Punch up at the Oval Office: the monkey cannot dictate to the organ-grinder

What we have seen today in the Oval Office was shocking. A shouting match between Trump, JD Vance and Zelensky. The monkey is not usually supposed to go off the script set by the organ-grinder, and if it does it will be put in its place, sharply.

But what really happened?

Trump is in power now. He has come to power on the basis of a program to put an end to the war in Ukraine. Everyone knows that. Furthermore, as Secretary of Defence Hegseth had clearly explained to the Europeans the previous week, in order to do that, one must "recognise the realities on the battlefield". He was not wrong. Russia has won the war. There is no way to turn that around. Reaching a ceasefire now is in the interest of Ukraine. The alternative is to continue a war of attrition it cannot win, forcing men who do not want to be cannon fodder to die... only to be forced to capitulate later on and lose even more territory. These are the facts.

On this basis, Trump's policy is to try to reach a deal with Putin and concentrate on the US' main rival: China. Perhaps even drive a wedge between Russia and China. These are imperialist interests. One could even say, these are aims which are more suitable to the current strength of US imperialism. Trump is basically saying to Putin: "let's stick to our respective spheres of influence".

Again. This US imperialism. Is it worse than Biden's brand of imperialism? Well, Biden was determined to pursue a war that was already lost. A war which he had provoked by pressing the issue of NATO membership. Believing their own propaganda, they had the delusional aim to humiliate Russia, impose regime change in Moscow and some even talked about breaking up the country ("decolonising it"). In order to achieve these impossible aims he was prepared to fight to the last drop... of Ukrainian blood, as well as to continually increase the provocations against Russia, which let's not forget is the world's largest nuclear power.

Minerals for guarantees?

What about the Ukraine minerals deal? This was originally raised by Zelensky in his so-called ‘victory plan’. He was desperate. He could sense that the war was lost, the US was about to abandon him and Europe was also becoming worn out by it. So he thought, “let's sell off the country in exchange for military help” and he promised Ukraine's mineral wealth. This was very dubious from the beginning. This mineral wealth is mostly hypothetical, part of it is in territory held by Russia, part of it is under the soil and would require large investments to extract it.

Trump did not budge an inch on the central question of security guarantees / Image: fair use

The details are unimportant. Trump is a businessman and he latched on to the idea. His argument is: "we have spent a lot of money in this war, we should get something in return" and demanded $500bn. “Give us the loot!” The figure was then haggled down to $350bn. Still, Zelensky wanted something in exchange: security guarantees. Trump insisted there would be none. Hegseth had already explained: any European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine after a ceasefire would not be covered by NATO's Article 5, which provides for mutual defence of its members. Trump's argument is that the mere facts of US economic interests (the minerals deal) would be enough to guarantee a deal with Russia.

Here's the crux of the issue. Once Trump has said he wants out of the Ukraine proxy war... there is nothing the Europeans can do. They can have a summit, protest loudly, some more than others, but there is NOTHING they can do. They are unable to pursue the war against Russia in Ukraine without the military and financial support of the US. They cannot. They themselves have admitted it. Zelensky knows it and has said it publicly. In fact, the Europeans cannot even provide Ukraine with security guarantees without the backing of the US. Starmer said as much. Publicly.

What follows? For two weeks, Zelensky has been trying to get the US to commit to some sort of guarantees in exchange for the minerals deal, which they have refused to sign at various times.

Not just that. Zelensky has been trying to turn the whole situation around by insisting that Putin cannot be trusted and therefore negotiations are useless. He is motivated by two things: his desire to force the US to continue supporting the war, but also his political survival, seeing that Trump has strongly hinted that he wants him out. A ceasefire – elections – a deal. This is Trump's stated road map. And when he says "elections" he means elections which Zelensky will lose.

In the last few days both Macron and Starmer have visited Trump. They have been very tactile with him. They have come bearing gifts ("an historic second state visit", "a letter signed by His Majesty the King"). They have complimented him. Their aim? To get the US somehow to commit to help them give Ukraine some guarantees after a ceasefire. They have achieved precisely nothing. Trump has smiled, shaken their hands (strongly), praised the two men as great friends... and given them nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Starmer was ecstatic. The press coterie in London called it "a blinder". The truth is simple. Trump did not budge an inch on the central question of security guarantees.

