Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The United States of America is the greatest theatre in the world. Stand-up comedy in an open sky. Zelensky’s meeting with the new U.S. government gave us yet another example of this, all to savour.

Once upon a time there were Zelensky, Trump and Vence….

We witnessed one of the roughest theatrics in the history of international relations. President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vence in one corner of the ring, Volodymyr Zelensky in the other corner. An unequal battle, fought with an animalistic rhetoric, worthy of American politics that is founded on bullying and arrogance.

An exchange of jokes made in front of a room full of journalists, ready to catch every detail in that match that was a well-organised trap, on both sides. For Trump & Co. it was a chance to fulfil some of the electoral promises made regarding the American war effort, while also having to think about how to ingratiate themselves with Putin in view of 9 May, and also a move to strike a blow at their British cousins across the Atlantic, as well as an internal move to unhinge some of the mastiffs positioned by the previous administration (although Zelensky was never frowned upon by Trump, quite the contrary…). For Zelensky it was a chance to get Trump in trouble, or at least to try.

The fact is that Trump is a troll, he has political rhetoric worthy of an American diner, he speaks to people’s bellies. He doesn’t come from the world of politics, he is a businessman, a businessman, he knows how to get to the point and he doesn’t usually follow protocols. He has shown on several occasions, including recent ones, that by doing business well you get political favours all over the world. This he knows how to do, this he does.

Vence, on the other hand, was born as a politician and will be a well-prepared successor. He has a different slant, he speaks with a different calibre of words and probably has different ambitions from Trump. Vence in the confrontation was much sharper and more shameless. His aggressiveness, the timing with which he intervened in the speech, the pointing out of certain aspects of Zelensky used as a fallacy to attack him in a tailored manner, all suggest a very precise study of what was to come.

Zelensky, for his part, interacted in an attempt to draw his interlocutors into a trap, using arguments so trivial that they could only be understood as a strategy of downward stimulation. He probably already knew the unsuccessful outcome of the military agreements. His presence was more a matter of (bad) style, where the bad taste already evidenced several times was reaffirmed between babbling provocations and a serious difficulty in taking the blows in the ring.

Zelensky’s evident defeat was noted by all. The question is: what if he had no intention of winning, but only intended to show up, do his part and then return to London to report?

We certainly know that this scene will forever remain in the memory of billions of people. Ukraine, a by-product of the Anglo-American military and political occupation in Europe, was ridiculed by its president, Zelensky, who was brought back to order by his masters.

The political significance

Very few have grasped the central point of the Trump, Vance, Zelensky meeting.

Firstly, it is clear that Macron’s attempts at mediation, despite the smiles on his face (let us remember that Macron himself tried to sidle up to Trump already during his first presidency), failed resoundingly. Secondly, it is crucial to highlight the role of Vance (a particularly active vice-president and possible successor to Trump).

The supposed democratic values that Vance champions are only a façade and, in keeping with tradition, the U.S. government calls itself ‘democratic’, but in reality it is designed to be as undemocratic as possible. It is no coincidence that among Vance’s main ideological references is Curtis Yarvin, the theorist and advocate of an ‘informal industrial dictatorship’.

Once again, there is nothing particularly original here. Similar ideas have run throughout U.S. history: the myth of techno-industrial efficiency (Taylorism) and that of prosperity, where technical progressivism merges with social conservatism. For this reason, those who try to associate the MAGA movement and the ideas of Trump and Musk with the European totalitarian experiences of the 20th century are making a glaring mistake: Trumpism is perfectly in line with the historical trajectory of the United States (there is nothing revolutionary about it, if we consider that even the 2020 assault on Congress has a historical precedent linked to Andrew Jackson’s presidency in the 19th century). In terms of propaganda, John Dewey understood how crucial this could be in educating the masses.

The equally alleged Trumpist isolationism deserves a brief elaboration. The idea that the United States can shut itself away is misleading, since (historically) it has never done so completely. Even after World War I, when President Hoover rejected Wilsonism and entry into the League of Nations, the United States was by no means out of the global arena. They simply chose to act independently, without joining international structures.

Vance states that the U.S. wants to avoid the destruction of Ukraine. There is nothing ‘humanitarian’ in the vice-president’s statement. Regardless of the fact that the first Trump administration was largely responsible for the Ukrainian disaster, Vance implicitly admits that it is necessary for the U.S. to negotiate now (and reach an agreement soon) to prevent Russia from getting too much on the ground. In fact, geopolitically, the continuation of the war would entail the risk of Moscow isolating Ukraine from the Black Sea.

