Despite the obsequious statecraft of President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer in trying to placate the mercurial occupant of the White House to keep him onside for any Ukrainian peace deal optimistically to be underwritten by an American security guarantee, it was the bullying id of Trump which won out over all the adults in the room. For not only did Zelenskyy refuse the role President Benes of Czechoslovakia was forced to play in 1938 at the behest of Hitler and Neville Chamberlain, Trump’s Art of the Grudge meant that no agreement was ever going to materialise. Zelenskyy’s refusal to play ball over Trump’s phone call to him in 2019 requesting that he supply incriminating material on the business activities of Hunter Biden in return for US military assistance in order to weaponise it against his 2020 Presidential Election opponent, Hunter’s father Joseph and which led to Trump’s first impeachment put Zelenskyy into the box marked “Unforgiven”. But not even that predictor of Trumpian pathology could have prepared experienced diplomats and commentators, never mind, the casual television viewer for the cruel evisceration of a war time leader who stayed with his family and compatriots, risking his life, after the unprovoked invasion of his country by a draft dodger and his partner in diplomatic crime.
Nauseating though was Trump’s previous description of Zelenskyy as a dictator and Vance’s criticism of Europe’s “enemy within” at the Munich Security Conference while remaining silent on Russian aggression, the ritual humiliation of him; the talking over and shouting him down; the preposterous accusations of “lack of gratitude” for US aid as if he was an ungrateful child who does not know what is good for him; the suggestions that Ukraine was responsible for its own invasion; the rubbing in of Ukraine’s perilous position (“you do not hold the cards”); the accusations of “disrespect” towards the White House as if Ukraine was a vassal state of the US Empire not a proud and independent nation and so obliged to genuflect to the Emperor from a man who has trashed every single institution and convention of decency and respect since entering politics was a spectacle that stunned even seasoned Trump watchers and which is creating such revulsion that may be serving as a lightning rod for an anti-Trump movement in the US if the reception that Vance received from hundreds of protestors at his family vacation ski resort in Vermont shouting “Go ski in Russia” is indicative of anything.[1]
Nauseating though was Trump’s previous description of Zelenskyy as a dictator and Vance’s criticism of Europe’s “enemy within” at the Munich Security Conference while remaining silent on Russian aggression, the ritual humiliation of him; the talking over and shouting him down; the preposterous accusations of “lack of gratitude” for US aid as if he was an ungrateful child who does not know what is good for him; the suggestions that Ukraine was responsible for its own invasion; the rubbing in of Ukraine’s perilous position (“you do not hold the cards”); the accusations of “disrespect” towards the White House as if Ukraine was a vassal state of the US Empire not a proud and independent nation and so obliged to genuflect to the Emperor from a man who has trashed every single institution and convention of decency and respect since entering politics was a spectacle that stunned even seasoned Trump watchers and which is creating such revulsion that may be serving as a lightning rod for an anti-Trump movement in the US if the reception that Vance received from hundreds of protestors at his family vacation ski resort in Vermont shouting “Go ski in Russia” is indicative of anything.[1]
In an inversion of the political and ideological allegiances generated by the Atlantic Alliance, Ukraine is becoming a mobilising agent; a signifier; a nodal point for the besieged ideals of liberal democracy potentially uniting most sections of left-liberal opinion from pro-EU Rejoin sentiment in Britain to Ukraine Solidarity campaigns in trade union and civil society movements with traditional conservative defence perspectives from figures like John Bolton, former US National Security adviser. Could we be seeing the remnants of the anti-Vietnam War 1968 generation; of the 1980s generation that opposed Ronald Reagan’s support for the Nicaraguan Contras and homicidal regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala and even the anti-Iraq War and War on Terror generation of the 2000s aligning the remnants of the foreign and defence policy establishments of the Cold War era that they so bitterly opposed?!
In the opposing camp are the resurgent Alt-Right parties and movements (and in the cases of Hungary and Slovakia leaderships) for whom Trump is the lodestar and Russia a keen backer in Europe and the remnants of Marxist Leninist or hard left anti-imperialist movements such as the UK Stop the War Coalition whose reflexive anti-Americanism leads to their support for Russian revanchism but for whom America’s retreat into isolationism and likely abandonment of NATO must be creating more than a few degrees of discombobulation and cognitive dissonance.
