA harbours hegemonic ambitions and promotes warfare to achieve that end.
…exactly. Under Trump the US is withdrawing from the global imperial project.
It may just be a case of it not being reported in Europe, but is Japan getting the same grief from the US over their lack of defence spending? Because they’ve been living under the protection of US defence spending as much as Europe has (current actual conflict aside).
If not, then Trump is simply less concerned about Russia than China, and wants to cut spending in Europe to focus on the Pacific, rather than it being about the rights and wrongs of defence budgets.
But yes, Europe should be spending much more on defence. And I mean now, not an extra 0.2% of GDP in 2 years time.
There is a pivot toward Asia, though it does feel like trying to turn an aircraft carrier. I don’t recall reading any articles about Japan being berated. They have been increasing their military spending, but they’re apparently not yet where they need to be.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/09/new-era-of-crisis-prompts-japan-biggest-defense-budget-ever-59b-for-2025/
Japan realised a few years ago that it needed to up military spending due to the rise of China, so it is slightly ahead of the curve compared to Europe. Especially given there’s an actual war in Europe. But it has still being ‘living off’ the US for decades, perhaps even more so than Europe.
Perhaps Trump is just trying to get that aircraft carrier turned round as fast as possible, given the situation has been allowed to stagnate for a long time?
But I also agree with Billy – the US provides the defensive umbrella because it benefits it, or at least it believes/believed it does/did. Britain did the same when it was the global power.
Of course, I’m not saying that we haven’t benefited at all, but we have to get control of the large deficits and enormous debt now. That means cutting back in a lot of areas (and finding innovative ways to increase revenue).
Yes, we all have a lot of debt. Which is weird when you think about it.
Not really, given the three major crises of the 21stC each promoted vast transfers of wealth from the public sector to the private sector. That is why some people say the private sector should fund the changes. But the private sector retorts with the same tired old cliches about employment (while busy replacing people with AI) and trickle down theory (that hasn’t been working for decades) and offshoring work to places with no labour or environmental legislation.
Japan was always constrained by limitations on military spending for defence only. But in recent years it has ignored those constraints and upped its military spending, no doubt prompted by the huge Chinese military spending.
As an American, I am tired of helping countries with their wars. I am tired of us wasting our money on killing. I am tired of the killing. Is it too much to ask that Zelensky, with hat in hand, having shot up many billions of our dollars, to come to the Oval Office showing just a smidgen of gratitude for where he finds himself? Just hold off for a few minutes during the press brief and state your concerns behind closed doors? I guess he thought he was dealing with the former administration…. Not!!! Kudos to President Trump and Vice President Vance. They both had each others’ backs. I am tired of Willy-Nilly. This afternoon our administration’s kahunas were on glorious display for all the world to see. It’s about time………..
So what did Zelensky actually say that deserved Trumps spectacle? What words did he use that implied ingratitude on the part of himself and the Ukrainians?
It’s not what he said, it’s where and when he said it. He knew his audience was the American people. All he had to do was wait until the cameras and the press were gone then he could’ve gone into his tirade. This was the American’s house, the American’s room. The audience was us. Zelensky knew it, the press knew it, Vance knew it, and Trump knew it. Zelensky underestimated US.
What tirade? He asked a question when getting harangued by Vance about not ending the war through diplomacy, despite neither Trump or Vance saying what that implies.
Personally the whole thing looked preordained on the part of the Americans
It started before then. By the time Vance said anything, the conversation was heading in the wrong direction.
Then JD Vance should have stomped out the flames instead of throwing gasoline on the fire. He’s a rabble rouser, both this time and in Munich. We need a diplomat. What a poor choice for VP JD Vance turned out to be.
Apropos of nothing, being appropriately memorable is always important, but escpecially when you’re betting the farm.
It comprises:
Dress: the first thing you are judged on*.
Body language: open, not closed.
Small talk: plan what you’ll say, play nice**.
Knowledge: know your stuff, don’t put your foot in it***.
*respect your host, and the occasion.
**wait your turn, don’t be rude.
***speak to others the way they like to be spoken to.
If you keep you’re head and nail most of the above, you’ll be fine.
If you don’t nail any of it and are speaking to a big cheese, you’re gonna be toast.
Your humiliation often happens slowly and privately, but sometimes quickly and publicly.
When it happens, fix it fast.
You’ve all seen this, done it… and experienced it.
Watch the whole thing, on Forbes.
I did. Zelensky said Putin has broken agreements before and asked what is to stop him doing so again in regards to any that may be signed in the near future. A perfectly valid question undeserving of the pathetic spectacle laid on by Vance and Trump
Perhaps he relapsed into his previous career as a TV Comedian and the ‘joke’ backfired?
He started talking about Putin violating previous agreements and being a dictator. Trump tried to shut him down, but zelensky persisted and then Vance got involved and it degenerated from there. That’s exactly how it started. Zelenskyy is correct in what he said, but it wasn’t the time or place to say it.
Given that he was due to sign a deal soon after that meeting, which presumably contains no guarantee, when would have been the right time to say it (given he’s already said it plenty of times before)?
It’s only going to be a short period of time until Trump will be turning his attention to Canada again, and Trudeau or whoever follows him will be feeling the heat.
Zelensky should not have challenged Vance. That was the beginning …he should have kept his mouth shut.
For the past few weeks, Zee has been rounding up European supporters to push for further investment in his war, saying they can all go at it together without US backing.
Actually, since WWII, America’s friends and allies have followed it into multiple military misadventures of America’s own making, from Vietnam to Iraq. When since then, exactly, has a European power started a war from which the US had to save it? I agree with you that America has wasted a lot of money on killing, but none of that was at Europe’s behest. As a New Zealander, I am grateful for the American security umbrella in the Pacific. I believe my country needs to do much more to make a credible contribution to that. But since the mid twentieth century, more New Zealanders and Australians have died in wars at America’s behest than vice versa.
Whilst true, that’s what Trump wants to being to an end. He should be supported in that quest, not vilified (i don’t mean you did that).
What we saw on display at the White House is the unraveling of the failed “regime change” foreign policy of the Obama/Biden regime. Trump’s point could hardly be more obvious: Saddled with 33Trillion dollars in debt (and growing), it’s time the US got its own affairs in order, rather than trying to run the affairs of other countries, no less the most corrupt country in the world.
Was the US ‘helping’ in Iraq? Helping (not fleeing) in Vietnam? Did the US ‘help’ the UK to retrieve our territory in the Falklands after it was invaded by the tyrants of Argentina (a US client, incidentally)? Which wars, aside from the Suez debacle, were started by any US ally in Europe after WWII?
I admire and respect the US, understand that as a very great power, it achieved and maintains that status by pursuing its own interests and would far prefer to live in a US dominated world than a Chinese one but this rose tinted view of your country’s post-war history really does grate. I also understand America’s decision to pivot to Asia-Pacific and away from Europe and agree with its call for European countries to rebuild our defence capacities and to become a true partner not a set of client states. Of course the US only wants that to happen in terms manageable by itself, with Europe continuing to buy American arms, with some lingering US military presence here and no real European strategic autonomy. To do otherwise would be to create and dominate not a set of allies but to recreate a geopolitical rival, something I don’t think anyone sane on either side of the Atlantic wants.
USA gave extensive intelligence, logistical, training, and material support to the UK during the Falkland War.
It’s not a matter of helping out of the goodness of their hearts.The US committed to defense of Ukraine years ago in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. Specifically, the committed to protect them from Russia.
Zelensky’s question whether Putin could be trusted with this deal, to me, has an undercurrent of, why should we trust you, Americans, to protect us in this new deal, when you’ve made it clear you don’t feel any commitment to the old promises you made?
Perhaps that’s what set of Trump and Vance, they know very well that they are not trustworthy and will do what suits them at the time, and resent Zelensky for pointing it out in public.
I think they are unwise to believe that American power alone is enough to secure the outcomes they want, or even American money. They do need to be able to negotiate, and if no one believes the commitments they make are reliable, that will become a problem for them.
Yawn. They were nt Ukraine’s weapons. Ukraine didn’t have the codes.
Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the realpolitik on display here, bullying braggadocio and childish displays of faux-pique, as demonstrated by Messrs. Trump and Vance, aren’t much of a ‘display of kahunas’ in my book. I can understand why some people find some of the politics here, and the wholesale questioning of shibboleths, refreshing. What I can’t understand is why Trump’s linguistic incoherence and his childish tantrums seem to play to them as admirable traits.
Politicians tell stories because people like McTague want to be told stories. He feels reassured when leaders like Obama and Biden tell stories in public about democratic ideals and fighting authoritarians. Meanwhile, Obama gets caught on a hot mic – when he didn’t think anyone could hear – asking that Putin to wait until after the 2012 election to invade Crimea. Obama didn’t lift a finger to help Ukraine – before or after the invasion. It was Trump who sent missiles to Ukraine and it was Trump who repeatedly warned Europe about its dependence on Russia and failure to invest in defence. Biden gets elected and talks tough about democracy and Ukraine’s right to join NATO, never explicitly ruling it out. Thats when Putin invades. The heroic Ukrainians fight back. A peace deal was possible early on, but Biden prefers a proxy war and three years later – and millions of casualties on both sides – and the war rages on.
I won’t defend Trump’s rhetoric. He says stupid stuff all the time and needs to STFU. His language causes all sorts of noise and can destabilize things in a real way. But I saw the press conference and Zelenskyy needs to STFU too. He needed to smile and nod at that press conference. Nothing more.
Trump is an immensely flawed politician, but he’s absolutely necessary. The option is leaders like Biden or Harris – and all the feckless leaders in Europe – who talk a big game about democratic norms while completely ignoring the will of voters, while driving their countries into economic and social collapse.
Merz in Germany talked a big game about immigration and implementing reforms, but within 24 hours of being elected was already walking back his promises. I’m sure McTague appreciates the stories told by leader after leader in Britain, but other people are fed with stories and empty promises. They want things done. Trump may be distasteful. He may be obnoxious. But he gets stuff done.
Well said. I just wish the people around Donald Trump would soften his weak impulses.
JD Vance doesn’t. He is just like most politicians: big hat and no cattle, all mouth and trousers. He has no experience getting things done but that doesn’t stop him from acting the arrogant bully.
Elon Musk doesn’t. He is at the opposite extreme of JD Vance, getting too much done. He’s a bull in a china shop, knocking over things that need more delicate treatment.
Vance is a slimy b***ard with no beliefs or principles. Much like Starmer (albeit on the opposite side of the aisle) he’ll say whatever snd cosy up to whoever increases his career prospects.
It was only a few short years ago he was calling Trump a n**i when he believed it was politically convenient to do so, now he’s acting as his his best mate and attack dog
Good points. Lawyers and venture capitalists can be that way. Brilliant, but in a bad way.
This should have occurred behind closed doors. Clearly, Zelinsky does not understand Trump’s strategy, and there was a language problem. But the optics were terrible: JD Vance humiliating the elected leader of a free country struggling under aggression. Trump was the host. It was his responsibility to avoid this destructive spectacle.
