Lorenzo Maria Pacini
Once again, the welfare of Ukrainian citizens is being sidelined, giving precedence to the interests of foreign powers.
So, to recap
Donald Trump was interviewed by Politico journalist Dasha Burns. It was a long conversation at the White House, packed with topics, conducted in perfect American style.
Among the various things said by the POTUS, what Trump said about the elections in Ukraine, after firing shots at Europe, is particularly interesting. Let's start right there.
This interview comes at a very delicate moment for the ongoing negotiations, as European leaders continue to push for endless war, worried that the war game will end before they have gained anything. In the interview, Trump offered no guarantees to the Europeans and stated that Russia is clearly in a stronger position than Ukraine. The assertive tone with which he discussed Europe stood in stark contrast to some of his statements on domestic issues. He and his party faced a series of electoral setbacks and worsening chaos in Congress in the fall, as voters reacted against rising living costs.
Trump is struggling to craft a message that responds to this new situation: in the interview, he rated the economy as "A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus," claimed that prices are falling everywhere, and offered no concrete proposals to address looming health insurance price hikes (but despite growing domestic turmoil, Trump remains an unparalleled figure in international politics).
In recent days, European capitals have reacted with alarm to the publication of Trump's new National Security Strategy, a highly provocative document that puts his administration on a collision course with the European political mainstream and promises to "encourage resistance" against the current European balance on immigration and other sensitive issues.
As if that weren't enough, he explicitly said that, when it comes to politics and elections, he will give his support to whomever he wants, disregarding the rules of European democracy, as the U.S. has been doing long before Trump. The best part, however, came when Burns asked him about the elections in Ukraine: Trump explained that he hopes the citizens will soon have elections, talking about the large amount of American money given to Ukraine and the visceral rivalry between Putin and Zelensky.
It is curious that the "blame" is so easily dispersed. Perhaps Trump does not remember, or did not want to mention, that the responsibility for the Ukrainian disaster lies primarily with the U.S.
Let's return for a moment to the American strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski. In his vision, set out in The Grand Chessboard, control of Eurasia was the cornerstone of American global supremacy, and Ukraine played an essential role in this strategy: without it, Brzezinski argued, Russia would not be able to maintain an imperial role in the post-Soviet space.
For the U.S., Ukrainian independence after 1991 was not only a natural process of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but also a strategic opportunity to reduce Russian influence in its "near abroad." Kiev's gradual rapprochement with Euro-Atlantic institutions-from its partnership with NATO to cooperation programs with the European Union-was a practical manifestation of this approach. Ukraine was gradually removed from Russia's sphere of influence through patient political, economic, and institutional support from the West.
Since the 2000s, especially after the Orange Revolution of 2004 and even more so after the Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014, the United States has intensified its involvement, offering military planning, armed forces training, and support for the restructuring of the Ukrainian state. They artificially shaped a distinct national identity opposed to that of Russia, relying on nationalism, interactions with neighboring countries, and well-funded Western political power structures.
The arrival of the 2022 conflict was meticulously orchestrated, day after day, by American gangsters.
It is therefore very curious that Trump is now talking about democracy, when it was the U.S. that put a comedian in charge of a country (it wasn't the first time and it won't be the last, right Donald?).
What if it were all true?
If we want to accept the honesty of the American president's words, let's try to consider them on a strictly political level.
Trump is telling Zelensky once again that his turn is over and that it's time to find something better to do, not least because his project for a new Grand Hotel Ukraine is really tempting and is certainly worth much more money than a war that has now become boring. Once again, if Zelensky is dumped, European leaders will have to take it upon themselves to continue the conflict on the eastern front.
What if Zelensky runs away ? Ukraine is not in a position to hold elections during wartime. There would be an institutional vacuum that would surely be filled by some other comedian chosen by London or Brussels, waiting to see what remains of Kiev razed to the ground.
In this sense, Trump's words seem almost like a kind of assurance of the success of his plan: he is the only one to have proposed a positive investment for Ukraine and is ready to endorse whoever he deems appropriate that is, a new leader who is skilled at promoting the real estate interests of the Potus and the new American anti-Europe strategy, establishing a buffer zone in the most important region of recent years.
Perhaps, in the end, it is better this way ? Perhaps a candidate acceptable to Washington is more likely to restore stability than one chosen by crazy European politicians ? The question remains open.
Once again, the welfare of Ukrainian citizens is being sidelined, giving precedence to the interests of foreign powers. This is the true face of our Western 'friends'.