American Shadow
America is a shadow of itself and now cast a dark shadow across the world. The spectacle in the Oval Office was a disgraceful exercise in public (global) humiliation and a gross demand for fealty. It was a callous act by two bullies, with JD Vance playing to his MAGA base and seemingly leading and controlling the event. As the Ukrainian novelist Andrey Kurkov put it: “Zelenskyy was called to the White House to sign, but not speak.”
The consequences for this are barely being understood because they are so immense.
First of all the United States is now an ally of Russia. This overturns seventy five years of history and makes a nonsense of Britain’s entire defence strategy and has massive consequences for Scotland (which seem to have just been completely ignored by everyone). As Timothy Snyder points out here, on top of everything else, siding with Russia makes no strategic economic strategic sense for the USA at all. It is not about US interests, it is about gangster politics and corruption.
Secondly, it puts Keir Starmer’s strange sycophantic performance in a new context. Starmer’s position and his stupid Letter from the King performance look utterly ridiculous now. The USA is a rogue nation controlled by a cult and any notion of being in ANY partnership with them is a joke, never mind the laughable “Special Relationship” shtick. The plan that we were presented with as “Starmer’s finest moment” was that we destroyed UK overseas aid to fund an army to defend the USA pillaging Ukranian rare earth metal resources, for reasons unknown. It was an utterly bizarre proposal, now made impossible and indefensible.
Thirdly, the mainstream media’s response to the incident is revealing.
Tim Shipman: “Calls for Starmer to tweet against Trump are frankly fatuous. He’s about the only one who can be an honest broker between DT and VZ. If European leaders spent as much time working out how to build up defence capability as they do virtue signalling, we wouldn’t be in this mess.”
Sarah Smith for BBC News made a very overt attempt to frame the situation as Zelensky’s doing, talking of “enraging the American President even further”, “refusing to back down”, “blown his one big chance” and how “he’s made an enemy”.
Jon Sopel: “God this is awful. For three years Zelenskyy has been a public relations genius. But this is not how you play Trump.”
The British commentariat are united in the idea that their government should show a level of deference that is deeply embarrassing, and so should everyone else. Journalists seems to have been filleted of any critical thinking, and now just demand deference to the World King Trump, skating over atrocious and astonishing domestic and foreign policy. It seems incomprehensible to our media class that we should do anything other than roll over. It’s a long way from the hot air of Brexit triumphalism and the ridiculous rhetoric of Global Britain.
Fourth, things are moving very quickly. Trump administration press secretary Caroline Leavitt has stated that the U.S. will no longer provide military assistance to Ukraine because their priority is peace negotiations. This decision came after the controversy during Zelensky’s visit. “We are no longer going to just write blank checks for a war in a very distant country without a real, lasting peace,” Leavitt said. “It was great that the cameras were rolling because the American people and the whole world got to see what President Trump and his team are dealing with behind closed doors in negotiations with the Ukrainians,” she added. Earlier, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration is not ruling out halting all ongoing military aid shipments to Ukraine, worth billions of dollars.
The consequences of this, and the stage-managed Oval Office spectacle, are a carve-up. Some such possibilities have already been announced by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, who has said that Russia still plans to seize the entirety of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
Fifth, all eyes are now on tomorrow’s summit in London, hosted by the massively compromised British Prime Minister. While the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, called out what he termed Zelenskyy’s “impertinence” and described the showdown as “one of the great moments in the history of American diplomacy”, it’s not a view shared across the world with the global condemnation being almost instant.
The MAGA government are in complete denial about the consequences of all of this. European leaders have stood behind Zelenskyy, with the German president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, saying he “would never have believed that we would one day have to protect Ukraine from the USA”.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said if someone is gambling with the third world war – as Trump accused Zelenskyy of doing on Friday – it was not Zelenskyy.
Sixth, Scotland’s role as a country tethered to the British state has never been more exposed. We were a pawn in Starmer’s pathetic offering, being given as a gift with Balmoral and a round of golf served up. In the unlikely event that Starmer and the Royal Family are so utterly crass as to continue to offer Trump a state visit, including a trip to Scotland, there should be a massive public response.
Finally, the coterie of apologists for Putin and the enthusiasts for Trump and Trumpism that exist in surprising spaces across Scotland should either have a period of quiet reflection or be exposed and ridiculed for their frankly disgraceful appeasement of both.
If you enjoyed this article and want to support Bella Caledonia to continue
and thrive, please support our Crowd Funder below, thank you …
With a media owned by billionaires and oligarchs and with your timelines flooded with propaganda, we need independent media more than ever. Help us get to £10k and develop Scotland’s longest-running alternative media project:
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
Trump is a monster and very bad news for women and minorities in the USA but there is no evidence here that he is worse for world peace. This is the replacement of one elite harmful to us all with another elite probably as harmful to us all.
If Hilary Clinton was President, then, like her husband before her, and both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon and Johnson, before them and all the way back to FDR, the USA would be intervening, often on behalf of corporate interests, removing regimes, on a whim, it once supported but no longer does and leaving bloody dysfunctional societies characterised by extreme poverty, disease, violence, corruption, misogyny and homophobia behind them.