Trump probably did it deliberately – to look powerful to his fans and to have a handy excuse for handing Ukraine over to Putin.
The alternatives were probably much worse, like continuing with the armed conflict. Though I suppose hurty words are destructive.
“…humiliating the elected leader of a free country..”? I respectfully suggest you check the reality of your statement.
“…but the optics [yesterday’s Oval Office debacle]were terrible: JD Vance humiliating the elected leader of a free country struggling + under aggression.” Zelenskyy’s neither President*, elected nor is Ukraine a free country! The aggression was provoked.
* Z decided not to hold elections after his 5 year term expired. He continued under marshal law in direct contravention of the Ukraine constitution. In this and many other ways he is a dictator.
+ Watch the full 50 mins. The entire context better
situates the circumstances.
Yet politicians are different. They tell stories not so much to live, but to survive. Nice observation. What if there’s a story behind the story? Such as, a minerals deal, odd as it seems, gives Trump a rationale to give Ukraine more of an even shot at a good peace deal?
Zelensky is tired, exhausted, and has been betrayed by the international order who promised him securities they couldn’t give, support they couldn’t afford, and victory that he could never achieve. Now he is having the carpet pulled out from under him by a belligerent American leader who doesn’t see protecting Europe as a key strategic imperative for America. It must be absolutely soul destroying, to have fought so hard, to have sacrificed so much, and to know how little control he has over how this all ends. I’m sure he feels betrayed and as a human being, he really has my sympathy.
But… he really messed up here. He came to Washington to sign the deal and smile for the cameras. As bad as he might think it is, it’s the best deal he could have hoped for for the Ukraine. Taking the US Vice President to task in front of the media in the Oval Office was a grave error, as was claiming a ceasefire with Putin is worthless, when he needs to arrange a peace deal.
Maybe it was a strategic gamble, to try and embarrass the US into further support; if it was that he doesn’t know Trump or Vance very well and it was a catastrophic own goal. I suspect however that it was just human fallibility, that his anger with the situation got the better of him when he heard the inane platitudes coming from JD Vance that pave the way for diplomacy. It was a deeply undignified altercation for all, and I hope it hasn’t done lasting damage to Ukraine’s chances of a lasting peace.
You don’t argue with a man “who has thirty Legions at his back”.
The Arabs put it another way. They prefer the strong horse to the weak horse.
Very good comment. Zelensky has been betrayed. His anger is righteous and legitimate. He’s been used in a proxy war. This should have been settled two weeks after Putin started it and failed to achieve his immediate objectives.
Precisely! And who do you blame for that particular piece of inertia?
Biden
Thank you.
The ‘pardoner’ Biden has a lot to answer for, still one mustn’t “mock the afflicted” as we used to say.
I’m feeling sort of “afflicted” myself, these days.
You think perhaps Zelensky threaten to reveal all about the Biden family’s dealings in Ukraine?
Give the bumbling idiot Boris Johnson and small man syndrome Macron their due too.
And his sidekick Boris
I believe Boris may have had a hand in the refusal to end it before it had really begun.
No, Biden didn’t know what time of day it was. It was the sinister war-mongering clique of Obama holdovers who ran the show from the shadows.
The obvious second opportunity would have been after the first and highly successful summer offensive, in which they managed to retake large swathes of Ukraine from Russia.
Either moment would have been a moment of maximal Ukrainian strength from which to negotiate.
Zelenskyy was stoned on coke during that meeting. He and hus pals have looted crazy amounts of money. Please save the sympathy.
Idiot!
Except that Zelensky refused to “settle”. And has refused any compromise since. A just and lasting peace. Who doesn’t think that’s a great thing? But, who’s going to provide it? How?
Proxy war? Who is Russia’s proxy?
Did he take Vance to task? In the footage I saw Zelensky hardly got a word in as Trump shouted over him. Was there more?
Did you watch the full discussion or just the media crafted tidbits…much better context if you watch the full 40 minutes..Zeiensky took the opening shot after 30 minutes of constructive dialogue
It was actually about 40 minutes. On the main clip on YouTube the best point to watch where the argument actually starts is about 39m50s in, when Vance adds to Trump’s answer by explaining that they want to try diplomacy but that it won’t work if the US goes around calling Putin names all the time. Then Zelensky interjects to challenge and criticise Vance and the argument begins.
He also call Vance a b***h in Russian. Under his breath but clearly audible
In Russian? I am not in a position to verify, but you can tell a lot by the language a man swears in. He’s been making a point of speaking Ukrainian since the beginning of the conflict.
The word is the same in Ukrainian and Russian, suka
Vance must be a hyper sensitive type if that is all it takes to set him off.
Zelenskiy must be a hyper sensitive type if that is all it takes to set him off.
Has a lot more reason to be on edge though.
Yes, having been coached by democrats to put on a staged ambush of President Trump would make someone nervous
On the contrary, it was Vance and Trump who ambushed Zelensky.
Vance deliberately triggered Trump.
Dennis, Vance was making a constructive comment about diplomacy. Zelenskyy, high on coke, took that as his cue to start his performance. He is on audio calling Vance a b***h in Ukrainian.
What a load of rubbish.
It seemed like Zlensky wanted to explain to Vance that he’s made many agreements with Russia in the past and they’ve all been broken. Since English isn’t his first language it’s hard for him to be subtle and nuanced. Vance responded defensively and judgementally like a critical parent. Anytime in an argument someone points their index finger they’re coming from their critical parent attitude. Both Trump and Vance did that, Zelensky didn’t he stayed in his adult mode.That was a hopeless transactional analysis dynamic. It was two bullies against one victim. Very painful to watch.
So I only watched the ‘highlights’ to start with, but have now watched the video starting several minutes before it went downhill (including an interesting section on free speech and Starmer).
I don’t get what you think Zelensky’s opening shot is? All he says is that Russia has broken ceasefires before and questions what diplomacy will prevent that. That’s it, and it’s a perfectly fair point. Then Vance kicks off by saying Z has been disrespectful and not thanked them in that meeting. Maybe Vance is frustrated due to previous discussions, but that’s on him.
It’s pretty obvious that Vance is already in campaign mode. He already admitted months ago he doesn’t care about Ukraine (or therefore the thousands being killed and maimed on both sides). He’s playing to the MAGA faithful, knows the psychology well, and deliberately provoked an argument.
“In campaign mode”. Do you know anything about American politics? On your other point, who is trying to end the slaughter? It isn’t Putin nor Zalenskyy. Europe appears to want a fight to the end to smother Russia’s territorial ambitions while it’s still possible.
I’m no expert, but I know enough to see that Vance is intelligent, ambitious and clearly has his eye on the presidency already, and I regret to say it looks like he has learnt his trade well.
What are you trying to say about “my other point”?
Exactly.
Exactly. Vance was super patronizing for no reason except that’s what he likes to do the same way he lectured Europe at the EU conference. He’ a really nasty piece of work.
Zelensky did not take the opening shot. It was Vance, who started literally barking at him as a loyal shepherd dog. Protocol-wise, he was not even supposed to interfere.
It was very courageous of Zelensky to engage with the pack without an interpreter. This may have been equally unwise, as interpreting would have attenuated the brutality and, importantly, would have avoided falling into the trap. As it was a trap, an ambush if you wish, a carefully orchestrated ‘mise à mort’ of someone whom Trump has been hating his guts for many years.
From the very start when fisrt Trump, then his pack, attacked Zelensky on the ground of his clothing. Apparently Musk enjoys a derogation at the White House.
The script was partly the ‘art of the deal’, partly the ‘apprentice’, and essentially the ‘godfather’.
If this meeting will go down in history, it will be one of the most disgraceful pages for the White House.
What else could have been expected of Trump, whose ties with Russia date back to the 1987 and who has been several times rescued financially by the ‘red mafia’ and has been keeping in touch with the Kremlin chief.
You are swallowing the swill the left wing is pouring into the trough.
You haven’t watched the video, obviously.
Well said.
Yes. See the full clip.And then trhere vwas more before that.
When I saw that “curated” excerpt I was pissed at Trump. When I saw the entire exchange I am outraged at Zelenskyy and whomever hewas performing for.
Much more.
Watch the whole exchange, which is about 50 minutes.
It was not JD Vance offering inane platitudes, but rather NATO leadership during the Biden years. And Zelensky’s mistake was believing those platitudes.
They went like this: “Yes, Ukraine attempting to join NATO will certainly lead to open war with Russia. But don’t worry. We will back you, you’ll come out victorious. We even foresee bringing down Putin’s government.”
What Zelensky didn’t understand was that for the people feeding him this line, whether or not the war was won was secondary. The main purpose of the war was to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers’ money using up weapons stocks. Because all that spent money is profit for the companies that produce the weaponry.
So Zelensky KNEW open war was inevitable unless he dropped the plan to join NATO, but he didn’t drop the plan. He was willing to risk hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention World War III, based on what any smart observer would have seen as a dubious offer.
It was anything but wise statesmanship.
US support did not and now cannot win the war. The only sane western action is to negotiate peace.
Zelensky comes to the White House purportedly to sign an agreement, but ends by using the meeting to try to embarass US leadership into changing its decision to forge a deal with Russia. He thinks the presence of rolling cameras will force Trump and Vance to alter their clearly stated intentions.
Another example of poor statesmanship.
Excellent comment, I’d agree with all of that.
But surely the US Military-Industrial Complex is the single most important part of the US economy and MUST be pampered accordingly?
After all war ‘hot or cold’ is good for jobs and business, and possibly even more important than the wretched Wall St Banks themselves.
Zelensky’s problem is that he lack the necessary Machiavellian cunning for such a job. Being a professional comedian doesn’t really “cut the mustard”!
.
Maybe it once was.Now it’s Amazon and company.
And it was Zelensky who mooted fhe minerals deal in september 2024 at a Mar a Lago meeting with Trump. Great deal going on beneath the surface of this exchange.
The fact that a huge business deal has become wrapped up in the peace talks and that they’re apparently conditional upon its signing leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. It’s basically suggesting this whole affair was about money, not the well-being of the people of Ukraine.
“The main purpose of the war was to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers’ money using up weapons stocks. Because all that spent money is profit for the companies that produce the weaponry.”
Yes, that is the nub of it.
It was Trump who asked that the exchange be videoed and for the cameras to keep rolling
Excellent comment, with which I fully concur, except maybe the Vance comments.
What nobody seems to get (or very few do) is that the USA is in all sorts of trouble because of its unsustainable debt. This, of course, is also true here in the UK, & throughout most western countries. This is the reality driving Trump’s foreign policy.
The real villain (apart from Putin) is of course Biden, or more likely the shadowy forces pulling his strings, whose motives do not include the well-being of western democracies. His glib support for Ukraine was all a fantasy, only surpassed by Starmer’s bluster about sending troops to defend Ukraine.
Yes, as Mark Steyn recently put it .. America is ‘broke, broke, brokedy broke!”
Although more public, this debacle conforms to the usual pattern. Waging a proxy war on behalf of the Americans has always been a thankless task and usually ends in tears.
