Compulsive liar and his Useful Idiot or Emulator?
It was supposed to be very quick, so that calling it a special military operation would have been an accurate title with which Putin could have glossed over the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. Ever since it began on February 24, 2022, there have been counteroffensives, moving the frontline very slightly in what is effectively a stalemate. In the meantime, Russian president Vladimir Putin became a pariah with an arrest warrant issued for him by the International Criminal Court. This was specifically for unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas to Russia itself.
In addition to the general atrocities committed by the Russian armed forces, this was an element of support provided to Ukraine to defend itself and isolate Putin. Economic sanctions against Russia have left it economically weaker, which makes no difference to the aim of reconstructing the former empire, previously known as the USSR.
Putin / Poutine
Ever since time immemorial, Vladimir Putin has believed Russia and its former empire(s) to be something it is barely close to. Ukraine's Crimean peninsula was annexed in 2014 as a reaction to the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Still bristling at it no longer being a client-state like Belarus as the (2022) invasion started, his fiery speech stated that his goal was to "demilitarize and denazify" Ukraine. His repetitive depiction of present-day Ukraine as a Nazi state is a gross distortion of history. The closest to the actual truth is from the Russian state-run news agency Ria, in its explanation that "denazification is inevitably also de-Ukrainisation." Implied linking of the invasion to erasing Ukraine may have been a Freudian slip.
Proof of that is evident from Putin himself. Ukrainian culture and identity having existed for centuries independent of Russia is entirely beside the point, given that "modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia" after Red October in 1917. Furthermore, "Russians and Ukrainians were one people" dating back to the late 9th century. This was one of many things he blurted during an interview with bemused US talk show host Tucker Carlson. This selective abuse of history is the justification for gradual subjugation of Ukraine, and potentially elsewhere. According to Soviet-born British-Russian historian Sergey Radchenko, "Russia was created as a result of decisions taken by the Russian tsars, such as the colonisation of Siberia, which came at the considerable expense of the local population. If Ukraine is a fake country, then so is Russia."
Ahead of talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff, while Russia was ready to discuss ending the fighting, "there are nuances." That indicates skepticism of how any ceasefire would be beneficial. How then would President Trump deal with the high-functioning sociopath who refuses direct peace talks with Ukrainian President Zelensky "because of his illegitimacy", which is a false narrative that The Donald has parroted?
Unsavory Trumpster
"The war would never have happened if I had been president." This is part of a long list of statements about this scenario which are complete bollocks. Labelling President Zelensky a dictator flies in the face of the fact that he was democratically elected and that subsequent elections have been delayed by the war. The claim that the US had donated "$350 billion to Ukraine, which is $200 billion more than Europe" is untrue. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, support from the EU and individual states is approximately $144 billion, whereas it is $125 billion from the US.
Another claim is that “Russia does not intend to destroy Kyiv, if they had wanted to, they would have done it. Russia is capable of wiping out Ukrainian cities 100%, including Kyiv, but right now, they are only attacking at 20%.” He clearly hasn't been paying attention. As Western sanctions have affected Russia's ability to manufacture weapons, their stockpiles have been shrinking.
Most outlandishly of all, Trump has wrongfully assigned blame to Zelensky. There was a peace conference in Saudi Arabia at which there were only Americans and Russians because Ukrainians and EU nations were effectively excluded. At a press conference shortly thereafter, "but today I heard from Ukraine, 'oh well, we weren't invited.' Well you've been there for 3 years. You should have ended it 3 years. You should have never started it, you could have made a deal." This clashes completely with widespread evidence that Russia sent a substantial invasion force into Ukraine in February 2022. While President Zelenskyy's response was that Trump "lives in this disinformation space", the vice-president from his first term, Mike Pence, posted on X: "Mr. President, Ukraine did not 'start' this war. Russia launched and unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The road to peace must be built on the Truth."
There seems to be another version of the truth that he believes, as he seems to admire the individual who has had his own version of it before launching the special military operation. The minor conquered portions of Ukraine had sham referendums to effectively separate themselves from the Ukrainian state, which were interpreted differently: “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.” Not only not recognizing Putin's trickery, but also openly admiring it as well as the man himself: "I think nobody knows him better in terms of the discussions that we have."
"I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He liked me. I liked him. I mean, you know, he's a tough cookie, got a lot of charm and a lot of pride. He loves his country. He's acting a little differently, I think now." Does he recognize something about Putin, or was it a subconscious indication that domestically, Trump has potential to become somewhat similar to him? There are a few indicators here and there.
While the concept 'diversity, equity, and inclusion', also known as political correctness is a bit excessive, the Trump administration hates it, so there's a redefinition of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, with a novel understanding of anti-white discrimination. It is an overreaction to an overreaction. Such educational authoritarianism is one of many symptoms of a governance system which could potentially be running at a democratic deficit. The Republican Party is now dominated by him, purged of anyone perceived of being anti-Trump, including those who weren't completely comfortable with his encouragement of an attempted violent prevention of the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021.
Furthermore, the civil service is now primed for becoming packed with loyalists with the reinstatement of Schedule F, enabling the president to exempt government employees from civil service protections in jobs deemed to be "of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character." Any undesirables could be easily replaced. A mild weaponization of the justice system is paralleling this, as he perceives that the judiciary is loaded with "Obama appointees" and "never-Trumpers." It appears not to be an independent judiciary, but an inconvenient obstacle. Having previously feigned ignorance of Project 2025 during the last election campaign, applying it is active - gutting federal agencies, firing career civil servants to be replaced with loyalists.