Mostly, Britain under Labour or Cons, would be in on their coat-tails, spending billions needed for public services in the UK and paying the ‘blood price’, often in Scots lives, that Blair was so proud to meet.
For 90% of us, it makes no difference which coven of narcissistic psychopaths is in charge. Trump might even, through no real care or compassion, actually cut the cost in blood.
Let’s see before we think we know what will happen.
“Trump is a monster and very bad news for women and minorities in the USA but there is no evidence here that he is worse for world peace.” I mean first of all these statements are contradictory but second his actions may well mean the carve-up of a sovereign European country – a military invasion that’s been rewarded. Surely as an advocate of Scottish sovereignty you support Ukrainian sovereignty John?
It’s all just the Cuban Missile Crisis on the other side. Russia has reacted to the possibility of nato nukes on the doorstep in exactly the same way we would do. Christ, look how we reacted to Saddam’s imaginary 45 minutes away weapons of mass destruction!
Spot on.
This is naïve in the extreme. This has never been primarily about Russia’s concerns over the proximity of NATO. Putin didn’t appear to give a hoot about provoking Sweden and Finland into joining the Alliance. He has made no secret of his imperial ambitions, which are a major expansion of Russian dominion, well beyond Ukraine.
The government’s of the west persuaded Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons. Your Cuba analogy is therefore fatuous.
While acknowledging the west were gung ho post Soviet breakup and should have listened more to Gorbachev we are dealing with different leaders and in a different time now.
The ridiculous argument that because the west has made mistakes in the past and therefore should not stand up for Ukraine when it is being invaded is tantamount to saying we shouldn’t have opposed Hitler because Versailles agreement was unfair to German nation.
I, like majority of fair minded people, understand the past wasn’t perfect, but see Putin for the autocrat that he is and support Ukraine in both fighting back against the aggressor and in getting a sustainable and fair peace settlement.
I am glad Starmer welcomed Zelenskyy so cordially yesterday after the disgraceful, mafia type behaviour of the narcissistic Trump and his jumped up glove puppet henchman Vance.
I only wish Starmer and the leaders of West could show similar resolve in standing up for civilians in Gaza against USA and Netanyahu.
You’ve got me on the contradictory. Don’t get that but on sovereignty, what about the Russian population in the east? Are they not more comparable to Scots wishing to break away from UK?
That analogy is completely nonsensical.
A better analogy would be England invading borders of Scotland after Scotland became independent on pretext there was a high number of English people living there.
If you remember Russian tanks were turned back from outskirts of Kyiv at start of war so there can be no doubt that Putin aimed to annex all of Ukraine.
An even better analogy would be England threatening to invade an independent Scotland that was ready to join BRICS and have Chinese nukes stationed at Faslane.
Nonsense- nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine previously under agreement with west. NATO has previously refused Ukraine’s request to join NATO but having been invaded by Russia it is entirely reasonable to accede to request. Why do you think Scandinavian nations have joined NATO after years of non alignment.
Russia fears Ukraine and other neighbouring nations joining EU because their own citizens might see benefits and want Russia to as well.
Every oblast in Ukraine except Sevastopol and Crimea had a majority Ukrainian population before the first Russian invasion in 2014. Every oblast including Sevastopol and Crimea voted for Ukraine’s independence in 1991.
Aye.
Even Homer Simpson was never that rude
Great article, Mike. I can’t help but feel the BBC response makes perfect sense, since to rise as a journalist within the BBC one has to do a lifetime of the same boot licking and arse kissing they could so easily relate to in Starmer’s quisling performance on Thursday. It’s the only way of existing that a BBC journalist could understand, or they wouldn’t be a BBC journalist.
Just so.
Garbage
As I have maintained before and since the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, this is an inter-imperialist rivalry, the fate of the respective peoples–aka the 99%–being of distance consequence to the main actors. I say ‘main actors’ because they are not Ukraine/Russia, but Russia/US (and, a bit more inclusively, the imperialist bloc commonly referred to as “the West”). My allegiance and support is always with the victims of war, which is to say the commoners, the cannon fodder, the pawns–in short, us, the 99%. We are the ones who pay the price of those who manipulate, coerce, attack, and lie to us. There isn’t time or space to muddy this perspective with readily available analyses of the Nuland-facilitated “color revolution” that overthrew a democratically elected leader of the Ukraine, and Putin et al never seriously entertained anything like a UN-brokered vote to ascertain what the people(s) of the Ukraine wanted for themselves. We know of the repression of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, we know of discrimination against ethnic Russian speakers, etc.–but that is neither justification for Putin’s militarism nor the voice of the entire population living in Ukraine.
Given this as a frame, the current dust-up between US/Ukraine is simply what imperialists do–their loyalty is to themselves, we the commoners do not matter, so it isn’t a shocker than a US regime makes a 180-degree switch from treating Ukraine as a military base from which to battle the rival imperialism of Russia, to treating Ukraine as a filling station for natural resources, etc. It’s just a matter of “doing business”–which is what imperialist crime families do. This brings us to the present, and the question, as ever, is one we must resolve via our own agency: whose world is this?
