A Tragedy Of Bad Actors

When I woke up this morning my plan was to write the most visceral and probably rude article about Trump’s recent actions. I may still be rude because I believe he has demonstrated a complete lack of decency and, indeed, could be regarded as responsible for a good proportion of the Ukrainian people who died, were injured and lost homes and property as a result of Russian strikes over the last few days. A combination of limited intelligence and interference with crucial military internet software, which he will be found to have authorised, meant that Ukraine’s defences were less effective and they were forced to put some attack plans on hold too.

I am still frustrated and angry as the world appears to have no control whatsoever against Trump. Despite some voices being raised in objection to his change of mind to purchase Russian oil and his action in going against previously agreed sanctions and, in particular, breaking promises regarding provision of technical and intelligence support for Ukraine in a way that can only actually hurt innocent people and dismay anyone who believes in fairness or decency, these voices seem quiet or little reported. There has been shock, dismay, sadness but I see little anger or complaint. And where are the demonstrators? So noisy, violent and rude when complaining about Israel. So quiet and seemingly accepting all the bad things happening in Ukraine.

Without in any way condoning Trump’s actions I do begin to see how he must be viewing the future. Putting aside the ridiculous claims to being able to end the war in 24 hours or whatever, he does believe that only a deal will bring about peace. He cares not about who may live in some part or another of Ukraine and probably thinks that they wouldn’t be too bothered being a part of Russia as opposed to Ukraine if all were peaceful and both countries were being run in a modern and efficient way that produced a sound economy and reasonable standard of living.

Trump, and a group of advisors around him, have a view of a future where Ukraine and Russia are successful economies with which the USA can trade. I doubt they are particularly bothered as to who lives where. Here follows what journalist Owen Matthews describes in the Telegraph as the plan Trump’s people have been proposing:

A “four-pillar” plan was discussed by Trump envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff with top Ukrainian representatives and reported by the Washington Post.

Key to the peace deal is the idea that Putin would not just end his war but also sign up to a new economic and security architecture for Russia, Ukraine and Europe that would restore stability to the region and prevent future conflict from flaring up again.

The first pillar of the deal would be finding ways to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction, from rebuilding the devastated areas of the country to providing benefits for families of dead and wounded soldiers and restoring the shattered economy.

The second component would be to provide security guarantees for Ukraine in the form of a pledge from the US and European nations that they would respond militarily if Russia attacked again – but, crucially, would not include NATO membership.

The third pillar would be the economic reintegration of Russia, Ukraine and Europe through an energy deal that would include reopening pipelines carrying Russian oil and gas to Europe, with Ukraine and Russia splitting the profits.

The last and most tricky part of the deal focuses on how exactly to partition Ukraine and on the status of the Russian-occupied territories. According to the Washington Post, the Miami deal envisions partition along the current line of control, with some mutual territorial swaps to rationalize the new border.

Apart from this last element, I don’t think anyone can disagree with such a plan, with strong guarantees that not only will Ukraine get rebuilt but any future invasion would be properly defended, albeit not by NATO.

Yet how can you tell someone that they must now live under the control of a government which has, to all intents and purposes, been trying to kill them for the last 4½ years? Whilst many people will have fled when Russian troops took control of areas of Ukraine, many more will remain and suffered under officials who try to take their land and property and force their children to learn a different version of history if, indeed, they are not taken away to some distant village. Worse, men who remained will have been obliged to fight against Ukrainian troops. So while I accept that there will always be a number of people who prefer to be Russian and welcomed the change and will be content with such a deal, there will be a vast number to whom this must be quite wrong.

Ukraine’s government will have great difficulty in passing any legislation which effectively gives away land or people. Indeed, I don’t see this happening at all. The only acceptable outcome would be one where areas which have become under Russian control become areas managed by some independent authority for a period during which fair elections can be run to determine the wishes of the residents of those areas. Where a genuine majority wish to live as part of Russia then so be it. Perhaps some assistance could be provided to those who then wish to leave as part of the rebuilding framework.

I would, of course, include Crimea in this arrangement. That is where everything went wrong in the first place, with so little actual action taken in 2014 by the world at large.

If it were possible to get Russia to agree to leave control of the areas it claims to have taken to some independent body, on which I guess they could be represented, then I see a route to peace for the long term.

This aspect, however, seems to be missing in the plan. Trump sees only the plan and what appears a good result. That may well be why he just wants that to happen and cannot understand why anyone should do anything to prevent it starting. He might have chosen to back Ukraine big-time but he will have recognised that Putin cannot be seen to lose. Losing, for Putin, is not an option. He would, despite his current power and influence, also lose key support in the Kremlin and be despatched, probably in a box or, if alive, quietly to some distant residence. So he chose to back Putin and expects Ukraine simply to buckle under the pressure they will soon find themselves under, from both the weather and increasingly lethal bombardment.

It almost certainly does not occur to Trump that the Ukrainian people will not give in. They will endure whatever is thrown at them. Their numbers may dwindle as many more will have to escape the turmoil and damaged towns and we may see a much larger area of the country come under Russian control in years to come but they will always resist and one day, when neither Trump nor Putin are around to decide policy, new and hopefully more decent people with more realistic minds will make that final part of the plan workable.

So, yes, I am appalled at Trump and can only express my sheer disappointment at leaders across the free world and how they have really done little more than talked, wrung their hands, said how much they ‘stand by Ukraine’ and said very little indeed for fear of whatever action Trump might take if they show disagreement. President Zelensky called Trump weak. I am not so sure about that. It is just about every other leader who should be supporting Ukraine who is being weak. Trump is just mistaken, has bet on the wrong horse but cannot now change.

The world will remain a chaotic and quite sad place until both Trump and Putin have left the stage.

