Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 288 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer is at his best right now – but he must accept there is no going back with Trump’s US | Martin Kettle

      by

      Keir Starmer, it turns out, is at his best in a crisis. He has faced two since he became prime minister last year, one domestic, the other international. The first came with the riots that followed the Southport killings, when Starmer’s response was impressive and effective. The second is Donald Trump’s attempt to stitch up Ukraine, where Starmer has been surefooted in trying to hold the line against a sellout to Russia. In both cases, he has looked like the right person in the right place at the right time.There was another example of this deftness on Wednesday in the Commons, when Starmer went out of his way to mark the anniversaries of the deaths of UK service personnel in 2007 and 2012. A total of 642 died in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alongside their US allies. They would not be forgotten, he said. The name of JD Vance was not mentioned. Nor was the US vice-president’s contemptuous “some random country” insult this week. But Starmer’s reprimand was unerring.It is far too soon to say whether Starmer’s response to Trump’s embrace of Russia and to the US administration’s denunciations of Europe will be effective in the long run. What can be said is that, in public and private, the prime minister has so far led with tact and clarity and has scored one or two apparent successes against the run of play. Nevertheless, these are very early days. Trump boasted to Congress on Tuesday night that he was “just getting started”.Starmer’s ability in a crisis is an unexpected contrast with his leadership in the ordinary business of politics. Since July 2024, Starmer’s calm, methodical, long-game approach has succeeded only in squandering much of Labour’s election-winning goodwill, and in making him seem out of his political depth. But his deployment of these same unflashy tactics at moments of acute crisis, as in the case of Ukraine, could be gold dust. It has at least given the prime minister’s ratings a boost. There are echoes here of the rallying around Boris Johnson at the start of Covid. But remember where that ended up.It is useful to note that this low-key approach marks a notable break. Throughout the postwar period, British leaders faced with international crisis modelled themselves on Winston Churchill in 1940. Margaret Thatcher saw herself this way during the Falklands war. Tony Blair echoed it after 9/11 and over Iraq. Johnson pretended he was Churchill when Russia invaded Ukraine. Starmer’s calm approach evokes Clement Attlee more than Churchill. In every way he is unTrump.Yet Starmer has not got much to be calm about. The world of 2024 no longer exists. Trump has triggered a crisis in the North Atlantic alliance. At stake are two epochal things. First, whether Russia’s main western border will henceforward be with Ukraine, with Poland or with Germany. Second, whether the US accepts any role in ensuring future European stability. These are not small questions.There are three levels on which Starmer can try to deal with Trump, both now and for the coming four years. All of them tacitly and sometimes openly recognise the vast seriousness of the moment. All of them are predicated on the undesirability of what Trump is doing and the need to create alternatives. All of them, however, also rest on a determination not to make an enemy of the US.The first is to firefight the immediate problems that Trump creates. This involves constantly engaging with the US administration by whatever means are available to prevent or mitigate crises. It means building up defence spending. It means working with allies and so-called coalitions of the willing. It means using any leverage to earn a hearing. Essentially, it is an attempt to manoeuvre Trump to follow a different or less extreme course, while avoiding confrontation or denunciation. But it is all done under the pretence that nothing fundamental has changed.View image in fullscreenThis is essentially the strategy that Starmer is now pursuing on Ukraine. It is why he keeps talking to Trump – three times in the past week, perhaps contributing to Trump’s relatively polite mention of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the speech to Congress. It is why he deploys King Charles’s soft power. It is why, perhaps, he will soon return to Washington with Zelenskyy and Emmanuel Macron in an overwhelmingly important effort to restore military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine.The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028, when Trump is due to step down.For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal. Much will depend on Friedrich Merz and on Macron’s 2027 successor, too. Starmer and his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, are also likely to have an intense under-the-radar interest in the candidates vying to succeed Trump.Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did.

      Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is turning the media into a mouthpiece of the regime | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      You know we’re in trouble when Fox News emerges as the great defender of freedom of the press. But such was the case when Jacqui Heinrich, a senior political correspondent at Fox, responded to the news that Trump’s White House would now handpick the reporters who get to cover the president in small settings, with the post: “This move does not give the power back to the people – it gives power to the White House.” Heinrich was specifically responding to press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Orwellian claim that letting Donald Trump choose who would cover him was designed to restore power “back to the American people”.The fruits of the new policy were richly on display during the sickening scene that unfolded in the Oval Office last week. If the president and JD Vance’s disgraceful treatment of Volodymyr Zelenskyy wasn’t bad enough, there was the unprecedented role that the “press” played in the unseemly drama.Here I’m not simply referring to Brian Glenn’s pugnacious demand that the leader of a war-torn nation justify his sartorial decisions – less a question than a provocation that served as a prelude to the pile-on that followed. Trump appeared to wink at Glenn, a correspondent for Real America’s Voice, a far-right cable channel freshly included in the press pool, leading to speculation that Glenn’s question had been scripted in advance, a speculation that is both plausible – I mean, why not? – and irrelevant.For whether scripted or not, these are the kinds of questions we should expect when serious journalists are replaced with mouthpieces of the regime, puppets who perform the role of state propagandists in the guise of reportage. Glenn, who dates Majorie Taylor Greene and describes himself as “100% behind President Trump”, claims not to truck in far-right conspiracy theories – while insisting that January 6t was an antifa-instigated inside job and that a vast mechanism of fraud cost Trump the 2020 election.But before Glenn turned on the Ukrainian president, he had directed an earlier question to Trump: “Mr President, [do] you think ultimately your legacy will be the peacemaker and not the president that led this country into another war … ?” This puffball in the guise of a query gave Trump the opportunity to wax poetic: “I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker … I’m doing this to save lives more than anything else … Thank you, Brian, for that question. It was a nice question.”But we weren’t done with paeans to the great peacemaker. No sooner had Zelenskyy tersely assured Glenn that he would wear a suit once the war had ended, we were greeted with this question: “Keir Starmer … praised your courage and conviction to lead … What gave you the moral courage and conviction to step forward and lead?”In a properly functioning press corps, we might have expected that the question was directed to Zelenskyy, who, with exceptional fortitude and resolve, has led his countryin a war against a ruthless aggressor. But no. The question was directed to Trump, who responded: “Boy, I love this guy. Who are you with?” The answer was One America News, another network that operates to the far right of Fox, trafficking in conspiracy theories and committed to an unwavering support of Maga politics – and also a beneficiary of the White House’s commandeering of its own press pool.Once again, Trump grew almost wistful – “I like the question … it’s a very good question” – before blaming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’s attack on Israel on Joe Biden. From there, as we witnessed, things grew more acrimonious, but lost in the belligerent and belittling treatment of Zelenskyy, particularly at the hands of Vance (“Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting?”) was the Pyongyang-esque quality of Trump’s hand-picked pool reporters using their questions not to challenge or examine, but to burnish and bolster the Great Leader with ever fluffier valentines of adoration.Meanwhile, the Associated Press remained barred from the historic meeting, because it continues to call a body of water that lies almost entirely outside of US jurisdiction by the name it has carried since the 16th century.

      Lawrence Douglas is a professor of law at Amherst College in Massachusetts More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Resist’ shirts and ‘a little disturbance’: key takeaways from Trump’s Congress speech

