Ukraine

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the US suspension of military aid: Ukraine and Europe’s race against time | Editorial

      by

      How long do Ukraine and Europe have to respond to US betrayal? When Russia launched its full-scale invasion three years ago, each day that Kyiv held out was a victory. The west rallied to Ukraine’s support at equally remarkable speed.Now, as the Trump administration turns upon the victim, and embraces the aggressor, Europe is accelerating nascent plans to bolster Ukraine and pursue security independence. Trump allies blame Friday night’s extraordinary Oval Office confrontation between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Donald Trump and JD Vance for the shocking halt to all US military aid. Others suspect that the administration was seeking a pretext for the suspension. Mr Zelenskyy pledged on Tuesday to “work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts” and expressed gratitude for his first-term approval of Javelin missile defence systems sales.That may or may not be enough. The suspension concluded a fortnight in which Mr Trump attacked Mr Zelenskyy as a “dictator”, the US sided with Russia against western allies at the UN, and the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, suspended offensive cyber operations against Moscow. There are reports that the US is preparing plans for loosening the economic pressure on Russia – even as it imposes punitive tariffs on allies. Little wonder the Kremlin crows that Washington “largely coincides with our vision”. Vladimir Putin has reportedly offered to mediate US-Iran nuclear talks. Observers were braced for further developments in the US president’s address to Congress on Tuesday.Analysts suggest that Ukraine’s forces should be able to continue fighting at their current rate for a few months if US aid does not resume, depending on what it has stockpiled. Though it is far less dependent on the US than three years ago, key elements like Patriot air defence missiles will be hard to replace. If US logistical and intelligence assistance and Elon Musk’s Starlink’s services were suspended, those would be further punishing blows.Mr Trump is in a hurry – hence his angry threat that Mr Zelenskyy “won’t be around very long” if he doesn’t cut a deal. This came after the Ukrainian president suggested on Sunday that the end of the war was “very, very far away”. Yet he has also squandered leverage he might have exerted on Moscow before reaching the table. He has emboldened Russia to pursue further territorial gains, especially if it can shape a deal with the US before a ceasefire.The US has already undermined central pillars of Sir Keir Starmer’s approach – maintaining military support for Kyiv and economic pressure on Moscow, and creating a “coalition of the willing” to guarantee Ukrainian security. Mr Vance derided “20,000 troops from some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years”, then claimed that he was not referring to Britain or France.European leaders must continue trying to buy time, deferring further US perfidy, and hasten rearmament for themselves and Ukraine. On Tuesday, Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, announced a proposal, including changes to EU fiscal rules, which she said could mobilise nearly €800bn for defence spending. A rival operator to Starlink is in talks with European leaders about satellite services.But this is an administration which moves abruptly and erratically. Ukraine and Europe are racing against the clock, not knowing when zero hour will arrive. It is likely to be sooner rather than later. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Stephen Colbert on Trump-Zelenskyy meeting: ‘Embarrassing, chilling and confusing’