Since 1945 America has had a tendency to start by being entirely supportive and in fact being even more hawkish than the local leader. Any attempt by the latter to come to a pragmatic agreement is squashed and opportunities for sensible de escalation are ignored. Then, as the war becomes unpopular, America loses patience and decides to quit. The local leader is bullied into agreement often by extreme threats.
One can see this pattern in Korea – where Rees was threatened with a coup for opposing peace – Vietnam – where Diem was killed for premature reasonableness only for Thieu to be forced a few years later into acquiescing in defeat after a “decent interval” – or Afghanistan.
The moral is that promises from American politicians to persevere should not be trusted and advantage taken of any early success to cut a deal. Zelensky would have been well advised to take the advice of General Mills in 2023 and not listen to the siren voices of the US hawks and their allies like Boris.
America does not have the mindset to wage limited wars. Instead it lurches from initial over enthusiasm to “bug out”, the locals pay the price and Washington never learns the lesson – limited and proxy wars between nuclear powers require less moralising and more pragmatism.
Let’s not forget the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, all the native Americans who allied with the expanding US colonials to battle their traditional enemies… only to see their own lands taken once they’d been weakened fighting their fellow indigenes.
As Kissinger quipped: To be America’s enemy is dangerous, to be her ally is fatal
But I disagree that “Washington never learns the lesson”- the lesson is that these wars benefit the US MIC and financiers who lend to pay for it all, and US politicians will walk away unscathed (and richer).
The EU had their hands on stopping the deal going through, they used a vain man to scupper the Trump ceasefire.
Perhaps the man from DRAX might be able to help?
Well-analyzed and well-written. As an American, I don’t follow European politics closely, but from what I can glean, the real villains in this drama are the American three-letter agencies with their constant meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, overthrowing an elected government in Ukraine and installing Zelensky as puppet. Using Ukrainian and Russian men as fodder for their friends’ and buddies’ weapons manufacturers, it is – at least to my eye – they who bear responsibility.
I feel deep sympathy for Zelensky. American taxpayers have paid with their treasure and have no more stomach for it all, but Ukraine and Russia have paid with their blood. If there were justice in the world … well, I’ll let it drop there.
The US did NOT overthrow the government – it was a popular revolution because the the president suddenly lurched East against all his previous positions which got him elected. Zelenski then won not one but two fair democratic elections and was not ‘installed’.
It is OK to revolt against an elected Government which changes its policies afterwards?
If that is so when do we march on Downing Street?
Nonsense, did you hear about Victoria Noland, sent by Obama and her activities. If not you should try..
The US absolutely instigated the “Revolution of Dignity” (Maidan Coup) after Putin made Yuschenko a better deal than the EU were offering.
Cookies Nuland even boasted on videotape about the $5B spent to secure the “democratic institutions” that brought it about.
Check with USAID; hopefully they’ll have kept the receipts
So it’s perfectly acceptable for a politician to be elected promising one thing then doing the complete opposite?
Thanks God, there are still some sound minds over here.
Otherwise, 2 years ago, an UnHerd discussion with Douglas Murray was entitled The gullible Right has fallen for Putin. Well, you can tell that.
I hope that the commentators will live long enough to see how wrong they were.
They may see it, but they will never admit it!
Actually, it was “our guy Yats” and Turchynov who were installed as puppets after the coup. After them came the Chocolate King Poroshenko, and, once his countrymen tired of his corruption as well, was democratically beaten fair-and-square by the NeoNazi Azov-sponsoring Oligarch Kolomoiskiy’s puppet Zelenskiy.
… who had campaigned on restoring the rights of the Easterners “who cares what language Ukrainians speak?” – but was told in no uncertain terms by the Pravy Sektor that if he “betrayed” the revolution – ie, made peace with the East – he’d be strung up from a tree in Khreshchatyk boulevard.
After this he imprisoned Medvedchuk – leader of the next largest political party in Ukraine – for being “too pro Russian” (this was well before the 2022 invasion) closed down radio stations of opposition parties, and then abrogating the Budapest Memorandum by lobbying to join NATO.
I’d have some pity for the guy if he hadn’t listened to BoJo in April 2022 to abort the peace deal that was all but finalised with Putin, leading to hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen to lose their lives or limbs fighting an utterly doomed war that will see Ukraine in a far worse position.
Shoulda listened to Mearsheimer…
It is not because the White House resident has swallowed the Kremlin rhetorics, word-to-word, that you should feel obliged to repeat it.
Zelensky’s ‘installation’ is a beaten trail of Moscow’s propoganda. It is NOT true. Zelensky has really won the hearts and minds of his countrymen (while being a native Russian-speaker). And to the comment by D.T. that he used to be ‘a modestly successful comedian’, I should argue that he was hugely popular – certainly more that a certain R. Reagan was at the time he was elected.
By the way, Reagan, who I personally feel very thankful to, must be turning in his grave. So is Chuchill, who would not believe that the majority of commentators are his compatriots.
Who all enjoy freedom but tend to side with dictators – elsewhere.
The Churchill who agreed with Poland being in Stalin’s “sphere of influence”? That Churchill? Or a different one?
Points taken.
Also I like to see someone who can criticize Trump without being a deranged d*chebag about it.
He’s just cross his grift is ending now Biden has gone.
You may well be right. But I suspect that no matter what Zelensky had said or done (even to the point of groveling) Batman and Robin would have found some other pretext to humiliate him and kick him out. They would prefer someone easier to deal with, especially someone whom they do not consider to have sleighted Batman during a previous regime)
“The situation reminds me of the build up to the Suez crisis in 1956”
Really Mr McTague? You can’t be that old!
That struck me too. He’s using second-hand history and presenting it as personal experience.
Like Maslow’s Hammer, when you have spent your life writing about British policy: 1950-1980, every problem looks like the Suez Crisis.
Looks like we’ve upset the McTague fan club!
Fact: Zelensky is the one who originally floated the mineral deal last Summer through US Senator Lindsey Graham. So the Trump admin was simply going with what Zelensky had previously suggested.
Fact: The European leaders who went to Washington before Zelensky were on board with the deal, hoping to keep the US as a military backstop, because without the US their plans, including things like current French and German control of Ukraine ports and mines would be defeated.
Fact: Trump has said he wants peace all along, but it seems clear that European leaders want to continue the war where there is no hope of victory but only continual losses for Ukraine and so does Zelensky.
Fact: Zelensky wanted to use the mineral deal for US security guarantees (In other words the US commit to either continue or enter the war), and Trump rejected that all along and wanted it to pay back the 350+ billion that the us has given for military and civil sustainment of Ukraine. Zelensky was already furious about this.
Fact: Trump didn’t even want to meet with Zelensky because he was not on board with the Trump plan, but Macron in his meeting with Trump had given Trump assurances that Zelensky would agree.
Fact: Ukraine is a police state with many who opposed Zelensky either dead or in jail. It’s simply not been safe to disagree, and until recently 90% of Ukraine media propaganda has been funded by USAID.
Fact: The number of dead Ukrainian solders in this conflict has been way under reported by Ukraine.
I will only note that, rightly or wrongly, prefacing a series of contentious claims with the word “Fact:” only serves to undermine the credibility of what is claimed, as it is a classic propagandistic trope.
You saying “Fact” before each (in my view often incorrect) statement doesn’t make it one I’m afraid. The fact you have to state “Fact” before each one implies you don’t really believe them either
If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend Marco Rubio’s interview on CNN with Kaiylin Collins. Rubio explains the situation very clearly (he is a great asset to the Americans, I must say).
https://youtu.be/P4MzGljlpr8?si=VGHDzLn3kqUvMOSB
So according to the opening of that, the US believes it has offered a de facto security guarantee, as the deal will result in an economic interest in Ukraine.
Presumably, Zelensky doesn’t believe that that is enough to deter Putin and so won’t sign.
Both positions are valid.
A bit of an aside, but yesterday as a display of raw geopolitical power, rather shoots the fox of the delusional nature of the entire “soft power” narrative that has done the rounds in British political and diplomatic circles for decades on end, does it not? In which case, can we finally stop sending money to countries like India and China? After all, as it’s “soft power” those guys are so interested in projecting, sending actual money shouldn’t be at all necessary – just sending solidarity cards instead, preferably electronic, should do just fine.
You continue to spout this spiel about sending money to India. Sorry, you are mis-informed. What is sent is as part of the Deep State strategy to sponsor anti national actors. NGOs and despicable activists trying to splinter our society.
We would be relieved if the UK stopped sponsoring transgender clinics, minority extremists and a whole lot of gobbledygook causes.
Not giving admissions to all and sundry students who irritate their parents endlessly to study in the UK despite having poor marks- only as UK universities are competing to give undeserving students admissions. And then further torturing their families by demanding to stay on in the UK, just because the Government there allows them to work.
We would also be thrilled if the UK did not send desperate trade delegations as the one under Jonathan Reynolds now- merely holding up traffic and causing infructuous expenditure – after pleading for trade concessions.
Firstly let’s be clear – that was a premeditated ambush, designed to humiliate with low blows, deliberate goading and insults by two puerile narcissist gangsters. We had the guy who didn’t run when his life at serious risk sat next to the draft Dodger, convicted felon who’s currently trying to suppress the Epstein files. That’s the picture for History. Pretty clear where the character was in that room. The Trump/Vance bully boys strategy is to help Putin back up off the mat. Stop looking for some other clever underpinning strategy. There’s none. The FSB can’t believe their luck and Putin played Trump like a fiddle. And we all know he and Vance wouldn’t speak to Putin like that in front of cameras. Cowards the pair of them.
US has helped Ukraine because it’s massively in it’s strategic interest to ensure western values persist round the Globe and that the Russia-China axis weakened by having one of it’s partners play for it’s aggression. The sums it’s given are less than 1% of it’s GDP and no US lives lost. Europe has given more. A Minerals deal was there to be had too but they wanted it for virtually nothing. Just an airpower back-up was all that US needed to offer. A ceasefire would have happened, Trump claims his peacemaker Crown and even though Putin then given space to re-set and re-arm Ukraine is protected whilst Europe also gains time to increase it’s own capability. Total failure of realpolitik on Trump’s part.
Nonetheless Author is correct that sometimes it’s better the veil fully drawn back so we see things for what they are. Europe must be smart, it is only 600 days to the mid-terms, but it’s clear US leadership currently in thrall to Autocrats. If Churchill once stretched his hand out to the New World for help we must do the same for Ukraine with new vigour. And if Europe can rebalance it’s dependence on US no bad thing for us and another major Trump strategic error – although increasingly it’s not errors, it’s deliberate strategy help to similar Mobsters who then return the favour.
Problem: Europe is not a country. It is not even a federation. Watch how powerless these unelected people will be when people don’t want to pay.
“US has helped Ukraine because it’s massively in it’s strategic interest to ensure western values persist round the Globe and that the Russia-China axis weakened by having one of it’s partners play for it’s aggression”
The American ruling class acted in what they perceived to be their own best interests in Ukraine, starting in 2014 if not before.
But surely you don’t believe that the Russia-China axis has been weakened by this war.