The media is also something of a target. During all 3 election campaigns, Trump used to blather about 'fake news' which is now 'corrupt' and even an 'enemy of the people'. He accuses much of it of having a left-wing bias, yet uses wording from communist dictatorships with which to voice his displeasure. Much of the media's retreat has been warmly greeted by The Donald himself: "Everyone was fighting me, but now everybody wants to be my friend."
Outside American borders, it is a different story. He is attempting to change it, even by removing the actual borders. Canada is well known for bringing an additional personified definition to the concept of harmlessness. Not according to we-all-know-who, with Canada being "one of the nastiest countries to deal with." Trade tensions are still omnipresent, having begun with US imposition of tariffs, then retaliatory tariffs with many/most Canadians boycotting US products. The nastiness justifies this low(ish) volume rant: "Canada was meant to be the 51st state because we subsidize Canada by $200 billion a year." According to the US Trade Representative's Office, it was $63.3 billion in 2024, so that's a gross exaggeration. When asked in a separate interview on why he was being tougher on Canada than other adversaries, yet again he blathered, "only because it's meant to be our 51st state."
The subsequent reaction from Canada's (hopefully temporary) prime minister Mark Carney was a
promise to "stand up to" Trump. He then insisted that both would "have a conversation about our broader
partnership with the United States" only after Trump makes no more comments which are "disrespectful"
about Canada's sovereignty. What is the chance of even that working? Trump's lack of diplomatic decorum
was dialed back through a sinister sub-agenda of his. Given the forthcoming election in Canada, he was
asked if his policies would change the political landscape and whether it would be easier to deal with the
ruling Liberals than the opposition Conservatives. "I don't care. I think it's easier to deal with, actually,
with a Liberal." This indicates a preference for Canada to remain weak or become weaker by his northern
neighbour being further subjected to the same old harmful policies referred to in previous post Canada's
Lost Decade (and lost electorate). Such an approach to a neighbour and domestic stakeholders makes one
wonder how much Trump has in common with Putin, and what the nature of any agreement between them
regarding Ukraine would consist of.
Telephonic blather with what outcome?
Regarding the war 'that never would have happened', the February phone call between both of them has produced very little, which has not stopped Trump from implying the opposite. Not attacking certain things for 30 days is not even slightly close to the previously demanded unconditional ceasefire. The 2 hour+ phone call, according to Russian state media, did not contain the dressing down that President Zelensky was given in the Oval Office 2 weeks beforehand. Some of the 'nuances' include how the ceasefire would be monitored. They are primarily about it no longer being an even fight, such as no weapons or intelligence provided to Ukraine.
Having provided nothing, the Ukrainians rightfully pointed out that it's even more proof that Russia's invasion won't stop. For US diplomacy, it's disappointing. How disappointing is it for Trump? Playing for time might increase the likelihood of the already fraught Washington-Kyiv relationship worsening. Exploiting this as well as the growing American reluctance towards NATO and Europe as a whole is demonstrative of the Russian, especially Putinesque diplomatic chess maneuver to win time and unbalance its primary adversary. Given that Trump wishes to resolve it quickly has brought the long standing tactic from Putin of sitting on his hands in terms of anything of substance on the battlefield. That tactic started working before Trump's open invitation to drag things out by him offering one-sided concessions before the talks even began. The author of The Art of the Deal does not realize that a fair deal was and still is Putin's lowest priority. Team Trump's urgency and poor sense of timing gives Putin all of the leverage he needs, whereas making Russia work for progress without offering concessions might have even brought actual results.
Before US envoy Steve Witkoff was even presented with 'nuances', he was made to wait for 8 hours to meet Putin. It was one of many calculated moves from Putin's playbook from which Witkoff was unprepared. Once he was (eventually) granted an audience, all he received was a list of demands. Stalling, misdirecting, unreasonable demands introduced with distractions and a false sense of progress is more achievable if the other side is made to wait and therefore on the metaphoric backseat. A superior approach would have been to just leave, so as to give the power move a cold reception.
On top of the concessions already offered, a bad thing was made even worse by having no remaining real pressure points to apply. "I can do things financially that would be very bad for Russia. I don't want to do that because I want peace." However, that had already been tried extensively. Already blatantly indifferent to any hardships of the Russian people, Putin doesn't fear much. The US delegation keen to make some kind of deal without any remaining pressure points gives the impression that they are desperate. Something needs to be found on top of sanctions, so that they believe that there would be consequences if they don't cooperate.
Little has or is going to change because Putin has recently been given an additional reason to keep playing his game, not that he needed it anyway. This is a superficial negotiation in which Putin is prevailing, of which Trump is (blissfully?) unaware. The US needs to change its approach, otherwise it will not be a negotiation at all, but rather a slow-motion disintegration of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Where do we go from here?
Where do we go from here?
The words are coming out all weird.
Where are you now when I need you?
- Radiohead, The Bends
Leaving aside the battlefield status-quo, from a strategic perspective, a lot more can and should be done. The Americans have no agency to make deals on behalf of Ukraine, probably much to Putin's satisfaction. Bringing in the Ukrainians and Europeans is essential, and they should be no longer be excluded. Nothing about Ukraine's and Europe's security should be discussed without them at the negotiating table. Otherwise, this is not a negotiation at all.
Trump and Putin seem to have a lot in common. There is probably more to it than just the one-sided admiration, as Putin doubtfully admires anyone, except Stalin. Domestic policy and governance in the US appears to be leaning in an authoritarian direction. Baseless and blind admiration have been combined with dangling a 'deal' in front of Trump, to the extent that it is a convenient ego massage. This is a means for the President/KGB officer to enable Trump to justify this and other initiatives to himself, and hence to the American people as something of a quasi L'état, c'est moi.
Comments
Post a Comment