      by

      Late-night hosts recap Donald Trump’s shocking rebuke of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during a disastrous White House press conference.Stephen ColbertStephen Colbert braced himself on Monday to recap Friday’s chaotic White House meeting between Trump, JD Vance and Zelenskyy that devolved into a shouting match between the two world leaders, with Trump as the aggressor, blaming Zelenskyy for continuing Russia’s war in his country.“In just 10 minutes, Donald Trump reversed 80 years of postwar US foreign policy,” the Late Show host explained. “A mere six weeks ago, America defended democracy against autocrats and promoted free and open societies all over the world. Now, we’re on the same pickleball team with Russia. And you don’t want to know who’s pickled balls we’re playing with.“So our friends are now our enemies, our enemy is now our friend, we’re breaking up with Europe, we’re friends with Russia,” he continued. “You could argue that’s a good thing, you could argue that’s a bad thing. But what you can’t argue with is that’s the thing.”The talks, nominally to sign a deal in which Ukraine promised the US 50% of its profits from rare earth minerals, collapsed within 10 minutes. “So things were looking promising, but then everything exploded and collapsed. It’s a phenomenon political scientists refer to as the Emilia Pérez Oscar campaign,” Colbert quipped.“Zelenskyy kept reminding these numbnuts that Putin breaks every single deal he ever signs,” he added. When a reporter then asked Trump what would happen if Putin broke any deal, the president responded: “What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now.“Yeah, that’s how Putin’s going to break the ceasefire,” Colbert responded. “This meeting was embarrassing, chilling and confusing.”Seth MeyersOn Late Night, Seth Meyers also tore into Vance and Trump for their handling of the Zelenskyy meeting, starting with Vance’s insistence that Zelenskyy thank Trump personally for US aid. “JD Vance sounds like a boyfriend who just got caught cheating for the third time – ‘You keep asking where I was last night, but have you said thank you once for the bracelet I got you!’” said Meyers.“For the record, Zelenskyy has said thank you many times, directly to the American people, in English, a language he speaks more fluently than Donald Trump,” he added.Meyers went on to note: “Diplomacy is good, we should try to achieve a ceasefire to stop the killing and bring peace, but it is possible – in fact, it’s necessary – to do that while also remaining clear-eyed about who the aggressor is. Who violated sovereignty and international law and human rights by starting the war in the first place.“But Trump doesn’t give a shit about any of that,” he continued. “All he cares about is self-enrichment and raw power and territorial conquest. That’s why he’s doing a solid for Russian oligarchs by letting them keep their superyachts.”Meyers also blasted Democrats for their feckless response, referring to comments from Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, that “we’ll need to see some mature leadership from the Trump administration.”“What is wrong with all of you?” Meyers fumed. “You want to see some mature leadership from the Trump administration? Well, I want to see all the gold in Fort Knox. And guess what? Neither of us is getting what we fucking want!“Seriously, Democrats, show some spine,” he added. “Do you want to get primaried? Why do you guys keep acting like this is your first day on the job?”Jon StewartAnd on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart mulled an offer by Elon Musk to appear for an interview on the show, as long as it was unedited. “After thinking about his offer, I thought, you know, hey, that’s actually how the in-studio interviews normally are. It’s unedited,’” Stewart said. “So sure, we’d be delighted.”Stewart added that he would “sweeten the pot” and keep the cameras rolling for as long as Musk wanted their conversation to last. “The interview can be 15 minutes. It can be an hour. It can be two hours, whatever,” he said.Musk later appeared to renege on his offer, posting on X that “Jon Stewart is much more a propagandist than it would seem” and not “bipartisan”.“The guy who custom-made his own dark Maga hat that he wears to opine in the Oval Office with the president who he spent $270m to elect thinks I’m just too partisan,” Stewart laughed. “I’m really not sure what he thinks bipartisan means, but it’s generally not ‘I support Donald Trump and also Germany’s AFD party.’ That’s not bipartisan, that’s just the same shit.“Look, Elon, I do have some criticisms about Doge,” he continued. “I support, in general, the idea of efficiency and delivering better services to the American public in cheaper and more efficient ways. And if you want to come on and talk about it on the show, great. If you don’t want to, sure.“But can we just drop the pretense that you won’t do it because I don’t measure up to the standards of neutral discourse that you demand and display at all times? Because quite frankly, that’s bullshit.” More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Why this is no time for Zelenskyy to grovel to Trump | Paul Taylor

