Bolen C (Page 48)

The Wilson Center published” Why Russia Gave Crimea Away Sixty Years Ago” in March 2014. The author relied on initial paperwork that had been made public following the fall of the Soviet Union.

The study compared those documents to established claims the Russian authorities made in 1954 when it transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The records provided a simple, false history of events involving the two nations that date back 300 times. &nbsp, &nbsp,

The invented narratives served as a cover for power problems within the Soviet Union, and they were connected to Nikita Khrushchev’s attempts to retake control after his elevation to the position of first minister of the Communist Party in September 1953. The irony of the 1954 Crimean exchange, which Moscow undertook to improve its hold over Ukraine, was brought to the end by Wilson.

Politicians are mired in outdated strategies to sit historical balance sheets rather than to explore options to fund the future. With the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement, to name only two, Europe made this error.

Related errors are being made by President Zelensky. He insists that the economic contract that President Trump suggested have security clauses in place because he thinks this will inhibit Russia. Munich is there on September 29, 1938, though.

Germany and England’s Neville Chamberlain and France’s Edouard Daladier signed a contract that allows it to annex Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Hitler promised to stop imposing any new regional restrictions on Europe when he invaded. The League of Nations, the weak and careless variation of the present-day United Nations, remained motionless on the war.

In a nutshell, social contract provisions are useless. True, wars are fought with terms, but mostly with swords by well-trained and patriotic war. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

Israel does not count on NATO or Europe as part of its written security deal with the US. It won war and deflected terrorist attacks despite being surrounded by brutal, vicious dictatorships, tens of military installations roaming neighboring failed nations with better workforce, as well as dozens of defense organizations roaming neighboring failed countries. It has been not only winning but even turning into a” start-up nation” thanks to its patriotic war, which is aided primarily by US military technology.

Take a closer look with these messages. President Zelensky is unable to alter the place of his country, as is the situation with the rulers of Israel. He was, however, alter its demography. Ukraine had the lowest fertility rate in Europe, standing at 1.16 in 2000, with 2.5 million young Russians leaving between 1991 and 2014, compared to the country’s lowest fertility level. Since the conflict, there have been approximately 6 million more people who are still alive, primarily fresh, and reproduction has dropped to 1, when the inhabitants replacement level calls for a replacement of 2.1 %. Before the conflict, Ukrainian sociologists predicted that the people had quickly drop from about 40 million to 26 million. &nbsp, &nbsp,

The usage of “fatherlands” and “motherlands” are acceptable beliefs. What does a continuing battle accomplish, however, if the younger generations cast ballots with their vaginas and feet and depart from these regions? Demography is no dream, but…

What are the alternatives then?

I’m not sure if Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, based his recommendations years ago that Kyiv settlement, ceding country to Russia, on the above data. If he thought of them, he held them close to his neck or discussed them behind closed doors, Diplomat as he was. Kissinger suggested in the press that Ukraine should greater take ceding the eastern territories to Russia.

President Trump did not recommend this as a place to start negotiations with Russia, but instead offered a purely commercial/financial commitment as a starting point. &nbsp,

Kissinger also sent a strong warning to both the Russian government and its European allies, saying that” Pursuing the war beyond that stage would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a fresh war against Russia itself,” which is a phrase that President Trump used in more alarming words in reference to World War III. Kissinger even mentioned the danger of pushing Russia into China’s hands.

Zelensky also made a harsh comparison to Kissinger, saying that” these “great geopolitical figures” never see ordinary people, ordinary Ukrainians, millions of people living on the territory they are proposing to exchange for an illogical peace. You must always observe people.

When someone openly speculates what others might be thinking or feeling, it never helps when that is the case in an open discussion about inhumanity in the Oval Office. &nbsp,

President Zelensky doesn’t seem to realize that despite reiterateling his desire for land and security guarantees, he is ignoring the de-populated area and giving up on the Ukrainians.

