We reported this week about a Labour Party MP proudly meeting a prominent neo-Nazi’s wife. But it turns out there was actually a “roundtable discussion in Parliament” with members of Ukraine’s far-right Azov Brigade. And this is exactly what happens when our lapdog establishment media outlets whitewash fascism on behalf of the corrupt political order they defend.
Azov neo-Nazis in the UK parliament
Labour MP Alex Sobel previously said it was his “honour” to meet Ukrainian campaigner Kateryna Prokopenko – the wife of Azov commander Denys Prokopenko. But Ukrainian-American journalist Lev Golinkin is just one critic who has been voicing concerns about this type of meeting. Because he has outlined Prokopenko’s membership of “the White Boys Club — a right-wing group of fans of the Dynamo Kyiv soccer team — which previously posted “phrases like ‘100% White’ and ‘88’ (code for ‘Heil Hitler’), praise for Holocaust perpetrators, and Waffen-SS insignia” on social media”.
As a Jewish person himself, Golinkin rightly sees the danger in platforming and empowering people with links to Azov – a movement whose founder Andriy Biletsky once said Ukraine’s purpose was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [inferior races]”.
But fellow Labour MP Alistair Carns joined Sobel’s fawning over the Ukrainian far right by revealing the presence of actual Azov veterans in parliament:
I was honoured to take part in an important roundtable discussion in Parliament yesterday with the brave Ukrainian Veterans of the Azov Brigade who fought defending Mariupol, and who were illegally held captive by the Russians. We spoke about issues relating to the status of… pic.twitter.com/wdtcVzdgPV
Carns also suggested that Russian invaders had “illegally” captured Azov fighters. It’s unclear what he meant by that, as it is legal to hold prisoners of war providing they don’t face mistreatment in captivity.
The West’s dangerous whitewashing of the Ukrainian far right for Russia-bashing purposes
Russia has certainly committed crimes in Ukraine in what has been a devastating conflict that didn’t need to go on for so long. The war has hurt ordinary Ukrainians and Russians alike, but Western governments saw an opportunity to further their own interests by fuelling Ukraine’s resistance to the 2022 invasion. So as Golinkin has explained, despite the fact that “nearly every Western institution raised alarms about Azov” before 2022, the West gradually found ways to whitewash the group’s fascism and welcome it with open arms.
Boris Johnson welcomes fighters from Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion to the UK parliament.
The battalion’s founder Andriy Biletsky said Ukraine should “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen.”
It is notable for its recruitment of far-right foreign fighters from the U.S., Russia, and Europe, as well as extensive transnational ties with other far-right organizations.
But as Golinkin emphasised in 2023, Prokopenko is “the type of person who Western media says is an example of not a neo-Nazi”, but:
He’s been photographed numerous times with a Totenkopf, which is one of the most common neo-Nazi symbols in the world. And he was part of Azov’s beginning — he was part of Azov’s beginning from 2014, from when it was still just a battalion form of a neo-Nazi gang.
He criticised US establishment voices for calling Trump supporters fascists while at the same time “whitewashing neo-Nazis” from Ukraine:
it’s insane that we are doing this… because they’re our neo-Nazis, and we’re celebrating them…
He added:
Azov has remained a hub for neo-Nazis to come over, and they can get battlefield experience…
how many world countries have actual neo-Nazi units? So, Azov has used this war to their advantage. They’ve used it brilliantly.
The media’s role in glorifying the Azov Battalion
Golinkin continued by insisting that:
the same media who spent seven years tracking Azov and tracking its neo-Nazi nature, suddenly, at the beginning of this invasion, suddenly turned around and said that, all of a sudden, this organization stopped being far-right… It’s just an incredible feat of whitewashing, which is denying reality, with Western media across the board suddenly saying, based on nothing, based on propaganda, that this entire group that attracted neo-Nazis from all over the world, that we’ve reported on, has suddenly stopped, stopped being neo-Nazis, and now they’re OK.
He also argued that:
the message that we are sending is that if you are the right type of neo-Nazi, we will arm you, we will train you, we will take you to Congress, we will celebrate you across our media, you will be our hero.
That’s exactly what’s happening in the UK too. Dominant European nations are intent on pushing Ukraine to continue its unwinnable war that manyUkrainians don’t want but are beingforcedto fight. And they’re empowering the far right in the process.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in a highly partisan 100-minute speech, the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history on Wednesday.
Trump defended his sweeping actions over the past six weeks.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump praised his biggest campaign donor, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who’s leading Trump’s effort to dismantle key government agencies and cut critical government services.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps.
Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
AMY GOODMAN: Some Democrats laughed and pointed at Elon Musk when President Trump made this comment later in his speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.
AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Trump repeatedly attacked the trans and immigrant communities, defended his tariffs that have sent stock prices spiraling, vowed to end Russia’s war on Ukraine and threatened to take control of Greenland.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it.
But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
‘A declaration of war against the American people.’ Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: During Trump’s 100-minute address, Democratic lawmakers held up signs in protest reading “This is not normal,” “Save Medicaid” and “Musk steals.”
One Democrat, Congressmember Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for protesting against the President.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Likewise, small business optimism saw its single-largest one-month gain ever recorded, a 41-point jump.
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 1: Sit down!
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 2: Order!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms to restore order to the joint session.
Mr Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order, remove this gentleman from the chamber.
AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called in security to take Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green out. Afterwards, Green spoke to reporters after being removed.
Democrat Congressman Al Green (Texas) . . . “I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare.” Image: DN screenshot APR
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: The President said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the President that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare. And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.
He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There’s a possibility that it’s going to be hurt. And we’ve got to protect Medicare.
These are the safety net programmes that people in my congressional district depend on. And this President seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programmes that have been so helpful to so many people.
AMY GOODMAN: Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green.
We begin today’s show with Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. Ralph Nader is founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. His most recent lead article in the new issue of Capitol Hill Citizen is titled “Democratic Party: Apologise to America for ushering Trump back in.”
Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, all these different programmes. Ralph Nader, respond overall to President Trump’s, well, longest congressional address in modern history.
Environmentalist and consumer protection activist Ralph Nader . . . And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza. Image: DN screenshot APR
RALPH NADER: Well, it was also a declaration of war against the American people, including Trump voters, in favour of the super-rich and the giant corporations. What Trump did last night was set a record for lies, delusionary fantasies, predictions of future broken promises — a rerun of his first term — boasts about progress that don’t exist.
In practice, he has launched a trade war. He has launched an arms race with China and Russia. He has perpetuated and even worsened the genocidal support against the Palestinians. He never mentioned the Palestinians once.
And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza.
But taking it as a whole, Amy, what we’re seeing here defies most of dictionary adjectives. What Trump and Musk and Vance and the supine Republicans are doing are installing an imperial, militaristic domestic dictatorship that is going to end up in a police state.
You can see his appointments are yes people bent on suppression of civil liberties, civil rights. You can see his breakthrough, after over 120 years, of announcing conquest of Panama Canal.
He’s basically said, one way or another, he’s going to take Greenland. These are not just imperial controls of countries overseas or overthrowing them; it’s actually seizing land.
Now, on the Greenland thing, Greenland is a province of Denmark, which is a member of NATO. He is ready to basically conquer a part of Denmark in violation of Section 5 of NATO, at the same time that he has displayed full-throated support for a hardcore communist dictator, Vladimir Putin, who started out with the Russian version of the CIA under the Soviet Union and now has over 20 years of communist dictatorship, allied, of course, with a number of oligarchs, a kind of kleptocracy.
And the Republicans are buying all this in Congress. This is complete reversal of everything that the Republicans stood for against communist dictators.
So, what we’re seeing here is a phony programme of government efficiency ripping apart people’s programmes. The attack on Social Security is new, complete lies about millions of people aged 110, 120, getting Social Security cheques.