But for now, Ukraine, Europe and the junior partner in the trans-Atlantic relationship, the UK, have just a blow torch message of what exactly America First means. As I write this, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is holding a summit of European leaders aimed at securing *lasting and enforced” peace in Ukraine in the hope that some form of peace proposal on Ukraine can be put to the Trump administration, enabling a ceasefire and extraction of minerals in Ukraine in return for US support for a peacekeeping or peace making force there. Trump is resisting calls to fully commit US military support to guarantee and Ukrainian peace deal but has suggested the closer economic ties and an agreement on rare earth metals access between Kyiv and Washington would, in effect, function as a security backstop.[2]
But what would this sort of deal look like? Early versions of the mineral deal between the US and Russia which has gone through multiple drafts. Early versions demanded that Kyiv give Washington $500bn (£400bn), with the proceeds paid into a 100% US-controlled fund. Supposedly managed Washington and Kyiv, Ukraine would contribute 50% of future proceeds from state-owned mineral resources “to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine” For Trump, this represents “payback” for previous American military assistance and is “very fair". For others, it represents a mafia shakedown not least because the proposal, if realised, would allow the US side to sign a similar agreement with Russia and start digging without a cessation of hostilities. So such an agreement does not encourage Russia to cease its aggression nor does it contain security guarantees for Ukraine.[3] But the crucial question, which for all his insistence on the centrality of the US support for the coalition of the willing to support whatever peace deal emerges that he has assembled Keir Starmer and his foreign and defence policy team must have gamed, what happens if Trump does not provide the security guarantees that he is banking on.
In the UN General Assembly, the United States voted with Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Israel against a motion condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. Although this was a symbolic vote with no legal effect, there is a much greater symbolism at play. In plain sight and in plain documentation, the United States voted alongside four serial violators of UN resolutions, one of whom is a self-proclaimed enemy of “US imperialism” and part of George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”; another a remnant of Soviet era totalitarianism; another a serial aggressor and the other, though still a functioning democracy, risks becoming a pariah state like the other members of that quadruple due to its far right populist nationalist government and vengeful and domicidal response to the appalling pogrom committed on its territory on 7th October 2023.
But for now, Ukraine, Europe and the junior partner in the trans-Atlantic relationship, the UK, have just a blow torch message of what exactly America First means. As I write this, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is holding a summit of European leaders aimed at securing *lasting and enforced” peace in Ukraine in the hope that some form of peace proposal on Ukraine can be put to the Trump administration, enabling a ceasefire and extraction of minerals in Ukraine in return for US support for a peacekeeping or peace making force there. Trump is resisting calls to fully commit US military support to guarantee and Ukrainian peace deal but has suggested the closer economic ties and an agreement on rare earth metals access between Kyiv and Washington would, in effect, function as a security backstop.[2]
But what would this sort of deal look like? Early versions of the mineral deal between the US and Russia which has gone through multiple drafts. Early versions demanded that Kyiv give Washington $500bn (£400bn), with the proceeds paid into a 100% US-controlled fund. Supposedly managed Washington and Kyiv, Ukraine would contribute 50% of future proceeds from state-owned mineral resources “to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine” For Trump, this represents “payback” for previous American military assistance and is “very fair". For others, it represents a mafia shakedown not least because the proposal, if realised, would allow the US side to sign a similar agreement with Russia and start digging without a cessation of hostilities. So such an agreement does not encourage Russia to cease its aggression nor does it contain security guarantees for Ukraine.[3] But the crucial question, which for all his insistence on the centrality of the US support for the coalition of the willing to support whatever peace deal emerges that he has assembled Keir Starmer and his foreign and defence policy team must have gamed, what happens if Trump does not provide the security guarantees that he is banking on.