Question: who decided to invade Ukraine and commit countless atrocities against its people?
A: “The West”
B: Russia.
I know it’s a difficult question, but I have faith you can answer it correctly.
Of course. You’re right within those limits but did anything happen before to cause that? The aggressive expansion of NATO. The maltreatment of the Russian speaking minority.
It’s a civil war with no easy answers
@ John Robertson,
There certainly aren’t easy answers; but are you asking the right questions? Your reference to the “Russian speaking minority” needs clarification.
The last census data puts the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine at 17.3%, but the Russian speaking population at 29.6%: a difference of 12.3% There are significant numbers, of ethnic Ukrainians, who were raised Russophone; including the family of Volodomyr Zelenskiy.
See John Robertson’s very apt comment by way of context. The Russian military aggression was not unprovoked, did not come from Putin’s personal pique, etc.
Yourself and John Robertson are still stuck in the anti NATO mindset of 1980’s & 90’s.
The world has changed dramatically in last 10 years and continues to change. It is now more about greedy authoritarian governments and autocrats threatening smaller nations. I probably agreed with some of your sentiments a few years ago but circumstances have changed. The Soviet empire has gone through way of the British empire and you would not defend UK invading a sovereign Irish state.
NATO is dying in front of our eyes and will need to be replaced by a European defence stategy to protect the nations of Europe against authoritarianism regimes (USA included).
You need to be able to look at issues with a clear eye or you end up defending the indefensible which in most people’s eyes those blaming Ukraine for Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 appear to be doing.
Correct reading.
Spoilers: The Russian language has not been suppressed in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians still speak Russian, though it has become less popular because it is now associated with their hostile neighbour. That the Russian Orthodox Church has been used as an agent of subversion in Ukraine is well documented.
Graeme – the old anti west propagandists commenting on here have gone down the rabbit hole. Putin is an authoritarian bully in plain sight and Trump is attracted to him and yet hatred of the west makes some commentators side with them. They cannot see the wood for the trees (their own prejudices).
Indeed! That they are still trotting out the stale old tankie talking-points that were debunked at the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is remarkable. Hand-wringing over the travails of the notoriously venal and corrupt Russian Orthodox Church while professing solidarity with the victims of imperialist wars would be chortlesome if the intent were not so malign.
And ironically they are siding with the hard right in this too, the likes of J.D. Vance and ‘in the middle’ Trump, those wise and considered people (read: utter cretins).
I find it truly, pathetically ignorant and stupid. Maybe it is Putin’s almost mad level of ultra-nationalism they like. Certainly Russian nationalism is a test case of how such a stance can be a force of great evil, especially when combined with an undimmed desire for a renewed Russian empire, its colonial boot brutally stamping down on the heads of innocent civilians again and again, killing them mercilessly and un-caringly (i.e. they are actively targeted) in the tens of thousands in cold blood and levelling their cities. The response? NATO this, NATO that, ‘provocation’ ,the rights of ethnic Russians, ‘Nazis’, blah blah effing blah. It is reminiscent of those on the left way back who reused to accept that Stalin was in fact an evil dictator rather than ‘Uncle Joe’, despite the welter of evidence of what we really going on in Russia. The better news is that almost no-one with sense is buying this lying narrative any more.
Putin could end this war today – just stop the totally unjust madness and withdraw. That is the only serious moral case here.
I dont see where Ukraine fits into this inter-imperialist rivalry. Surely the self determination of Ukrainians is whats at stake. The Imperialists are fiddling at a distance and we do Ukrainians no justice by ignoring their key place !
“We are no longer going to just write blank checks for a war in a very distant country without a real, lasting peace,” Leavitt said.
Aye, you are; just not for the country that this article’s about.
Derek – spot on the hypocrisy is nauseating.
Trump tells Zelenskyy he has no cards because Trump has handed them to Putin.
It goes without saying that the Trump/Vance response to Zelensky was atrocious and that serious US negotiators would have avoided such a confrontation.
It’s clear that Trump/Vance understood Zelensky’s issues with their plan. If they were serious negotiators, they would have had a short presser with pre-prepared statements and gone on to have lunch and private meetings instead of showboating.
However, it’s surely also clear that Zelensky understood Trump’s plan and that it did not accord with his desire to fight on. He also knew that Trump does not want the US to be a backstop and that Trump’s plan involved treating Putin seriously. If Zelensky possessed any diplomatic skills, he would have known that arguing against Trump in public was not going to help him. If he had any intelligent advisors, they would have known what to expect and would have advised him accordingly—perhaps they did, and he ignored them.
Apologist for a pair of mafia bosses.
This was an orchestrated attack by Trump who harbours a grudge against Zelenskyy for not aiding him trying to dig up dirt on Biden family. I also reckon that a narcissist like Trump cannot stand how Zelenskyy is far more popular and respected than Trump is.