      by

      For Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this is no time to grovel.After last Friday’s ambush in the Oval Office – where the Ukrainian president, who has led his country in resistance to three years of brutal Russian aggression, was beaten up in public by Donald Trump and JD Vance – some European leaders, including Keir Starmer and the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, rushed to urge him to mend fences with Washington. It was bad advice – and Zelenskyy should ignore it. In any case he doesn’t have much choice.The US president and his team have since made it clear that they want his scalp as part of their plan to rush through a ceasefire deal with Moscow that would leave Ukraine partitioned, without US or Nato security guarantees, but with US companies pouring in to exploit its strategic minerals. In the mafia style that he wields so convincingly, Trump unleashed his attack dogs to call for Zelenskyy’s removal, and declared “this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing”. Then he pulled the plug on US military assistance to Kyiv in an attempt to force Ukraine to its knees and impose Vladimir Putin’s terms for an end to the fighting.It is now abundantly clear that the Trump administration isn’t interested in mending fences with Zelenskyy, so he would merely court more humiliation without gaining extra arms supplies or security guarantees if he went crawling to his tormentors now. The man who refused to surrender to Putin’s invasion should not yield now to Trump’s ultimatums and extortion.He would do better to pressure his European supporters to deliver fast on their promises, while dangling the same reward of access to Ukrainian rare earths if they do so. This could become part of a package for an accelerated EU accession process for Kyiv.If Trump goes further, as he may well do, and cuts off the US intelligence feed to Ukraine and access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite communications, European countries must step in fast to help Kyiv using the EU’s government satellite network to avoid being totally blinded. The US should beware of taking such steps, which would signal to allies around the world that neither its security partnership nor its tech companies can be relied on for dependable service in a crisis.The White House train wreck happened so fast that some European leaders are still struggling to catch up with the significance of the event. That’s understandable, since it upended their mental universe, in which the transatlantic bond was always the bedrock of European security, enabling them to live in prosperity for decades without spending too much on defence because they were under a protective US shield.Within hours of the Oval Office bust-up, Rutte said it was “important that President Zelenskyy finds a way to restore his relationship with the American president and with the senior American leadership team”. You can’t blame him for trying to hold together the alliance that pays his wages and that has kept the peace in Europe for 75 years. But Rutte is in denial about the new reality in Washington. It will take time to adjust, but we don’t have that time.Likewise, Starmer’s call for bridge-building and mending relationships with the US, even as he declared Britain’s full support for Ukraine, was an exercise in mental gymnastics at a time when the Trump administration has decided to throw Kyiv under the bus in the quest for a new bonanza in relations with Russia. The UK’s security is so intertwined with the US, including the closest of intelligence-sharing relationships and reliance on US components and targeting software for its nuclear deterrent, that no British leader ever wants to face the nightmare choice between loyalty to Ukraine’s just cause and the so-called special relationship with Washington.It’s now up to the Europeans, including the UK, to show they are willing to go on supporting Ukraine practically, by emptying their ammunition stocks to keep Kyiv supplied and ramping up industrial production to deliver a steady flow of shells. They must remove remaining self-imposed restrictions on allowing Ukraine to use medium-range missiles to strike Russian bases and supply lines. And they must draw up practical plans for a security force to support Ukraine after a ceasefire with the assumption of little or no US support, despite Starmer’s plea for a US backstop.Zelenskyy cuts both a heroic and a tragic figure. He embodied Ukrainian resistance to tyranny when Russia struck, he has been a brave war leader under fire, yet now he increasingly looks like a martyr, to be torn asunder between a vengeful Putin and an unscrupulous Trump.But Zelenskyy and Ukraine can still emerge from this war as the successful defenders of their own and Europe’s freedom, provided European countries now back him to the hilt. Even if they cannot recover every inch of stolen territory, Ukrainians should fight on under Zelenskyy’s leadership and with European support for a fairer peace.

      Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Yes, Trump is a hypocrite. But is pointing that out an effective attack? | Jan-Werner Mueller