Trump's bull in the Ukraine china shop

 Is there no-one in America who can argue effectively with Donald Trump? He appears to be totally out of control and able to do whatever he pleases and all that appears to happen is that a few voices mumble to themselves or, if there is an objection, it is the sort of objection that people make only when they're amongst friends in a closed room.

Trump's latest ridiculous outcry is to suggest that Zelensky should be replaced as Ukraine's president. His reason? The price of diesel. Well, that's not the real reason. The real reason is that Trump is becoming pretty unpopular and a lot of that unpopularity is due to the massive rise in diesel prices. Trump claims this is due to Ukraine's destruction of many oil depots and refineries in Russia. He seems not to want anyone to consider that Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz may have had anything to do with that. Something, incidentally, that Trump's actions in bombing the hell out of Iran may have had something to do with.

It is almost laughable how stupid Trump can be, or, as I suspect he is not that stupid, how gullible he must think the world at large must be, especially after we neither see, hear nor read anything by way of a rejection of his statement and suggestion.

If I were an American I would be embarrassed by the man claiming to represent my country. As it happens I have been embarrassed to be represented by a string of rather ineffective Prime Ministers here in the UK for some time but, however bad some of their policies have been, most of what they have said about Russia and Ukraine has been broadly in line with reality. Russia was completely wrong to invade Ukraine in February 2022 and broke any concept of international law in doing so. Their troops and troop commanders then proceeded to break every moral code, every thread of decency whether embedded in law or not, in how they have acted since, be that in the treatment of residents in towns and villages occupied or in the clearly deliberate destruction of civilian houses, killing children and workers trying to rescue people in the 'double-tap' firing of a second missile shortly after a first has caused damage. Russian troops controlling 'first person view' drones deliberately seek out and kill people who represent no threat, unarmed market workers, travellers on a bus or a train. These are evil actions, encouraged by commanders on the ground but also supported by whoever instructs them from above and, whilst it is generally held that Putin has little real knowledge of what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine, responsibility must lie with him for everything that has happened.

Trump will respond to say that Ukraine should have agreed to give up part of their territory way back at the start and that would have saved all the lives lost since then. It is an easy argument to make and, in a sense, difficult to refute. Could it be something like 'turning the other cheek' as the Bible tells us we should do? Someone breaks into your house and starts stealing stuff or smashing up valuable possessions. What are you supposed to do? Let them help themselves? No-one gets hurt and you can claim on your insurance for the financial loss. There is a hurt though, and a loss. An emotional hurt, sadness and loss of some things that money cannot replace. It is also simply 'wrong' and 'evil' to a greater or lesser extent. Somehow something has to be done to make this 'right' and 'good' needs to triumph over that 'evil'. At some point we have to abandon that business of 'turning the other cheek' and make a stand which has to be a physical stop on the aggressor, or the threat of sufficient force to make the aggressor decide not to try to break in in the first place. Once he has, though, he has to be stopped.

Russia has not attacked a country that is a member of NATO. That is almost certainly because any attack on a member country is regarded as an attack on all and therefore there is an obligation that all members work together to defend the aggressor. Even without America, NATO is very much more powerful than the Russian Federation. So Russia would lose and NATO would win. It could get extremely messy and even involve an exchange of nuclear weapons but whatever happened to be left of NATO members' nations would be greater than the remains of the opposition. So Russia would be highly unlikely to make such a move. Ukraine, of course, was not a member of NATO and so Russia was able to march in in an attempt to control territory. There are, however, international agreements and laws declaring that this sort of action is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there is no force to insist that nations behave. There cannot be an International Army, obviously, so when one nation decides it will ignore the conventions of the majority there seems to be nothing anyone can do.

Take yourself back to the house being broken into again. You are standing in the street and see this happen. You recognise that you may not be strong enough to stop the guys doing the damage but there are other people in the street who could get together and control them - show sufficient force that the aggressor has to stop. The group may decide not to attempt to apprehend the aggressor but they have done enough to rescue the situation and prevent any harm or loss.

Trump was that guy on the street. But he did not look for friends to help. He made friends with the aggressor, maybe hoping to persuade him to stop, if I am being generous, but probably hoping that he could make a deal to let him keep a bit of the plunder and taking a bit for himself in the process. Unfortunately, despite his offer of friendship, the aggressor carries on and causes even more damage. The bloke in the house, however, starts to fight the aggressor and finds a way to weaken his supply of energy. There are some other guys in the street looking on. They're not sure what to do but agree that weakening the aggressor's supply of energy makes sense and could lead to his having to give up on his action. It would end much more quickly if they were all to go in and kick out the aggressor but they don't seem to fancy risking getting hurt themselves. There's also that Trump fellow in there who was supposed to be on their side but is now confusing everyone. Trump also doesn't like to see the energy cut off as that would mean his new found friend loses and he gets nothing for all his trouble. So he tells the bloke in the house just to give up and let someone else take charge.

That someone would, of course, be expected to walk away from the house and leave it to the aggressor and Trump to dispose of as they please.

There is a problem. Any new president needs to be elected by the Ukrainian people. Whilst they may have to accept the loss of Zelensky at a poll or by resignation at some point, they are not about to elect someone who is likely to agree to give away part of their country. Trump misreads the near total commitment of the Ukrainian people to their country. They have fought too hard, too long and lost too many friends and family to give in now.

Unless a group of nations, like the Joint Expeditionary Force perhaps, can make a brave move to help defend Ukraine in the very near future, this war will continue until Trump has left the scene. Trump claimed he could stop this war in a matter of days after taking office in 2024. I am beginning to take the view that it was Trump who actually started it, by making it clear to Putin and Kim Jong Un that he would be happy to do business with them both and offered them an open door back into the international world from which they had been banished.