Who’s gambling with World War 3?

Wow! What a week at the Whitehouse. Zelensky and his Zealots think he was bullied, Trump’s Trumpeters think he’s king, and J D Vance’s Devotees think he was dissed. 

What do I think? In the context of just that one showdown-meeting, Vance behaved badly, Zelensky behaved badly, and Trump behaved badly. In the wider context of geo-politics Russia, Ukraine, the EU and America all behaved badly. The UK, under BoJo, did better as far as it went, but with hindsight (a wonderful thing that too many claim is insight and thus are shortsighted), he should have devised a longer-term strategy for Ukraine. Maybe he did and his ‘colleagues’, uncivil servants and the EU shouted him down. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors.

And therein lies the rub for the supposed ambushing of the Ukraine President: what transpired before the press conference with Zelensky? Said ambush caught experts and armchair commentators alike by surprise. Furthermore it was clumsily enacted, and the consequences were obviously not thought through: hardly the hallmarks of meticulous planning or indicative of a wider strategy. Was the ambush, then, a panicked or impulsive not-so-bright idea because of what had just gone before?

What had just gone before? Why, a press conference with Starmer who, according to his sycophants, behaved like a superior statesman. On the other hand, those of us not blinded by bigotry or bribery recognise Starmer’s performance for what it truly was: Fawning & Flattery, in response to grooming by his spin doctors. TBH, the F&F might have worked had Starmer been clever with it. (Now there’s a silly idea.) Instead, in his desperation to appear worldly wise, he caught Trump by surprise, pushed him onto the back foot, and left him lost for words. For the rest of that conversation, Trump underperformed (by his own benchmarks). The subsequent conference with Zelensky was therefore a timely opportunity for Trump to regain the initiative and look tough and in charge once more.

In detail, Starmer politicised if not weaponised the Royal Family by handing Trump an “unprecedented” invitation from KC3 for a second state visit. And Stalin, I mean Starmer (do I?), did it publicly so that Trump had to respond immediately, unexpectedly and in public. Even though Trump loves flattery and pomp, he also likes to be in control of proceedings. While still reeling from this invitation, struggling to process what it actually meant – it was a bribe, Trump, wake up – Vance had a pre-planned go at Starmer for his erosion of free speech. Starmer shot back by lying through his teeth (he does that a lot), effectively disrespecting Vance on his home territory, which reminds me of the Campbells versus McDonalds and the Glencoe massacre in 1692. Surprised, again, this time by Starmer’s sudden change of tone from flattery to ferocity, Trump didn’t have Vance’s back as much as Vance, and free-speech advocates around the world, would have liked.

So you can imagine Vance having a go at Trump afterwards (in private) about the lack of support. It would then have dawned on Trump that Starmer had a) publicly handed him a bribe, b) disrespected his Vice President and by extension himself, and c) lied to the American nation. Of course, Trump lies all the time but that nuance escapes him, as it did Starmer during his tetchy and laughable defence of his record on free speech (the serpent doth protest too much, methinks).

One consequence of the ambush of Zelensky is the subsequent shrieking in Blighty for the invitation to Trump for a state visit to be rescinded. How embarrassing for KC3, but not wholly unexpected. Once you start using Royalty as overt political pawns to bolster your own struggling esteem, rather than as soft diplomacy to support the nation, the politicking morphs into an alien being, turning up in all the wrong places, like in the pit of your stomach. It’s not Zelensky who’s gambling with World War 3, but Starmer through his own short-sightedness and ineptitude. I’m wondering if our dear departed QEII would have agreed to issue a second invitation and, if so, would she have directed that the invitation be delivered and discussed in private?

Chamberlain went down in history as a man known to manipulate the BBC and who waved a worthless piece of paper. Starmer will go down in history as a man known to suppress free speech and who waved an unconstitutional invitation.

The question is, who is our 21st-century Churchill?