That’s a new attack. He left Social Security alone in his first term, but now he’s going after [it]. So, what they’re going to do is cut Medicaid and cut other social safety nets in order to pay for another tax cut for the super-rich and the corporation, throwing in no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, which will, of course, further increase the deficit and give the lie to his statement that he wants a balanced budget.
So we’re dealing with a deranged, unstable pathological liar, who’s getting away with it. And the question is: How does he get away with it, year after year? Because the Democratic Party has basically collapsed.
They don’t know how to deal with a criminal recidivist, a person who has hired workers without documents and exploited them, a person who’s a bigot against immigrants, including legal immigrants who are performing totally critical tasks in home healthcare, processing poultry, meat, and half of the construction workers in Texas are undocumented workers.
So, as a bully, he doesn’t go after the construction industry in Texas; he picks out individuals.
I thought the most disgraceful thing, Amy, yesterday was his use of these unfortunate people who suffered as props, holding one up after another. But they were also Trump’s crutches to cover up his contradictory behavior.
So, he praised the police yesterday, but he pardoned over 600 people who attacked violently the police [in the attack on the Capitol] on 6 January 2021 and were convicted and imprisoned as a result, and he let them out of prison. I thought the most —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, I —
RALPH NADER: — the most heartrending thing was that 13-year-old child, who wanted to be a police officer when he grew up, being held up twice by his father. And he was so bewildered as to what was going on. And Trump’s use of these people was totally reprehensible and should be called out.
Now, more basically, the real inefficiencies in government, they’re ignoring, because they are kleptocrats. They’re ignoring corporate crimes on Medicaid, Medicare, tens of billions of dollars every year ripping off Medicare, ripping off government contracts, such as defence contracts.
He’s ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, including that doled out to Elon Musk — subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, you name it. And he’s ignoring the bloated military budget, which he is supporting the Republicans in actually increasing the military budget more than the generals have asked for. So, that’s the revelation —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, if I — Ralph, if I can interrupt? I just need to —
RALPH NADER: — that the Democrats need to pursue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about — specifically about Medicaid and Medicare. You’ve mentioned the cuts to these safety net programmes. What about Medicaid, especially the crisis in this country in long-term care? What do you see happening in this Trump administration, especially with the Republican majority in Congress?
RALPH NADER: Well, they’re going to slash — they’re going to move to slash Medicaid, which serves over 71 million people, including millions of Trump voters, who should be reconsidering their vote as the days pass, because they’re being exploited in red states, blue states, everywhere, as well.
Yeah, they have to cut tens of billions of dollars a year from Medicaid to pay for the tax cut. That’s number one. Now they’re going after Social Security. Who knows what the next step will be on Medicare? They’re leaving Americans totally defenceless by slashing meat and poultry and food inspection laws, auto safety.
They’re exposing people to climate violence by cutting FEMA, the rescue agency. They’re cutting forest rangers that deal with wildfires. They’re cutting protections against pandemics and epidemics by slashing and ravaging and suppressing free speech in scientific circles, like CDC and National Institutes of Health.
They’re leaving the American people defenseless.
And where are the Democrats on this? I mean, look at Senator Slotkin’s response. It was a typical rerun of a feeble, weak Democratic rebuttal. She couldn’t get herself, just like the Democrats in 2024, which led to Trump’s victory — they can’t get themselves, Juan, to talk specifically and authentically about raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, cracking down on corporate crooks that are bleeding out the incomes of hard-pressed American workers and the poor.
They can’t get themselves to talk about increasing frozen Social Security budgets for 50 years, that 200 Democrats supported raising, but Nancy Pelosi kept them, when she was Speaker, from taking John Larson’s bill to the House floor.
That’s why they lose. Look at her speech. It was so vague and general. They chose her because she was in the national security state. She was a former CIA. They chose her because they wanted to promote the losing version of the Democratic Party, instead of choosing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the most popular polled politician in America today.
That’s who they chose. So, as long as the Democrats monopolise the opposition and crush third-party efforts to push them into more progressive realms, the Republican, plutocratic, Wall Street, war machine declaration of war against the American people will continue.
We’re heading into the most serious crisis in American history. There’s no comparison.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, we’re going to continue to cover these issues. And I also wanted to wish you, Ralph, a happy 91st birthday. Ralph Nader —
RALPH NADER: I wish people to get the Capitol Hill Citizen, which tells people what they can really do to win democracy and justice back. So, for $5 or donation or more, if you wish, you can go to Capitol Hill Citizen and get a copy sent immediately by first-class mail, or more copies for your circle, of resisting and protesting and prevailing over this Trump dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time presidential candidate, founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. This is Democracy Now!
The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.
Europe stands ready to fight and die as peacekeepers to save Ukraine if necessary, but only with the Americans. So when they refuse to come and the disastrous Project Ukraine at last comes crashing on our heads, don’t blame us, blame the U.S.A.
Trump will become even easier to blame now that he has cut off military aid and intelligence to Ukraine.
The theater piece directed by Starmer at Lancaster House with an assembly of 15 European heads of government (and Justin Trudeau of Canada) was not really choreographed to try to convince Trump to reverse course, which appears unlikely, but as an elaborate presentation to save the hides of politicians who invested so much of their own political capital and wasted so much of their citizens’ money in the inevitable and humiliating defeat of Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine is, but in reverse, the same situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable; Obama, Biden, and Trump, are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of a WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Obama, then Biden, and now Trump), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink — into WW3 — in order to become able to achieve world-conquest. This is as-if Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962 — but, thankfully, he didn’t; so, WW3 was averted, on that occasion.
How often have you heard or seen the situation in the matter of Cuba being near to the White House (near to America’s central command) being analogized to Ukraine’s being near — far nearer, in fact — to The Kremlin (Russia’s central command)? No, you probably haven’t encountered this historical context before, because it’s not being published — at least not in America and its allied countries. It’s being hidden.
The Ukrainian war actually started after the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, shortly following that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in 2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to become allied with the United States against his adjoining country Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.
The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, bothbefore and after the coup, in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.
In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)
Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.
Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.
According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …
The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …
The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”
NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did agree to, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, America’s recent Presidents are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (America’s recent Presidents), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.
Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022. If Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962, then the U.S. would have invaded and taken over Cuba, because the only other alternative would have been to skip that step and go directly to invade the Soviet Union itself — directly to WW3. Under existing international law, either response — against Cuba, or against the U.S.S.R. — would have been undecidable, because Truman’s U.N. Charter refused to allow “aggression” to be defined (Truman, even at the time of the San Francisco Conference, 25 April to 26 June 1945, that drew up the U.N. Charter, was considering for the U.S. to maybe take over the entire world). Would the aggression in such an instance have been by Khrushchev (and by Eisenhower for having similarly placed U.S. missiles too close to Moscow in 1959), or instead by JFK for responding to that threat? International law needs to be revised so as to prohibit ANY nation that is “too near” to a superpower’s central command, from allying itself with a different superpower so as to enable that other superpower to place its strategic forces so close to that adjoining or nearby superpower as to present a mortal threat against its national security. But, in any case, 317 miles from The Kremlin would easily be far “too close”; and, so, Russia must do everything possible to prevent that from becoming possible. America and its colonies (‘allies’) are CLEARLY in the wrong on this one. (And I think that JFK was likewise correct in the 1962 case — though to a lesser extent because the distance was four times larger in that case — America was the defender and NOT the aggressor in that matter.)