If the aim was to “ensure western values persist round the globe”, policy would have encouraged Russian cultural and economic integration with Europe.
As much as America fears Russia-China, I suspect it fears Russia-Europe more.
A united Europe, awakened from its postwar slumber, with Russian natural resources at its disposal, would be a true superpower.
I expect, when you say a united Europe, it would be like the EU, as it was, recently, with Germany in control, and taking most financial advantage of the opportunities. And the UK, either on the sidelines, or uncomfortably not.
I’m not saying it would be a good thing.
The British ruling class acted in their own interests for centuries to prevent a single power from dominating the continent, but they probably did the world a favour.
Napoleon, Bismarck and Hitler would have unified Europe, if we’d let them.
Rome unified much of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, besides completely dominating the Mediterranean, (which rather modestly they called “Mare Nostrum”), much to our benefit.
One could also argue that Europe would be a far better place if Napoleon had won. For a start there would not have been a Bismarck or a Hitler.
They couldn’t handle Scotland or Ireland. Of course, Scotland then was really Ireland anyway.
Nonsense!
If there had been gold or silver in the Grampians or Mourne Mts, as there was in the Carpathians they would have rolled both places over in a ‘jiffy’.
The Romans mined out British silver anyway.
Exactly!
They were no slouches when it came to ‘cost benefit analysis’.
If Napoleon had won …. ‘there would not have been a Bismarck or a Hitler’?
That’s a bit of a stretch. If Napoleon had won, we could easily have had the EU, with the French in control, instead of the Germans, even earlier! And metrication! And the whole of North America would have spoken French! (like Quebec?); and maybe Australasia. 🙂
When faced with a similar situation the Portuguese authorities withdrew to Brazil.
We could probably have done the same in North America with any luck.
You forget the EU was always a French project, designed to milk the German war guilt.
One of the most puerile comments I’ve ever seen on UnHerd.
“If Churchill once stretched his hand out to the New World for help”.
Don’t you mean grovelled on all fours like the miserable Helot he was? And thus committed us to a completely unaffordable war to satisfy his own vanity?
We should have learnt by now to be wary of such charlatans, but rather obviously haven’t.
Poor old Zelensky. He must rue the day he stopped dubbing Paddington films and embarked on a career in politics. American clowns to the left, E.U. jokers to the right, and there he is stuck in the middle, on his own.
Perhaps he should resign and go off into the sunset clutching his multi-million dollar bank account?
You make Volodymyr Zelensky sound like an Ashraf Ghani, the president of Afghanistan who was installed by the US and fled before the Taliban took over in 2021. Whatever you may think of him, Volodymyr Zelensky is a better man that that.
Agreed. Zelensky is a good man. His should act as a cautionary tale for any other good men contemplating a career in politics!
A likely explanation is that Trump and Vance had staged this deliberately from the beginning. Trump realised that he could not quite bring off what he wanted, which is to look like a great peacemaker while at the same time handing Ukraine over to Putin as a gift-wrapped package. So he engineers this bust-up on camera. He can then give Putin everything he wants quite openly, and blame Zelensky for the outcome because he wantonly refused Trump’s fantastic offer that would have made everything so much better. His fanboys will believe it. Meanwhile it is great reality TV that his fanboys will love, which is he main skill, after all,
This is plausible, especially considering Trump’s background.
Eric Weinstein is fond of the term “kayfabe”
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11783
McTague is a depraved warmongering moron. He is simply evil incarnate.
Steady on Branagan!
I’m sure he means well even if he is a tad misguided.
America has always put America first. Or rather, the American government has always put certain American interests first – ahead of foreign interests, understandably, but also ahead of the interests of the vast majority of Americans **.
Who now believes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were waged to spread freedom and democracy. Who believes taxpayers’ money was well spent, and that the American lives lost were worthwhile sacrifices?
Trump is blunt, but not honest. He speaks truths to foreign leaders that his predecessors left unsaid. He leaves America-flattering fictions intact.
Did America intervene in WW1 and WW2 out of pure benevolence, to defend the mother continent against tyranny? Ordinary Americans thought so, and their sacrifices were noble, but the ruling class was more clearheaded. In the European crisis, they saw opportunity.
Ongoing military engagement in Europe and Japan served two key American objectives. Firstly the obvious one, proudly spoken: it kept Communist powers from dominating Eurasia – a far larger and more resource-rich landmass than America. The second aim was to prevent Britain, France, Germany and Japan from rising again as great powers. This is why American bases are still here, three decades after the end of the Cold War.
So It’s true that Europeans, especially on the continent, were freeloading under the US defence umbrella. It’s also true that the arrangement persisted for so long because it suited the American ruling class. The new ruling cartel seems to have formed a different view of the costs and benefits.
** It remains to be seen how honest Trump is about improving the lives of ordinary Americans, but it seems like a project he might pursue if only to satisfy his own ego. If he can make life better for the American masses while still increasing the wealth and power of his friends, I think he’ll do it.
I give Trump the benefit of the doubt, if only for his successful first term, when continually under attack by the Administrative State, with few allies to help.
I have also seen how this freeloading has allowed the European Establishment, the supporters of the European Union, become detached from the European Wealth Creators, the Industrialists, as well as the Voters, over decades!
It’s reached a point when Recovery, when a change of policy becomes obvious, might require more than a change in policy.
It’s not only fixing the potholes in our roads that is needed. It takes decades to rebuild Reliable Power Generating Capacity, Mineral Supply Chains: even increased milk production requires years to increase the population of good quality cows. We are leaking money like it was free, and people can’t see the connection between wealth creation and luxuries, or even food on the table.
For the Delusional, the future is going to be a revelation. 🙂
It would very refreshing indeed if British politicians ALWAYS put Britain first.
Sadly most are just vacuous poseurs, and would ‘sell us down the river’ at the first available opportunity* in order to sate their vanity.
*For example the Net-Zero charade.
First of all, I agree….but there is a huge difference in ‘judgement’ today between young and old. There are too many old people (i.e, not contributing to society) because of the success of the NHS. The young blame the old for the state of Britain today – not the governments but the old. They soften the rhetoric by using the word ‘boomers’ but it is the old who have caused everything. The ‘boomers’ were selfish. The ‘boomers’ wanted an easy life with food packed in plastic. The ‘boomers’ have controlled the housing market.
Add to this the view of history. Britain entered many wars so that the rich could get richer. Churchill was a dictator-in-waiting from rich family. After WW2 there was collective guilt in Europe about the Jews and the ‘boomers’ still carry that guilt around with them. But for the young, who don’t carry this guilt, the good guys are the Palestinians. A couple of the old brigade, like Lineker, are trying to see the young version but most do not see it.
Apparently, 70% of contributors to UnHerd are aged 55 and over. So UnHerd carries a lot of experience; if you are young you see this appear as ‘biased boomers’.
So politicians are trying to be young and thinking of the future not the past – maybe. NetZero is crap but their advisers – the hangers-on in Whitehall – are whispering in their ears and they are listening. Snuggling up to Europe is another young thing. Brexit came from the ‘boomers’ because the young couldn’t be bothered to vote.
That’s a good post, but you can substitute ‘America’ in your first paragraph for just about any other state today and throughout history.
Agreed
Basically, Trump doesn’t want to run the country via the Brenton Woods and NGOs industrial complex – he wants to do it straight, simple and obvious, because these Brenton Woods and NGO institutions in recently only exists to benefits someone else, not the normal people and the nations.
I remember when the Ukraine war first started. There is a lot of “solidarity” like never before. From telethons to concerts, and even Ukrainian flags are painted during Bundesliga and EPL matches, that even some viewers in Vietnam are annoyed and thought that they’re watching “Ukrainian Premier League” instead. Journalists even semi-explicitly displayed “Ukrainian supermacy” compared to Iraqis, Middle Easterners like if the latter doesn’t deserve that same level of support.
A few years later, we see the actual late stage symptoms of our actions. People just wants to end the war. They don’t care if that benefits Putin or not. But if war ends, everything would return to normal in people’s mind. So they choose “populists” and “far-right” parties, because they explicitly wants to end the war and end the diplomatic blockage with the Russians. Even if that’s mean we have to go beyond what is considered (by the media) “acceptable” to do – that is, think outside the box. Because we had spent too much money for nothing. But the prices just keep going up.
I remember someone ccommented on a Facebook post, saying something like that, when we see the problems, we tend to suggest “vague” solutions (such as “democracy”), while those that prefer to find into the roots of the case are often sidelined or threatened to death, because it affected our own interests. Which is obviously true in the Trump – Ukraine saga right now.
The detail of the argument is less important than the power play playing out.
It is clear that Trump wants the Ukrainian war to stop – part of his frequently stated position that America should not be burning money on distant never-ending conflicts.
He’s intent on using America’s super-power leverage to make that happen, in a similar way to the way he is using American super-power to change international relations to America’s advantage. He doesn’t buy the ‘peers and colleagues’ view where other countries try to set the rules, and the US pays the bill. The US is the dominant power, and he will use to put America’s own interests first.
To ‘solve’ the war he has to look at the reality – which is Russia is grinding into Ukraine an inch at a time and holds the upper hand long term, while Ukraine just bleeds. And even though Putin is evil, if you want the war to stop you have to deal with him. Offers are going to have to be put on the table to get Russia to stop, even if it looks like Danegeld. The alternative, of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, to push Russia back, or to ‘win’ is unconscionable. This may look bad morally, but in international relations, moral arguments only work if you have the standing to enforce them.
To make a deal Trump can haggle with both sides, and play as mediator, but that costs the US money, and the reality is the war is only continuing because of US funding, and Ukrainians are refusing to compromise – they will fight until the last man.
So, my reading of what Trump is doing, is establishing effective political authority over Ukraine – leveraging the money spent and the super-power status of the US – the minerals stuff is a test of whether he has that authority yet. He’s taking the ball away from Zelenski. Once Ukraine is fully lined up behind American-led negotiations, then he will have all the levers to focus on dealing with Putin to get a stop to the war.
Ukraine doesn’t like falling in-line, and they haven’t grasped the weakness of their hand in this new reality. They are appealing to moral outrage, heartstrings and European sensibilities. But unless Europe steps in to pay the bills and rattle a stick, America is Ukraine’s Daddy. Trump would probably be extremely happy for Europe to step up, but he knows, realistically, it’s not going to happen because Europe is mealymouthed and can’t afford it economically or politically.
Once the US has established its authority to drive the negotiations, then the hard bargaining with Putin will start. Everything will have been soft up to now – learn where the boundaries are and what Putin wants. When the chips are down, it will be a question of what will Putin trade to get the deal for Russia. Trump may even think there might be the possibility of Russia leaving Ukraine (except Crimea) if it became a demilitarised country in return for concessions elsewhere – but this will be the horsetrading to come. It feels we’re still getting to first base. The real deal-making hasn’t started yet.
“The real deal-making hasn’t started yet.”
Excellent analysis. Your last sentence illustrates the problem. Volodymyr Zelensky doesn’t understand that he is hurting his cause by insisting on deal points now. He needs to stop trying to negotiate and let things progress. That will not result in what he wants, but it will be the best he can get.