In the UN General Assembly, the United States voted with Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Israel against a motion condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. Although this was a symbolic vote with no legal effect, there is a much greater symbolism at play. In plain sight and in plain documentation, the United States voted alongside four serial violators of UN resolutions, one of whom is a self-proclaimed enemy of “US imperialism” and part of George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”; another a remnant of Soviet era totalitarianism; another a serial aggressor and the other, though still a functioning democracy, risks becoming a pariah state like the other members of that quadruple due to its far right populist nationalist government and vengeful and domicidal response to the appalling pogrom committed on its territory on 7th October 2023.
This vote along with the open support expressed by JD Vance for far-right opponents of liberal democracy and allies of Russia on the continent of Europe such as Victor Orban’s illiberal pseudo-democracy in Hungary and the AfD party in Germany upends all the assumptions of the now vanished post-1945 international order. The United States headed by Agent Krasnor aka Donald J Trump in subservient alliance to Russia, is an ally and sponsor to the nationalist, anti-EU and now anti-Atlanticist European far right; a network of future Quislings which to misquote Samuel Johnson proves that “nationalism (not patriotism) is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. What other rogue regimes or tyrannical would-be superpowers in a BRICS orbit girded by crypto currency will Trumpian America or, who knows, a Republic of Gilead or reborn Confederacy rump of a former United States of America broken by civil war? Whether Europe stands alone or not against Putin, defence spending needs to be ramped up to at least 3% of GDP in each European country. But rather than slashing overseas aid budgets, time to rework Keynesianism for the 21st century and drain the financial swamps of Londonograd.
References
References
[1] Daily Mail.
[2] The Observer, 2 March 2025 p.14
[3] Audrey Kurkov Humiliated at the White House. What do we do now? Guardian Journal. 1st March 2025 p.1
⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.
In the unprovoked war between Russia and Ukraine --the United States is the first to surrender. Trump has made no secret that he can make a deal with Putin --the implication has been that Ukraine is to blame for the war. And for anyone who has not been disgusted by Trump by now, do they still support him because he values war crimes -like child abductions, gang rapes, torture and summary executions of civilians and POWs. But god-forbid, if someone doesn't wear a suit.
ReplyDeleteWithholding aid from Ukraine can mean only one thing, Trump is making the United States a party to the war and wants to deliver Ukraine's defeat to Putin.
An unnecessary war in Ukraine provoked by an unwise US expansionist regime is now about to be brought to an end by an isolationist one.
ReplyDeleteTrump intends to end previous US props to European security. He believes that European citizens, rather than American taxpayers, ought to fund it.
It could be argued that US citizens have been effectively subsidizing European social policies. Now that there's a new sheriff in town the up-till-now US-funded gravy train service has been cancelled. Funding the shortfall is going to be painful on the least well-off across Europe.
Meanwhile, Macron and Starmer are more than content to strut the global stage and have the focus shifted from their myriad domestic political challenges
Henry Joy, there is only one aggressor and provocateur in Ukraine and that is Putin's Russia. As an Irish nationalist, I thought you would be on the side of the victim of Russian imperialism.
ReplyDeleteAnd US Democratic regimes haven't been imperialist Barry?
DeleteAnd the US didn't interfere in internal political events in Ukraine?
And the US didn't slap down Merkel's and Sarkozy's concerns at Minsk about unsettling Putin?
My invitation to you Barry, is to reconsider your positions, get past your judgments, and your evaluations about provocateurs & aggressors.
Then regardless of the rights and wrongs and who was most at fault, we just might agree that it's time to bring this to an end.
Henry Joy, the supreme war crime as laid down at Nuremberg is the crime of waging aggressive war. It is a fundamental principle of international law that states do not invade and seize the territory of another one. This is exactly what had happened in Ukraine. The ear will end when the aggressor leaves. Appeasing Hitler' did no good.
ReplyDeleteBarry - that is as it should be but what if the aggressor does not leave? Is the war to go on forever? Nor is is that the West arms countries for any good reason. The free world as you call it hardly prioritises peace. I don't have a serious problem when the people with muscle knock heads together to force a peace agreement. The issue here is that the US is knocking only one head and it is more for its own interests than anybody else's.