Few young Europeans are willing to fight there. They hardly have the patriotism to fight for Brussels, the EU, or Ukraine, despite yelling slogans in Western European capitals for whatever.

Despite having entrepreneurial vision and execution, Henry Ford is not a historical figure that I admire, but I do agree with his claim that “history is more or less bunk.” It is customary. We oppose tradition. The only historical context that is worth a tinker’s damn is the one we create today, and we want to live in the present. This observation does not suggest that Ukrainians who are suffering are not moved. &nbsp, &nbsp,

However, political compromisions are required for leaps into the future, and financing requires retaining and attracting critical masses of young minds.

An aging population neither climbs barricades nor has future hopes.

Kissinger did state in his Davos speech that he hoped Ukrainians would “match the heroism they have shown with wisdom”.

Perhaps the statement “matching heroism with a clearer understanding of both the country’s demography, and that the future depends on young minds with continuous access to finance – and which requires political stability more than territory – offers concrete, less emotional guidance.”

President Trump did offer this forward-thinking solution, whether you agree or disagree with the way things turned out in the Oval Office, but President Zelensky, regrettably, stuck with a few backward-looking failed ideas, believing that clauses on political papers are the keys to stabilizing solutions.

The article uses Brenner’s” How to Relink 7 billion People” and” Four of Finance.”

Continue Reading

In an interview with The Economist on February 12th, 2018, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated in an interview with The Economist that “if we are never invited to NATO, we must create NATO on our territory.”

His remarks were made in response to earlier indications from the Trump presidency that Ukraine would not be joining the surveillance empire. Impressive costs on Russia separate of American products is even more crucial now that the Oval Office spat has occurred and the reports that Trump is now cutting off all military aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine has gradually increased its ability to penetrate deep into Russian territory since 2022, continually improving its range and abilities. Zelensky cited these work in his New Year’s address, saying that Ukraine now produces more than a million robots yearly while expanding its missile production, and citing Ukraine’s “arguments for a really peace.”

Long-range hit capabilities have become a key component of Ukraine’s defense strategy as it enters its third year of hostilities. They play a significant role in its efforts to establish NATO within its own territories. While American military assistance is still important, Kyiv’s ability to develop its own weapons is emerging as a necessary wall of punishment and a means of increasing costs for the Kremlin.

As evidenced by Sweden’s most recent US$ 1.2 billion military and help package,$ 90 million has been designated for Ukraine’s missile and drone generation, this shift in focus is even apparent from Ukraine’s Western partners. With Trump’s end of US military support, this ability may be put to the test.

Ukraine has focused its problems on Russia’s energy system, especially oil refineries, which are the engine behind Moscow’s war effort. The Kremlin’s risk is exposed because it is still heavily dependent on oil revenues to support its war work, according to estimates that drone and missile strikes have now destroyed 10 % of Russia’s refining&nbsp capacity.

Following recent U.S. drone attacks, four big Russian oil refineries have suspended operations. Recurrent strikes over the past year have helped bring Russia’s capacity for refining and distributing crude oil to its lowest level in 12 years, while also pushing Russia’s common everyday production to a 20-year lower.

Beyond industries, Ukraine has expanded its targeting , expanding its to fuel transport centers, explosives factories, and munitions depots. &nbsp,

In an interview, Serhii Kuzan, the head of the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center and former assistant to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, spoke about the larger-scale effects of these attacks, noting that” Russia’s oil market is a foundation of its business; oil and gas products account for the bulk of its export.”

Kuzan added that a decline in Russian refining capacity could lead to higher domestic fuel prices, increased financial strain, and potential public unease. &nbsp,

Kuzan noted that it has no effective deterrent against Ukraine’s evolving aircraft features despite finding ways to circumvent American sanctions. Russia’s war economy is eroded by each powerful strike, making it more difficult to maintain supply chains, maintain mobilization, and maintain home stability, he said.