I don’t think either side really wants the Donbas. Since 2014 it has been nothing but trouble for Ukraine. And if Russia wanted it Russia would have annexed it much earlier when separatists urged it to. Making the Donbas demilitarized and autonomous would be a good compromise.
I have no problem with the substance of what Donald Trump and JD Vance said to Volodymyr Zelensky. Mediators often do have to administer shock therapy to one side or the other, and often to both. But it should have been done in private, not public. And JD Vance should not have been involved. That was a stupid move, arrogant bullying.
I like how Donald Trump has broadened the field for Vladimir Putin. That’s a smart thing to do and opens up a lot of possibilities. Donald Trump is a skilled dealmaker, if he can put aside his worst instincts.
Putin wants the Donbas, as part of his mission to re-unite the Rus. If he can get it, plus the Black Sea coast, probably all he wants to discuss is the level of Finlandisation of the remainder. And the lifting of sanctions, which is still in Europe’s grasp.
A brooding thought, as the dust settles, is that every reaction has a counter-reaction. The hard, power politics Trump is playing step on a lot of toes: not just within the US agencies and foreign countries, but among oligarchs and cartel heads who control the minerals and traffic routes. US security will need to be alert to the increase in potentially vengeful outside actors who do not play by political rules.
Oh dear God, what a mess. And tbh both are to blame. Belligerent Americans with too much aggression and too little patience for language barriers or any kind of listening on the one side. A knackered, emotional leader of a trashed country on the other – I have so much sympathy with Zelenskyy but even Biden had cross words with him about his habit of demanding things from the US and then immediately complaining to the media that he didn’t get more. That’s not good behaviour and it does not encourage your partner to do more. I already had very mixed feelings about Zelenskyy, the conflict and the Ukrainians before this blowup and I’m afraid I did lose my patience when Z said “We have been alone since the start of the war”. Sorry, that’s not a language barrier, that is a truly dumb thing to say to the faces of people who have done a lot to help you and are trying to help you now.
If the Yanks walk now, Z will come to Europe with doe eyes and demands and find out that Europe is about big words and nothing more.
Addition (sorry, I had to move before and now I can’t edit): Zelenskyy really should take this deal. Whinging is a Slavic thing (believe me, I have been taught all about Slavic whinging) but it is going to end up damaging him, his country and his people because he is dealing with a people who hate whinging and will automatically interpret it as ingratitude.
Personally I prefer the uncloaked imperialism with the US: I always like it better when you know exactly what you’re dealing with, even if it’s unpleasant and worrying. It’s better than allowing yourself dangerous illusions as Europe has done.
Whining is a Slavic thing – Not all Slavs, not all, even if we are not talking about individuals, but about entire nations. You can hardly say this about the Croats
Smartest thing you ever said. Really.
There’s a curious mix of truth and nonsense in this article.
Isn’t that what history is all about? “Lies about crimes” etc, etc
At last, all is laid bare; “special relationship” that never was is , indeed, no more…..
Does anyone really think Volodymyr Zelensky would have gone to Washington if he’d known, even suspected Trump and Vance were going to act like a pair of playground bullies? – Blustering, mean and predatory, who from their position of extreme power, would intimidate, abuse, harass and attempt to coerce Zelensky into accepting Putin’s instructions to ‘the deal maker’, especially as in the circumstances he was unlikely and unable to defend either himself or his nation.
Trump’s only achievement is to have out appeased Neville Chamberlain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Appeasing is usually to fend off a war. Odd it now means stopping a war. But that’s when people get their history from comics.
…looks like the Democrats set Mr Z up to reject the minerals deal. The trouble is that like the current crop of Dems, Mr. Z is all theatre. But in an actual real world scenario he completely flopped, Feel sorry for the Ukrainians, but a price for leaning West is inevitable.
” What does diplomacy matter in a world where all that counts is power and you are a supplicant?”
This has been the reality since the dawn of human existence. People like Starmer like to imagine a world of rules and international courts, but its all theatre that the weak want to be real, so they don’t have to accept the truth – there is no international law, just nations with the power to project their will across the world. You either have it or you don’t. And America does (still) have it, and Europe (including the UK) doesn’t. End of story.
America was a nation founded by European immigrants, but that link to Europe is getting thinner by the day, as the immigration now is largely Hispanic or Asian. Why would such people care about the fate of Europe? They have no connections to it, why should they be expected to expend blood and treasure on Europe’s behalf, unless they are getting something in return?
Europe is living in the past, a past that they have preserved in aspic of c. 1950, when NATO was formed and West Germany was folded into an alliance with its enemies of just a few years previous. And the proto-EU, the European Iron and Steel Community was formed in 1952. That was all 75 years ago, and Europe expected it to go on forever. Well, its not, and they will have to deal with the consequences.
…Exactly UR. Only public sector midwit types like Mr.Starmer actually think International law is real. Look at the Law of the Sea, one of the earliest (and best intentioned) efforts for an international jurisdiction, but China just ignores it. Best we deal with the reality of power, even as we judge it in terms of particular moral principles.
They’ve had enough of Zelensky that’s clear. He will wreak any negotiation with Russia.
Maybe smirking through the Minsk signing knowing full well (according to Merkel) that it was just to buy time to arm and equip the Nationalists who ended up killing 33k in Donbas wasn’t such a good idea.
Boris promised him the world if he didn’t sign the peace agreement in Apr 22 … but we didn’t deliver and now a million men are dead …
I don’t know who I despise more … the US/UK/EU deep state who ultimately caused this (Vicky Nulands coup etc), the corrupt Ukrainian politicians who sold their country out or NATO who were determined to antagonise Moscow non-stop for ever.
Not Putin then for invading Ukraine on 3 seperate occasions over the last 15 years (as well as Georgia)?
Rather that Trump is recouping a wayward international investment for his domestic audience. It’s a gesture, and in retrospect it may have been designed to get Zelensky out of power so he only has to deal with Russia.
It was dumb for Zelensky to in essence say, despite all of Trump’s talk of making peace, that peace with Russia was impossible, that in essence, no deal was possible without the security guarantee that is NATO. That’s what led to the meltdown. Z thinks Russia must be defeated but this can’t be done without American and European boots on the ground, and even then, who know what Russia would do if pushed?
What if he’s right and there will be no lasting peace, for Ukraine, without a security guarantee? Is it dumb to say that, or dumb to just sign up anyway?
Trump is literally blowing up the way US diplomacy is done.
Do I like it? No.
Is it necessary? Maybe.
But it is ugly and brutal.
Where does it leave the rest of the world? Heaven only knows.
If politicians stopped primarily looking after the interests of other countries before their own country, and looked after the interests of other countries WHERE THEY COINCIDED WITH THEIR OWN COUNTRY, and looked after own interests first, the World would be a better place, especially for the general populations.
If the voters did the same, it would help, but that requires that they are Well Informed and can Think. 🙂
Putting the geopolitical element of this aside, which is a ridiculous thing to say I know, but bear with me.
This altercation between Trump and Zelensky felt like the manifestation of the often said cry of “we want more transparency from our government!”.
Well we got our behind the curtain moment. And now we are all left stunned by it.
I wonder with Trump whether we’re witnessing a more transparent government. Unapologetically brutal and uncompromising.
Yadda yadda yadda, let us wait and see what actually happens.
I’m not getting any sense that the “Reconstruction Investment Fund” is a back channel for American economic colonialism, far from it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/26/what-trumps-rare-earth-mineral-deal-really-means/
Firstly it only applies to future profits generated from future mining operations and secondly it only compels the Ukrainian government to invest 50% of future profits into the Fund.
Similarly, without the formalisation of the Fund Agreement, it is actually unclear what proportion of future profits will accrue to American corporations and there is certainly no mention of ownership rights by the American government or corporations.
In other words, Trump’s efforts towards “peace through economics” is now lost in a war of rhetoric which has largely been manufactured by pro-Ukraine European elites who are vehemently opposed to Trump’s presidency.
Thus Trump’s PEACE process has been turned into a Progressive war against Trump and conservative populism with the underlying logic that continued war in the Ukraine is good for global Progressivism no matter the cost in lives and no matter that it is America that is burdened with the costs of Ukraine’s war effort.
The Ukrainian War which is actually the Donbas war is actually a war over the profits to be made from the hydrocarbons in the Donbas.
If anyone is truly sincere about PEACE in the Donbas, beyond the belligerent rhetoric aimed at Trump and conservative populism or the belligerent rhetoric aimed at Putin and conservative authoritarianism, then the hydrocarbons in the Donbas and the ethnic Russians who have historically lived there since these hydrocarbons have been mined, needs to be at the forefront of PEACE negotiations including why Donbas was given to Ukraine in the first place.
… worth to get some context and watch Jeffrey Sachs’ speech of a few days ago…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA9qmOIUYJA
Leaving aside any discussion of the moral issues, it seems to me that most commentators are assuming that Putin’s ambitions are unlimited.
They may be; but pragmatism suggests that we should consider the possibility that the his aggression might end after a peace deal and allow development of the sort of economic interdependence that would make it self-defeating.
Of course this may be unduly optimistic and we have to plan for the worst case. But ignoring more palatable possibilities seems short-sighted.
Well said, and Donald Trump has shown aptitude for that kind of deal. Unfortunately, JD Vance and Elon Musk have shown just the opposite. And Donald Trump is too often following their lead.
“Yet what is emerging from Donald Trump’s unpredictability looks like a fable that no-one with any self-respect can believe in any longer.”
Trump is SO predictable.
Critics simply will not take the time to read and listen.
Europes defence has been built on the notion that USA being in NATO would immediately respond if any NATO member was attacked. Well after this week that is obviously not true any more- if it ever was. Personally I rather doubt that the USA would ever have attacked Russia unless the USA itself was attacked.
For a complete report on what actually happened (as opposed to the usual NeverTrump grouching above) see Matt Taibbi at: https://www.racket.news/p/mr-zelensky-comes-to-washington-transcript?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=157993623&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=2bxbm&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Matt Taibbi is an acquired taste that I haven’t acquired. I can’t stand the strong stink of snide and snark that permeates his writing.
Great point about the stores that we tell. What happens when the old story died but the new one didn’t appear yet. What remains is raw power. So we are waiting for the new story to be born.
“Yet what is emerging from Donald Trump’s unpredictability looks like a fable that no-one with any self-respect can believe in any longer. “
Sadly those of us who knew this to be true years ago were drowned out by a megalomaniac barrage of lies largely implemented by the Russians.
Did no one else see this blowup as Trump and Vance rejecting the obvious manipulative tact of Zelensky?
The party of guilt and shame is out, and Zelensky will need to find some new modes of diplomacy if he’s going save his country (and his own ass).
Many people reacted on the basis of their feeling toward Trump.