Vance is a nasty shit who started the attack to keep in with his boss (probably jealous of attention Musk is getting) by quoting online fake news about a country he has never even been to.
Zelenskyy tried to tell Trump and Vance what the facts were from Ukrainian viewpoint , he is the Ukrainian representative after all, and was shouted at and talked down to ias if he was a naughty schoolboy. Zelenskyy has been under enormous pressure for last 3 years and decided to stay in Ukraine when he could have left. Trump’s managed to avoid the Vietnam drat because of ‘healspurs’ ie money.
It was telling how Vance and Republicans kept saying Zelenskyy disrespected them (another mafioso trope). Respect is earned not given.
The outcome was not good for Zelenskyy but he is one reflecting on this and what to do to improve things (not grovelling).
Trump is revelling in spectacle ‘great tv’ as a narcissist would and this tells you everything about the difference between the two men.
Keir Starmer was just asked by Laura Kuenssberg –
Do you trust President Trump? The answer was an unqualified Yes.
He also said he believes that Trump is genuinely interested in peace.
I’m no fan of Starmer, but I ask – do you accuse him of being an “apologist for a pair of mafia bosses” or do you say he’s trying to get a peaceful resolution of the conflict?
Do you believe that Sir Keir Starmer gave an honest answer?
Of course not, but that’s hardly the point.
I am sure Starmer doesn’t trust Trump and his toadying up to Trump to avoid tariffs was pretty nauseating. Things have moved on since then and I do believe Starmer is trying to help Ukraine along with other European leaders. It so happens that he may now be able to influence Trump for benefit of Ukraine.
I am an anti monarchist and don’t want Trump in Scotland but to be honest I could thole Chsrles ingratiating himself with Trump at Balmoral if it helps Ukraine get a more just peace settlement.
It is like Zelenskyy saying after the big show down that he ‘respects’ Trump. We know he does not but we are dealing with big US man-babies here, but very very powerful ones, and they must be treated accordingly.
Yes, that’s approximately my take. The small-dick energy of Bunteresque bully Trump and seedy sidekick Vance ambushing homesick foreign student they’d previous pretended to befriend in a premeditated shakedown for swag. The way they whipped up a cacophony against Zelenskyy’s attempt to exercise free speech. What worth is a ‘Western civilization’ that goes along with this?
At least the Ukrainian head of state was elected; the British version never was, though Trump appears glutinously happy to meet Charles Windsor for a slap-up feed. As for Trump’s other dictator friends… well, they’re just the help, too.
The apparent transition of NATO and Putin’s relationship from morbid mutual dependency towards conjugal cohabitation is evidence for the general rule that a state’s (empire’s) nuclear weapons are first and foremost directed against one’s own public, although Israel and North Korea are perhaps special cases for different reasons. Whose world are we (human and non-human) living in, but that conjured from the fetid imaginations of military-industrial complex planners and plotters? Well, that’s a view that can be challenged, but as they’d say in a retwist of jus abutendi beloved by settler colonialists: if we can break it, we own it.
I think any move towards ending the slaughter of civilians in Ukraine & what would likely be an end of Ukraine altogether is to be welcomed, I think NATO (in particular, Scotland, the UK and US) need to own up to their shameful part in ensuring that this slaughter was able to proceed & I do not see how anyone can with a clear conscience continue to support any war or to vote for such ego driven murderous psychopaths as we have sitting in the parliaments of these islands
Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?
His usual crap. m hates NATO because planes fly over his house. I suggest he talks to Ukrainians in Scotland because Russian planes weren’t just flying over their house but dropping bombs on them.
indeed, which is why I would like to see an end to war & an end to organisations such as NATO whose business it is to make sure war occurs, homicidal maniacs among us no doubt would like to see further destruction & bloodshed, in my humble opinion such people are sick in the head
The problem you have is that you have zero understanding of reality or actual events that have occurred – it is like you live in never never land: black is white and good is evil. I am genuinely puzzled as to how someone’s brain ends up being rewired like this, inverting reality, but it is a recognised physical phenomenon when the input is relentlessly false.
There can be no debate with fantasists. Enjoy your alternative reality, though it sounds like you don’t, which is a shame.
President Zelensky was not humiliated. You cannot be humiliated by those whom you don’t respect. Trump and his gaggle of babbling fools humiliated themselves.
True Margaret
This is what happens when you rely on the USA for your defence. The Trump administration aren’t paying anymore and why should they?
The USA is condemned when they wage war and are also condemned when they don’t.
The UK and EU nations haven’t bothered and are now in a pickle.
If they’d maintained their military capabilities we wouldn’t need the USA.
I await an article explaining why we need to vastly increase defence spending.
No, they are being condemned for seeing this conflict in terms solely of the powerful and the weak. Russia is the powerful and without help Ukraine would always lose. That is basically what Trump is saying – if a mad and murderous dictator invades your country just give in. That is what he means by ‘a deal’, ‘diplomacy’ and his idea of being ‘for peace’. This is totally warped nonsense. No doubt John, when Hitler did his invading you would have turned your back and shrugged your shoulders, even if his troops had started crossing the channel.
