Say what you like about Imran Khan, but his sense of time is impeccable. As Prime Minister in February 2022, he managed to appear in Moscow on the day Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine. Last Friday, a comment with his byline appeared in Time magazine. After the usual fall of the breasts and self -granding, he praised the resurrection of Donald Trump as a notable “testimony of the resilience and will of the people.”
The day Trump and his deputy did everything possible to humiliate the elected leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, in the Oval office, IK expected “with his administration reaffirming his commitment to democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law, particularly in the regions where authoritarianism threatens with the mine of these values.” Imran and his acolytes still seem to be with the elusive phone call that will be mutated in a ‘exit from jail’ card for him, and unvergrade adulation is the only way to capture Trump’s attention, as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer recently demonstrated.
However, it must be common knowledge that Trump is also a fan of authoritarianism, and anxious to emulate characters like Javier Milei and Viktor Orbán. He and the reprobate group that he has recruited have sown chaos nationally and internationally during the first 50 days of the second Trump regime.
Peace in Ukraine is desirable, but in what terms? It is understandable at this stage that Zelensky will bristle in the absence of Western security guarantees on the stage of Alto El Fuego de Trump, which depends on the hope that the participation of US companies in digging the minerals of Ukraine (with half of the benefits of US banking) is sufficient in Vladimir’s eyes in the eyes of the eyes as an additional deterrence. Demand that Ukraine pays everything he received in US military assistance since 2022 is extortion instead of a peace plan. However, Peter Mandelson, British ambassador to the United States, has advised Zelensky, to accept what Trump proposes.
Western iliberalism triumphs over liberalism.
That was before the United States suspended military aid to Ukraine on Monday, possibly as a means to coerce Zelensky to accept the same advice that Mandelson had offered. The head of the latter, Starmer, could take a marginally different tactic, but is equally desperate for not disturbing Trump. Which is complicated, since no one can be sure of what could trigger the president of the United States. Starmer’s proposal for a “European coalition of the provisions” to reinforce the defenses of Ukraine with boots in the soil and the combat airplanes in the air are echoed from the denomination attributed to the military misfortune that the United Kingdom entered under Tony Blair to co -cross the 2003 disaster in Iraq.
Starmer’s attitude aligns with that of his counterparts in NATO and the European Union, which is to follow the war until Putin cries uncle, or is overthrown and replaced by a Russian leader easier to use in the Boris Yeltsin line. Never say, but that’s unlikely. Meanwhile, some of the EU US stops have been suggesting that Zelensky should resign, for the crime of not bending the knee to Emperor Donald and JD Vance, President Chihuahua’s pet who likes to pretend to be a rotTweiler. In the subsequent comments of social networks, Trump again criticized Zelensky for saying that a high fire was “very, very far”, and made fun of the European powers to recognize “that they cannot do the work without the United States.”
What exactly is what “work” is? Seen in a broader historical context, it is understandable why Western Europe could have cling to the United States as its savior and safety guarantor after World War II, although even that could be an error, but what prevented him from looking for a total independence in the following decades? And what the hell persuaded the European nations that should have better known when hugging the American hegemon with an even greater taste once the Warsaw Pact perished and the Soviet Union implused in 1989-91?
The sovereignty of independent Ukraine that emerged in 1991 should not have been violated in 2014, much less beaten in 2022. But, although the Putin government only has the responsibility of its aggression three years ago, so there was no immediate provocation, Moscow has barely expected that the interventions of the years will be ignored for the years. It is not that Moscow was not guilty in the context of influence operations, or the naked aggression that followed its failure. However, as, as in the 1970s, some type of entertainment with Russia is the obvious alternative to the rearidation of steroids and hostility based on variants of the ancient Russophobia.
Trump, Putin, the EU and NATO are, ultimately, the miserable consequences of a world that went wrong. What comes next is a assumption of anyone.
mahir.down@gmail.com
Posted in Dawn, March 5, 2025