The pressure is rising. Sergey Lavrov, the US’s ambassador to Russia, criticized Ukraine’s helicopter strikes on the Baltic Pipeline Consortium, saying:” This should reinforce the idea that Zelensky and his team had been restrained and have their hands tied.

As the US withdraws from its war work, Ukraine’s aircraft campaign is likely to grow. This is explained to the writer by a Ukrainian drone system chief who is leading&nbsp that his fleet’s main objectives are to destroy logistics centers, obliterate weapons warehouses, and relieve pressure on the front lines. With drones now able to travel up to 2, 000 kilometers ( 1, 240 miles ), Ukraine can now travel as far as Russia, an ability that is expanding.

Ukraine has prioritized rebuilding and domestic production in response to its limited supply of European long-range weapons, such as the ATACMS and Storm Shadow. By the end of 2025, Kyiv has set an ambitious goal of producing 3, 000 long-range rockets.

Vice-President Mykhailo Fedorov has increased his dedication by saying that” 2025 will get the year of the Ukrainian boat missile.”

Evidently, helicopter production is more complex and inherently more complex than missile production. While Ukraine has increased drone production, developing missiles requires specific production lines, precise engineering, and protected manufacturing facilities, all of which are challenging to do in a wartime setting.

However, despite the current war situation, Ukraine has made significant progress in producing its own arms. A number of internally produced systems are currently in use. For example, the Neptune, an anti-ship weapon, was converted into the land-launched cruise missile that, according to reports, sank Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser in 2022.

The Hrim-2 ballistic missile, which was reported to have passed tests in later 2024, and the Palianytsia, a missile-drone combination, which was released into serial production in December, both of which were reported to have passed testing in late 2024. &nbsp,

The Ukrainian military has also recently received its first batch of long-range munitions with a 700 km range, Peklo&nbsp, ( a Ukrainian word for “hell” ) missile drones, and a jet engine that can travel 700 km/h. They were created by Ukroboronprom in less than a year, are already in use in battle, and they reportedly cost less than Soviet cruise missiles.

In order to further expand its army, Kyiv unveiled the  Trembita  gentle cruise missile in February. Trembita, which is designed for long hits, is a low-cost substitute for Western weapons starting at simply$ 4, 000 per device.

Rustem Umerov, the minister of defense of Ukraine, stated that “our concern is the development of home drones and long-range weapons, including nuclear missiles,” and that domestic missile production is essential for strategic independence.

Ukraine’s strategy for developing a stronger local barrier against Russia depends on expanding its missile and drone manufacturing, with US military aid then being cut, EU help levels uncertain, and account out of reach. &nbsp,

In the decades that followed, Ukraine was also left outside NATO’s control after surrendering its nuclear arsenal under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 ( with security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK).

To make more money off of Moscow, Kyiv now needs to concentrate on developing a long-range strike capability. By developing its own arsenal, Ukraine can deal with external restrictions on weapons use and US military cuts to ensure it has the firepower to attack Russia on its own terms and when and where it wants to.

Ukrainian-American front-line reporter, security engineer, and activist David Kirichenko is a research associate at the Henry Jackson Society, a think tank based in London. He is <a href="https://twitter.com/dvkirichenko?lang=en” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>@DVKirichenko on Twitter/X&nbsp.

Continue Reading

Several phrases in the language of American foreign policy are as misunderstood or politically charged as “isolationism.”

The term is frequently used as a social tool and brings to mind images of a retreating America that is uninterested in global problems.

The reality is more complicated, though. Some observers, for instance, claim that President Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House evokes a novel era of protectionism. Others contend that his foreign policy is more similar to” sovereigntism,” which favors national freedom and free-willed decision-making and only encourages international cooperation when it immediately serves a country’s interests.

A closer examination of isolationism’s traditional roots and social applications is required to fully understand its impact on US policy.

” Languaging alliances”

National strategic thinking has been grounded in the idea of avoiding international dilemmas since the government’s establishment. The well-known warning against “entangling alliances” by President George Washington was intended to protect the young state from Western conflicts.