At this point enters Zelensky. He knows full well what the situation is. Furthermore, he knows that the hand he has been dealt is bad. Extremely weak. Just about all he has is Trump's thirst for minerals. Incidentally, this is not just a whim of the New York real estate tycoon. It was actually Biden who, as part of the Energy Act 2020, created a "critical materials and critical minerals list". That is, a series of raw materials which are of strategic importance for US imperialism, many of which are currently under the control of China.

All he needs to do is to be nice to his host, the organ grinder, and try to nudge him in his direction ever so slightly (perhaps with the promise of a seat at the negotiating table, at some point, and some vague commitment to security after a deal with Russia). This should not have been difficult to achieve. The terms of the minerals deal which had been leaked were extremely vague. He could have signed them and then continued to pursue a policy of friendship and pressure to try to get a little bit more further down the line.

You might think this is humiliating. Yes, indeed. A "robber deal" Boris Johnson called it. The point is: does Ukraine have a better alternative? If so, by all means, pursue it. But it does not.

Everything was ready. There was going to be a photo opportunity and some questions. A behind-closed-doors meeting and then the signing of the deal. There were tables with pens. A room prepared for a press conference. The relevant ministers were present.

And yet it did not happen. How? Why? Some have speculated that Trump and Vance had prepared a trap for Zelensky. They wanted to humiliate him in public. However, if you look at the whole video, you will see that this does not make any sense.

Trump had called Zelensky a dictator and a bad comedian, but then pretended to have forgotten. He did not want to press the point. He wanted the deal signed and Zelensky on board, so that he could pursue talks with Putin and reach a ceasefire, preferably by Easter or failing that by Victory Day.

The conversation went on in an amicable and diplomatic manner for about 40 minutes. There is a point at which Zelensky and Trump disagree about who's contributed more to the war, Europe or the US, but they do so with a laugh and then move on to the next question.

Then, at about 40 minutes in, JD Vance steps in to make a point attacking Biden. “Biden stood for war, Trump stands for diplomacy.” At this point Zelensky jumps in and confronts Vance, “Putin cannot be trusted”, “what kind of diplomacy are you talking about, JD?”. Vance replies: “with respect, Mr President, I think it is disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the media.” He is telling him: "mate, don't be a smart-ass, you are the monkey, we are the organ grinders, please, shut up and we can talk behind closed doors". It is at this point that everything kicks off.

Trump and Vance tell Zelensky what the real position is: "you have no cards, you cannot tell us" and even clearer: "You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty."

Instead of backing off, Zelensky continues the clash. The Ukrainian ambassador is clutching her head. This has become a car crash.

Trump calls the press conference off, it has gone on for 50 min.

The Ukrainians scrambled behind the scenes to salvage the deal. According to the press, "the delegation from Kyiv waited in another room for about an hour, still hoping to sign the minerals deal that prompted Zelensky's trip and to salvage the visit." But finally, Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz "went out of the Oval Office, walked to where Zelensky was sitting, and told him to leave," according to Axios.

In a statement on social media Trump says, "Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace ... He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

This is a complete disaster from Zelensky's point of view.

All European leaders (and for some reason also Senator Bernie Sanders) expressed their shock in public and promised to fully back Ukraine… but these are just words. They know full well that they are not capable of actually doing anything without the United States. Not militarily, not economically, not politically.

Therefore, in the next few days, these strong words will be gone with the wind and the hard reality will impose itself: Washington has all the cards in its hands as far as Ukraine is concerned.

Is this a humiliation of Zelensky? Yes, it is. Was it what Trump wanted? No, it is not.

It is difficult to think of a worse strategy Zelensky could have followed. As Trump correctly pointed out, Zelensky does not want peace. He wants to entangle the US in the continuation of war. It would mean a direct military clash between the Americans and the Russians. That is what Trump meant when he accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War Three”.

Who betrayed Ukraine?

“Ukraine has been betrayed”, I hear some commentators say. I agree. But Ukraine has not been betrayed today. No. You have to go further back. To 2014, when US imperialism intervened directly to force regime change in Ukraine, in order to replace a group of Russia-leaning oligarchs with a group of Europe-leaning Atlanticist oligarchs. When Victoria Nuland and John McCain were on Maidan Square hobnobbing with neo-Nazi gangs. When the US backed a regime which trampled upon the rights of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians, organised a military operation against them and made the promotion of Second World War Nazi-collaborating Ukrainian nationalists official state ideology.