      by

      Donald Trump delivered a divisive, falsehood-laden speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, touting the successes of his first weeks back in office even as his tariff policies have rattled global markets and his criticism of Ukraine has stoked backlash among European allies.Addressing lawmakers for roughly an hour and a half in the longest such speech to a joint session, the president’s sweeping proclamations and biting attacks on Joe Biden prompted many Democrats to walk out of the House chamber as Republicans offered Trump one standing ovation after another.Here are the key takeaways from Trump’s address to Congress:1. Democrats voiced their discontent, with one House member even being removed from the chamberAs Trump kicked off his speech, he boasted about his electoral victory over Kamala Harris in November, describing his win as “a mandate like has not been seen in many decades”. Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 points last year, whereas Biden won it by 4.5 points in 2020. Trump’s electoral college vote count of 312 surpassed Biden’s vote count of 306 in 2020, but Barack Obama secured 332 electoral votes in 2012.Trump’s comment struck a nerve with with Representative Al Green, a Democrat of Texas, who began shouting at the president. “You don’t have a mandate,” waving his cane as he spoke.The Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, then warned Green to “uphold and maintain decorum”. When Green continued shouting, Johnson instructed the sergeant at arms to remove him from the chamber.More Democrats voluntarily walked out of Trump’s speech as it went on, with some of them wearing black shirts bearing the word “resist”. Others displayed panels that read “false” and “save Medicaid” as Trump spoke.2. Trump doubled down on his divisive agenda and mocked BidenEchoing some of his most controversial rhetoric on the campaign trail, Trump warned about the dangers of “transgender ideology” and declared: “Our country will be woke no longer.”Trump repeatedly attacked his predecessor, labeling Joe Biden “the worst president in American history”. When Trump spotted Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat of Massachusetts, in the crowd, he again deployed his derogatory nickname of “Pocahontas” against her.Trump also applauded the work of Elon Musk and his so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), even as the billionaire’s efforts have sparked protests across the country amid layoffs of federal workers.“He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this,” Trump said of Musk. Pointing to Democrats in the audience, Trump added: “Everybody here, even this side, appreciates it. I believe they just don’t want to admit that.”3. Trump downplayed the risks of his tariffs despite warning signs in the marketsOne of the most noteworthy moments came when the president defended his trade agenda, just hours after Canada and China announced retaliatory measures after Trump moved forward with heightened tariffs against the two countries and Mexico.“Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again, and it’s happening, and it will happen rather quickly,” Trump said. “There’ll be a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that.”Trump’s escalating trade war has already contributed to wiping out all of the gains since election day for the S&P 500, and US retail giants have warned consumers to brace for price hikes because of the tariffs on Mexican imports.4. Trump called for an end to the war in Ukraine after his spat with ZelenskyyJust days after he and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, exchanged heated barbs in the Oval Office, Trump reiterated his desire to bring about an end to the war.Trump said he received a letter from Zelenskyy earlier on Tuesday, which seemed to align with the Ukrainian leader’s public statement that he and his team “stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts”.“I appreciate that he sent this letter,” Trump said. “Simultaneously we’ve had serious discussions with Russia and have received strong signals that they are ready for peace.”5. Trump repeated thoroughly debunked claimsTrump shared claims about the economy, social security and foreign assistance that have already been fact-checked and found to be false.The president claimed to have inherited “an economic catastrophe and an inflation nightmare” from the Biden administration. When Biden left office in January, inflation had fallen steeply from its peak in June 2022, and real gross domestic product consistently exceeded expectations in 2023 and 2024.Trump also repeated Musk’s incorrect claims that millions of dead Americans continue to receive social security benefits, pointing to the fact that at least one alleged recipient appeared to be 150 years old. But that data point reflects a well known flaw in the social security administration’s system in that it does not accurately track death records. A 2015 report found that only 13 people who had reached the age of 112 were receiving social security payments.6. Trump called for repealing a bipartisan bill signed by BidenRepublicans offered Trump repeated standing ovations throughout his address, even as the president called for repealing a bill that a number of them supported.“Your Chips Act is a horrible, horrible thing,” Trump said. “You should get rid of the Chip[s] Act, and whatever is leftover, Mr Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt or any other reason you want to,” Trump said.Signed into law by Biden in 2022, the Chips and Science Act has spurred investment in new semiconductor manufacturing sites in the US, and the bill was supported by 17 Senate Republicans and 24 House Republicans. And yet, Johnson and fellow Republicans still stood to applaud the suggestion. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Zelenskyy says he will work under Trump’s leadership as he proposes Ukraine peace plan