If this finding appears to you to be too contradictory to what you have read and heard in the past for you to be able to believe it, then my article earlier today (March 4), “The Extent of Lying in the U.S. Press” presents also five other widespread-in-The-West lies, so that you will be able to see that there is nothing particularly unusual about this one, other than that this case could very possibly produce a world-ending nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. People in the mainstream news-business are beholden to the billionaires who control the people who control (hire and fire) themselves, and owe their jobs to that — NOT really to the audience. This is the basic reality. To ignore it is to remain deceived. But you can consider yourself fortunate to be reading this, because none of the mainstream news-sites is allowed to publish articles such as this. None of the mainstream will. They instead deceived you. It’s what they are hired (by their owners and advertisers) to do, so as to continue ruling the Government (by getting you to vote for their candidates).
When politicians in power are extremely unpopular, they generally turn to militarism and jingoism for a quick boost. Keir Starmer is now the darling of the U.K. media for his sabre-rattling over Ukraine and the prime minister is busily churning out tweets of military imagery.
In doing so he is attempting to pose as in defiance of Donald Trump and capitalise on the U.S. president’s unpopularity in the U.K., even though he was just last week fawning over Trump in the White House and inviting him on an “unprecedented” second State visit.
As ever, there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors here. The European leaders are going to come up with an alternative “peace plan” to present to Trump.
On Tuesday evening, hours after the Dow Jones stock index had closed — falling several hundred points for the second day straight in response to the U.S. imposing high tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China — Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress and declared a new “golden age of America.” In two days, global stock markets have shed trillions of dollars in value, far more than the U.
Labour MP Alex Sobel said it was his “honour” to meet Ukrainian campaigner Kateryna Prokopenko. But he forgot to mention some important context. Because Prokopenko’s husband Denys is the commander of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. And as journalist Asa Winstanley pointed out, pro-Israel liberals like Sobel seem keen to cooperate with Ukraine’s far right.
This woman’s husband is Denys Prokopenko, the commander of Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion: https://t.co/44oBvRTvrr
was initially formed as a volunteer group in May 2014 out of the ultra-nationalist Patriot of Ukraine gang, and the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly (SNA) group. Both groups engaged in xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideals and physically assaulted migrants, the Roma community and people opposing their views.
Its founder Andriy Biletsky claimed in 2010 that it was Ukraine’s purpose to:
lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [inferior races]
As Azov organised to fight in the areas of eastern Ukraine with large Russian-speaking communities from 2014 onwards, it received support both from the Ukrainian government and billionaire oligarchs. Over 14,000 people reportedly died.
When Russia finally invaded in 2022, it used Azov’s presence as a justification. And during the conflict, Azov has played a key role. Even the US initially held back support due to the group’s far-right links.
Palestine and Israel, Ukraine and Russia
Sobel, like others in the current Labour government, often spoke about genocide before Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began in late 2023, but became very quiet about genocide as it was unfolding in occupied Palestine.
Pro-Israel voices and the far right have longcosiedup with each other, and that extends to billionaires and establishment liberals (including Labour in the UK). What do they have in common? They don’t really care about how many lives are destroyed by their political games. All seem to want power and resources without accountability. They want to be above the law. And we must call out their toxic alliance of death and destruction at every turn – including with the Azov Battalion.
With Trump’s recent tongue-lashing of Zelensky at their meeting in Washington DC, social media is now flooded with anguished cries about Ukraine’s sovereignty and how the U.S. must stand up to Russia’s empire-building invasion. The “consensus” claims Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty cannot be tolerated and must be punished.
Respect for sovereignty? Are these well-intentioned but completely misguided folks incapable of remembering the not so distant past?
Did America respect Korea’s sovereignty when it canceled free and open elections there in 1950, instigating an unnecessary, brutal war? Over 2 million Koreans were killed.
Did America respect Vietnam’s sovereignty when it decided Vietnam could not have a Communist government there and slaughtered 3 million people? Vietnam is communist now. I’ve lived there. It does just fine.
Did America respect Serbia’s sovereignty when it bombed Belgrade for 79 days and finally carved out Kosovo so it could build what was for years the largest NATO base in Eastern Europe?
Did America respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty when it refused to work with the Taliban when they offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, but chose instead to invade and launch a 22-year war? We killed tens of thousands of Afghanis, lost the war. The Taliban is still in power.
Did America respect Iraq’s sovereignty when it lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded, killing, and displacing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens?
Did America respect Libya’s sovereignty when it and its NATO puppets destroyed the richest country in Africa and killed its revered leader, Muammar Gaddafi? Libya is a broken country now with a dysfunctional economy and open slave markets.
Did America respect Syria’s sovereignty when it funded terrorists to topple the government of Assad and eventually built bases in the country to choke off the food supply of the Syrian people and “steal their oil”?
Did America itself respect Ukraine’s sovereignty when it engineered the Maidan coup in 2014, toppled the democratically elected president, and installed a US puppet regime in power?
I could go on. But I’ll mention one last one, keeping in mind the Russiagate hoax where Russia was falsely accused of meddling in US elections …
European nations are facing a critical crossroads as their increasing military budgets are redirected away from vital foreign aid and climate assistance meant for developing countries. This shift is resulting in significant implications not only for the Global South but also for Europe itself.
Europe: cutting foreign aid to drop more bombs
As conflicts and security concerns take centre stage, billions of euros that were once allocated for fighting climate crises—such as floods, droughts, and cyclones—are being reassigned to bolster military efforts. This redirection has the potential to exacerbate inflation in Europe, lead to an increase in refugees, and undermine the continent’s international standing.
Gareth Redmond-King, head of international programs at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, highlighted the interconnectedness between European nations and those in the Global South.
Speaking to Bloomberg, he remarked “we are mutually dependent on these countries.” This reality is starkly reflected in recent decisions taken by various European nations. The UK, under Labour Party PM Keir Starmer, has announced a cut of £6 billion (around $7.6 billion) in foreign aid funding to accommodate rising military expenditures.
Germany plans to reduce its development finance by nearly $1 billion, while the Netherlands has proposed cuts totalling €2.4 billion (approximately $2.5 billion). Similar measures are being put in place by Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland.
The implications of these cuts are worrying.
Stark warnings
Redmond-King suggested that reduced aid would likely lead to higher prices on essential commodities like coffee, cocoa, and bananas, as fewer protections against climate disasters leave exporting countries vulnerable. The UK, for instance, imports around two-fifths of its food, with half sourced from regions increasingly impacted by climate change, including worsening heat waves and floods.
David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary and now CEO of the International Rescue Committee, articulated the long-term consequences of these financial decisions. He described the UK’s withdrawal from development finance as “a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader.”
His concerns are echoed by sentiment within the UK government itself, as Anneliese Dodds, the nation’s minister for international development, resigned in protest against the funding cuts.
Redmond-King also warned that withdrawing climate aid risks allowing nations perceived as hostile by Europe to increase their influence in strategically vital regions. He highlighted the irony that while there is a pressing need to increase defense spending, cutting climate aid could destabilise developing countries in ways that might encourage undesirable foreign influence.
Foreign aid cuts fly in the face of global priorities
The loosening of development budgets comes at a particularly troubling time, positioned just three months after the COP29 summit in Baku, where wealthier nations had made a commitment of $300 billion annually in climate aid to support poorer nations. This new military-focused budgetary framework jeopardises those pledges, complicating future efforts to fulfil these commitments.
Moreover, the financial markets are responding to this change in focus. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has seen a staggering 40% decline in value since the onset of hostilities following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, juxtaposed with a 64% increase in the S&P Global 1200 Aerospace and Defense Index during the same timeframe.
The shift of financial resources from climate crisis aid to military spending is poised to deepen existing crises in the Global South while further complicating Europe’s own challenges—marking a significant moment in global governance and resource allocation.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – A North Korean soldier captured in Russia has once again expressed his determination to defect to South Korea, painting a vision of a life where he can finally have “family, a home, and basic rights.”
The soldier, identified as Ri, was among an estimated 12,000 North Korean soldiers deployed to Russia’s Kursk region to fight Ukrainian forces who occupied parts of the area in August. Neither Russia nor North Korea has acknowledged their presence.
