1100 days into the 3rd World War
We got very close to WWIII finally igniting with long-range NATO missiles striking deep into Russia (this was on day 1001). The resourceful Russians found a way out between the alternatives of nuclear escalation or conceding defeat, in which case I was worrying they would prefer self (and global) destruction to surrender. But they thankfully found a way out: орешник. Their dominance in missile warfare was upgraded to a new type of non-nuclear armageddon yet still with nuclear-level deterrence. The world was safe again, at least for some time, and I then thought the biggest problem of humanity was back to that of the Children of Gaza. We passed from cancer to gangrene.
Then Trump got elected. I was wrong in my prediction that he would not be allowed to take office, because he would be too disruptive of too many things (this was on day 828, before two assassination attempts, one that hit him in the earlobe). I still believe he might not be allowed to keep office, and something will occur (illness, accident, scandal, assassination, terrorist attack, sudden change of mood...) to remove him. It is fair to say that he has changed the political landscape with moves that even his first presidency would have considered too bold. Although nothing concrete emerged yet, he put his nose into the JFK assassination (as well as other black ops) and the Epstein scandal, and big structures that cripple the world may soon start to reveal themselves. He also took tangible actions, such as withdrawing from the WHO, banning gender transitions of young people, chasing corruption like never before with the creation of a department (DOGE) directed by the most successful and efficient team leader around (who has better things to do) and reinstating plastic straws. Those are good things that make me believe politics got back to the fingertips (not into the hands, it never was) of the people, in the sense of doing what they want, not what an intelligentsia and deep state wants.
The most important promises made by Trump were, however, that he would stop the war in Ukraine, what's more, overnight, and that he would stop the blood shed in Gaza.
There too, he has been very active, although he's been more active than efficient. On Gaza, he obtained a cease-fire, which is great, but could not ensure it, apparently lacking leverage. He then made the rather bizarre claim that he would just take it to turn it into a high-end Riviera. The main problem I see with that is that it starts with the deportation of all Palestinians, not something that will sink well either into immediate political bluff nor history. He made a crucial point, though, that Palestinians are dying and have no prospects for anything else, and that the place is a total wreck now with no option for recovering. So anything else is better. Trump's idea looks so stupid it might actually be the good one. I don't know how it developed (or is developing), but one can hope that there too, one way or another, he'll be able to put an end to this ongoing crime that stains all of us.
On the Ukrainian war, that is the main topic of this post, he has had more success, so far, at least until yesterday. He didn't solve anything overnight, although he shook the establishment so as to propagate waves of big changes in that time lapse. Zelensky got right away disposed to negotiate again, and Russia replied favourably to resuming peace talks, although now in a position of force and with justified defiance. It looked promising. There has been opposition from EU leaders, but it looked more pathetic and symbolic than anything else. It was sad, for us Europeans, but deserved and obvious, that everything was being decided between the US and Russia directly, with little regard (even little diplomatic regard) for the positions of Europe and even of Ukraine on that matter. Macron went to be humiliated in full Chaplin style to the White House (from honking the car for someone to fetch him, to sitting on the corner of the table, passing by Trump mocking him as a liar and 'smart customer'). Macron who, ahead of this meeting, was sharing his line of compelling arguments to convince Trump («c'est pas toi, c'est pas ta marque de fabrique...») [4] was, with no surprises, reduced to nodding childishly when Trump was physically present [5]. It was humiliating but at least faces were maintained. This was also the case for Starmer, only in better English [6].
So far so good. Trump was thus able to curb the trajectory towards global conflict and total collapse into one heading back to diplomacy, common sense, compromises, recognitions of others (that Russia and China are global powers and have a say into the affairs of the World) and, overall, favouring confrontation in discussions to destructions in war. This even kept a form of minimal consideration for the European parties.
But then there happened the performance yesterday of Zelensky disputing the Oval Office residents on their turf. The whole thing has to be seen in its entirety and in details. The show itself is the least important development, although there is no end of things to say about it. It is a case study of how diplomatic incidents can escalate in matters of seconds. The meeting started with overall aims to achieve some minimal or at least seeming mutual agreement, profuse with the usual fake but still present laudations. It evolved with a pugnacious Zelensky nagging a Trump enduring frustrations, contradictions and even interruptions, but remaining affable and accommodating. While the meeting was not particularly more tense or discourteous than it had been previously with Macron or Starmer, who all got their share of ridicule («Could you take on Russia by yourselves?»), it took a sudden change and the situation properly degenerated at a particular moment, namely, when Vance—the Vice-President—interjected Trump when he was calling for the last «one more question». Vance jumped in to embolden Trump's point, probably in a flattering move which was not aimed at Zelensky and could have been left at that. There, however, Zelensky intervened in an aggravated tone that took Vance, still all-satisfied with his intermezzo, by surprise: [7]
|
|
So far, Zelensky had broadly maintained forms, although he still had stated his dissenting views on the matter, sometimes with fairly nasty counterpoints—such as repeatedly trashing Putin while Trump was obviously keeping in mind that such an exchange was under scrutiny of the Kremlin. But there was room for dialogue, discussions, even cooperation, promises for more arm deliveries, and the aggressive attitude of Zelensky was deemed as "understandable". But at this point, maybe feeling that he could go after the smaller fish, he changes to a sardonic style and directs his trashing towards the VP, climaxing with a patronizing exasperation whose broken English makes even more provoking: [8]
What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What what you have? What you? What do you mean?
There Vance makes a first diplomatic reply, and when being interrupted again delivers the first outright confrontational outburst:
Mr President, Mr President, with respect, I think it is disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American Media.