This sentiment influenced US coverage throughout the 19th centuries, though no entirely. The nation expanded its impact in the Northern Hemisphere, maintained robust economic ties abroad, and sometimes took an active role in provincial affairs.

Without becoming so heavily involved in German rivalries, the US was able to grow its business and military might.

Isolationism increased after World War I. Many Americans questioned a significant level of international presence as a result of the astounding human and economic costs of the war. The United States passed Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to keep the country out of international wars, and this mood was reinforced by suspicion toward President Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations. But, this strategy turned out to be ineffective.

That day formally launched the nation into World War II after the US became more and more involved in the European conflict years prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, putting the country on the verge of a new isolationist path.

American strategic considering changed as the war came to an end, acknowledging that perhaps limited withdrawal was no longer possible in a globalized world.

Isolationism as a insult

Isolationism changed from a clear strategic perspective to a term of social derision in the postwar era. People who opposed military relationships like NATO or US initiatives in Korea and Vietnam were frequently dismissed as reactionaries during the Cold War, regardless of their actual plan selections.

Even when their concerns were grounded in proper caution rather than a spontaneous desire to remove from the world, this framing marginalized critics of US international engagement.

The same routine persisted into the twenty-first century. In discussions about US participation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, those who opposed broad military engagements were frequently labeled isolationists despite their calls for a change in foreign policy rather than openly alienation.

Many of those who urged the end of America’s “forever wars” did not support international isolation but rather the establishment of national interests over a large defense of the so-called “rules-based global order.

Isolationism is a persistent myth that equates to a complete withdrawal from the world. Protectionism in the US was never overall, even at its height. Even in times of reluctance to engage physically, industry, diplomacy, and social exchanges continued.

The prudence in foreign affairs that critics of interventionism have previously sought is avoiding unnecessary war while ensuring the protection of fundamental national interests.

Moving beyond protectionism

Restraint has gained popularity in recent years as a more specific and important foundation for US international policy. Restraint, in contrast to isolationism, does not imply a withdrawal from international affairs but somewhat encourages a more careful and proper approach.

The US should avoid unnecessary war, concentrate on key regional interests, and job with its allies to preserve stability, according to its supporters. This view acknowledges the limitations of American energy and the dangers of overextension while still holding the importance of global cooperation.

Advocates of restriction claim that readjusting US foreign policy may allow the nation to address pressing regional issues while preserving its strong global presence wherever it matters most.

Restraint provides a middle ground between alienation and uncontrolled global activism as the US considers its decades of intervention. It encourages a more intelligent and responsible approach to foreign policy that places long-term stability and national passions before assuming that one gets involved in conflicts automatically.

Moving beyond the dated and politically charged debate over isolationism would, in my opinion, lead to a more productive discussion about how the US you engage internationally in a way that is both powerful and in line with its strategic goals.

At Macalester College, Andrew Latham is a professor of social research.

The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Questions are rising as South Korea grips with a growing vote regulator controversy as it looks into whether China has already ingrained itself in the organization responsible for safeguarding its politics.

The risk of foreign interference, especially from Beijing, cannot now be ignored because of systemic corruption at the National Election Commission ( NEC ), judicial ties, and growing suspicions of election fraud. South Korea’s elections and coming could soon be ruled by troops outside its borders if it doesn’t take any action.

The Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea ( BAI ) investigation into hiring practices at the NEC violated the election watchdog’s independence on February 27, 2025, according to the Constitutional Court of Korea. The auditors immediately began disclosing their earlier findings, which exposed widespread corruption and selecting irregularities within the NEC, which shocked the entire country, as soon as this ruling was made public.

In May 2023, claims surfaced that senior NEC authorities had secured work for their kids through preferential treatment. The secretary-general and assistant secretary-general, both of whom were implicated in these irresponsible methods, resigned as a result of this. A company inside assessment revealed that they had used excessive influence to safe NEC posts for their children, which was a flagrant violation of the State Public Officials Act.