As Trump correctly pointed out, Zelensky does not want peace / Image: fair use

Ukraine was betrayed when anti-Russia war hawks organised provocation after provocation in the full knowledge that Putin would not and could not allow Ukraine to join NATO.

Ukraine was betrayed when Biden decided to provoke a proxy war with the aim of cutting Russia down to size.

Ukraine was betrayed when Boris Johnson was rushed to Kyiv in April 2022 to cajole the Ukrainians not to sign a peace deal with Russia.

As for Zelensky, he is already backtracking, in a "thank you America, thank you POTUS" social media post, in a Fox News interview in which he said that “some of the things he said should have not been discussed in front of the media”. He has no other alternative.

In Kyiv they are already sharpening the knives. An impeachment motion has been tabled at the Rada. Political rivals are positioning themselves.

Washington is now threatening to cut all shipments of military aid to Ukraine immediately.

“What was it all for?”

“But, what about the Ukrainian people?”, some ask. “Do they not have the right to decide the terms of the settlement? To decide when they want to stop fighting?” Many of those who ask such questions are cynical. They are the ones who decided that Ukraine should have a pro-NATO government, those who intervened directly to make sure it happened, those who – like Victoria Nuland – were vetoing the candidates for Prime Minister after the overthrow of Yanukovitch.

But there may be some who ask the question honestly. The answer is this: the Ukrainian people at this point want peace and are prepared to make territorial concessions. This is what opinion polls in Kyiv-controlled territory show. Many are voting with their feet. Hundreds of thousands are evading the draft (200,000 according to Ukrainian sources at the end of 2024). They realise that the war cannot be won. The mood on the front-line is near mutinous. 1700 deserted from the newly formed NATO-trained 155th mechanised brigade as soon as it came back from France and was sent to Pokrovsk.

Many who fled the areas occupied by Russia are now coming back, for instance to Mariupol, as they want to see their relatives and go back to their homes and they cannot see a way that this can happen militarily. These are people who fled the Russian invasion, not those who stayed.

The mayor of Pokrovsk made an appeal to the president to get a ceasefire deal signed immediately.

Many in Ukraine today will be asking “what was it all for”? And Zelensky has no answer. The country has been destroyed, hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed. Many will be thinking: “We voted for Zelensky on the basis of him being the peace candidate. The West got us into a fight with Russia and has now betrayed us.” Often defeat in war leads to revolution.

At the end of the day it comes down to something which Lenin explained over 100 years ago. In the epoch of imperialism, the rights of small nations are just small change in the machinations of the big powers. They are used when it is convenient, to justify and disguise the imperialist aims of the big powers, and then they are discarded when they no longer serve a useful purpose.

The real differences between Trump and Biden

Both of them are imperialists, but there are two differences between Biden and Trump.

Trump is more direct and undiplomatic. He says it as it is / Image: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Flickr

The first is, Biden pursued a reckless foreign policy which aimed to maintain an impossible US supremacy over the whole world, even at the risk of provoking a direct military conflict with a nuclear power like Russia. Trump pursues a policy of carving up the world between the different powers according to each others' relative strength.

The second is, Biden and the whole of the liberal world order disguised and covered up their naked imperialist aims with high sounding phrases about "national sovereignty", "international law", "the rules-based world order". Trump is more direct and undiplomatic. He says it as it is. He wants control of critical minerals, shipping lanes and canals. He wants to use the US economic leverage to extract concessions from its trading partners. That's all.

Do we agree with this? Most certainly not. We are revolutionary communists and internationalists. We are for the liberation of humanity from oppression and exploitation. We are anti-imperialists. But we do not fall for the illusion that "Trump is bad because he is cosying up to authoritarian Putin" or that he "is against the defence of the free world".

Everywhere and in every circumstance we stand for an independent class position. That is, a position which starts from the point of view of the interests of the working class, not those of one group of imperialist robbers or another.

[On Monday we will publish an extensive analysis of the present situation and the role of Donald Trump, by Alan Woods]