      by

      Historians and psychologists will study when exactly the meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy started to descend into political disaster. A plausible contender for an answer is the – in itself trivial – moment when Brian Glenn, representative of the far-right outlet Real America’s Voice (newly admitted to the press pool) asked the Ukrainian president why he was not wearing a suit.That framing – the wartime president was somehow “disrespecting” America – was then picked up in the vile attack on Zelenskyy by JD Vance and repeated by a chorus of sycophants in the Republican party (including Glenn’s girlfriend Marjorie Taylor Greene). Critics immediately pointed out the hypocrisy: if Elon Musk can appear in a T-shirt and a baseball cap at a cabinet meeting, what is wrong with someone wearing fatigues? That gotcha might provide momentary psychological satisfaction – but it’s important to understand why the charges of hypocrisy achieve little with the Maga-world and why, as a matter of political psychology, something different is needed.According to a much-repeated maxim from a 17th-century French moralist, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. According to this logic, hypocrisy actually contributes to moral standards being upheld, as no one wants to be seen flaunting them openly. Wearing a suit is obviously not an important “norm” – part of the problem with the whole debate about aspiring authoritarians breaking norms and crashing through guardrails has been that those diagnosing violations of norms have not always distinguished between different kinds of norms. They have also not made it clear why some norms matter for democracy much more than others (Trump was criticized for breaking the “norm” of having a pet in the White House).The larger issue, though, is that charges of hypocrisy do not land if the supposed hypocrite is not committed to any kind of consistency in the first place. They can simply assert that that the inconsistency happens to be justified: Musk de facto presiding over the cabinet meeting is OK because, hey, he’s a genius who can see more clearly than the rest of us why stopping cancer research and making hurricanes more deadly are actually making America greater in the long run. Zelenskyy, by contrast, is a Democrat in disguise who just does “propaganda”, according to Vance.An even better option for seeming hypocrites is to assert their superiority over those making the charge: Viktor Orbán is frequently accused of having betrayed his original liberal convictions; after all, he had been financed by George Soros to spend time at Oxford, his political party had a liberal, even outright anti-clerical, and pro-European program – before Orbán transformed himself into a cheerleader for the international far right. The response easily available to the authoritarian prime minister is that he has actually learnt something over the course of his career – to wit, that liberalism doesn’t work in his country – whereas the liberal critics, contrary to their self-image as sophisticated thinkers, cling to dogmas. Vance has kept pulling the same trick: he has learnt to stop worrying about Trump being Hitler and simply come to love the good felon, always emphasizing that he was able to see something in Trump that lesser mortals fail to get.A final reason why the accusation of hypocrisy is hardly a knock-down argument – and the one most applicable to Maga – is that those always ready to lie can hardly be caught out by claims about inconsistency. It is now clear that the Trump campaign was based on deceptions – starting with strident denials of any association with the Project 2025 Christian nationalists-cum-authoritarians. By the same token, Trump’s nominees were not exactly truthful in their confirmation hearings; and the entire Republican party is now evidently lying about their intended spending cuts.Pointing out the inconsistencies between what Maga Republicans – it’s not clear at this point whether there are any others – say one day and do the next will not be seen as a cause for moral introspection; rather, the inconsistency is proof of Maga’s power. What observers call performative lying is part of authoritarianism – think of Vladimir Putin lying to his interlocutor’s’ face, smiling, knowing that they know that he is lying, but cannot do anything about it.What about broader audiences? Do they not care about hypocrisy? True, some might; but, given the self-enclosed rightwing media ecosphere which has been created in the United States over decades – and the attention deficit of the public more broadly, to put it bluntly – it is unlikely that finer points about inconsistencies will get much of a hearing.The challenge is to devise rhetoric – and powerful gestures – that do not rely on complicated comparisons but stress how Trump and Musk are sabotaging the country. Democrats might simply boycott the Trump address to Congress next week and instead hold rallies and town halls establishing meaningful connections with citizens who Republicans are now refusing to listen to – and, yes, on those occasions, also slip in a point about hypocrisy: that the party that blathers about “giving power to the people” is afraid of any contact with the people.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University and is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      JD Vance says US economic interests in Ukraine the best way to guarantee its security

      by

      US vice-president JD Vance said that the best way to protect Ukraine from another Russian invasion is to guarantee the US has a financial interest in Ukraine’s future.“If you want real security guarantees, if you want to 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,” Vance said in the interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity which aired Monday night.“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,” he said.The interview aired the same day the White House reportedly announced it was pausing military aid to Ukraine and days after US President Donald Trump clashed with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.“What is the actual plan here? You can’t just fund the war forever. The American people won’t stand for that,” Vance said. This interview was recorded in advance, so it is unclear whether Vance was aware that the US would have paused aid by the time it aired.Vance and Hannity spoke about Friday’s contentious meeting, which Vance said he tried to diffuse. He said that the doors were still open for negotiations.“There was a lack of respect. There was a certain sense of entitlement,” Vance said about Zelenskyy. “They showed a clear unwillingness to discuss the peaceful settlement that President Trump has tried to bring to this situation.”Before Friday’s meeting, a minerals deal was meant to establish a joint fund between the US and Ukraine that would receive revenues from the mining of rare earth metals and other precious minerals in Ukraine, as well as some oil and gas revenues.Later in Monday’s interview, Vance doubled down on his criticism on European leaders over
free speech and democracy. The vice-president claimed that the Biden administration promoted censorship.“These ideas are going to destroy western civilization,” Vance said. “They’re going to destroy Europe, and they would destroy the United States of America if we allowed them to fester.”He went on to repeat anti-immigrant rhetoric, claiming mass migration poses a major threat to Europe. By the end of the interview, the conversation had turned to anti-trans topics, just days after Trump signed an executive order barring transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In Speech to Congress, Trump Is Expected to Boast About DOGE Cuts and Ukraine