1, 200 breaches dating back to 2013, according to a BAI assessment of NEC hiring techniques. The assessment exposed a society of violence in the electoral monitoring system, which included 27 people who had been implicated in corruption and abuse of power. Additionally, a June 2023 inside NEC investigation revealed 21 nepotistic hires that harmed meritocracy, most likely staff members.

Even more shockingly, the NEC acknowledged that “many of the counting team members were Chinese, but we don’t realize how many of them worked as counting team nationwide.” Given China’s growing effect in South Korea, that entrance sparked more worries.

A startling assault on accountability

The NEC proposed changes to the Public Official Election Act to significant penalties for those who question election integrity rather than address these issues with responsibilities. This obvious attempt to silence genuine investigation suggests that the payment is more focused on preventing investigation than ensuring transparency.

The NEC’s persistent opposition to outside audits just raises questions. Even though the payment finally granted the auditors ‘ investigation into its hiring practices in 2023 despite growing public force, its fear reveals an institution unwilling to face real scrutiny. What claims do South Koreans have that their votes are counted very if election officials refuse to do so?

Election scams: Is it a theory or a reality?

The NEC admitted to following a” custom of hiring relatives” to guarantee” reputable” people after the Constitutional Court’s decision on February 27.

But why is it reliable? Is it just inside favoritism or something much more ominous?

Decades ago, South Korean vote fraud allegations were dismissed as conspiracy theories. Important political figures have yet to make public problems, including former members of the National Assembly and even a former prime minister.

One truth is undisputed: There is now enough evidence for a complete, independent investigation, despite South Koreans also being divided on whether election fraud has really occurred. These issues cannot be ignored now that there is mounting proof of organisational corruption within the NEC.

Most importantly, the prosecution of President Yoon’s impeachment trial centres on his justification for using military force to investigate election scam:

1. He sent more troops to the National Assembly than the NEC.
2. His first goal was the NEC, no the National Assembly.

Despite these steps, the Constitutional Court has consistently rejected Yoon’s calls to investigate scams, raising doubts.

A skewed system and administrative conflicts of interest

When we realize the close knitness between the NEC and the courts, the Constitutional Court’s unwillingness to address this issue is understandable.

According to Article 114 of the Korean Constitution, the NEC chair is typically a sitting Supreme Court justice. Additionally, NEC branches are frequently led by great judge or district court judges at local and regional levels, which creates administrative clash that critics claim compromises judicial independence.

This arrangement creates an alarming dilemma: election management also involves the judges who decide decisions in disputes over elections. Four of the eight present Constitutional Court justices were past NEC heads. These courts had been incriminating themselves if vote fraud were to be investigated and proven, which would create a basic conflict of interest that prevents important responsibilities.

Imagine a sporting activity where one group determines the outcome and the referee was a former participant of the same team. The umpire would have no excuses if match-fixing was to be the subject of an investigation.

China’s darkness is a big object.

While South Korea’s votes are one of the most troubling examples of corruption within the NEC, China’s expanding impact functions are a bigger risk. China has long engaged in cross war, influencing international institutions through social, economic, and cultural invasion. China’s approaches include:

Through the Northeast Project, Beijing has attempted to reclaim Korea’s traditional identity as a part of China.
1. Cultural invasion: South Korea was the first nation to house a Confucius Institute that propagated pro-China ideas.
2. Improper authorities activities: In Seoul, a secret Chinese police station was established to track down and arrest rebels.
3. Visa-free passage: In November of this year, China formally granted South Koreans visa-free entry, and it is now pressuring South Korea to share for Taiwanese immigrants, which could lead to more sophisticated influencing businesses.
4. Influence in the media: To influence public opinion, Tencent, a major Chinese IT company, purchased a 400 billion won ($ 366 ) stake in the JTBC cable network in South Korea.

And these are just a couple illustrations. Why wouldn’t China try to influence elections if it is ready to manipulate background, media, and open institutions?