Let’s take a walk out of the forest here and see if we can see the trees
Therefore let’s take a calm , casual,
Logical, rational look with no preconceived ideas and a open mind which requires the simplest of Questions and answers without
Going into great detail
Because by going into great detail you are merely wandering back into
The deep and dark Forrest
Q . 1 How do Wars begin
A . Because one or both sides believe they can win
Q .2 How do Wars that commence
Expand and go out of control
A . Because someone makes a
Wrong assumption, enacts it
. .and soon finds out they’ve misread the signals then must deal
With the amplyfing consequences
Q.3 How do wars end ( something that not only necessary but actually occurs )
A. There 2 ways one of which either all parties or just one becomes exhausted and puts the white flag up
Or and this is universal
When the side no matter how many battles they suffer defeat and many losses Has had the capability to not only replenish but actually increase its personal and hardware losses
Now you can see the trees
And what are those trees ( keep a open mind ) and even if you do not like what see ACCEPT as Truth
So referring back to the Q & A
Q & A 1
The West believed they could win
As did Russia hence war 3 yrs and ongoing now a war of attrition like W W 1
Q & A 2
Well then this war is now impossible for it to go out of control ( unless UK & EU make a stupid serious miscalculation)
Q & A 3
Russia has and actually not only
Replenishing but increasing the
Personnel and Hardware at a accelerating pace
Ukraine quite the reverse and exhausted
Now no matter what your thoughts are with regards Trump
Like him or not all I speak off he is only too well aware of
And here’s the Crux Trump and Putin can and have conducted long
Phone calls upon ending this War
And why do you think Trump told
Zelevnsky ” You are gambling with
W W 3 ”
Because during those phone calls
Trump.asked Putin that should Ukraine be granted NATO membership
And Or Ukraine given the most modern of weapon systems from
USA and the west along with the personnel to deploy and use
Putin’s Answer W W 3 and we shall strike 1st with nuclear weapons
Which as we speak all coded and targeted to fire immediately
Will someone please reign in Starmer and the EU and put muzzles on and tether these little Pups with no teeth firmly NOW
For Christ’s sake Brian can’t you be a bit more concise?
For Christmas sake why all the chatter
It’s bloody obvious this War Will end very soon and become very
Dangerous if the UK and EU
Make a wrong move
I’ve explained all this before when Putin warned Europe and NATO that he would not hesitate to use nukes
This at a stroke he drove a wedge between USA and Europe when he launched a redesigned ICBM but took out of such category by greatly reducing the range thereby removing it’s classification under The Start agreement and protocol by being unable to strike the USA
This missile was launched with a conventional warhead
However Putin stated the day after launch into Ukraine it’s so easy to put nukes on it and launch against any targets in Europe and less than 3 seconds to impact
There goes in the Wedge that fells the tree ( nuclear Umbrella ) that the USA used to hold over Europes stupid heads more than capable of now reading the cards and making a fatal error Hence I ask that these little toothless pups be muzzled
And ASAP because if they Don’t
Putin shall order the retargeting
Of these missiles and place them into a full state of readiness , inform Starmer and Europe proceed with your proposal at direst of perils to you THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE
back down NOW
dare not call the bluff
Why because it’s a promise not
A bluff
Now do you understand what my original post was condensing down to the simplest of logic
I was struck by the similarities between Starmer with the State Visit letter and Neville Chamberlain waving his ‘peace in our time’ letter.
The visit offered should’ve been a reward rather than a carrot? Wrong time, wrong place, wrong motive.
You might infer that Putin should have received the letter. I couldn’t possibly comment!
It’s always interesting to hear accusations of “American Imperialism,” particularly from individuals in countries like England, France, Spain, Portugal, and Japan—nations with their own long histories of imperialism. The British Empire, for example, is a prime example of real imperialism. Figures like Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Volodymyr Zelensky often come across as somewhat out of touch with history.
When it comes to NATO, the three largest contributors are the US (16%), Germany (16%), and the UK (11%). At one point, the US even contributed over 22% of NATO’s running costs. Importantly, none of the land protected by NATO is owned or controlled by the United States.
Meanwhile, the EU seems to be struggling. Economic challenges, an inability to defend itself adequately, rising immigration, and a troubling focus on policing free speech instead of addressing significant criminal activity within their borders are all issues at hand. Rather than pointing fingers elsewhere, it might be wise to take a long, hard look in the mirror to understand where some of these problems truly lie.
Trump was simply reiterating to the Unfortunate Ukrainian president the supply of endless cash and weapons had to stop
All that will happen if continue to provide arms and cash is what’s happening now A meat grinder
But Zelensky does not see why his pension fund should not keep growing.
What is most painfully obvious is that Europe will not stand up for itself. Period. It demands bit player parts and then decries that it doesn’t get top billing. NATO and the like are all viable as long as the US takes the lead. Trump, and America to a large extent, are tired of being used and then, abused.
Take on everyone’s issues and then get pilloried for it, and, God forbid, take a breather to reassess and look around. The truth is Zelensky, and heaven knows his people, are heroes, but their leader has read too much of his fawning, worshipfull press and has become increasingly arrogant and preening. Last I knew Ukraine was a European nation, so yes, the ball belongs in Europe’s court.
American strength is a mote in everyone’s eye. If you don’t want America’s help, then stop demanding it and then resenting it.
Yesterday was much more like Reagan and Gorbachov at Reykjavik. Gorbachov was also feted and adored and changed his terms at the signing. Like Trump, Reagan was having none of it. America first. The cacophony of imperialism and doom was deafening then, too.
America has its own problems, lots of them, in large part because it’s expected to be all things to all people, and bound to disappoint. The American people are ready to stay home for a while and do some vital housekeeping repairs.
Would Europe rather have lucrative investment in peace, or uncertain, expensive military ventures? ROI anyone? Money bags or body bags? Endless wars and quagmires with no realistic viable outcomes, or a different, practical, doable approach. Looks like there may be a chance to choose. Wisely?
What a joke. Every journalist and lot of commentaries who do not have to go and fight are very enthusiastic providing weapons to Ukraine. But i am sure the moment they or someone in their family would have to go they would cry peace. Trump is right to try to finish the bloodbath.
The level of incompetence displayed by Trump and Vance is staggering. The only conclusion one can make is that America as elected two massive a$$h*les to the highest offices in the land.
Something monumentally bad happened yesterday but I’m not sure anyone knows what. Did Trump just end the war by handing all of Ukraine to Putin? Did he prolong the war? Or did he just set us on the path to World War III?
A lot depends on what Europe does next. I’m betting they fold like a cheap suit. Europeans have become fat and lazy under America’s umbrella, and they are more scared of losing the American market than they are of Putin.
Zelensky has a deal on the table. Ukraine’s parliament approved it. All that was needed was a signature. Z told Marco Rubio everything was good and then blindsided him.
Putin doesn’t want to rule Ukraine. He could blown the place up completely by now. This irrational fear you folks have of a guy who has yet to attack Europe after 25 years in power makes no sense.
The mineral deal on the table was extortion. As for the war, I want it to end, but it should be a negotiated settlement. Trump just ambushed Zelensky so he could cut off aid. Without arms what is to keep Putin from taking the whole country and installing a friendly government.
What makes no sense is to say things that fly in the face of very simple known facts.
1. Putin has attacked Europe as Ukraine is in Europe.
2. Putin attempted, and failed, to capture Kyiv right at the start. That can be nothing else other than an attempt to rule Ukraine, even if by proxy.
Make Buffer-zones Great Again!
Are we getting back to where we should have been 30 years ago?
The idea back then was that “The Ukraine” (“the borderlands”) would remain just that: a neutral borderland.
But, instead of fully realizing a “peace dividend” during the Clinton years, we got caught up in the Wolfowitz/Brzezinski neo-liberal endeavor to secure and maintain a uni-polar world. Calling it a “rules-based international order” was all very nice, but it still amounted to American hegemony.
Now the American tide is retreating, and we are seeing quite a mess that Europe itself may have to clean up.
The sum total of all comments herein below add up to a small book with no consistent coherent theme. Just half-baked views. This Wash D.C. latest is but the “art of the deal” being played out before your eyes. A watcher, and not a pontificator, be.
Can Europe supply enough material to Ukraine to enable them to fight on if they so choose? If yes, the ethical dilemma of giving Ukraine only enough to contain not win has to be considered. If no, it’s hand over your mineral wealth time..
This article barely skims the surface. The deal between the USA and Russia proves that the history of Ukraine since the collapse of the USSR has been the rivalry of the US and Russia to control Ukraine’s natural resources. This conflict did not start in 2022 but decades earlier. Zbigniew Brzezinski highlighted the importance of Ukraine back in the 1970s even if he focussed on agriculture rather than metals.
Secondly European leaders are only stunned by recent events because they ignored first the agreement by Germany to strike a unilateral energy deal with Russia while claiming to be the economic centre of the EU and then the destruction of the German pipeline involving the cooperation of at least one other member of the EU. The problem once again in Europe is Germany. Thank God their army marches with broomsticks thanks to the Queen of the EU.
What a pretentious load of BS. The main purpose of the meeting was to bring peace after 3 years of a bloody war, a broken Ukraine, and continuous dwindling support of the cowardly “elites” of the West when the war became a meatgrinder and was no longer sexy. If the US received mineral rights and business opportunities in exchange for stopping the carnage and placing a reset on the region seems like a fair bargain.
It appears no one in the EU thought of this, but when you are governed by bureaucrats who have no vision, are inept, and only care about their power, this is ALWAYS going to happen. Zelensky was not up to the task, he never was, but he bought into all the “elite” rhetoric and as they say, the rest is history. Zelensky is rumored to be worth 30 million to 1 Billion, not a bad gig.
Replace Zelensky, or if he has an epiphany, hopefully, this awful, needless war will stop.
The article begins and ends with a reference to the stories we tell ourselves, and no nation on earth tells itself more stories, and more implausible ones, than the U.S. As a Canadian, I particularly resent the new American story that Canada and Europe have been shirking their responsibilities in the field of defense. North America’s and Europe’s entire defense architecture was premised on the idea that Canada and Europe would serve (in the worst-case scenario) as a debris field where intercepted nukes would land before reaching anywhere important. In other words, NATO, and NORAD looked the way they did because that served U.S. interests. Now when the expenditures required to maintain that model have become unsustainable for the U.S., they come out with a new story (that smells strongly of burning martyr) blaming others for not sufficiently supporting American industry, thereby leading to huge trade imbalances. But instead of taking their own industry to task for producing crap that no-one else in the world wanted for decades, the political class who allowed this to happen now shifts blame to erstwhile allies who did what they thought was expected of them.
If the US doesn’t agree to invest in Ukraine, where will the money come from to repair the infrastructure and economy? Those European loans will come due soon as well, won’t they? Has someone offered an idea other than continuing the war in the hope that Russia will run out of money and soldiers before Ukraine does? It’s all looking pretty 19th century to me, and we all know how that turned out.
Oh FFS, Zelenskyy came to force securty guarantees, ie. US troops on the ground, something Trump has already said will never happen.
Why are the EU and the UK holding a summit on European security now, did they stop Zelenskyy signing the deal on the three times it was supposed to be signed previos to this mickey mouse summit, summit is a strange euphemism for countries pleading for crumbs of the WH table.