No Niemand your wrong.
The UK defended itself against Germany as from 1937 when everybody accepted that war was inevitable the UK massively increased defence spending.
My point stands, why should the USA help Ukraine? What US national interest is served by doing so?
The Biden administration spent $350 billion on sending arms, very profitable for the Military/Industrial complex.
If we want to help Ukraine that’s fine, increase our defence budget and forget about America, it’s no longer our ‘friend’.
This is the harsh reality.
Why should the US have helped Europe in WWII? It would quite likely have been lost to the Nazis without them.
But I agree they are no longer our friend but this has come quite suddenly with Trump back in power. Adjusting is not going to happen just like that. It is very sad this has happened but on reflection that is what the kind of hard nationalism of the likes of Trump and Vance leads to – not just America first, but a kind of moral bankruptcy that says, we will screw everyone as much as we can and like to make the US top dog: might is right and everything is seen though the prism of that mantra.
It does not have to be like this.
The Nazis declared war on the USA in December 1941, that’s why the US ‘helped us’ it wasn’t a decision made by Roosevelt and the American people it was forced on them by Hitler.
Most Americans wanted to stay out and leave the ‘old world’ to sort out their own problems.
Might is right……it doesn’t have to be like that. It’s been that way throughout human history. We have had a brief respite following the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the ‘end of history’ where democracy/capitalism were transcendent, nothing lasts forever though.
As I say if you want to help Ukraine advocate for bigger defence spending and slashing other budgets and then see how you go in persuading young UK men to go and fight and die for Ukraine.
In Ukraine there’s virtually no young men left and for what exactly?
Even pure self-interest can see that appeasing and giving in to Putin is a very bad idea for the US in the longer term. The US could easily have ignored Europe whatever the Nazis said as the US was not vulnerable to them – yes there was Pearl Harbour but that was not a sign that the integrity of the US as a nation state was in any way seriously threatened.
As for defence spending increases in the UK, I support them and support Starmer’s current stance and his attempt to tread carefully around all the players – it us what serious statespeople do, not grandstand emptily and pointlessly, but UK / EU troops on the ground would be seriously escalatory and thus very irresponsible.
I do not have an easy answer as to how to end the conflict but know that letting Ukraine be overrun is not the answer. My gut feeling is that the toll on Russia will tell in the end and they will stop but not after taking back for good some of the territory it has captured. But Zelenskyy is right, without security, Putin will go again afore to long and try and take Ukraine back completely because he is an imperialist dictator with all the usual mad paranoia, off the scale hubris.
Not only are USA refusing to pay any more they are trying to threaten the victim to extort pay back money out of them. It is an attempted shameful attempted shakedown by a mafia boss. Trump has handed cards to aggressor primarily because he bears a grudge against Zelenskyy and has far more affinity with autocratic rulers like Trump.
The European’s should have upped defence spending and their leaders will have to pay for it by sucking up to Trump until they are less reliant on US support. Europeans have provided a lot of other financial support through aid and supporting 10 million refugees.
The USA approach in abandoning a democratic, sovereign nation in favour of an authoritarian aggressor brings shame on USA. Contrast this with the approach to supporting Israel where money is no object according to Trump.
I predict that USA will leave NATO and UN by end of year. This will cause a lot of short term harm especially to Ukrainian people.
If you think that is reasonable behaviour you need to have a long, hard look at yourself in nearest mirror.
And always worth saying that despite Trump’s usual lies to avoid reality, Europe has out-spent the US in providing military aid to Ukraine by some distance. This idea that Trump is now calling in a loan and calling it ‘a deal’ is so sick but that is what you get when you elect a (failed) amoral businessman as PoT.
Spot on and may I add that Trump is psychologically speaking a deeply flawed individual.
Interestingly, in your comments, & you’re far from alone in this, you for some reason refuse to acknowledge Russia being invaded by the Nazis during WW2 & Russia only managing to defeat the Nazis at the cost of 27 million Russian lives. When did it become fashionable to ignore Russia’s role in defeating the Nazis? Probably around the same time the US, UK & others decided they’d best form an alliance based on fascistic principles in order to counter the Eastern threat. I am not a fan of war, nor organisations created to promote war, that seems odd to you, you seem odd to me. You use cliched terms such as ‘black is white and good is evil’ as though such simplification could ever be reality. In doing so you remind me of some jingoistic tabloid hack which sadly seems to be about the level of debate on this thread. I wonder how much more destruction & bloodshed you people believe necessary before some magical peace agreement is reached, & then to have the bare faced cheek to claim it is I who live in an alternative reality. If only it were so, the reality I would choose would be free of nutters such as yourself.
The valiant defence against the Nazi invasion of Russia, by Russians is a matter of incontrovertible fact. I have never at any point even raised this and never ‘refused to acknowledge’ it. To say so is an uncontestable lie.