At this point, we have left the already deep and turmoiled diplomatic waters, and the free style of bottomless navigation can start, with Zelensky challenging Vance with the condescending question whether he had been to Ukraine to know what he was talking about. While Trump, confronted earlier to the same rhetorics, ignored it, Vance lost foot there: [9]
‒ I have been... to...
‒ Then come once!
After this slap, Vance recovered with a meek justification that he saw scenes of forced conscription. So have I. On Twitter. But isn't the Vice President of the United States better and in fact fully informed of what is going on? He looked ridiculous. What's more, he looked ridiculed. Zelensky's reply, tone, attitude was a factual, direct and humiliating rebuking of the Vice President, in front of the President, in their seat of power.
Trump's body language there is naked. First, he was yawning during the lecturing to Vance, then started to fret and make an angry pucker with his mouth as if blowing exasperatedly and waiting for the first occasion to jump in.
This occasion, he finds with the first allusion to a threat, with the «you will feel it», at which point the businessman, the virile leader, the macho steps in and throws the towel of diplomatic restrain. Sadly the camera was on Zelensky at this point and has to pan out quickly to capture Trump's irritated reaction, which is the breaking point when the discussion turned into a heated dispute: [10]
And then it's completely gone into an exchange of threats, humiliations, mocking, bullying... Zelensky at first seems to realize that he went overline and tries to restore a bit of serenity, but is now under a rain of attacks. Those are the scenes which, of course, have been most circulated, giving the impression that a cornered Zelensky was ambushed, when he in fact exhausted the patience of people who should have known better than to resort to intimidation. Trump should have interrupted the display much before, maybe he should not have let Vance step in and trigger the firework. Trump is the main loser of the exchange. He sacrificed peace to venting his anger.
This important meeting, which will have historical implications, could also become a standard of body-language analysis. Each frame is worthy of attention:
Zelensky dismissive of Trump with an ironical «I've heard it from Putin» [1]
Trump mimicking Zelensky as the latter looks in disbelief: «I don't want to ceasefire, I want to go, and I want to this...» [2]
Physical contact and almost getting to hands before the hurried conclusion [3].
The outcome is, however, what matters more, beyond the spectacle of the most formidable power taking the proportions of a groundplay fight. The lunch and agreements announced at the beginning of the meeting have been cancelled. There are words that Zelensky and his delegation have been expelled from the premises. There will be no smooth, controlled evolution of the situation into the most likely scenario for peace, the very one I discussed in the last chapter of my Cyclades reflections: the one where Russia gains territory, NATO renounces Ukraine's adhesion and Ukraine does not lose everything, maybe even keeps Odessa. These appeared to be the points of Trump-mediated negotiations. There was no other better (serious) scenario. The blood bath could have been avoided as well as the huge territorial losses. But the strategy of arming a small country against a nuclear power led to where it could only go: the little country got devastated, sacrificed uselessly his youth and army and suffered heavy territorial losses. Carrying on will only make this worse: more blood, more deads, more destructions and more territorial losses. The only other scenario is, indeed, nuclear war. I believe, like Trump, that the risk is very real and very close to an irremediable escalation into global destruction. This must be avoided. It looked like it was about to be avoided, with a new Yalta impulsed by Trump that made almost everybody a winner: Russia gets to end the war to its advantage, US save faces with the rare-Earth deal, also gets its share in the form of Canada, Groenland, Gaza, Syria maybe, who knows, and possibly China will be allowed Taiwan. Europe would get its money back—something Trump alluded to several times but that both Macron and Starmer insisted they would not, except if taken to Russia—and, not the least, Europe would not be destroyed. The exact scenario doesn't matter. What matters is that peace would be restored, Ukrainian conscripts who love life more than their country would stop being murdered, and some sort of global equilibrium be reinstated, with the unavoidable recognition that Russia is not a threat but a major player of international events, and should be treated as such.
What the Zelensky meeting got to is that the above, reasonable—not ideal, but practical—way out, is not an option anymore, at least not the foremost option. The foremost option is that the US will relinquish their involvement into this business, they will cut off their supply of funds and material, abandon Ukraine and Europe to their fate, which will result in a direct EU/Russia confrontation. Europe is willing, apparently, to take that path, although it does not have the economical, logistic, military nor popular approval means for that. It has one big motive, though, it is bankrupt, and finds no other prospects for recovery except looting. It seems that Trump the businessman and Musk the entrepreneur are willing to mend their abyssal debt through economy. Europe, however, takes no such direction and resorts to the easier and more expeditive war of aggression. This is what the Zelensky exhibition translates into: war will rage on, and more fiercely as the equilibrium is now much less evident, so desperate measures are needed to avoid a decisive blitz invasion of Kiev. Europe may send troops, may wave the nuclear argument (Macron just evoked the possibility of shielding Europe and Ukraine with France's nuclear deterrence [11]) and thus push Ukraine into greater destructions and losses, and possibly start suffer itself direct consequences. United States and China will not be able to remain completely indifferent to conflicts of such magnitudes and the scenario of World War Three, that I thought was back under control, resumes its seemingly ineluctable development.
This excess of pride may cost everybody, everything. I'm sure they all regret it already, both Trump and Zelensky. Will they find a way back? Hopefully there will be second thoughts, but World Wars have a latency, an inner dynamics, which make them out of control even when everybody is willing to avoid them. They proceed and happen anyway. In this particular third edition, we have on top of that the catalyst provided in great proportion that is the stupidity or dementia of several EU leaders and agents who actively desire it.
| |||