The most effective approach would be to confirm that pro-China politicians win elections if China is determined to push South Korea into its sphere of influence. What better way to accomplish that than by breaking into and compromising the NEC, the body that organized those votes?

The global community has wake up.

This is a global priority, not just one specific issue affecting South Korea. China’s methods are not exclusive to South Korea; they have been employed in countries like Taiwan and the US as well. The demise of political institutions is a gradual but deliberate process. South Korea may be yet another case investigation in China’s playbook of influence and control if it is left unchecked.

The global community ought to require:

1. A thorough, impartial investigation into the NEC in South Korea that is free of criminal and political interference.
2. To reduce foreign meddling and secret deals, transparency in election oversight is required.
3. Stronger international assistance to combat China’s global hybrid war strategies.

If political societies don’t take action right away, they could lose their independence and their primaries. The crisis in South Korea should serve as a clear reminder to all countries: Corruption and foreign disturbance do more harm than simply elections. They also do harm democracy.

Hanjin Lew&nbsp is a former foreign spokesman for North Korean traditional parties and a political commentator with an emphasis on East Asian matters.

Continue Reading

In the Oval Office, a leader simply disrespected America. It wasn’t Zelensky”. The editorial staff at the Kyiv Independent, one of Ukraine’s top media outlets, came to that conclusion regarding a remarkable incident that occurred on February 28, 2025.

The “quarrel at the highest stage” was described as a political failure by the online magazine German Pravda, but it is still not” a catastrophe.”

Some Ukrainians I have spoken to since the turbulent face, during which Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy was constantly hectored by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have certainly characterized it as devastating for the region. However, for some, the affair has been tempered by accepting it as the new reality in US-Ukraine relationships.

Zelensky has received some inquiries, some of which have been directed at him. Did he consent to being duped into making an argument with potential effects? Should he have remained passive? However, the treatment of Ukraine’s chairman by Trump and Vance has largely had an ostensible unexpected side: It has united a disgruntled Ukrainian populace.

There hasn’t been this degree of recruitment and nationalism in three years, as one companion who has been displaced by war from the now held capital of Nova Kakhovka told me.

This unification is seen in the response across Ukraine’s political break. Petro Poroshenko, the leader of the opposition party Western Solidarity and a frequently outspoken Zelensky foe, stated on March 1 that he will not condemn Zelensky’s White House performance.

In the videos posted on X, he said,” The country needs unity, not censure.”

Interestingly, even those Russians who did not vote for Zelensky have told me that activities in the Oval Office made them feel more sympathetic of Zelensky.

However, the shifting attitude of the US administration is giving off a sense of authenticity. Many Ukrainians have lower expectations that the White House can bring about a rapid and enduring peace because of Trump’s expressed confidence in Vladimir Putin and his cordial remarks about Russian aggression, including his refusal to acknowledge Russian combat crimes.

However, as Inna Sovsun of the opposition party Holos noted,” It was difficult to watch a leader who’s been a victim of Russian aggression being attacked by the leader of the free world”.

Setting the bar high

Following weeks of increasingly severe Trump language toward Zelensky, the US and Ukrainian officials met on February 28.

Since being inaugurated on January 20, Trump has called the Ukrainian president a “dictator without primaries”, claiming – wrong – that Zelensky had 4 % approval ratings. He further claimed that Ukraine was responsible for the Russian troops ‘ war in February 2022.

According to the most recent polls, these remarks had now caused Ukrainians to rally behind Zelensky, who has a respectable 63 % approval score.

The unpleasant scenes in the Oval Office could discover a more gathering around Zelensky, especially if he can properly identify his position in the dispute as that of defender of his people. Doing so would serve to stifle growing public animosity over the new US government’s evident unwillingness to appreciate Russian war crimes.

The US and Russia voted against a UN resolution that condemned Russian aggression in the days leading up to the Zelensky-Trump meet, as well as the language of a document G7 statement that portrayed Russia as the offender.