The idea that Russia invaded Ukraine to defeat ‘Nazis’ is another big fat lie. Zelenskyy himself was called a Nazi by the Kremlin and this belief is widely held in Russia as a result. That is evil propaganda. And it is not jingoistic in the slightest to point it out – to say it is true is wrong, to say it is a lie, is right. There are no serious grey areas to discuss. That’s the difference and why you live in an alternative reality if you are basing what you think on the lies and falsehoods of Russian propaganda.
As the headline in The Guardian article today that spoke to Ukrainians says: ‘‘Trump doesn’t understand who the aggressor is’. That’s Trump, and you, using the blackmail of asserting ‘destruction & bloodshed you people believe necessary’ to suggest we want war, is just like Trump saying the other day that is what Zelenskyy wants. The idea of a just and lasting peace as opposed to a peace at any cost followed by more war from and more emboldened Putin, is probably too much for your brain to cope with.
I will ask you this – to get peace are you saying that Ukraine should simply stop fighting, accept the territorial capture that has happend in 2014 and since 2022, then just hope that Putin leaves it at that?
What If? … and What Then?
What If …. Ukraine decided to offer and grant its mineral rights to the countries of Europe, and not to the USA?
What Then?
Britain already signed an agreement on the mineral rights in Ukraine, a couple of weeks ago. I believe other European countries were also involved. Where it sits now is anyone’s guess.
@Niemand You might want to simmer down & consider what appeared in The Guardian earlier, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
I don’t understand your aggression & find your constant recourse to labelling folk ‘evil’ to be crude & unhelpful. Up until your latest comment anyone reading what you had said would have been under the impression you believed John Wayne & Gary Cooper to have defeated the Nazis all by themselves. In another odd piece of invective you accuse me of believing Russian propaganda which would be difficult given that to my knowledge Russia Today has been banned in the UK. Perhaps you might want to consider that what the British state is allowing us to see & hear might not be the complete & total truth. I find it difficult to understand why precisely anyone would have such a negative reaction to an intervention which might lead to a ceasefire & get the main players round the table to discuss a possible settlement. Surely that is preferable to further death & carnage. But then you people are too busy with your point scoring wee articles & inane comments from the comfort of your armchairs thousands of miles away to consider that these innocent men, women & children having bombs dropped on them every other minute just want the insanity to end.
How about you address the substantive points made especially the one’s about who is the actual aggressor here (an aggressor who has invaded with tanks, troops, guns, planes, drones and brutally taken over 20% of a nation, half destroying all before it in the process), and peace at any price, as opposed to a genuine lasting and just peace?
The reason I felt anger at what you have been writing is you and others like you ignore these vital differentiations. Why I have no idea as they are so blatantly important. It is why Zelenskyy lost it in the Oval Office and why so many support him, not Trump.
The best thing I can say about Trump is that he could act as a catalyst for positive change as where I would agree with you is that compromises have to be made. The problem I have is exactly what compromises has Trump said Putin is going to make? We have heard of precisely zero. That is why his idea of a deal is so bogus – it is not a deal he is suggesting, it is surrender.
Well, we shall have to wait & see, I think those like ourselves commenting from a safe distance would do well to remain humble & recognise that we are being given a limited picture of what is going on. Dragging up the dirt on who is most at fault, who should be regarded as the evil bogeyman & be condemned in the press day in day out until he is deid is not in my view ever all that helpful a narrative to subscribe to. In any case, isn’t it wearing a bit thin when it has already been used time & time again to describe various leaders of countries the US, UK & others have invaded for their own financial benefit (or at least the financial benefit of their richest citizens & ruling class) regardless of the number of innocent civilians murdered. I wonder if Putin would settle for an assurance from Zelenskyy that Ukraine shall not join Nato, wouldn’t this be an easy enough assurance to give since realistically there is no chance Nato shall ever admit Ukraine & unfortunately for so many people Ukraine has been badly misled, which is rather disgusting behaviour by the West in my humble opinion. Kindest regards, Mark.
You cannot admit that Russia is the aggressor and at fault here, despite the fact that it has literally invaded a country that posed no threat to itself and that Putin openly stated should be part of Russia again in a long statement citing Russian history – though it failed he headed straight for Kyiv at the start. This was published online and was widely praised by Russian media as Russia’s rightful destiny. None of this is invented, open to interpretation or some kind of Western ‘narrative’ – it is what the Russian regime has done and actually said.
This why I cannot take you seriously – you will not face basic facts.
I think you need to face the fact that Putin is not alone in being at fault here, Nato must share responsibility. Western Europe really will have to get its act together since the US is about to leave them out in the cold, & rightly so in my humble opinion, time they reversed Brexit & adopted a more grown up attitude. Meanwhile we see the value of so called defence stocks suddenly soar. As per usual, the only winners in these situations are manufacturers of weapons built with the sole purpose of killing people & destroying infrastructure. I don’t think you need to be the sharpest tool in the box to realise this is not an industry anyone could ever accuse of being anything other than detrimental to the existence of ourselves & the planet we live in, but heigh-ho why not just go for the big bang & get it all over in a oner eh.