This is a possibility that should be avoided at all costs, as it would compromise the long-term strategic interests of the United States and considerably strengthen Russia’s international position.

First Washington, then London

The images of the two events speak for themselves. In the first context in Washington, masculine postures, wide legs, tough guy attitude. In the second, in London, Starmer with crossed legs, ladylike, a more formal situation.

Ambiguous Europe opted for the second style. In the war they propose to send candyfloss and unicorns, claiming that the Russians will be terrified of them.

The dominant narrative is that Europe must armour itself against Russian expansionism. Ukraine cannot lose, it has to win, otherwise Putin will not stop and will come to Portugal. So on with billions of pounds and euros diverted from public services to erect the fortress. We are talking about 800 billion euros. Eight hundred. Money for health, school, social security is never there, but to make war they are found immediately. Who knows why…

The spectacle of Zelensky’s visit to the White House was not just a diplomatic disaster, but a brutal reality check on the world order that has dominated for decades. The West, once wrapped in the language of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, has finally thrown off the mask. Trump has not even tried to pretend: Ukraine is a bargaining chip, not an ally. This is the fate of those who entrust their future to an empire in decline.

The consequences of this moment go beyond Kiev or Washington. The world is already split between those who cling to a dying unipolar system and those who are creating a new multipolar reality. The rift will widen, alliances will tighten, and as despair leads to rash decisions, we are getting closer and closer to the last great war of our time.

Zelensky was installed, in the post-Maidan we all know, with the funds and under the guidance of the U.S. State Department, in le 2019, under the Trump presidency. Again Zelensky was ordered not to negotiate with Russia by an order from Washington and again under Trump the first NATO arms transfers to Ukraine began.

The fact that Zelensky went first to Washington and then to London should make us reflect on who is the more important of the two for him or, perhaps, who cares more about keeping him alive, before he disappears into the abyss because he is no longer definitively useful.

Europe on hold

The Europeans realised they were in a difficult position without even imagining the consequences of opposing Trump. In any case, they realised that they could not really support Ukraine’s war against Russia, even if they wanted to.

The European and British intent was a partial bluff, i.e. to sustain the conflict for another year or so in order to push Putin to negotiate, which Putin is already willing to do (but only on his own terms, as is the case now, because there is no prospect of Ukraine, backed by Europe, inflicting strategic damage on Russia in the next year).

The idea that in a year’s time the conditions on the ground may favour Ukraine in the negotiations is a false hope on the part of the Europeans, probably somewhere between trying to justify themselves and having a narrative to present to the public. Although Starmer is not the greatest conflict expert, I think he has understood well that prolonging the war by a year will serve no purpose except to cause hundreds of thousands more deaths for Ukraine.

We are therefore faced with a cynicism that seeks to continue, but at the same time there is a need to convince Zelensky to reopen dialogue with Trump, because in the end the Europeans themselves will not be able to sell an endless and failed war to their own public opinion forever. There are many ideological motivations for the European ruling class, which is very sensitive to the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, to want to tell a hypocritical epic about their fight against ‘autocracies’ and bad Russian people, but in the end they are also afraid to expose their lack of political consistency. They know that they will have to find a way out, and with a modicum of common sense, they understand that they must use the time they have to change the narrative and explain to the population that it is time for a dialogue, trying to make people believe that Russia has not really won. In this scenario, European leaders might possess at least a modicum of common sense. We can probably expect a gradual rapprochement to the positions of the White House, but without any obvious rifts: Europe will perhaps continue to finance the Ukrainian war effort for a while longer, on pain of ridicule for our politicians. It seems that they do not want to go into direct confrontation with Trump, or so it appears from Starmer’s recent statements.

Almost certainly, some European politicians will try to exploit this NATO crisis to promote the idea of a common European defence policy, a process of further ceding sovereignty that is not felt to be necessary.

The United States, today, can still negotiate from a position of relative strength, despite needing to do so (more so than Russia, paradoxically).

Zelensky’s political adventure is almost certain to end here. Either he will comply with Washington’s directives, or he will come under London’s exclusivity. This matters little. What is certain is that he has succeeded in having an incalculable number of young citizens exterminated, being celebrated throughout the West as the champion of freedom. The only freedom he has known is that of spending money that is not his own. And that too may soon be over.

Europe can still hope in the eclipses of the coming days, the alien invasion and the advent of the Kalki Avatara surfing the Kali Yuga. It certainly cannot hope on its leaders.

The Big Show must go on. Take your seats, Ladies and Gentlemen. The show goes on.