Trump is obviously not a peacemaker in the ordinary sense. His limitations as a peacemaker in the tradition of political realism and imperialist manouevering are now also becoming evident.

If the Ukraine war is to end, it must end quickly lest warmongers adhering to a different imperialist strategy re-ignite it. A degree of shock therapy is needed. Trump is the man for that. But more than that is needed to turn the super tanker of US-western policy around.

Zelensky is part of the problem but is also trapped by the problem. Any other leader would have to deal with the same trap. Support in Ukraine for the war – or at least willingness to die for it – is declining. But any leader trying to end it must still reckon with de-stabilisation or an outright coup from the right. The best way to marginalise the right would be a credible promise of US and European economic support, delivered in a way that would not antagonise Russia as war by other means.

Trump would be relatively well-placed to do that, were it not the polar opposite of his whole strategy.

Europe would also be well-placed to help, were it possible for that to be seen as part of a re-normalisation of relations with Russia, with economic benefits for all sides. But that is the polar opposite of the trajectory and recent statements of European leaders.

Trump is busy trashing whatever small hope there was of European leaders coming round to that position. For some of them, hostility to Trump is a gift that keeps on giving. It allows them to construct a pseudo-left skin that stops the left mobilising properly even while they move rapidly rightwards. That strategy worked better when Trump was out of office and conflicts with the historic attachment of most of them to obsequiousness towards the US. But Trump is giving them little incentive to return to that tradition.

The US has sought since the end of the Cold War to block the emergence of a strong, independent-minded Europe incorporating or semi-incorporating Russia. Perhaps Trump believes it doesn’t matter to the US if Europe crashes and burns. But the US and the world won’t really be able to stand clear of the wreckage.

The end of the Ukraine war is not inevitable once the US pulls out. Without the US, but with an unstable or collapsed Ukrainian state the war will transform but will not necessarily end. Some of the global risks will diminish. New risks will emerge. People will keep on dying.

Europeans need to get a grip, turn their ship around, stop their leaders war-mongering and stop counting on Trump to do their peacemaking for them. It’s fun laughing at the discomfiture of our leaders as they grapple with changing times. But it isn’t enough.

I’ve no sympathy at all for Zelensky. He allowed himself to be a vehicle for a bunch of warmongers in the US and Europe. He got used to being treated as a star everywhere he went because Biden was standing behind him, and then he mistook US power for the power of his own charisma. Continue reading →

This blog was offline from April 2023 until March 2024. Sorry! Normal sevice has, perhaps, been resumed.

I have added a few short items I originally posted to facebook during the offline period. They are dated with the date of the original facebook post.

The blog was also offline from October 2021 to 12 March 2022. One or two items posted prior to October 2021 escaped inclusion in backups and it has not been possible to restore them.

The blog may be a bit wobbly on its feet for a bit, so please be patient if you come across anything that looks a bit dishevelled or doesn’t quite work properly. I’ll try to fix any problems as they emerge, and perhaps also to make some improvements.

Feel free to contribute via the comments. To do so you’ll need to register an account (which will be approved manually, so please be patient) or login using your facebook or twitter account. However you log in, your first comments will need to be approved manually, so again please be patient. I hope this doesn’t sound tedious. It has to be better than facebook, doesn’t it?

If commenting, just bear in mind what I’ve said before:

“If you are socialism-averse, or you are thrilled by the sight of military parades, or you worry that Europe is being Islamified, or you fear that your town is about to be swamped by immigrants, or you are fond of locking people up and throwing away the key, or you think Britain’s security services are doing a great job, you probably won’t like this blog. You’d be much happier somewhere else.”

You’ll also be unhappy here if you’re thrilled by the prospect of war with Russia, or if you don’t like to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.

Comments along any of those lines are unlikely to be treated kindly. But if that’s not you, you’re welcome.

“Israel has a right to defend itself” is a vacuus phrase that will go down in history alongside “just obeying orders” as a fraudulent passport to genocide. It has become so ubiquitous that it is being used not just by downright rascals but also by people in official positions making otherwise decent-ish statements.

Israel does not have a right to “defend” its control of territory internationally recognised as occupied. The correct response to attacks on occupation forces is to lift the siege of Gaza immediately and then end the occupation.

The Palestinian people, on the other hand, do indeed have a right to resist the occupation by armed force. Their right barely gets a mention in the corridors of power and has been ghosted by the banning in many countries of organisations attempting to exercise it.

What if we recognised Israel’s right to self-defence while banning the IDF and Israel’s main political parties?