“I really want to go to South Korea,” said Ri, during an interview released by South Korean lawmaker Yoo Yong-won, who recently visited Ukraine.
“If I go to Korea, will I be able to live the way I want, according to the rights I hope for? Having a home and a family,” Ri asked Yoo.
“I’m from North Korea and also a prisoner. Would that make it too difficult for me to have a family?”
Yoo said that Ri had sustained a gunshot wound to the jaw so severe that it impaired his ability to speak clearly. He added that Ri asked whether he could undergo another operation on his jaw upon arriving in the South.
Another North Korean soldier, identified as Baek who was captured alongside Ri, told Yoo that he was still deciding whether he wanted to defect to the South.
“Just in case I cannot return home … I feel like I can decide soon … I will keep thinking about it,” said Baek.
A North Korean soldier (L), identified as Baek, captured in Kursk and now at an identified detention center in Ukraine. Part of the image has been blurred by South Korean lawmaker Yoo Yong-won (R) who interviewed the soldier.(Yoo Yong-won)
When asked whether North Korean soldiers would choose to commit suicide if about to be captured by Ukrainian forces, Baek said he witnessed it many times and thought about doing it to himself when he was wounded and collapsed.
White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said in December that the U.S. had reports of North Korean soldiers taking their own lives rather than surrendering to Ukrainian forces, likely out of fear of reprisal against their families in North Korea in the event that they were captured.
“There’s no official training in the military instructing us to do so, but soldiers believe that being captured by the enemy is a betrayal of the homeland, so they make that decision on their own,” Baek explained.
Yoo said captured North Korean soldiers should not be forced to return to their homeland.
“I urge our diplomatic authorities to do everything in their power to prevent the tragic forced repatriation of North Korean soldiers captured as prisoners of war in Ukraine,” said Yoo.
“Sending them back to North Korea would essentially be a death sentence. They are constitutionally recognized as citizens of South Korea so that must be protected.”
South Korea’s foreign ministry reaffirmed on Wednesday that it would accept Ri and Baek if they chose to defect to the South.
“We will provide the necessary protection and support in accordance with the fundamental principle and relevant laws that ensure the acceptance of all individuals requesting to go to South Korea,” said a ministry spokesperson, adding that it would work with the Ukrainian authorities.
Yoo’s interview with North Korean soldiers came amid reports that the North was preparing to send more troops to Russia despite increasing casualties.
South Korea’s main spy agency confirmed last week that North Korea had deployed more troops to Russia amid casualties, with media reports estimating the number at more than 1,000.
Ukraine said earlier that about 4,000 North Korean troops in Russia had been killed or wounded, with its leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy estimating that an additional 20,000 to 25,000 North Korean soldiers could be sent to Russia.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
European leaders—together with NATO chief Mark Rutte and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—met in London on Sunday to discuss further militarization and support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s administration following his humiliation at the hands of the US president and vice president. Trump and Vance’s treatment of Zelenskyy only deepened the perplexity that has been haunting European countries since January, when the new US administration began to chill relations towards its Atlantic allies.
On 4 March 2025, JD Vance posted an interview with Fox News to his X feed. In doing so, he managed to insult every single member of the UK armed forces who served in Afghanistan and Iraq:
An insult to every single member of the UK armed forces who died or were wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. https://t.co/5w7oA0OuB4
On Friday, Volodymyr Zelensky – the Ukrainian President – met with US president Donald Trump to sign an agreement which would give the US access to Ukraine’s reserves of rare minerals.
We all watched the Oval Office in horror, as Trump and JD Vance turned the meeting into a fiery exchange. We were sure it couldn’t get any worse. But JD Vance was clearly not done.
When questioned during an interview about the US guaranteeing security in Ukraine, Vance stated that:
The only guy in town with a strategy, is the President of the United States and everybody needs to follow his lead
He continued:
If you wanna actually ensure that Vladimir Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.
That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years
Whether it was a ‘fuck you’ to Keir Starmer’s show of solidarity with Zelensky on his UK visit, and his subsequent meeting with kaing Charles, or just his severe lack of brain cells. It is clear that Vance is way out of his depth.
One thing we know for sure is that the families of UK veterans are the wrong crowd to piss off:
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (of NATO) states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NATO triggered Article 5 for the first, and only time. As a result, NATO forces fought in Afghanistan. This included both UK and US soldiers, alongside special operations forces from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway:
Their 9/11 memorial acknowledges their triggering of Article 5 and how NATO came to their aid.
Since JD Vance first posted the interview, he has claimed:
This is absurdly dishonest.
I don’t even mention the UK or France in the clip, both of whom have fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond. https://t.co/hrkb5pTV8p
However, X users have rightly pointed out that only two countries have talked about putting men on the ground in Ukraine. Therefore, it is the only logical conclusion:
Of course you didn’t but by the same token only 2 countries had pledged ‘boots on the ground’ at the point you made your comment and therefore there can only be a single conclusion drawn
Once again, it is clear that both Trump and JD Vance are scrambling. Whether it’s for media attention, controversy, or for viral videos like the one posted today – or all three. They do not belong in positions of power and they do not deserve the respect they are begging for from everyone else:
JD Vance describing UK and France as ” random countries ” are words coming out of the same mouth that demands respect for the President. Respect is a two way street. You get it if you earn it. Once you’ve lost it you will struggle to have it restored.
— Between Here and There (@MarkRollas41903) March 4, 2025
The US clearly wants to leverage its support in exchange for exclusive mineral resource rights from Ukraine. Unfortunately for the US though, Trump and Vance showed the rest of the world their true colours.
Bullies.
The US has always extorted and exploited other countries – extracting and colonising along the way.
This is just another example of that – Trump and Vance breaking every political convention in the book and saying the quiet part out loud – their unbending belief in the US’s global supremacy.
The supporters of the Ukraine Solidarity Network (USN) inhabit the same contradictory moral and political space as the European leaders who met with Volodymyr Zelensky, their frontman from Ukraine, to reaffirm their collective commitment to the proxy war in Ukraine. The language of self-determination and rights easily flowed from their lips but not one of them had a word to say about the self-determination of Palestinians who are now facing another illegal siege by Israel in occupied Gaza.
This is the terrain of white privilege that must be confronted. The power to define who is human and who has rights. A power that is assumed by the supporters of the Ukraine Solidarity Network and a significant segment of the “whitish” left that attempts to obscure its Eurocentric class collaboration in left rhetoric.
As the proxy war in Ukraine is seemingly coming to an end, it is more glaring than ever that the last three years have exposed a profound failure within large sectors of the U.S. left, particularly their inability to ground their analysis in objective materialist principles rather than subjective moral posturing. This failure is not new; it echoes the left’s misguided alignment with U.S. imperialism in Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Tigray/Ethiopia, and beyond. By uncritically adopting the narratives of the U.S. State Department and NATO, these leftists have betrayed the anti-imperialist principles they claim to uphold, instead siding with the very forces that perpetuate global oppression and exploitation.
This failure is exemplified by the USN’s statement, which is steeped in eurocentrism and pro-U.S. nationalism, that not only delegitimizes its own narrative but also exposes a broader pattern of collaboration with U.S.-led Western imperialism.
The USN states, “Anyone with an ounce of compassion wants this war to end as soon as possible, but it is morally unacceptable for outsiders to demand that Ukraine surrender. USN continues to support the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and to decide for themselves what are acceptable terms for a peace deal.” In making an appeal to compassion and morality for the right of self-determination for Ukrainians, the USN has exposed its dismal understanding of the facts that led to the conflict. Their positioning of Ukraine as a hapless victim of Russia’s unprovoked and evil aggression completely blankets the reality that the U.S.-backed coup government, which ousted democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, legitimized a dangerous fascist element already present in the country now installed in the police, military and government. The Kyiv government used those fascist forces to lead the assault on the largely ethnic Russian regions in Donbas, Donetsk, Lugansk, and other cities in the east; and the Minsk II agreement signed by presidents of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany was intentionally violated and was only signed by EU members to give Ukraine time to amass weapons to attack Russia on NATO’s behalf, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted in late 2022.
