We drove down to the medieval town of Rye in East Sussex yesterday.
Greeting us there were two wind-blown ensigns atop Rye’s 14th century gateway: the red St George Cross of England and the blue-and-yellow flag of the Ukraine.
This suggests the Ukraine can count on Rye’s support, although the moral value of this backing rather exceeds any material assistance the town could offer. Still, moral support is better than none, which is the kind the Ukraine is getting from the Trump administration.
Describing the Mar-a-Lago stance on Russia’s aggression, former Defence Secretary Sir Grant Shapps didn’t pull any punches, calling it “sick”, “disgusting” and “revolting”. Moreover, he said he knows for a fact that Trump is “in cahoots” with Putin, and only the 30-year secrecy rule prevents Sir Grant from revealing the details of that relationship.
This is something I’ve been sure about for a long time, even though the 2019 Mueller investigation in the US didn’t yield an indictment. MAGA enthusiasts insist this proves Trump’s innocence, but it does nothing of the sort.
As the astronomer Carl Sagan once said in a different context, “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”. An indictment is only issued when a good chance exists of securing a conviction.
In an American or any other civilised court, that demands proof beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn calls for prima facie evidence. In this case, for example, that would be a document signed in Trump’s blood or perhaps a sound recording of Trump’s vow of service to the FSB. So far nothing along those lines has been uncovered, although Sir Grant hints that some such evidence may exist.
The standards of proof required for an educated guess are lower, while the room for inference is greater. Proceeding from the scriptural principle of “ye will know them by their fruits”, one has to notice that Trump’s words and deeds both point at a clear pro-Putin stance – as clear, that is, as American politics will allow.
Thus it’s indeed “sick”, “disgusting” and “revolting” that Trump consistently blames Zelensky for both starting the war and prolonging it. The other day Trump thundered that the Ukrainian president can either “have peace, or he can fight for another three years before losing the whole country”.
As Trump seems to see it, Zelensky is ghoulishly committed to “killing fields”, eschewing Trump’s idea of peace that essentially amounts to capitulation. Sir Grant is appalled, and I could sign my own name under every word he said:
“This is the leader of the free world, who is really coming out as nothing more than a swaggering bully, and choosing tyranny over democracy. This whole idea that in public, the President of the United States of America, the home of the free, defender of freedom and liberty, bullies a democratic leader into accepting an unjust peace, I find completely revolting.”
Essentially, Trump’s plan is for the Ukraine to cede 20 per cent of her territory, including the Crimea, to Russia, and to forswear any future NATO membership in exchange for, well, nothing. Trump is offering no security guarantees whatsoever, except Putin’s word, which Trump trusts implicitly.
No one, not even Trump, is as idiotic as that. Putin is a professional liar, a trade he acquired in the most sinister secret police the world has ever known. If Trump claims to take Putin at his word, he is dealing from the bottom of the pack – with all four aces going to the Kremlin.
Zelensky points out that his country’s constitution (not to mention international law) precludes ceding territory to an aggressor, which statement Trump finds inflammatory. What do constitutions have to do with anything?
He seems to regard as null and void any agreement he himself didn’t sign. One wonders where that leaves the American Constitution, not to mention the Ukrainian one.
For example, the US Constitution says that, except in an emergency situation, only Congress can impose tariffs. So what? An emergency situation is anything Trump says it is, and if he says so, the Constitution is given a wide berth. Why can’t Zelensky do the same to please Putin who, according to Trump, is a “good guy”?
And anyway, says Trump, “Zelensky is boasting that Ukraine will not legally recognise the occupation of Crimea… if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it 11 years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”
Is that a serious question, Mr President? If it is, I can add ‘moronic’ to Sir Grant’s compendium of adjectives.
The Ukraine wasn’t ready to fight 11 years ago. Her army hadn’t yet received the requisite armaments and training, and she hadn’t yet achieved political stability following the ousting of the pro-Putin puppet government.
Now the Ukraine is battle-worthy, which she has proved by fighting a country with three times her population to a virtual standstill. The Ukraine is the West’s first line of defence against fascist aggression, but that’s not how Trump and his stooges see it.
They insist that it’s not only Putin but also Trump who is a “good guy” who magnanimously agrees to tackle the Ukraine’s problems out of the goodness of his heart. However, if the Ukrainians and their sartorially challenged president prove recalcitrant, America can just walk away. She has “other priorities”.
This view is both mendacious and immoral. Supporting the Ukraine is for the US not a matter of charitable good will but one of contractual obligations. Putting it in Trump’s terms, in 1994 the US, Britain and Russia signed a deal with the Ukraine, a deal otherwise known as the Budapest Memorandum.
The Ukraine undertook to relinquish her nuclear weapons, which she has done. In exchange, the other three signatories promised to guarantee the Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which they haven’t done. A deal’s a deal, isn’t that so, Mr Trump? This isn’t some shady property shenanigans we are talking about here, after all.
It’s likely that any cease-fire agreement will include the Crimea coming under Russian control de facto. But there exists a big difference between that and doing the same thing de jure, as Trump wants.
Giving a legal stamp of approval to criminal occupation would be tantamount to destroying the world order that has since 1945 more or less maintained peace in Europe. That peace, as Peter Hitchens accurately points out in yet another attempt to do Putin’s bidding, was far from perfect. It included almost half a century of Soviet enslavement of Eastern Europe, and the spirit of Yalta was rather malodorous.
But at least there was no major war in Europe for 77 years. Now there is and, given half the chance, Putin’s fascist regime will spread it over all of Europe, potentially the world.
And that Manchurian candidate in Mar-a-Lago is playing into Putin’s hand. If Trump is doing that because he is indeed bound by some secret arrangement with the Kremlin, he belongs in prison. If he is doing that because he genuinely believes he is thereby serving American interests, he belongs anywhere but in the White House.
But I have faith that the Ukrainians will prevail in the long run. With Rye in their corner, how can they lose?