Well done m you’ve managed to source an article from CATO institute that supports your argument. The CATO institute is a free market, libertarian think tank.
I think Justin Trudeau set out the events from 2012 to date very clearly yesterday in two languages.
There is no doubt mistakes were made by West to Russia post Soviet breakup in 90’s & early 2000’s just as mistakes were made in Versailles Agreement in treatment of Germany. I one is denying that but it in no way excuses Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine (twice) just as Versailles in no way justified Germany invading Poland in 1939.
mistakes? I think what you mean is deliberate provocation, the consistent policy of testing how much they could get away with & then of course the constant stream of support i.e., weaponry & military supplies so that a war with Russia could be fought at the cost of Ukrainian lives without any loss of their own servicemen & women, disgusting behaviour on Nato’s part I think anyone not blindly racist towards Eastern Europeans would have to agree
m – I don’t want to follow you down your rabbit hole. Suffice to say we hate Eastern Europeans so much that now they have democratically elected governments many of them have opted to join the EU and NATO.
Ukraine removed nuclear weapons from its land and NATO refused Ukraine’s application to join NATO.
I have hosted a Ukrainian family whose flat was destroyed by Russian bombs and have discussed issues with them.
Sometimes better to listen to people involved than imposing your personal beliefs on a situation.
I am now leaving your rabbit hole bye.
I am sure I speak for all who might be reading when I say how deeply saddened I am at your departure
No problem to me m glad to leave you in your rabbit hole.
I am happy to continue to comment with everyone else on Ukraine.
In terms of the argument put forward by M about reckless NATO expansion east, he/she is at least partly right. Many have been the voices within the US military / intelligence establishment who warned against an ever expanding NATO encircling Russia.
But it’s equally true that the leading figures of the Obama administration were abosolutely up-front about not accepting or recognizing “spheres of influence”, whther Russian or Chinese. There are lots of very long interviews on youtube, from the American network PBS, with the leading figures of the Obama gov, like Anthony Blinken, who says quite openly that they couldn’t accept a “Russian sphere of influence” in the 21 century, that this was something from the past…
So, there is no question that, for the Americans, this is precisely what the war in Ukraine is about, ie, whether Ukraine should be allowed to become another western democracy or whether Russia gets to call the shots there. And for the Russians, who still think of themselves as a great power, which they kind of are (nuclear arsenal etc) and kind of aren’t (weak economy etc).
In terms of Putin, any shred of credibility he had went with the decision to invade Ukraine and bomb its civilians populations like he has done. So, even if you might have some sympathy for the Russian position, his actions are indefensible after he invades.
Likewise, what critics from the American position might argue – and Zelensky made this point in his meeting with Trump – that the US reacted very late to the real threat posed by Russia. After the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the Russian really start beefing up the military and intelligence capabilities, and that when they invade Crimea, Obama and the west do nothing.
In short, the Russians have been preparing for war with the west for about 15 years while Europe has been fiddling while Mariupol burns…
fundamentally untrue, both sides have been engaged in preparations for further conflict since at least the official ending of world war 2 & would seem to have an unspoken agreement not to directly attack one another but by sleekit means inflict as much slaughter & carnage on smaller weaker states with as little consequence to themselves as are able to manage which is reprehensible behaviour & in a more sane sensible planet would not only be illegal but see those responsible prosecuted & locked up until such time as they have learnt to act like reasonable responsible human beings as opposed to homicidal maniacs whose tally of victims far out numbers that of the most notorious serial killers whom for some strange reason we seem to have less hesitation in condemning, could it be that we have been conditioned to accept such a state of affairs, I would argue yes, and that in such an acceptance we are to an extent complicit unless we rise up and tell these nutters their madness will no longer be permitted
Well said Douglas
@Douglas, I guess this is the Obama speech you reference?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/07/obama-russia-first-trip
Obama also claimed to aim at removing nuclear weapons from the world while secretly signing off on proliferation (see the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement or MDA, recently and anti-democratically renewed by PM Starmer with President Biden), so let’s not take announcements by USAmerican Presidents at face value, especially when they have consistently and aggressively pursued USAmerican spheres of influence (you might think of many current examples).
There was a recent interview on Al Jazeera Upfront (‘Culture War Politics Could Pave the Way for Pan-American Trumpism’) where “Marc Lamont Hill talks to Professor Greg Grandin on how President Trump’s policies shape US influence in the Americas.” which includes a useful summary of the applications of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’, which designates all the Americas as falling under the USA’s sphere of influence.