The USN completely dismisses the geostrategic goal of some sectors of U.S. capital to disarticulate the Russian and German economies in order to strengthen U.S. leverage over all of Europe as a fantasy. Instead, providing ideological cover for this goal as U.S. support for Ukrainian “self-determination.” But their analysis of self-determination does not include NATO’s strategy of aggression to weaken Russia and provoke regime change through the deployment of troops, weapons, and carrying out war games on the border of Russia in Ukraine. These points were laid out in front of the EU Parliament last week by none other than the former neoliberal golden-boy economist Jeffrey Sachs [at 28:00 mark].
The left’s failure to recognize this pattern in Ukraine—where NATO expansion and U.S. militarization have exacerbated tensions globally—reveals a deep-seated arrogance and a troubling detachment from the material realities of Western imperialism. Imperialism is the highest stage of development of capitalism and signifies a global structure of exploitation, domination, and oppression of the non-imperialist countries and peoples of the Global South. At this moment in history, there are no competing imperialisms that can remotely compare to the U.S.-led imperialism’s global impact and its delusional quest for continued planetary dominance. U.S.-led imperialism represents the primary contradiction and primary enemy.
But instead of challenging the U.S. empire, the chauvinistic social imperialist left parrots the simplistic and rightist framing of global class and national struggle as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, ignoring the complex historical and geopolitical factors at play.
This failure is not merely intellectual; it is political. By siding with NATO and the U.S. State Department, these leftists have effectively aligned themselves with the forces that are waging war against colonized Black and Brown people worldwide, not understanding, or caring, that a victory for NATO and the West would be a disaster for the Global South.
Yet, we are supposed to be more concerned about some clown named Alexander Dugin supposedly pulling the strings of fascism in Europe through Russia than the strategic defeat of the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination that threatens the world. You cannot be more eurocentric than this.
Opposing the continued eurocentric, pro-U.S. nationalism, collaborationist elements of the U.S. “left” is essential if we are to build the unity and power needed to oppose imperialist domination. By refusing to take on the difficult work of remaining in principled opposition to U.S.-led imperialism and white supremacy, these elements of the anti anti-Western imperialist left help to sow confusion about the nature of Western imperialism and the reality that there is a common enemy that oppresses the non-European majority of the globe.
The U.S. left must reckon with these failures and recommit to the principles of anti-imperialism. This requires an abandonment of liberal idealism, a rejection of subjective moral positions that align with state propaganda, and a return to the objective materialist analysis that has always been the foundation of genuine leftist politics. Anything less strengthens the forces of imperialist domination and betrays the struggle for popular power and collective liberation.
President Donald Trump late Monday ordered a suspension of all American military assistance to Ukraine after his conduct in a televised meeting with the war-torn country’s president in the Oval Office last week sparked international dismay and outrage. Trump’s decision reportedly impacts over $1 billion worth of weaponry and ammunition that was set to be delivered to Ukraine…
There is something deeply moving about the ignorance and scatty nature of politicians. At points, it can even be endearing. In the apparently wide wake left by the mauling of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in front of the press at the Oval Office on February 28, backers of Kyiv’s war effort were wondering: What next? How do we prevent Ukrainian defeat at the hands of Russia? Having irresponsibly cuddled, coddled and insisted that Ukraine was in with more than a sporting chance to bloody and beat the clumsy Russian Bear that shows no signs of stepping down and hibernating, they now find themselves without a war sponsor in the United States.
The previous US President Joe Biden had been more than willing to keep the war machine fed by proxy, furnishing Zelensky handsomely. The Washington war establishment purred, happy that Ukrainians were doing the dying and bleeding Russia’s soldiery white. Cant and righteousness were in abundant supply: the Ukrainians were foot soldiers wrapped in civilisation’s flag, democracy worn on their sleeves. Accusations from the Russian side that Ukrainian nationalism was also adulterated by a history of fascist inclination were dismissed out of hand. A country famously seized by kleptocrats, with a spotty, ill-nourished civil society, had been redrawn as a westward looking European state, besieged by the Oriental Barbarism of the East.
If words of support could be counted as weapons, then Zelensky would have had a fresh arsenal in the aftermath of his tongue lashing by President Donald Trump and his deputy J.D. Vance. Much of these were provided by leaders gathered at Lancaster House on March 1 hosted by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer, for his part, promised that Europe would continue sustaining Ukraine’s efforts and, were a peace deal to arise, aid the country in improving its defences to ensure that “Ukraine can draw on munitions, finance and equipment to defend itself”.
French President Emmanuel Macron tried to clarify any doubt that had arisen in the Oval Office savaging. “There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago – and to keep doing so.” The “we” in this case, Macron went on to add, involved “Americans, the Europeans, the Canadians, the Japanese, and many others.”
Germany’s Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz also declared that “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war”, affirming that “we stand with Ukraine”. The country’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, thought it prudent to point out that the Oval Office brawl “underlined that a new age of infamy has begun”, adding that Russia would be withstood “even if the US withdraws support, so that it [Ukraine] can achieve a just peace and not a capitulation”.
Other leaders expressed supportive words of standing. Donald Tusk of Poland: “Dear [Zelensky], dear Ukrainian friends, you are not standing alone.” Spain’s Pedro Sánchez: “Ukraine, Spain stands with you.” Canada’s Justin Trudeau: “[we] will continue to stand with Ukraine and Ukrainians in achieving a just and lasting peace.”
When they were not standing, many of these effusively supportive leaders were scrambling, teasingly suggesting a bloc of military support that may, somehow, be formed in the absence of US involvement. This would comprise the sillily worded “coalition of the willing” (that expression, when used in 2003, saw the United States, UK and Australia, along with a motley collective, violate international law in invading Iraq). Such a coalition, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen dreamily envisaged, would transform Ukraine into a “steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders”.
This imaginatively foolish and recklessly irresponsible undertaking does little to patch up the irreplaceable role the US plays in a number of areas, not least the budgetary coverage of NATO, coupled with the promise for military intervention in the event a member state is attacked. Macron has, at stages, taken pot shots at NATO as cerebrally obsolete, a brain dead creature best be done away with. But these articulations, beyond such reports as NATO 2030, have not resulted in anything significant that would cope with an absentee US.
European states, furthermore, are divided ahead of the March 6 summit, where the EU will supposedly approve some 20 billion euros for the purchase of missiles and air defence equipment for Ukraine. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in a letter to European Council President António Costa, offered the view that the EU, “following the example of the United States – should enter into direct discussions with Russia on a ceasefire and sustainable peace in Ukraine”.
Slovakia’s Prime Minister, Robert Fico, was even harder in his response, suggesting that financial and military assistance to Kyiv could be refused were ceasefire efforts not pursued, rejecting such notions as “peace through strength” being advocated by various EU members. It was also incumbent, Fico went on to insist, that any settlement “explicitly include a requirement to reopen the transit of gas through Ukraine to Slovakia and Western Europe.”
With this in mind, and the pressing, crushing implications of power, not as fantasy, but as coarsening reality, other options must be entertained. Given their lack of punch and prowess, one arising from years fed by the devitalising US teat, European states are simply playing with toy soldiers. Eventually, they will have to play along if peace in Ukraine, however much detested in its form, is to be reached.
The supporters of the Ukraine Solidarity Network (USN) inhabit the same contradictory moral and political space as the European leaders who met with Volodymyr Zelensky, their frontman from Ukraine, to reaffirm their collective commitment to the proxy war in Ukraine. The language of self-determination and rights easily flowed from their lips but not one of them had a word to say about the self-determination of Palestinians who are now facing another illegal siege by Israel in occupied Gaza.