      by

      President Trump is expected to boast about his assault on the federal bureaucracy and his efforts to upend global relationships during an address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, even as his administration faces lawsuits over his domestic agenda and Europe rebukes him over his treatment of Ukraine.Addressing his largest television audience since his return to power, Mr. Trump is expected to speak about the speed with which he has pushed through reductions in border crossings, cuts to government through the Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, and a slew of executive orders. He is also expected to emphasize the need to pass his legislative agenda, which includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts.“He’s going to talk about the great things he’s done: The border’s secure, the waste he’s finding with DOGE,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who speaks frequently with Mr. Trump. “He’s going to keep laying out his vision, where he wants the country to go.”For Mr. Trump, it will be a remarkable return to a chamber — and a prime-time, nationwide audience — he last addressed five years ago, before voters ousted him from office and replaced him with Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Trump’s return has set in motion a rapid-fire series of actions designed to overturn decades of policy and diplomacy.During his first term, the president delivered an annual speech to Congress that included a mix of exaggerations and grievance-filled attacks on his enemies. He is poised to do the same again on Tuesday night, using one of the largest platforms that any modern president gets during his time in the Oval Office.Mr. Trump hinted on Monday that he might use the speech to extend his public feud with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine after the Oval Office blowup between the two leaders last week. Asked by a reporter whether a deal to share rare-earth minerals was still possible after the shouting, Mr. Trump said that “I’ll let you know,” adding: “We’re making a speech, you probably heard.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Slim majority of Americans support Ukraine, poll finds

      by

      A US poll taken before the diplomatic meltdown in the Oval Office on Friday between Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, found that only 4% of surveyed Americans are backing Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine – but a large minority of 44% said they do not support the invaded country either.The CBS News/YouGov poll, conducted over three days beginning on 26 February, also found that a relatively slim majority – 52% – said they “personally support” Ukraine.Support for Russia was highest among Republicans – whose party is led by Trump – at 7%. A 56% majority of those Republican said they didn’t have a preference between the two, and 37% supported Ukraine.The polling found that – overall – 11% believed Trump’s actions and statements have favored Ukraine, and 46% said Russia.Asked if they approved or disapproved ofthe way Trump was handling the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, 51% approved and 49% said they didn’t. The same percentages supported or opposed military aid to Ukraine.The CBS polling also revealed that 30% consider Russia “friendly but not an ally” of the US – while 61% considered countries of western Europe, like the UK, France, Italy and Germany to be allies of the US.But 35% said they considered western European nations to be “friendly but not allies”; 3% said unfriendly; and 1% said they considered them an enemy.The most revealing aspect of the poll goes to the heart of the contentious Oval Office exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy, when the Ukrainian president attempted to persuade Trump and his cabinet that despite a “nice ocean” between the US and Europe, the US would in time feel “influenced” by Russia’s actions.Trump retorted: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”A separate poll conducted using online interviews after the confrontation found that 49% of those polled said that Trump and Vice-President JD Vance had a stronger argument over the value of diplomacy with Russia.The 2Way poll also found that 62% thought Zelenskyy’s remarks were offensive – and 55% said Ukraine needs to negotiate and end the war.On Monday, the US president hit out at Zelenksyy’s comments that a deal to end the war “is still very, very far away”.Trump posted that the comment was “the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer! … this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing.”That post from Trump came after a New York Times report on Monday that said the president had planned to meet with top aides to discuss suspending or canceling US military aid to Ukraine.The CBS poll appeared to reflect a sense of insulation to the Russia-Ukraine war. Poll respondents were asked if what happens between Russia and Ukraine matters to the interests of the US. And 31% said it mattered “a lot”; 42% said “some”; 18% agreed with “not much”; and 9% “not at all”.Senior Republicans not directly involved in Russia-Ukraine peace talk efforts have continued to denounce Putin – even as they express support for how Trump handled his meeting with Zelenskyy.That included the House speaker, Mike Johnson, who told CNN on Sunday that Putin is “not to be trusted and he is dangerous”, adding that Russia and other countries like China are “not on America’s side”. Yet Johnson also said on NBC that someone other than Zelenskyy may need “to lead” Ukraine after failing to show gratitude over US aid.The Oklahoma senator James Lankford told NBC that Putin was “a murderous KGB thug” and a “dictator”, saying Zelenskyy was “rightfully concerned” that Putin “can’t be trusted” to respect a ceasefire agreement.And regardless of political support for the US president, 76% said they thought Trump was making major changes to the America’s relationships with other countries. Of those, 31% said the relationships were better, 42% said worse, and 26% said it was too soon to say.But there may be some optimistic signs for European countries hoping that the Nato will hold together through the current turmoil. Asked if the US should stay in the alliance or leave, 78% said it should remain – and 22% said it should leave.But broader support for the current US foreign policy appears more mixed. Sixteen per cent said the US should take a leading role in the world; 67% said it should work equally alongside other allies; and 17% said it should not get involved in the world’s issues. More