As the dust barely begins to settle after the, shall we say, unprecedented scenes in the Oval Office two weeks ago, there’s no sign of any return to sanity from the screeching ninnies of the mainstream media or the Ukaboo political class. There’s nothing unprecedented about the hysterics, of course: it’s all just Trump Derangement Syndrome, back with a vengeance and on steroids. For a while after Trump’s sweeping election victory, it seemed as if the pearl-clutching chatterers might have been suitably chastened.
Faint hope, that.
All they needed was a trigger and Zelensky – quite possibly on purpose – handed it to them. Zelensky is, it must be admitted, a masterful media manipulator. He’s played to the hilt the mostly fake image of himself as some kind of frontline fighter, which the Western media have swallowed eagerly.
Very rarely, though, an MSM commentator actually has the basic sense to cut through the histrionics and offer something approaching level-headed analysis.
The infamous White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offers a powerful case study – not only in the volatilities of personalities in the current global security landscape, but also in the dangers of manipulated narratives.
As the first victim in any war is often the truth, scrutinizing global security issues through fact-checking, objective analysis and embracing complexity is essential. Simple narratives and emotionally charged audiences pose significant threats to our democracies.
For all the unhinged bile flung at Trump and JD Vance, a rational viewing of the entire recorded meeting, not just the soundbite fed by a deceitful press, points directly at the most culpable parties of that day: Zelensky himself and the eagerly waiting mainstream media pack.
The world may have underestimated the significance of the errors made during this incident due to media reporting and an audience more interested in liking or disliking political leaders than understanding the stakes involved. Added to the distractions was the horrific display of disrespect by those in the Oval Office, including the media.
After 30 years in and out of conflict and peace negotiations – including negotiations with close associates of Osama bin Laden – I rarely encountered even in battlefields or with warlords the level of disrespect and hostility displayed that day.
As the writer points out, while it’s true that Russia is the aggressor in this war (whether or not their motives were valid to a greater or lesser degree), it was Zelensky who derailed the 28 February meeting.
Just after Trump expressed respect and empathy towards Ukraine – gestures largely edited out by the media – Zelenskyy publicly referred to President Vladimir Putin as a “terrorist” in front of international media, including Russian outlets.
Most media did not cover this. While emotionally understandable, this was a strategic error that risked inflaming tensions – not only between Ukraine and Russia but also potentially escalating a broader conflict involving NATO, its allies and the CRINK alliance of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Media coverage downplayed these risks, focusing instead on the inappropriate conduct of US officials.
Even that ‘inappropriate’ conduct, though, had an entirely rational basis. Put simply, Trump and Vance became alarmed that Zelensky, who had deliberately deviated from the planned agenda, was publicly trying to force them into concessions that would ultimately result in a direct armed confrontation with Russia. Something rational leaders in the US and Russia have done everything they can to avoid for the last 80 years. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the world came to global nuclear warfare, both sides were desperate to prevent matters from spiralling into armed confrontation.
The US behavior later in the talks, though seemingly lacking in respect and empathy, was likely infused with fear – fueled by the risks of World War III – and a calculated act of diplomatic distancing […]
The real challenge now lies in repairing the damage caused by both Zelenskyy’s misstep and the US brutal response – especially the emerging divisions between the US and its European allies.
Something the MSM appear to be doing their level best to prevent.
Firstly, by criticizing the US for its transactional approach, media narratives overlooked the pragmatic integration of national security and economic considerations in the US-Ukraine minerals deal. Economic security and national security are inseparable – something Japan understands well but Western states and media often fail to grasp.
Secondly, media narratives recklessly amplified distrust in the peace process, framing the US as solely economically motivated and highlighting the relationship between Putin and Trump as solely nefarious, dismissing any value to a peace process. Real negotiations rarely succeed by avoiding bad actors.
As George R R Martin’s famous adage goes: by definition we don’t make peace with our friends, but with our enemies.
Critics who oppose US engagement with Russia fail to consider the alternative – a strengthened alliance between Russia and China […]
Thirdly, the media’s coverage led to the politicization of the peace process. In the days following the meeting, leaders from various nations seized the opportunity to exploit the situation for political gain. European and Canadian leaders were quick to vocalize support for Zelenskyy – support that was more rhetorical than practical, given their limited capacity to provide security assurances to Ukraine.
Ultimately, Europe’s reckless meddling seems to be little more than a smokescreen for the last thing the EU wants to admit: it’s irrelevant. Despite vastly greater economic resources than Russia, Europe has squandered its wealth on vote-winning vast welfare states, while its defence capability has been allowed to degrade alarmingly.
The reality is that the US is perhaps the only nation capable of facilitating peace between Ukraine and Russia – both in terms of diplomatic influence and military deterrence. Yet, superficial media narratives continue to obscure this reality, fostering a dangerous misunderstanding of the stakes involved.
Feckless, ungrateful Europe has spent the last 80 years cowering behind America’s apron strings. And what have they offered in return? The ignorant sneering of an ungrateful adolescent.
Trump would be almost justified in leaving them to it.