This is the terrain of white privilege that must be confronted. The power to define who is human and who has rights.
The Green Party has called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to rule out Aotearoa New Zealand joining the AUKUS military technical pact in any capacity following the row over Ukraine in the White House over the weekend.
President Donald Trump’s “appalling treatment” of his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a “clear warning that we must avoid AUKUS at all costs”, said Green Party foreign affairs and Pacific issues spokesperson Teanau Tuiono.
“Aotearoa must stand on an independent and principled approach to foreign affairs and use that as a platform to promote peace.”
US President Donald Trump has paused all military aid for Ukraine after the “disastrous” Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy in another unpopular foreign affairs move that has been widely condemned by European leaders.
Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine’s Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, declared that Trump appeared to be trying to push Kyiv to capitulate on Russia’s terms.
He was quoted as saying that the aid pause was worse than the 1938 Munich Agreement that allowed Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia.
‘Danger of Trump leadership’
Tuiono, who is the Green Party’s first tagata moana MP, said: “What we saw in the White House at the weekend laid bare the volatility and danger of the Trump leadership — nothing good can come from deepening our links to this administration.
“Christopher Luxon should read the room and rule out joining any part of the AUKUS framework.”
Tuiono said New Zealand should steer clear of AUKUS regardless of who was in the White House “but Trump’s transactional and hyper-aggressive foreign policy makes the case to stay out stronger than ever”.
“Our country must not join a campaign that is escalating tensions in the Pacific and talking up the prospects of a war which the people of our region firmly oppose.
“Advocating for, and working towards, peaceful solutions to the world’s conflicts must be an absolute priority for our country,” Tuiono said.
Five Eyes network ‘out of control’
Meanwhile, in the 1News weekly television current affairs programme Q&A, former Prime Minister Helen Clark challenged New Zealand’s continued involvement in the Five Eyes intelligence network, describing it as “out of control”.
Her comments reflected growing concern by traditional allies and partners of the US over President Trump’s handling of long-standing relationships.
Clark said the Five Eyes had strayed beyond its original brief of being merely a coordinating group for intelligence agencies in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
“There’s been some talk in the media that Trump might want to evict Canada from it . . . Please could we follow?” she said.
“I mean, really, the problem with Five Eyes now has become a basis for policy positioning on all sorts of things.
“And to see it now as the basis for joint statements, finance minister meetings, this has got a bit out of control.”
Kenneth Roth, visiting professor at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, responds to the shocking Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance, in which Vance and Trump publicly admonished Zelensky over the Russia-Ukraine war and accused him…
From day one, we humans have reacted to the extraordinary with awe and dread. Unprecedented phenomena evoke acute anxiety – even when not immediately threatening – because they are inexplicable. They sow fear because their nature, and whatever mysterious realm they emerge from, are beyond our comprehension. Thus, the compulsion to fit them into some ordered frame of reference. That entailed populating the earth and the sky with spirits, demons, gods and a host of related forces. In the imagination of more literate societies, they were composed into entire families of the supernatural – endowed with human attributes so as to make their persona and machinations more accessible to our mortal minds. The previously unknown becomes not knowable in any overt sense but it can be referenced. Calamities and boons alike can be ascribed to them – either as divine whim or provocation by human actions: (failure to propitiate the divine powers or consorting with malign spirits) Or, we might be victimized by the plotting by the juju men deploy witchcraft in the service of enemies and blasphemers.
These days, we do the exact opposite: we reduce the extraordinary to the banal ordinary. We normalize it. We neutralize by confining it to the mundane categories we rely on in order to understand how the world works and to navigate it. In this way, we alleviate stress – emotional or mental. That allows us to avoid the need to contend with the challenging, with what disturbs our comfort and convenience. This response is recognizable even when the phenomena encountered are of consequence, even among responsible leaders. At this moment, we are witnessing a remarkable example of this phenomenon. America is experiencing an imminent threat to its very essence as a Constitutional Republic – to its foundational values, to its principles of collective life. Yet, the reaction is decidedly undramatic. There is no general sense of crisis or desperate efforts to counter it. No urgency. The numerous assaults on the body politic by Trump and his henchmen are judged as serious, but each is addressed as if it were self-contained rather than part of a comprehensive, revolutionary – if erratic – plan to remake the country in MAGA’s perverse vision.
The harsh reality is that the country is under the brutal rule of a mentally unhinged autocrat with strong Fascist instincts. He, and his Rasputin Elon Musk, share the mentality of juvenile delinquents driven by the impulse to destroy and to coercive use of power. They are dismantling the federal government and subverting our political system. In textbook coup fashion, they have decapitated the senior ranks of every federal administrative unit, supplanting incumbents with loyalists who will do the bidding of their master in the White House.1 They command the blind loyalty of tens of millions of cultists. They control cyberspace. They have intimidated the formal opposition into passive acquiescence. Massive success in these twin projects has been achieved within just six weeks. In four years’ time, little will be left of the political system in place for the past 250 years; our society will be prey to pillage and oppression. The system’s reconstitution would be a Herculean project – even under the most favorable circumstances. At the moment, there is no evidence of such circumstances emerging.
The sine qua non for improving the odds, however slightly, on building some measure of countervailing force, is to cease-and-desist from the deleterious practice of normalizing Trump’s depredations. That includes casting him and his machinations in a positive light whenever a particular action of his conforms to our own views. The outstanding case in point is the termination of the open-ended Ukraine project of exploiting that benighted country as a weapon for subordinating Russia. That catastrophic failure should be recognized as such, and reversion from it is called for. Let us bear in mind, though, that the campaign that was launched by Barack Obama in 2014 was deepened by Trump I and turbocharged by Joe Biden. It reflected an overwhelming consensus by the country’s political class that the plan served major national interests. Several of Trump’s appointees have been vocal promoters of the campaign. Trump is anything but a natural conciliator and humanitarian – as evinced by his plan for extirpating the Palestinians, but his bullying of every country fend or foe in sight, and by his full dedication to confrontation with China. The expediency of calming relations with Russia has much to do with the girding of loins for the priority given aggressive campaigns in the Middle East and East Asia rather than earnest concern for European peace.
At the more practical level, the White House notion as to what should be the basis for an agreement with Russia bears no relation to the realities on the ground or to the Kremlin’s oft-repeated statement of its unnegotiable core objectives. Trump will not be happy with terms, however dressed up, that constitute a clear humiliation of the U.S. Similar ignorance, and fantasy, attaches to the proposal of a ceasefire which makes zero sense from a Moscow perspective. Simply put, the White House has no viable plan to end the war in Ukraine.
Instead of a sober appreciation of these truths, we find many critics of the Ukraine venture tossing bouquets of praise at Trump for his takedown of Zelensky in the White House. This disgraceful display of arrogance backed by mendacity is now being justified and often praised. We are told that Trump “schooled” him, “took him to the woodshed,” “taught him a lesson.” Whatever one thinks of Zelensky, the entire episode was an acute embarrassment for the United States. Our President behaving like a mafia capo engaging in an extortionate shakedown of a fellow gangster registers worldwide in a manner damaging to America’s image and interests. There is widespread backing for the White House claim that Zelensky ‘insulted’ the President and, thereby, the United States – a sin for which he should publicly apologize. This from a man who called Zelensky a “dictator,’ accused him of stealing tens of billions of dollars, lies about his alleged failure to thank Americans for all the wonderful things they have done for Ukrainians, and blames him for starting a war which Washington forced on Kiev. The last is carried to the extreme of coercing Zelensky to back away from the agreement with Russia, initialed in Istanbul at the end of March 2022, which would have spared hundreds of thousands of lives – and America’s (the West’s) ignominious defeat. Who owes whom an apology?