DeleteI thus refuse your invitation, Henry Joy. Slavi Ukraini. No surrender to Putin and Trump. Viva Europa. Hail Zelenskyy the leader of the free world.
ReplyDeleteBarry - whatever it is you are on don't be sharing it with the rest of us. There are enough crazies on the blog as it is without you feeding whatever that is to them!!
DeleteHow many more lives Barry ought to be squandered on your notional high altars of democracy and a rules-based order; a thousand, a 100 k, or 200 K more souls sacrificed to your gods?
DeleteIs there a limit to your idiocy or are you totally ideologically entrapped?
Good point, Henry Joy. These people are driving us towards a very dangerous place. Since we got rid of Russian gas, prices have gone through the roof. They are now talking about conscription and suchlike. It's just not possible. Russia is a nuclear power either a strong sense of identity and civic culture. Europe is quite simply unable to compete with windmills and the total fracturing of society around a totally totally vacuous and self centred civic ethos. They are also unable to compete militarily - look at the state of the English and Germany armed forces for instance. This could end very badly for Europe. And for what? What do we as Irish people get out of it?
DeleteRegarding the leader of the free world as described by Barry - if I wanted to see a coked up midget pumping his chest I'd go to my local pub. I don't need to see them on the television.
"Hail Zelenskyy the leader of the free world."
DeleteWhat exactly do you mean by "Free world" Barry?
Steve - free world is a very ideological term. But I would still rather live under a Western regime with all its shortcomings than under the more authoritarian ones. Societies like, China, Russia or Saudi Arabia would not appeal to me. Western values are fine if we can only get Western leaderships to observe them.
DeleteThats a trip and a half Barry. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and not until then. Too soon to pull up the drawbridge.
ReplyDeleteI want an end to the killing as much as the next person but I don't want Putin coming back for second helpings not the Baltic States afterwards. It wasn't people like me who started this war. Ever spoken to Ukrainian refugees, Henry Joy!
ReplyDeletehref="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/04/vladimir-putin-adolf-hitler-ukraine-keir-starmer">" The politics of fear always has the best tunes and defence is never precise in its greed. What is precise is Starmer’s readiness to sacrifice Britain’s public services and its overseas aid to the cause. That cannot be right."
ReplyDeleteBarry, whatever benefits people in the UK are in receipt of, or looking forward to, are in jeopardy if this craziness continues.
Henry Joy, Simon Jenkins, the author of that article, is a notorious appeaser and isolationist. The craziness is not brave Ukrainians resisting the rape and pillage of their country but it's supposed principal ally pausing sharing of military intelligence.
ReplyDelete"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy but to be America's friend is fatal".
DeleteHenry Kissinger
Chungus. Ireland First. Britain First. America First. There can be no islands of isolation like those fantasies in today's world. Presumably, you and the surrender monkeys in Washington would have caved into Hitler?
ReplyDeleteDear Barry, whatever one might think of De Valera, he was smart enough to realise that Ireland should not participate in the Second World War. Little has changed since. Ireland has no military capabilities and now the economy is deeply tied to assets and FDI, etc. So yes, Ireland first, sin é. There's little other that Ireland can do other than look after itself. A mature neutrality is the best one can hope for.
DeleteChungus, I am not advocating that Ireland participate in European military operations if that is not the decision of the Oireachtas or the people in a referendum. But is not Ireland's digital infrastructure at risk from
ReplyDeletePutin like any other EU state?
Barry, I enjoy your contributions and debating with you. Even the more heated debates on this blog are a source of enjoyment and learning but in this case i think you've made quite a leap from "appeasing Hitler" to "digital infrastructure." Ireland is of course at risk, probably more so than is generally suspected. I guess that industrial espionage is also rife and Ireland has few capabilities to deal with such threats. Ireland needs to get serious about the changing geopolitical situation. I agree with you on that. But I think the response needs to be nuanced and we can't just hitch our wagon blindly to continental Europe. As bad as Trump, Putin, Kim Jung Un, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot or whoever may be, the leadership of the EU also inspires no confidence with their kneejerk policies which are often entirely delusional and based on a world-view that is quickly becoming redundant.
Delete