Certainly the picture was historic: two presidents, seated in simple chairs amid the magnificence of St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, as they discussed the prospects of peace in Europe’s most devastating war for eight decades.
The pair are a study in contrasts that goes far beyond appearance and style. The American leader was born into great wealth, has been accused of cowardice by faking an injury to avoid being drafted into another war, shreds national interests on the altar of his vanity and is despised around much of the world.
The Ukrainian comes from a gritty industrial city, built up his own media business, came to symbolise his country’s bravery with selfless defiance under fire and has won global admiration as he fights to save his people.
Perhaps this is why Donald Trump seems to loathe Volodymyr Zelensky: he sees a reflection of his own weaknesses when he looks at the Ukrainian leader, puncturing his fragile ego. Afterwards, Zelensky said their talks had the “potential to become historic”. Only time will tell if this 15-minute discussion on the fringes of the Pope’s funeral marked a real breakthrough in the duo’s bumpy relationship or was simply another dramatic piece of theatre in the West’s disturbing betrayal of Ukraine. Sadly, I fear it is the latter – although I would love to be proved wrong.
This was the pair’s first meeting since their February dust-up in the White House, when Trump and his dismal deputy berated Zelensky for failing to show sufficient obsequiousness. After the Vatican chat, Trump provoked surprise by questioning the Kremlin’s desire for peace, criticising recent Russian missile attacks and floating the idea of tougher sanctions.
It is horribly telling when a White House admonishment of Russia for slaughtering civilians is so unusual that it sparks flickers of hope the US President might not be a total Kremlin patsy. Yet his words only came at the tail end of a typically tedious blast on social media against The New York Times and blaming his predecessors for a war that supposedly would not have happened on his watch.
It is possible, of course, that Zelensky has managed to make Trump see the reality of the Kremlin’s threat to US hegemony amid those marbled splendours. Or maybe Trump has been swayed by his own intelligence reports and the patient diplomacy of his nation’s usual allies.
Perhaps he has become so frustrated by Vladimir Putin’s intransigence and the brutality of Russia’s killing machine that the White House will lash out and finally impose the sort of sanctions that might cripple Moscow’s ability to wage war. Some officials and analysts in Kyiv have clung to this hope: the belief that Trump’s fury and volatility might ultimately come to assist their fight for survival.
Yet this is not the first time Trump has shown such annoyance with Moscow. Just one month ago, the President said he was “very angry” with Putin and threatened secondary sanctions “on all oil coming out of Russia” – but this failed to derail his proposed “peace” plan that seems shamefully intent on rewarding the Kremlin for raining death and destruction on Ukraine.
It would get to keep most of the land it has grabbed – about one-fifth of the country – along with US recognition of its rule over Crimea and lifting of sanctions, while Ukraine would be barred from joining Nato, have no real security guarantees and hand over natural resources to Washington.
No wonder Trump was defensive when asked last week what concessions Russia had given compared with his bullying approach to Kyiv. “Stopping the war, stopping taking the whole country. Pretty big concession,” he said. But this is no concession – it is the result of Ukraine’s heroic resistance that stopped invading forces from its huge neighbour seizing their capital, then pushed them back in the Kharkiv region and still stymies significant advance today.
In Trump’s fetid mind, however, accepting a carve-up allows the world’s great powers to get back to business. So he is assisting the aggressor by seeking to help Russia restore its finances and rebuild a shattered military that has become stuck in a bloodstained quagmire – while punishing the victim, ignoring war crimes and sweeping aside any suggestion of reparations.
The dilemma over this deluded one-sided proposal is whether Trump is genuine in his threats to walk away. And if he does, would he stop sharing key US intelligence that assists Kyiv’s forces or prevent the purchase of critical American weapons and air defence systems?
Yet behind Ukraine’s rhetoric, there has long been acceptance they might need to accept some temporary loss of land while rebuilding their country.
square IAN BIRRELL
How British tourists can help to fight back against Trump
Read MoreOne member of Zelensky’s team told me they had held such peace discussions early in the war, while I began to hear talk of the “German model” early last year. “There are many different ways in which we could return our territories,” said the mayor of one major city. “There are examples through history such as German reunification. It is crucial at this point of time for us to build a modern, economically strong and flourishing country that is able to bring those lands back.”
But this idea depends on protection from Moscow as they showcase the strength of countries freed from repression – which even Nato membership would no longer guarantee given the current mood in Washington. Instead we see efforts to enforce a putrid deal that accepts countries can seize and ethnically cleanse land belonging to others, undermining the settlement that has delivered prosperity and stability on our continent since the Second World War.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Don’t count on Trump’s volatility saving Ukraine )
Also on site :
- Mass shooting in Myrtle Beach tourist hotspot leaves 11 injured, suspect killed by police
- At Least 11 Dead After Driver Plowed Into Crowd at a Filipino Festival in Vancouver
- Fragile peace shattered: Kashmir attack pushes India, Pakistan to brink