Trump sees Ukraine as a financial investment that went sour. So, you blame your agents for the failure and grab whatever tangible assets are lying around. He never will admit that our aid in fact was spent to make possible the spilling of Ukrainian blood for American purposes. Mea Culpa is not in his vocabulary. How will he react when his simple-minded ideas for ending the war prove to be fanciful? Find a scapegoat – Biden, Zelensky, the Europeans? Concoct another fictional narrative eagerly spread by credulous mass media? Create a noisy distraction? Or, fall on his face as occurred repeatedly in a career as real estate mogul featuring serial bankruptcies?
The blunt truth is that the United States no longer is capable of conducting normal diplomacy. Evident under Biden, it is even more alien to the Trump team. The man is a malignant narcissist, borderline psychotic whose only methods for dealing with the world are bullying, intimidation, and domination. We have seen that in living color for 9 years. He thinks in slogans and indulges any whim that passes through an addled mind. Still, there remain distinguished analysts who put forth the thesis that the displays such as we saw with Zelensky are just calculated showmanship, that in private Trump engages with colleagues in sober, disciplined, informed exercises in policy formation., and the careful weighing of tactical options. Picture Churchill’s war cabinet in May 1940 – substituting Trump, Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, Waltz and Musk for Churchill, Halifax, Attlee, Greenwood, Bevin and Chamberlain.
Even the best of us are not entirely free of the instinct to tint reality to match our wishes.
1 In key departments, the purge is being carried out well into the organization chart. At State, a special unit led by a fresh MAGA appointee is tasked with reviewing all 13,000 treaties and agreements that the U.S. has internationally. The aim of the sifting is to abrogate some considerable number. That number as well as the criteria to be applied in identifying disposable agreements is a mystery to those working on the project. When one staff official inquired of the non-entity in charge what methodology would be employed, his foggy response was to ask what is meant by “methodology.”
There was a revolting tabloid quality to the Oval Office reception given to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, but then again, President Donald Trump is a tabloid brute, a man incarnated from the nastiest, shallowest precepts of yellow press clippings and, ultimately, the reality television empire that gave him a crown and forever enshrined him in the culture of brash Americana. From the foamy cable television rot of the republic, Trump’s progress was inexorable.
With such ingredients, the White House has become a studio, with the statesmanship of the bullying show paramount. The electors are to be entertained by what might be called colosseum politics. They want bread, but are very keen on the circuses. They want season tickets to the MAGA tent where they can witness muscular events. They want to know that the US will recoup what it gives, with interest.
When the satirically gifted Hugh Hector Munro (“Saki”) warned that being a pioneer was never wise, seeing as the Early Christian tended to get the fattest lion, it would be better to say that the lions here – Trump and his shock troop deputy J.D. Vance – seemed to have been on lettuce offerings and stale water for a week. The lean, mean duo were remorselessly and disgracefully hungry, making sure the Ukrainian leader was subject to a battering that proved unusually long. (These Oval office briefings before the press are usually short, snappy matters: a few anodyne questions; a few general remarks that barely ripple.)
It was also evident that Zelensky had not gotten the brief about Trump, prompting Marek Magierowski in the National Interest to describe him as “a worse psychologist than [French President] Emmanuel Macron and [UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer], who had paid a visit to the White House just before him and, to some extent, ‘charmed’ the US president.”
Unlike the two leaders who had come before him, Zelensky thought it wise to engage in a squabble about Russian intentions and the character of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the factual record (always dangerous in dealing with Trump, who regards facts as, as best, malleable), a duel that saw shock trooper Vance weigh in. According to the Veep, Zelensky was not there to “litigate” the matter before the American public, which is precisely what he and Trump seemed to be doing. This was the language of prefects and school masters, with the student reluctant to play along.
It was a salient reminder that support for Ukraine has iced over, that it is no longer the blue-eyed boy of US politics, Western civilisation’s consecrated prop against Russian savagery. Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham even went so far as to demand that the Ukrainian leader “either … resign and send somebody over and we can do business with, or he needs to change.”
Trump’s opponents have fumed at the president for having laid an ambush for the Ukrainian leader and promoting Russian talking points, naturally exonerating previous administrations for their contributory role (former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s intervention comes to mind) in feeding the conflict. “Zelenskyy flew to Washington,” quipped Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Jake Auchincloss, “but he walked into the Kremlin.”
What remains crudely apparent is that Zelensky had been given ample warning about what awaited but seemingly failed to see the billowing smoke signals. At a Saudi-sponsored investment meeting in Florida, Trump had declared that the Ukrainian leader was only “really good” at one thing: “playing Joe Biden like a fiddle.” He was also a “dictator” who had refused to have elections. “He’s low in the Ukrainian polls. How can you be high with every city being demolished?”
Zelensky had also done little for his own cause last year by injudiciously involving himself in the US elections, speaking at a Kamala Harris campaign rally and paying a visit to a munitions plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania last September. “It is in places like this where you can truly feel that the democratic world can prevail,” Zelensky stated at the time.
That the visit was also conveniently located in a battleground state that the presidential contenders had to win hardly helped his case in the Oval Office skirmish. Vance could not resist unsheathing his sword. “You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October,” he snapped. “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who is trying to save your country.”
As a result of colosseum politics, no deals were reached, and certainly not one regarding US access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals, leaving Zelensky to seek solace in the bosom of weak European powers unhinged by the values of Trumpland. The lustre of the cause, at least across the pond, has not entirely vanished, though European support is hardly likely to swing matters on or off the battlefield for Kyiv.
There was a revolting tabloid quality to the Oval Office reception given to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, but then again, President Donald Trump is a tabloid brute, a man incarnated from the nastiest, shallowest precepts of yellow press clippings and, ultimately, the reality television empire that gave him a crown and forever enshrined him in the culture of brash Americana. From the foamy cable television rot of the republic, Trump’s progress was inexorable.
With such ingredients, the White House has become a studio, with the statesmanship of the bullying show paramount. The electors are to be entertained by what might be called colosseum politics. They want bread, but are very keen on the circuses. They want season tickets to the MAGA tent where they can witness muscular events. They want to know that the US will recoup what it gives, with interest.
When the satirically gifted Hugh Hector Munro (“Saki”) warned that being a pioneer was never wise, seeing as the Early Christian tended to get the fattest lion, it would be better to say that the lions here – Trump and his shock troop deputy J.D. Vance – seemed to have been on lettuce offerings and stale water for a week. The lean, mean duo were remorselessly and disgracefully hungry, making sure the Ukrainian leader was subject to a battering that proved unusually long. (These Oval office briefings before the press are usually short, snappy matters: a few anodyne questions; a few general remarks that barely ripple.)
It was also evident that Zelensky had not gotten the brief about Trump, prompting Marek Magierowski in the National Interest to describe him as “a worse psychologist than [French President] Emmanuel Macron and [UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer], who had paid a visit to the White House just before him and, to some extent, ‘charmed’ the US president.”
Unlike the two leaders who had come before him, Zelensky thought it wise to engage in a squabble about Russian intentions and the character of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the factual record (always dangerous in dealing with Trump, who regards facts as, as best, malleable), a duel that saw shock trooper Vance weigh in. According to the Veep, Zelensky was not there to “litigate” the matter before the American public, which is precisely what he and Trump seemed to be doing. This was the language of prefects and school masters, with the student reluctant to play along.
It was a salient reminder that support for Ukraine has iced over, that it is no longer the blue-eyed boy of US politics, Western civilisation’s consecrated prop against Russian savagery. Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham even went so far as to demand that the Ukrainian leader “either … resign and send somebody over and we can do business with, or he needs to change.”