      by

      Volodymyr Zelenskyy has proposed a possible peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, saying he is willing to work “constructively” under Donald Trump’s “strong leadership” and to sign a deal giving the US access to his country’s mineral wealth.In an attempt to mend fences with Washington after Trump abruptly suspended supplies of military aid, Zelenskyy said on Tuesday he was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible”.“I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace,” he wrote on X.In an extraordinary turnaround, late on Tuesday both sides appeared to be close to signing a critical minerals deal that the White House has indicated is a precursor to peace talks, Reuters reported, underlining the chaotic nature of the relationship between Kyiv and Washington under Donald Trump.Alarmed European leaders reaffirmed their backing for Kyiv on Tuesday as it emerged that Ukraine’s Nato allies had not been told in advance of the suspension of US aid.A spokesperson for the Polish foreign ministry said Trump’s announcement “was made without any information or consultation, neither with Nato allies nor with the Ramstein group which is involved in supporting Ukraine”.Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, announced proposals to increase EU defence spending, which she said could raise up to €800bn ($848bn). “This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up,” she said.In his comments, Zelenskyy sketched out a plan for how the war might stop. The “first stages” could include a release of prisoners and a ban on missiles and long-range drones used to attack energy and civilian infrastructure. This “truce in the air” might be applied to the sea as well, he said, “if Russia will do the same”.Zelenskyy’s post came hours after the Trump administration said it was blocking all deliveries of ammunition, vehicles and other equipment, including shipments agreed when Joe Biden was president.He acknowledged his meeting on Friday with Trump and the US vice-president, JD Vance, “did not go the way it was supposed to”. He said: “It is regrettable it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”But his conciliatory comments appear to fall short of the grovelling apology demanded by the White House. Trump has accused Zelenskyy of disrespect, and the US president’s aides have claimed Zelenskyy provoked the row by insisting any peace deal had to come with security guarantees. Vance also repeatedly accused Ukraine’s president of ingratitude.By way of response on Tuesday, Zelenskyy thanked Trump for providing Kyiv with Javelin missiles during his first presidential term. “We really do value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence,” he said.On Tuesday, Vance denied that Trump wanted a public apology from Zelenskyy despite media reports to the contrary, saying that the “public stuff” did not matter as much as Ukrainian engagement toward a “meaningful settlement”.“We need the Ukrainians privately to come to us and say: ‘This is what we need. This is what we want. This is how we’re going to participate in the process to end this conflict,’” Vance told reporters on Capitol Hill. “That is the most important thing, and that lack of private engagement is what is most concerning.”US officials have said Zelenskyy and an adviser, Andriy Yermak, had sought the White House meeting despite the concerns of some Trump advisers who had said there was the potential for a clash. But there are also suspicions the White House was looking for a pretext to distance itself from Ukraine.At a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, Trump is expected to propose plans to “restore peace around the world”. A White House official told Fox News he would “lay out his plans to end the war in Ukraine”, as well as plans to negotiate the release of hostages held in Gaza, the outlet reported.Ukraine and the US were supposed to sign a minerals deal that would have resulted in the US investing in Ukraine’s underdeveloped minerals and mining sector. Trump has said the presence of US workers in Ukraine would be enough to deter Putin from future acts of aggression, with no further security promises needed.Asked whether he believed there was still hope for the minerals deal, Vance responded: “Yeah, I certainly do.” He added: “And I think the president is still committed to the mineral deal. I think we’ve heard some positive things, but not yet, of course, a signature from our friends in Ukraine.”Kyiv was ready to sign the deal “in any time and in any convenient format”, Zelenskyy indicated. “We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively,” he wrote.“It’s a temporary pause and it’s to do a reset,” Mike Johnson, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, said of the suspension of US military aid. “I am heartened by the development that President Zelenskyy has indicated that he does want to do this deal after all … I certainly encourage that to happen and he needs to come and make right what happened last week – the shocking developments in the Oval Office – and if he does that then I think this is the win-win-win scenario for everyone involved.”Moscow celebrated Trump’s decision to suspend military aid as “the best possible step towards peace”, with the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, saying the US had been “the main supplier of this war so far”.Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, told a cabinet meeting in Warsaw that Europe faced unprecedented risks, including “the biggest in the last few decades when it comes to security”. Tusk said his government would have to make some “extraordinary” decisions. “A decision was announced to suspend the US aid for Ukraine, and perhaps start lifting sanctions on Russia. We don’t have any reason to think these are just words,” he said.“This puts Europe, Ukraine, Poland in a more difficult situation,” Tusk said, adding that Warsaw was determined to “intensify activities in Europe to increase our defence capabilities” while maintaining the best possible relations with the US.France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said the US decision meant it was vital Europe helped Ukraine hold the frontline against Russia, which he said was “the first line of defence for Europe and France”. The time had come for Europe to drop its dependency on US weapons, he added. “We are faced with a choice that is imposed on us, between effort and freedom, or comfort and servitude,” he told MPs.The French prime minister, François Bayrou, said the US decision to suspend weapons aid in wartime signalled that Washington was “abandoning Ukraine and letting the aggressor win” and that it was Europe’s responsibility to replace them.Bayrou told parliament that Europeans “are going to have to think about our model, about our priorities and to look at the world differently … We have seen it is more dangerous than we had though, coming from those we thought were allies.”Germany’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, said: “Two things are now essential for peace through strength: additional aid – military and financial – for Ukraine, which is defending our freedom. And a quantum leap to strengthen our EU defence.”EU leaders are scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss a five-part, €800bn (£660bn) plan presented by the European commission to bolster Europe’s defence industry, increase military capability and help provide urgent military support for Ukraine. More

    • 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