[ Editorial ] Pow, the clown!

Donald Trump and JD Vance have firmly reasserted their authority over Volodymyr Zelensky, prompting strong disapproval across Europe. Mutiny among subordinates seeking WW3?

Image Grok

Volodymyr Zelensky appears to be both imprudent and an ineffective manipulator, leveraging the hardships endured by his population for personal gain. When one finds oneself in a dire situation, the wise course is to cease exacerbating it—this speaks to his lack of judgment. Having presided over a conflict that has claimed over a million Ukrainian lives, sustained primarily through substantial American financial and military support, it is ill-advised to then suggest to his key benefactors that they will face repercussions should they fail to meet Ukraine’s demands.

Donald Trump and JD Vance have exercised their prerogative to hold an open and forthright exchange with Volodymyr Zelensky, compelling him to face the stark realities of the current circumstances and his own limited standing. This has provoked vehement reactions from European quarters, whose heightened sensitivities we referenced in our discussion three days prior.

La grande parade des clowns

Volodymyr Zelensky has been firmly reoriented and confronted with the sobering reality: Ukraine has been defeated; this war was an avoidable tragedy; absent external assistance, Ukraine’s resistance would have collapsed within a matter of weeks; in light of the ouright crazy reactions from Europeans, the United States remains Ukraine’s sole reliable partner in halting the ongoing carnage and averting the country’s complete devastation.

Rather than pursuing a constructive path, Volodymyr Zelensky—whose mandate, it should be noted, formally expired in May 2024—has, since late 2022, been advocating for an escalation that risks a third global conflict. Was it not he who, during the Munich Security Conference in February 2022, effectively insisted that Ukraine either host American nuclear weapons or proceed with developing its own nuclear arsenal? A mere two weeks later, Russian forces crossed into Ukrainian territory.

Yet Zelensky, bolstered by the fervent support of Europeans, continues to press for security assurances that lie at the root of the conflict he has failed to win—this despite being the recipient of unprecedented military assistance, unmatched since the conclusion of the Second World War. It is regrettable to acknowledge, but Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina—a steadfast advocate of war with Russia —has a valid point in urging his removal from office. Sen. Graham is as always covering his own back as he was one the chief advocates for the Ukrainian catastrophe.

Notably absent from major media coverage is any scrutiny of Volodymyr Zelensky’s conduct during a telephone exchange with JD Vance and Marco Rubio a couple of weeks ago, in which he initially agreed to the terms of the American-proposed peace initiative, only to reverse his stance publicly a mere five minutes later. Contrary to some narratives, he was not subjected to humiliation in the Oval Office. Rather, the U.S. President and Vice President, worn down by forty minutes of unproductive dialogue, responded decisively to the pressure tactics Zelensky employed in full view of the media. Their stern reprimand was entirely warranted—a necessary measure akin to disciplining an unruly child to set firm limits.

We would do well to listen to the account of Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, who elucidates these events with clarity, bearing in mind that he has no evident motive to distort the truth.

Marco Rubio underscores that the accord, which Ukraine ought to have singed on February 27, would have forged a robust economic linkage between the United States and Ukraine—an arrangement representing the most effective security assurance imaginable. It is challenging to refute Mr. Rubio’s assessment, given that the United States has proposed extending its economic footprint into Ukraine through collaborative ventures, thereby providing a de facto shield.

It was President Zelensky himself who, six months prior, introduced the prospect of rare earths mining rights into discussions with both Washington and European counterparts. This initiative stemmed from the reality that over 80% of Ukraine’s extractive resources lie within the Donbass —an area that would first have to be militarilly reconquered before any exploitation could commence. Zelensky’s strategy was to leverage these mining resources as a means of entangling NATO in a broader confrontation with Russia, a pattern of behavior he has consistently exhibited since assuming office in 2019.

It was at Zelensky’s own insistence that he journeyed to Washington. The American stance was unequivocal: a visit would be futile if its purpose was to lecture on the inadequacy of diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. Regrettably, this is the course Zelensky pursued. It is a striking miscalculation to provoke the sole power with the capacity to extricate Ukraine from its bloody predicament—particularly when Europeans, dismissed by Russia as interlocutors, are ill-positioned to offer any meaningful assistance.

In the past, the Ukrainian leader overstepped by engaging in political advocacy for Joe Biden in Pennsylvania. Moreover, he played a pivotal role in the 2019 effort to impeach Donald Trump, based on the specious claim that Trump had pressured him to probe the activities of Joe Biden and his family in Ukraine in return for financial support. Given this history, it is hardly surprising that Zelensky finds himself close to persona non grata at the White House.

The Trump administration regards this conflict as the legacy of the Democrats and neocons—not a burden it willingly shoulders. This war advances neither the strategic interests of the United States, nor those of Ukraine, nor those of the broader global community. Donald Trump articulated this perspective with unwavering consistency throughout his campaign, a position echoed by JD Vance, then serving as a senator from Ohio, prior to being picked as Trump’s running mate.

Had due attention been paid, it would have been possible to anticipate the transition to a new administration and the marked reorientation of American foreign policy—a shift explicitly signaled by Donlad Trump and overwhelmingly endorsed by the American electorate. Across Europe, however, leaders exhibit such profound detachment from reality that they cling to the fabrications they have tasked the media with disseminating. Their refusal to grant Donald Trump the seriousness he warrants—acknowledging that, while his rhetoric may occasionally require nuanced interpretation, his resolve to execute the mandate the people of the USA gave him has never been stronger—borders on the irrational.

The same misjudgment extends to JD Vance. Despite his youg age, he is far from an untested figure. European media portrayals of him as an erratic ultra-conservative are wide off the mark; in truth, he is an individual of sharp intellect and articulate expression. Had his words been heeded, we might have been spared the lamentable display of European leaders indulging in petulant outbursts, as if recoiling in dismay at the decisive signal from their overseer that the time for indulgence has ended.

[ Edito ] James "Devil" Vance - Bye bye Biden

Once the situation in Ukraine is brought to a conclusion—and such an outcome is inevitable, given that the United States will not permit itself to be drawn into a conflict devoid of alignment with its national interests—the Trump administration is poised to redirect its focus to another critical arena: the Middle East, where the imprudent actions of the Israeli government demand attention. Certain observers have recognized this shift, among them Jacques Attali, who has asserted that Trump is in the process of instituting an authoritarian regime in the United States—a characterization that is, quite evidently, without foundation.

Requiring an unchecked bureaucracy to align with the directives of the executive authority, and ensuring that the judicial upholds the law equitably for all, does not constitute dictatorial behavior. On the contrary, it represents a reaffirmation of the sovereignty unjustly stripped from the people. It is this very development that has elicited a state of panic among Europe’s leaders, as they have confiscated their people’s sovereignty to entrust it in illegitimate and highly dysfunctional supernational institutions.