I feel the so-called special relationship between the UK and US is largely based on our sharing a language & I can imagine in a few years time Ukraine being on good terms with Russia for that same reason, also it will be their shared recognition of having been tricked, conned & attacked by the West, Ukraine will refuse point blank to return all those millions of dollars worth of military hardware to the warmongering western nations which will give the likes of starmer a further excuse to up the rate of arms manufacture & invade whichever poverty stricken place he thinks would best serve the interests of western corporate greed, swinney and his scottish nato party will simply shrug their shoodirs and debate whether a person born wie a fanny should be allowed a free cock courtesy of the nhs
Gotta hand it to you m that is some very impressive mind-bogglingly unhinged crap. I think alternative reality is far too mild and even a rabbit hole implies the possibility getting back out of it; think I’ll just go with Bedlam.
well, you shall just have to wait & see & I think it is safe to say what you shall see shall not be very pleasant, now if you’ll excuse me I am finding your constant invective rather repetitive, ignorant & uninformed, therefore I am off to do something which does not involve me having to read your whiny pish
To use rhyming slang, your post is radio rental.
A remarkable aspect of this whole discussion is how little, if at all, the right of the people of Ukraine to self determination features. Yes, there are big power politics involved. But at its centre this conflict is about Ukraine’s desire for independence from Russia. This has become even clearer since the emergence of the Trump-Putin far right axis. The people of Ukraine need our solidarity, not apologism for imperialist aggression.
@Paddy Farrington, the lack of comment here on the impact on nature was what struck me:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/ukraine-war-impact-on-environment-nature-photo-essay
Philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer wrote:
“We rightly oppose the invasion of one country’s territory by another. … We should take seriously the idea that appropriating land from wild animals is like invading another country, even if its inhabitants are of a different species.”
So, where is the solidarity for non-humans?
Paddy – there are similarities between Scotland’s position within UK and desire for independence and Ukraine achieving independence from USSR are obvious to me.
The fact that some commentators can back the aggression of the larger authoritarian Russia against the relatively newly independent democratic Ukraine staggers me especially if they claim to support Scottish independence.
@John, you mean a newly oligarchic Ukraine, surely? Your uncritical trumpeting of ‘democracy’ is parroting Western propaganda where ‘our’ systems and official allies are good, whatever their nature and whatever they deliver. As Wikipedia notes:
“after the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum. This period saw Ukraine transitioning to a market economy, with the rapid privatization of state-owned assets.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_oligarchs
So, a kleptocracy then. Will Scottish kleptocrats emerge after Independence? Less likely with a distributed system of community-owned renewable power sources, I guess.
Endemic corruption, foreign influence of elections and neo-Nazi militias (see history of proscribed Azov Brigade)… and a proxy war for NATO and Russia. That the Ukrainian oligarchs who helped hollowed out their own country are stone cold traitors here doesn’t fit with the overriding neoliberal narrative. And now the solution presented is: more predatory capitalists! More gouging of the Earth! More debt. More propaganda with tightly-controlled state-corporate messaging within Ukraine. All within the notional embrace of ‘democracy’, whatever that means these days.
I agree, John, except that the entity that Ukraine seeks its independence from is not the USSR but an oligarchic Russia. Putin has been very clear in his criticism of the USSR and Lenin for having accepted Ukraine is a nation. He wants to return Ukraine to pre-USSR times, along with the reactionary agenda that implies. I suspect that much of the campism that afflicts the Left is due to a lack of understanding of this distinction.
@Paddy Farrington, I doubt this ‘left’ of which you speak are unaware of the fall of the USSR and the descent of Russia (like Ukraine) into robber-baron capitalist kleptocratic oligarchy (ditto USAmerican and British empires). I think your ‘campism’ (projected, detected) is more likely a form of humanistic bias, where (to maintain faith in humanity) somebody has to be the ‘good guys’. But what if nobody prosecuting and prolonging this war is the ‘good guys’? Can you comprehend that such as view is based on evidence and lacking in all humanist or theist dogma?
You have to step up a level and see the bigger, badder picture, as many have done before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game
Sleeping Dog – you manage to parrot completely biased nonsense and do it in a patronising manner.
Read Oliver Bullough’s book about corruption- several chapters on Ukraine – much of the corruption was learned behaviour from Soviet Union days not unlike corruption in countries that were former British colonies.
Zelenskyy was elected on anti corruption ticket.
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons prior to 2014.
Russia broke international law and invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014.
Russia then broke post 2014 agreements (& international law again) in 2022 and invaded Ukraine with intention to wipe off map.
These are the facts of last 15 years.
@John, here is a Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) view of Ukrainian democracy from 2023:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/11/democracy-ukraine
You can read it as supporting the official UK position. It’s interesting to calculate how many CIA fronts it quotes. But it makes some important distinctions about what kind (if any) of democracy Ukraine has been since independence.
But for analysis, you’d probably be better turning to someone like Noam Chomsky.
What you and other NATO cheerleaders seem to fail to recognise is the anti-democratic nature of military alliances and nuclear-armed states, the degree that the British Empire (subordinate to the USAmerican one) runs foreign policy under the royal prerogative, and the vast imperial resistance to changing the British quasi-constitution towards something more democratic (as evidenced by the failures to reform the House of Lords, for example).
But more simply than this, you are failing to embody the principle of democratic citizenship which requires you to, first and foremost, hold your own government/rulers to account. I don’t speak Russian, I don’t vote in Russian elections, I have no interests or kin in that country. Why should I focus on that mote while ignoring the beam?