Trump’s opponents have fumed at the president for having laid an ambush for the Ukrainian leader and promoting Russian talking points, naturally exonerating previous administrations for their contributory role (former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s intervention comes to mind) in feeding the conflict. “Zelenskyy flew to Washington,” quipped Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Jake Auchincloss, “but he walked into the Kremlin.”
What remains crudely apparent is that Zelensky had been given ample warning about what awaited but seemingly failed to see the billowing smoke signals. At a Saudi-sponsored investment meeting in Florida, Trump had declared that the Ukrainian leader was only “really good” at one thing: “playing Joe Biden like a fiddle.” He was also a “dictator” who had refused to have elections. “He’s low in the Ukrainian polls. How can you be high with every city being demolished?”
Zelensky had also done little for his own cause last year by injudiciously involving himself in the US elections, speaking at a Kamala Harris campaign rally and paying a visit to a munitions plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania last September. “It is in places like this where you can truly feel that the democratic world can prevail,” Zelensky stated at the time.
That the visit was also conveniently located in a battleground state that the presidential contenders had to win hardly helped his case in the Oval Office skirmish. Vance could not resist unsheathing his sword. “You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October,” he snapped. “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who is trying to save your country.”
As a result of colosseum politics, no deals were reached, and certainly not one regarding US access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals, leaving Zelensky to seek solace in the bosom of weak European powers unhinged by the values of Trumpland. The lustre of the cause, at least across the pond, has not entirely vanished, though European support is hardly likely to swing matters on or off the battlefield for Kyiv.
Volodymyr Zelensky has become accustomed to being feted in Western cities as the second-coming of Churchill, appearing before awards ceremonies, film festivals, the New York Stock Exchange and various national parliaments, (though the Academy Awards twice turned him down.)
All that came crashing down on him Friday in the 102-foot circumference, 816 sq. foot office at the epicenter of still the most powerful nation on earth, He was met by a buzzsaw of resistance from the president and vice president of the United States. Zelensky was dressed down, even about his dress, being told he was ungrateful, disrespectful, had lost to Russia and was risking “World War III.”
The White House is considering ending all aid transfers, including weapons, to Ukraine after an Oval Office press conference turned into an argument between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Zelensky.
According to The Washington Post, “The Trump administration is considering ending all ongoing shipments of military aid to Ukraine in response to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s remarks in the Oval Office on Friday and his perceived intransigence in the peace process.”
If the aid is terminated, Ukraine would not receive billions of dollars in weapons from the US, including missiles and ammunition that was approved through the Presidential Drawdown Authority.
Over a thousand Vermonters lined both sides of Route 100 in Waitsfield, Vermont, Saturday morning protesting Vice President JD Vance, who was visiting nearby Sugarbush Resort this weekend with his family. Vance’s ski vacation comes right after Friday’s disastrous meeting where US President Donald Trump and Vance ambushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.
On 1 March, Donald Trump hosted a nightmarish press conference in which he berated Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
While America betraying its allies or using them for its own imperialist agenda is nothing new, it is unprecedented for a president to do so in such an un-diplomatic fashion.
It proved hard for many watchers to stomach – particularly those who still believe the Western powers are the peacekeepers of the world rather than its plunderers.
In fact, it’s proven so hard to watch that even the UK Conservative Party felt a need to distance themselves from Trump’s actions:
Earlier today in Northern Ireland, I was asked by news outlets about Ukraine.
We must not forget that President Zelensky is a hero. He represents the Ukrainian people’s strength and resistance in this terrible war. pic.twitter.com/Sj9NKxQpnW
Speaking to journalists, the Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said:
I thought it was quite an extraordinary press conference.
This was putting it mildly. For those who’ve somehow not seen it yet, this clip shows where it all started to go wrong, with vice president J.D. Vance scolding Zelenskyy like a child:
We can all pretend Trump and Vance are some sort of inspired geniuses. Or we can see two soft bullies haranguing a man who has been fighting a war to save his country for three years. pic.twitter.com/v1j5QHcJMx
So yes, for once we’re in complete agreement with Badenoch; it certainly was “extraordinary”.
Past this, Badenoch continued:
And we all need to remember that President Zelenskyy is a hero. He represents the Ukrainian people’s strength and their resistance to an authoritarian regime that is trying to destroy them. He needs all of the support that he can get, and I think that it is inappropriate to conduct that kind of disagreement in front of cameras, as the only person who benefits from that is President Putin.
Badenoch expanded on what she said in an interview with Laura Kuenssberg:
"My heart went out to President Zelensky"
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch says she "couldn't believe what was happening" and that Ukrainian President Zelensky was "humiliated" while meeting US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office#BBCLauraKhttps://t.co/Qc14PAI113pic.twitter.com/jBOB0yA79N
It shows just how much Trump has fucked up when the failing UK Conservative Party feels like they have no choice but to admonish him. This is especially true given that we’ve all seen how Trump and goons like Elon Musk treat those who speak out.
So why is this happening?
Donald Trump: car-crash propaganda
What Trump seems oblivious to is that he can’t just unravel decades of Western propaganda in a single press interview. Citizens in the West – particularly in the US and the UK – have been conditioned to see ourselves as ‘the good guys’; to see ourselves as the ‘international rules based order’; to see ourselves as the bulwark against malign foreign threats like Russia. There are also two important factors at play with the Ukraine war:
It’s one of the rare conflicts post-WWII in which we’ve sided with the invaded force (as opposed to just invading someone ourselves).
Ukraine has a majority white population, meaning a wider range of people in the West can put themselves in the shoes of those being invaded.
The message from politicians and the media has been clear; we are the good guys, Russia are the bad guys, and supporting this war is righteous. And then Trump grabbed the handbrake, sending everything into a spin.
It’s worth pointing out that Badenoch agrees with our assessment of how Western politics usually operates; just look at how she phrased it:
I think that it is inappropriate to conduct that kind of disagreement in front of cameras
In other words, there’s one reality for the cameras and another behind closed doors.
Or there was, anyway.
Awake to the American nightmare
Towards the end of the Zelenskyy haranguing, Trump said:
I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important; that’s why I kept it going so long.
What Trump meant was that he wants Americans to see what a ‘bad deal’ they got with Ukraine. As often happens with Trump, though, there’s a truth to his words beyond his intentions. This was an instance in which the American people got to “see what’s going on”, as this is precisely how America treats its allies once it can no longer benefit from them.
One recent example of America betraying a key ally is when they abandoned the Kurds to an attack from Turkey. The Kurds played a key role in defeating ISIS, but they never enjoyed the popular coverage that Ukraine did, so it was easy for America to abandon them (not to mention the fact that they come from a part of the world we’ve been conditioned is inherently prone to conflict).
The trope of America abandoning its allies is such that people are actually meming about it:
Moreover, Trump also pulled the curtain down on the entire American imperialist project. For him, Ukraine and the ill-fated meeting with Zelensky was, in his own words, about a deal; a business deal at that.
This, once again, is no different to how Western leaders view their relationships with the rest of the world. However, again these comments are usually reserved for behind close doors – and a humanitarian facade is created for the public.
Here, Trump made it clear that Ukraine, its people, and their lives, were little more than chips on a poker board to him – much like Biden before him. It’s just that Trump said the quiet part out loud.
Hard power
From what we’ve seen of Trump’s second term so far, it’s clear that he’s on a mission to drastically shift politics in a similar fashion to how post-war governments moved towards social democracy and how Reagan/Thatcher moved towards deregulation. The Trump project so far has involved ending ‘soft power‘, gutting the federal government, and declaring a trade war on something like half of the planet.
What happened with Zelenskyy is that Trump replaced soft power (trading aid for influence) with hard power (taking what he wants at no benefit to Ukraine). What remains to be seen is if he can make this pivot stick, or if the people of the West need the propaganda to stomach how we behave on the world stage.
(@90125Meddle) 
(@dave43law) 