Wow. Born into the cold war. Proud Reagan forced the end of the USSR and beginning of self determination in East Europe. Russia attempt to reconstitute empire. Hopeful for a MAGA worldview.
Everything our worlds been about for 80 yrs was wiped out on camera between Trump and Zelensky.
But I get it. All the talking heads on both sides of Atlantic have no plan except to keep Ukraine armed to their last man. No talk ever of drafting a million westerners to take Moscow. No US youths agitating to join the fight.
Because short of this, there is no solution to the Putin problem.
We may yet have to put Putin down in a bloody world War. Public opinion is farther from that today than US was in 1940 for going after Hitler. Unless and until the public demands war, Trump must be supported as he plays the cards we give him. Neo-cons be damned.
Trump and Vance simply continuing to do exactly as they are told by their boss in Moscow. It is the United States that is humiliated again and again by the freak show at the White House as the world looks on in horror.
We are learning why Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and possibly even Malaysia do not pick war with China. A fox can’t outrun a pack of wolves forever!
Ukraine believed that support from U.S. businessmen would protect them—only to realize now that the U.S. Govt no longer wants to engage in that kind of war. The subtle difference but it is in there.
US is going through serious changes of its foreign policy, so I am not surprised at the anger and the righteousness. I feel bad for Zelensky though, he looked really tired and exhausted.
Ugly but we are only seeing this live. It often happens behind the curtains.
During my long life an endless procession of Western leaders has tiptoed oh so carefully down the red carpets of stately dignity. They weigh their words. They hedge. They dissimulate. They gather with fellow world leaders in orchestrated conclaves where they compete to spin an image of sagest gravitas out of pure cliche. All of this is a highly refined version of dishonesty. What you see is not what you get in terms of tanglble results. These demur cats have led us step by step to the brink of ruin.
How on earth should a world so inured to the Merkel’s, Macrons, and Obamas react to a leader like Trump? Oh my, how rude! How vain and self-aggrandizing! How rash and reckless! How insensitive!
And what manner of mouth-breathing knuckle draggers voted him into office? They must be fascists! Haters! Toxically masculine cretins! Deplorable of course!
Perhaps a few of those odd voters tried very hard for a very long time to ignore reasonable suspicions that their dignified statespersons had been all the while leading their countries toward an abyss. Long, expensive, and bloody wars to no purpose. Domestic economies wrecked by globalism, whole cultures upended in the service of abstractions. Institutions that no longer serve. Young generations wrecked by cynicism, substance abuse, and despair.
For some, perhaps a loud mouth is also one not afraid to say what he thinks, a rarity among politicians. If not inspiring, at least oddly refreshing. Perhaps outrageous proposals are at least something different than the same old template endlessly revisited to no benefit. Turning Gaza into a resort is absurd, but does anyone really believe that the same tired schemes to mediate peace in the Middle East deserve yet another fruitless iteration? Maybe, if our culture is truly as ill as it seems, some would prefer going out with a bang instead of a whimper.
I fully stipulate that old Trump may be every bit as horrid as his detractors endlessly remind us. But it was the polished and smug elites of the last half century that created the desperate desire for something, anything different.
Here’s a thought experiment:
Roll back the clock to February, 2022. When the first Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian border, the consensus in the West was that Ukraine was about to be overrun. Miraculously, they weren’t and the war has played out in the manner we all know.
But, what if the Russians had rolled across and conquered Ukraine as initially expected? Would NATO nations have done anything other than offer toothless indignant protestation? Would we advocate a duty to uphold the rules of international order and respect for borders using force as we now do? Would we have intervened out of the certainty that, after Ukraine, other European states would fall like dominoes under Putin’s Imperial aspirations?
No. The NATO states would have done absolutely nothing. Germany would still be sucking natural gas from Nordstream. European and American businesses would likely still be in Russia. So why all the moral high ground vis a vis Trump negotiating a peace? The anti-Trumpists are not nearly so morally superior as they pretend.
A lot of the bitter tears being shed are by people who know nothing about history. We can thank the rotten schools and educators for that. Strong countries have always dominated weaker ones, sometimes nicely as with the US and sometimes brutally as with the Germans, Soviets (now the Russians again), the Japanese, the Chinese, and the British and French back in the days of empire, the Romans, the Ottomans, and so on and so forth. If the Europeans manage to get themselves together and build an adequate military (very unlikely) they will still have to decide what kind of satrap they want to be, American, Russian or Chinese.
Two themes that appear to have been overlooked. The first is whether Ukraine minerals are really so valuable because everything presupposes genuine, guaranteed economic rewards being available. If the reality is different then all bets are off what happens next and after the diligence has completed.
The second is the underlying weakness of Putin and the Russian economy. Surely the next phase of this drama will be the US dictating realities to Putin and demanding opportunities for American investors, not least in lieu of what the Russians have already confiscated. Quite likely the economic opportunities for the US are greater in Russia than they are in Ukraine.
This show has a long way to run and it remains too early to draw conclusions about the end game or predict the outcome.
For NATO ( i.e. the U.S. ), Ukraine was a strategic pawn to contain/hem in the Russians, to diminish their influence beyond their border. It was an old Cold War reflex that can’t seem to stop flexing. The Russians gave them fair warning that the West’s incorporation of the Eastern Bloc into its alliance(s) was bad enough, but Ukraine was a bridge too far. And this for Kievan Rus cultural reasons, your might say, and for the simple trivial reason that Moscow is a mere ~500 km from Ukraine’s eastern border, as the cruise missile flies. NATO doubled down. Russia called its bluff. The result is the destruction of the pawn, Ukraine.
There is nothing for it, then, but to turn to some Hillbilly Diplomacy. Let’s see how that works out.
Zelensky is a twerp
It’s worth checking out this perspective on Zelensky: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trump-not-zelensky-is-ukraines-only-hope/#comments-container
“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.”
(The Art of War, Chapter 6)
It is imperative that the UK are ‘not’ part of any peacekeeping force in Ukraine, France and Germany must fill that role for the EU.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO so the UK has no obligation to defend Ukraine militarily.
Will the EU offer Ukraine EU membership if they cede Crimea & the Donbas to Russia?
Will that end NATO, with Germany & France forging an EU army?
Would Germany (EU) & Russia then resume diplomatic & trading relations?
Britain was a signatory to a treaty promising to help Ukraine. It arguably has more responsibility than the EU countries
The policy of the NATO nations regarding the Ukraine War has been appalling. Firstly, holding discussions with Ukraine about joining NATO and the EU was a definite provocation to Russia/Putin after years/decades of giving him undertakings to the contrary, then reneging on these. Secondly, Biden did zero to seek a peaceful solution – nor did the EU and British leaders, all of whom encouraged him to sustain the war. And what’s wrong with the USA saying that it has had enough of providing unlimited money and resources to fuel an ongoing conflict that Ukraine could never win anyway?
Nobody of right moral mind would condone Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. But, after decades of provocation and broken undertakings by the Western leaders commencing with Clinton it should not have come as a surprise that Putin eventually acted – not least as he rightly perceived that those Western leaders were individually and collectively weak!
At a strategic level they have driven Russia into China’s embrace along with the dreadful North Korea. It is thanks to our Western leaders that global politics is in such an utter mess. And yet, people ignore all of that history and are blind to its consequences as they indulge in puerile anti-Trump posturing and virtue-signalling. Trump is the only Western leader who has actually tried to bring the Ukraine (and Gaza) tragedies to an end. And in the case of Ukraine this will simply never happen unless the West engages with Putin (and ultimately seeks to cooperate with Russia, rather than treating it as a permanent enemy in alliance with China.
Watch the entire exchange, not curated excerpts. Zelenskyy was coked up, and had been coached by democrats to publicly reject the deal he himself had agreed to. Trump is anti-imperialist. Europe, including Britain, are making big imperialist talk as if this was the 1950s or 1970s when they still had useful armies. You can tell it is all bs when Boris, who has no say, talks about putting British troops on the ground.
The *only* plan that makes any sense at all is the ceasefire Trump proposes. Thanks to the self imposed invasion of Europe, Green bs, and the censorship used to suppress its people. Europe’s “leaders” can’t do shit on their own. Except get Ukrainians killed, and maybe themselves. Zelenskyy needs to sign the Trump plan, European leaders need to stfu and stop whining, and the war needs to stop. Now, before a whole lot more people get killed.
The article is as naive and delusional as European policy. The US has to grip its debt situation, restore productivity and stabilise global markets. That means getting Europe to pay its way, and decoupling Russia from China/Iran/NK, and getting back to a semi functioning global economy. Thats not being Putinist or defeatist. Its rejecting the permawar military-industrial complex that allowed this war to begin. If you want to speak of ‘values’, see the US lone stance for free speech and democracy. EU needs to redesign its socialist weakness and recharge local enterprise and civic pride. They’ll try to just import more cheap labour. It won’t work.
Friday makes the situation in Ukraine unpredictable (as Trump is) and therefore dangerous. I don’t know what will happen next but Zelenskyy was due a dressing down.
There’s something satisfying about all this turmoil that the writer describes.
The US finally reveals itself as driven solely by self interest. To a large extent, fair enough. But at least it’s open now and perhaps we can all stop pretending eventually and maybe people might decide to give a little more reflective credit to commentators like Noam Chomsky who have been saying this for decades and met with disdain by those who thought they knew better.
How pathetic of Western Europe. Reduced to mean tweets and video clips and pledges of empty support. Europe has little industrial might or military capability left. Just posturing, backstabbing the only ceasefire peace plan on the table. And rejection of diplomacy. Oh yeah, and arresting citizens who post things the ruling class doesn’t like.
Aside from Trump being Trump, the critical issue here is that Americans are tried of paying billions of our tax dollars and sending troops and personnel to those who feel entitled and morally superior. Europe is as affluent as America and can afford to fund and station its own troops to defend itself and Ukraine. Why should America have to pay for it? Especially when all we seem to get for our efforts is ingratitude and condescension. If Europeans truly put up the money and personnel to defend themselves and Ukraine, the US would backstop it AFTER Europe demonstrates its good faith in these regards. It’s not like this is a new issue, Trump has been saying this for years but has been ignored or condescended to. I realize Trump’s style and demeanor is extremely off-putting to say the least but fundamentally he is 100% correct. Zelensky’s eye-rolling facial expressions and negative body language drove this point home for most Americans notwithstanding the media elites on both side of the Atlantic’s disdain for all things Trump.
Tom keeps repeating the demonstrated lie that President Trump is unpredictable. What happened Friday was entirely predictable: Trump has stated for years that the goal in Ukraine should be to stop the killing. To end thecwar by diplomacy. President Trump outlined a plan to make that well communicated goal a reality. Zelenskyy had stated he would agree to that goal. Yet for some reason he kept balking.
Zelenskyy invited himself to the Whitehouse stating he was ready to sign off on the first step of President Trump’s plan. He shows up to the meeting. He then starts renegotiating e deal he had agreed to sign. Then he starts lecturing and name calling when he didn’t get his way.
