Silence Of ‘Power’ Leaders

At the White House on February 28, United States President Donald Trump’s hegemonic posture, supported by his Vice-President JD Vance, presented an unseemly sight that could prove costly for consolidating the bonding between American allies in Europe and elsewhere across the world. Regarding peace terms covering the three-year-old war in Ukraine, Trump, who claims the right to set a global agenda, sarcastically told Ukraine’s visiting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last fortnight: “You’re in no position to dictate… Don’t ask me, you go back and take land from Russia.”

Refusing to surrender to the superpower leader’s intimidating words lying down in full view of the world press, Zelenskyy retorted: “You are speaking Putin’s language.” which, the angry host sought repayment of “$350 billion” that he claimed the US had provided to Ukraine in the course of the war. Western defence experts estimate the financial support, including loans, to be less than $200 billion. 

By any measure, Trump’s attitude towards Zelenskyy was shockingly abrasive, something triggered by the latter’s legitimate refusal to wilt completely to the host’s diktat. The episode exposed how big powers prompt poorer and weaker countries to fight wars that consequently involve staggering volumes of foreign loans. The mainstream “global media” either downplayed or ignored Zelenskyy’s humiliation altogether. What might have they said if the same kind of treatment was meted out to a VVIP guest by Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping? Editorial and political analyses would have flooded their print space and broadcast airtime condemning the perpetrator’s arrogance, overbearing nature, lack of culture and pariah practice.

Low and inaudible 

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Sholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made some feeble responses consoling the victim, without any notable substance. They don’t need a Putin when they have a Trump as a patron. Some of Zelenskyy’s erstwhile critics and detractors appear to hold him in sympathy but that might not be able to redeem his popularity. In line with Trump’s narrative, many commentators call the Ukrainian leader “crook”, “corrupt” and “incompetent”. But these very gems of wise people never passed such epithets to the beleaguered leader earlier.

Trump’s cabinet members and advisors endorsed their boss’s behaviour. No one dared to disagree with how Zelenskyy was treated, as if the world was in the 19th century. Members of the Congress of either party were basically reticent about the ugly affair on display in such a cavalier manner. At the popular level, however, voices are different. When on a weekend trip to Vermont, the local pro-Ukrainian voices booed Vance with a “Go ski in Russia” sneer.

Had Kamala Harris won the presidential election in November, Zelenskyy would not have faced the humiliation that Trump dished out to him. His disastrous decision to seek NATO membership was his undoing and the Ukrainian people’s cause of death and destruction. European Union’s key members do not have proactive and assertive foreign policies, as they herd together under EU decisions. A few among the 27 EU member states might stand out for tabling dissenting views.

Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, France and Poland, stood out for their fervent support for Zelensky. A peace agreement was almost agreed upon but for Washington’s last-minute behind-the-scene pressure to ditch it. Riding on the US coattails, the rest of the NATO members developed complacency, aggravated by arrogance. When the longtime benefactor from the other side of the Atlantic decided to dump the continent down, the band of 27 states began to panic. In an indication of acute vulnerability, they now murmur some talk of “independence” from the US. 

At the start of the war, the Joe Biden administration in the US froze the assets of Russian oligarchs because they did not condemn Putin. Their luxury yachts and properties were confiscated and their bank accounts were still. Even his alleged girlfriend was sanctioned. Russian language was banned at Ukrainian schools and other state agencies, ignoring that Ukrainians of Russian descent constitute 17 per cent of the country’s total population of 3.8 million. Russians constitute the single largest ethnic minority.

The International Criminal Court employed a super-fast track to issue an arrest warrant against Putin after Ukrainian children were escorted to safe shelters. In the warrant’s aftermath, however, Putin has met with foreign delegations, including his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to take some of the thunder out of the ICC warrant. And now, replacing Biden, Trump has taken a highly conciliatory approach to Putin, making mincemeat of what the Biden-led West did for three years. What are people to make of those who cheered the Biden actions yesterday and maintain silence over the Trump moves today? 

Hasty act

Europe lost its backbone in the morass of long and heavy reliance on the US. It speaks in a choked voice when registering a feeble dissident voice against Washington’s policies. European powers betrayed their meek mould when meeting their match and cowering if faced with a bigger force that threatens to deprive them of the security shield provided for 80 years.

When the crunch comes in the English-speaking club of “Five Eyes”, the United Kingdom takes the pride of America’s right side, with next-door Canada, far-off Australia and New Zealand given secondary status. Keir Starmer was treated shabbily by Vance, who is a fixed feature taking turns after Trump to confront visiting VVIPs, obviously to shore up his exaggerated early exercise at enhancing his prospects as a “strong” candidate for Trump’s endorsement four years hence. 

The Zelenskyy-Trump incident is a pathetic parade of power and intimidation brandished against a militarily lightweight but internationally recognised independent state. The silence from political leaders echoes how dependent Europe is on the US. Trump's team realises the US position of strength. Other individual states make muffled noises occasionally but meekly accept what is meted out by the big muscle. Poland, which stood as a strong supporter of the Zelenskyy-led Ukraine, now plays a different tune.

No leader of an independent sovereign state should be meted out the shabby treatment Zelenskyy suffered at the White House. And this comes from a scribe who, in the very first couple of months of the Ukraine war, analysed how Russia could not afford to lose the war without foregoing its superpower status. 

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)