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.
No comments:
Post a Comment