And our dear allies in Europe, who together have paid a fraction of what America spent to support Ukraine. Who no longer have a serious military, industrial base or energy resources, decide to blame Trump.
Europe today, like France and Germany long ago, seem obsessed with warring against Russia. Europe literally has no plan at all to bring peace to Ukraine. Except to blame Trump and demand America pays more.
Perhaps it is because VP Vance pointed out that the collective Emperors of Europe are naked, censoring and abusing their citizens, imposing insane energy and immigration policies. Well naked Emperors with a sense of shame would deal with their issue, not blame those who point out the problem.
Some blunders there no doubt, on all sides.
Why not have the presser AFTER he has signed it? Duh..
If Z keeps on talking about how unspecified the security guarantees are – and they are aren’t they – and bridles at listening to Trump paying compliments to Putin, then he clearly isn’t ready to sign?
What is the diff between a deal with US Govt for minerals with vague promises and a deal with Blackrock for similar?
Why go to Washington, sit next to The Man then b***h about how the deal you are going to sign “it won’t work, you’ll regret it, mark my words, Putin is a murderous terrorist!!” He is either emotionally spent, terrified, high, unsuitable for such a responsibility or all 4. Let’s not forget he was due to receive more Billions if he had just “shut the front door” as they say in Ireland.
Remember Vance has been in Govt while previous B$$$$ was paid out by “Joe Biden” so yes, entitled to be rattled by the continual entitlement on display perhaps? Maybe a powerplay.
Bottom line, Ukraine should never have taken the bait re an unwinnable war with Russia but did they even have a choice once Nuland et al had done a coup?
UK laughably has a similar defence spend to Russia. Where the f@#k does it go? Anyone??
It is being widely reported that prior to the Oval office meeting, Zelensky had a 40 minute meeting with far left Democrats saboteurs who convinced him, in their arrogance and neocon traitorous delusions, to stand up to Trump and push back.
So forget your theories about Trump setting Zelensky up. The pathetic puppet came in with his own ulterior motives, exploited the division, making sure the cameras were rolling, and deserved every bit of that public spanking. Not a good faith actor and no excuses for such a major insult, betrayal and miscalculation. Americans are not ashamed, so kill the manipulation and virtue signaling. Rather, look at recent polling and see we support this, and aren’t so turned off by reality and hurty words, as traitorous, underhanded extortion.
Get out of your sanctimonious, self righteous, leftist bubble Europe, and face that fact our globalist leaders are the biggest baddies in the room. And recognize what strong, principaled men behave like. Also, make sure to rewatch all 40 minutes to put this new information in context.
No one is more shocked to see an American president act in the interests of the American people…than the American people.
Thank you Trump and Vance for defending peace and especially American citizens.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/opinion/dems-lead-zelensky-ukraine-off-a-cliff-with-pressure-to-reject-mineral-deal/
Tom: Your article was both thoughtful and well written.
I find Trump’s behavior to be like that of a classic Eastwood-esque drill sergeant challenged to turn a group of ne’er-do-wells into a disciplined fighting squad..hell or high water.
In the early days, we observe the growing enmity from the squad of beleaguered recruits.
Trump’s monumental challenge is to transform a bloated, fiscally inefficient disaster of a divided government that was just forced to increase its debt ceiling ($36T to $40.1T) simply to avoid technical default.
Trump clearly recognizes he is already over his skis with the many MAGA inspired promises made during his campaign. The reality is Trump has been there before, but with no room to fail…this time.
Post Biden, Trump realizes his need to remain politically transparent and fully accountable with his administration’s almost daily progress to better control the media’s largely negative narrative.
To his benefit, Trump’s newly minted administration remains loyal, disciplined and energized, focused on its primary strategy to grow revenue while reducing the cost to operate government. Something Wall Street may be beginning to notice post the Zelenskyy meeting.
Why? The Ukraine mining “deal” fits Trump’s revenue growth model. Providing security guarantees to a country at war, does not.
So it looks like the deep back channel with Macron and Starmer and Trump may work, based on recent developments. Here us a critique if Trump: He is an extremely experienced negotiator. Highly successful. But he broke some of his own rules Friday. He ceded control of communications prior to achieving the stated goal of signing off on the $500 million. Zelenskyy is a coke fiend stressed out jt lagged prima dona. Allowing the democrats to do their Logan Act interference, followed up by an unstructured presser *prior* to the signing was needlessly risky. Vance is a brilliant VP, but his role was to say as little as possible, at least outside of *private* conversations.
First private negotiations.
Then public signatures.
Then questions from media whores.
Then Zelenskyy has to defend the deal
The question that is being asked most often after Friday is who started the dust up in the Oval Office. However the question I have is, if Zelensky didn’t want the minerals deal and was unhappy with his relationship with the Trump administration why did he bother coming to Washington?
If you listen to the Oval Office event in its entirety, it began as a discussion around reaffirming the relationship between the United States and Ukraine. There were references to the importance of signing the mineral deal as a catalyst to growing the economic and political relationship of these two countries. It was obvious this whole time that Zelensky was unhappy. The two sides frustations spilled out during that last ten minutes of discussion. It was an absolute train wreck. Both governments should have waited to have this public display after the Ukrainian President was supportive of a deal. For that I blame both countries for allowing this to happen.
Since his election, Europe has been quite upset with the speed at which Trump has moved on the Ukrainian war (as well as on Gaza). His team’s meeting in Saudi Arabia with the Russians was simply meant to gauge whether Putins government was even interested in negotiations. In spite of the histrionics, no other country was needed. At the end of that meeting Trump believed that he could get the Russians to the table.
He felt that the next step was to put a ceasefire in place to stop the killing. After that was accomplished he wanted peace negotiations to begin. But to be clear, the goal that Trump has had for this war and he’s been quite vocal about it since he started running for his second term, was to stop the bloodshed. That is it full stop. If you look at his view of America’s never ending wars, he has been against them, including the incursion into Iraq.
Prior to his election, Trump said that day one he would move to negotiate peace in this conflict. He also made it clear that if Russia would not negotiate a peace deal with Ukraine he would begin shipping the most lethal weapons to Zelensky’s troops. None of what he is doing is a surprise. Why now is everyone shocked at what he’s trying to accomplish? That’s a result of the European Press and the European Political Class assuming that there was no way Trump could possibly be reelected.
It’s always amusing to hear Europeans complain that America doesn’t understand them. Well it’s clear from the surprise in Brussels, Paris, London and Berlin that Europeans don’t have a clear understanding of Americans either.
The question is what should happen now? Both the United States and Ukraine should take a deep breath, reengage and determine the best course forward. There is a saying in America, ‘Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way’. I believe right now the best course forward is to let American diplomacy lead. Ukraine needs to get back and engage and follow Trump’s guidance in order to put a quick end to the horrific bloodshed of this conflict. Finally and for the greatest possibility of peace, the rest of Europe who have done nothing over the past three years to move talks between these two combatants forward, should just get the heck out of the way.
Here we go again,it’s basically everybody’s fault apart from the person actually at fault.I’m suprised some people haven’t blamed Donald Duck or Mr Bean yet.Ukraine was invaded by a hostile power intent on wiping it off the map.In 1991 the Ukrainian people voted over 90% for independence and even the areas currently with an Orc infestation voted over 80%.Why would they want to fall back into the clutches of the remnants of the Soviet regime which was a catastrophe for the Ukrainian people.Are you happy to be singing from the same hymn sheet as Corbyn and Galloway (is there a dictator’s bottom that hasn’t been caressed by Galloway’s tongue?).Dictators don’t stop until they lose and in the long run,appeasement always costs more in both blood and treasure.
It’s is ultimately the US that will pay, not Europe. This will not end well for the US.
I’m shocked, just shocked, that all that talk of international cooperation, world peace, and a rules based international order turned out to mean jack squat. The author is completely correct. This was always a narrative that was sold to people, mainly Europeans but Americans as well, the narrative of globalism.
The problem is Europeans bought into the narrative a lot harder and deeper than Americans ever did, and they got a far better deal out of it, as they could simply cut their defense budgets to fractions of what would be required and know that the Americans would back them up. During the Cold War, that made a certain amount of sense and Americans could see what they were paying for, but after the Cold War ended… the clock started ticking right then, whether anyone noticed or not. Trump happened because American voters started noticing that the narrative didn’t actually match the facts. A large number looked around and decided that they were getting a raw deal out of globalism, that while the world might have been better off, they weren’t, and that didn’t sit well with them. They noticed as well how much they were personally paying it taxes for military expenditures and how little some of our ‘allies’ were paying. Over time, they did what Americans do. They talked among each other, they banded together, they formed organizations, they supported candidates who advocated change, and over time the movement grew until it was too large for the establishment to stop it, and here we are. The American voters have had enough with the globalist narrative, and they are ending it unilaterally, because they can, and it’s that simple The Europeans may have bought into the narrative, but they weren’t the ones sustaining it.
Now the old narrative has fallen apart, so we need a new one. Here’s my attempt for all you European readers. For several decades, it was convenient for the leaders and elites of Europe to basically defer to the US on geopolitical and military matters so they could focus their efforts on rebuilding a continent decimated by the two greatest wars ever fought. The World Wars were huge events, and historic events of far less import can have impacts far into the future. In the sense of long term history, the post-WWII era includes probably everything up to the present. These wars and the aftermath happened before most of us were even born, but nevertheless, we have to deal with the fact that the US rebuilt Europe and defended it for several generations and didn’t ask much of them. That story now is just about over, but a new one is born out of the old. New conflicts have emerged. The US has fallen on hard times itself, and is looking to collect on some outstanding historic debt. Trump is playing the role of bill collector in chief, acting like the imperial overlord many Europeans already accuse the US of being. That’s a good classic narrative. The wise and benevolent protector became corrupted by money and greed and turned into an evil empire that demanded sacrifice and tribute for its beneficence. Then come next chapter new heroes emerge to fight against the evil overlord. One might expect if this narrative becomes commonplace that future Europeans will come to resent America and Americans, and further resent the weak leaders who sold their interests to a foreign power. Indeed, I can foresee in a couple of generations Europeans viewing Americans, Russians, and Chinese as many Africans and Asians viewed the European colonial powers.
I don’t personally support or condone any of this. I think the narratives can easily go too far and we become too caught up in the narrative and ignore the facts, and the facts are that international relationships are always about money, power, and mutual interest and basically never about anything else. This author is the symptom of a far too idealistic generation of people whose disillusionment is sure to cause problems of all sorts in the near future and far beyond. He believed in the narrative a little bit too much, and so is particularly dismayed by Trump, who is rudely stating the facts without the narrative. He’s finding out the hard way that narratives are culturally based, and mean different things to different people even within a culture. Globalism is the worst kind of narrative, the kind that only works if most or all of the people believe it. It needs to be put in the dustbin of history. I would prefer a more artful approach than Trump’s, and I believe such an approach would be superior in many ways, but if this finally gets the world, particularly Europe, to give up on globalism, then I suppose we can call it an omelet no matter how messily the eggs get broken or how many bits of eggshell end up in the meal.