Donald Trump is by a large margin the most preposterous, cynical, shameless and unself-critical President in American history. In view of some of the rogues and idiots who have occupied the White House, that is quite an accomplishment.
In February he started a futile war against Iran, offering a scattering of objectives from regime change to denying the country nuclear weapons, none of which he has so far achieved.
Instead we have a global economic crisis: soaring petrol and diesel prices, with no end in sight; higher inflation; a severe fertiliser shortage, which is bound to affect food prices; and a lack of certain common drugs.
Next month the American people will have the chance to punish Trump in the mid-term Congressional elections. This side of the Atlantic we can only wail impotently. Labour has done its damnedest to weaken our economy and now the President is threatening to push it over the edge.
What does this ridiculous man then do? In order to try to sweeten the US electorate, he does a deal with President Putin so that Russia will release supplies of diesel.
Needless to say, Trump omits to mention that he himself caused the shortage of diesel. He seems also to have forgotten that only two months ago he signed a bill which penalises countries that import Russian oil and gas – which is precisely what the US is now doing.
In fact, the amount of diesel President Vladimir Putin is able to supply over three months is vanishingly small – about one day’s US consumption. But that doesn’t diminish Trump’s self-serving hypocrisy.
There isn’t a flicker of regret or shame on Trump’s part that he will be helping fund Putin’s war effort. Quite the opposite. He has opened fire on President Zelensky, suggesting that it is Ukraine’s bombing of Russian oil refineries that has caused the fuel shortage.
In order to try to sweeten the US electorate, Trump has done a deal with President Putin so that Russia will release supplies of diesel
Last night Trump caused further confusion by claiming that Russia and Ukraine have agreed to stop attacking each other’s energy infrastructure. Zelensky initially said that the supposed truce was ‘news for me’ but then claimed to support it.
Over the weekend Trump returned to a favourite hobby-horse – namely that ‘this is a war that should have never started’, which is his way of blaming Ukraine. But it was Russia that invaded its smaller neighbour, and has committed countless war crimes against it.
For good measure Trump again let fly against Zelensky, saying that it is ‘time for Ukraine to get a new President’. Britain and other European countries have rallied to Zelensky’s defence, with Andy Burnham pledging solidarity with him.
This is all further evidence that US-UK relations are slowly fracturing, though Defence Secretary Wes Streeting was at pains yesterday on the BBC to offer Britain as a go-between in restoring amity between Trump and Zelensky. Good luck with that.
An emollient Streeting claimed that US support for Ukraine is greater than may appear, saying there is ‘often an understatement’ of how much help Trump has provided.
Well, maybe. But no one could say that Ukraine is in a happy position. Of course Trump is so mercurial that it’s perfectly possible that this week or next he’ll say what a fine chap Zelensky is.
The fact remains that American military aid to Ukraine has fallen off a cliff edge since Trump entered the White House. So long as he stays there, there won’t be any revival.
To a large extent European countries have made up the difference. Nato allies, including Britain, have funded the transfer of American weapons. But Ukraine still doesn’t have what it needs – most notably Patriot air defence missiles, which only the US can supply.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has been raging for nearly five years. Pictured, a warehouse in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv destroyed by a Russian drone strike
Now, let me ask a question which, given my criticisms of Trump, may be shocking to some. Is there a thread of truth in what the morally bankrupt American President says? Should Ukraine be making more concerted efforts to bring an end to this terrible war?
It has lost a lot of American support, and it can’t count on Europe for ever. Andy Burnham delivers rousing declarations of solidarity but Britain’s pledge of £3billion a year in military aid means that we are committed to giving less than we have done.
Ukrainians have fought heroically. Most estimates suggest that they have suffered significantly fewer casualties than Russia, which has a population four or five times as great.
As far as one can tell, the ground war in Eastern Ukraine has reached a kind of stalemate, with neither side making significant advances. Ukraine has had, as I’ve mentioned, considerable success in striking Russian oil refineries, leading to severe petrol shortages in parts of the country.
On the other side of the ledger, Putin has been increasing attacks on Ukrainian cities aimed at civilians. More than 17,000 have died since the beginning of the war. Targeting civilians is a war crime under international law.
A fair audit would have to conclude that neither side has won. The Ukrainians have largely held out, and been able to inflict significant damage on Russian infrastructure. But they have also lost about 20 per cent of their territory, which they seem unlikely to win back.
The Russians have suffered terrible casualties, and there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that the war is unpopular with ordinary people. It is certainly damaging the economy.
Yet there’s one way of assessing the war that is greatly to Russia’s advantage. It is a huge country with a population of about 145 million. Ukraine is much smaller, with a sharply declining population of just over 30 million in the territory that it controls.
When Ukraine achieved independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 there were about 52 million people living there. It now has the dubious distinction of having the lowest birth rate in the world as well as the highest mortality rate. Millions have emigrated, and may never return.
The country has been impoverished by the war. A great deal of its infrastructure has been destroyed. Hundreds of billions of dollars, euros and pounds will be needed for its reconstruction.
President Zelensky says that Ukraine must recover all the territory occupied by Russia. But is this practicable? Does it even make sense in view of the fact that large tracts of the country are underpopulated?
I am not suggesting that Ukraine is a supplicant and must sue for peace on any terms. If Putin is still rational, Russia also has many reasons for wanting a permanent ceasefire. It can’t pursue this war for ever.
My point is that western leaders such as Burnham should think carefully before pledging unconditional and never-ending support for Ukraine, while in practice giving limited military aid.
The rhetoric is loud, the performative hugs full of apparent warmth. But economically hard-pressed European countries don’t have the appetite to pick up the baton from President Trump, and give Ukraine everything it needs.
In a few months’ time the war will have lasted five years. How much longer? Where are the statesmen who will try to bring peace on terms acceptable to both sides?
With his short attention span and fluctuating opinions, not to mention his pro-Putin sentiments, I doubt Trump is the man. But someone must somehow end this wretched war.