Zelensky’s criticism to Trump’s claim that Russian President Putin is a man of his word sparked the ominous markets in the Oval Office, which appeared to have been sparked by Zelensky’s furious markets.

That rejection to visit out Putin– who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court – angers Russians who have suffered Soviet anger for three times. Zelensky brought that message home by putting images of tortured and abused Russian prisoners of war back in the Oval Office for Trump and other people.

65 % of Ukrainian polled early in the fight said their biggest regret would be “impunity for Russian acts,” according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Nobel Prize winner for human rights in a speech on February 17.

Three years of conflict will have only hardened that mood – but the U. S., under Trump’s management, looks increasingly willing to allow Putin off the wire.

Since February 28, a significant portion of Russian media has depicted the president as a keeper of both his country and the reality, both customarily pro and anti-Zelensky.

He was forced into the difficult position of having to set the record straight and issue false statements in real time in front of the relatively hostile head of the world’s largest economy, whose aid has been important in Ukraine’s effort to fight the invading Soviet army.

To some, keeping silent would have been tantamount to capitulation, but others have questioned Zelenskyy’s approach.

Some Ukrainians have suggested that Zelenskyy’s emotional tone in the Oval Office was unfavorable despite still claiming that his key message was accurate.

Given that the stakes were so high, opposition lawmaker Oleskiy Goncharenko suggested in an interview with CNN that Zelenskyy should have been more diplomatic and” calm.”

Meanwhile, there were also those who questioned the decision to hold such an important conversation in front of the press, especially without the use of professional translators who potentially could have tamped down the rhetoric and slowed the pace of the exchange.

Some things may “have been lost in translation,” according to Tymofiy Mylovanov, the adviser to the president’s office and head of the Kyiv School of Economics.

Where do Zelensky’s relationship with the US and Ukraine with the Oval Office dispute end?

In the aftermath of the dispute, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham– who has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine – suggested that Zelensky should resign, the implications being that his relationship with Trump was so broken that his presence is now counterproductive for Ukraine’s priorities.

It is a phrase that hasn’t had a positive impact in Ukraine. Holos’s leader, Kira Rudyk, responded that it was up to the Ukrainian people to choose their leadership and future.

Moreover, to many Ukrainians the barrier to harmonious Ukraine-US relations is not Zelensky, but Trump.

In a social media post, Mustafa Nayyem, a member of Zelensky’s government, claimed that the Trump administration “does not just dislike Ukraine.” This is what many Ukrainians are aware of. They despise us. The” contempt is deeper than indifference, and more dangerous than outright hostility”, he added in the February 28 post.

unintentional repressurization

Serhii Sternenko, a Ukrainian activist lawyer and blogger, described the Oval Office spat as an intentional provocation on behalf of Trump to discredit Ukraine as an unreliable partner in the peace negotiations.

Sternenko is not the only one who has weighed in. According to journalist Vitaly Portnikov, the conflict was caused by Trump’s untimely commitment to end the war as soon as the reality emerged that perhaps Russia does not want to make any concessions.

The thinking here is Putin has shown no indication that he will bend on his war goals, so for Trump, framing Zelensky as” not ready for peace” allows the US president to walk away from his campaign promise without accepting defeat.

Beyond the headlines and initial reactions from Ukrainian politicians, journalists and civilians, there is also another sentiment that is emerging: resignation to the new reality.

Most Ukrainians want an end to the war, but in a way that safeguards their sovereignty and ensures future security. That was previously shared by the occupiers of the White House.

It is becoming increasingly clear to many Ukrainians that, in regards to the war in Ukraine, the US will play a different role under Trump– meaning Ukraine will increasingly look to European leaders as primary partners.

The outcome of the Oval Office conflict was best summarized by Goncharenko, the opposition member of the Ukrainian Parliament, as Goncharenko might have put it best:” Putin was the winner, not Ukraine, the United States, who won.”

Lena Surzhko Harned is a political science associate professor at Penn State.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the article.

Continue Reading