The Leader of the Anti-Authoritarian Resistance
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The scene in Kyiv earlier this month recalled the darkest days of oligarchic rule. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent slipped a piece of paper across the table to Volodmyr Zelensky . “You really need to sign this,” Bessent told the Ukrainian president, according to The Wall Street Journal . The document was a deal to give the United States the rights to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Ukraine’s minerals. When Zelensky said that he needed time to consider the proposal, Bessent pushed the paper closer to him and warned that “people back in Washington” would be very upset.
The Trump administration was operating in the old spirit of the kleptocrats who built fortunes in Ukraine and Russia at the dawn of the post-Communist era, wielding veiled threats to bully the nation’s leader into hastily handing over precious resources in a shady deal.
To Zelensky ’s credit, he did his best to resist Bessent’s pressure. “I can’t sell our state,” he explained . It was as if he had actually internalized the message that American diplomats from the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations had attempted to drum into Ukraine’s collective psyche: Ukraine’s democracy depends on it resisting powerful business interests that seek to plunder its wealth on terms highly unfavorable to the Ukrainian public. Zelensky ’s willingness to stand up to President Donald Trump, holding true to American values in the face of American intimidation, was a perverse trading of places.
[ Anne Applebaum: The end of the postwar world ]
The moment recalls another episode in Ukraine’s recent past. Three years ago today, Russian troops streamed across the nation’s borders, assassins descended on the capital in search of its president, citizens decamped to the subways in search of shelter. Western intelligence agencies predicted Ukraine’s imminent demise. And in that moment of despair, Zelensky strode out into the empty streets of Kyiv, in the dark of night, to record a video reassuring the world, “We are still here.”
In those initial days of the war, Zelensky began to pose as a defender of liberalism, fighting on behalf of global democracy. Whether he actually meant it wasn’t clear. Before the war, his record of curbing corruption was spotty at best. With his political inexperience, and his strange unwillingness to prepare his country against the looming Russian threat, the former comic actor hardly had the makings of a sturdy bulwark against autocracy.
But he became one in the face of an unrelenting assault. Having preserved his nation’s independence, however, he’s now facing not one but two of the world’s most powerful illiberal leaders, conspiring in tandem. For reasons both petty and pecuniary, Trump seems intent on fulfilling Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal of crushing Ukrainian sovereignty. The American president is pressing for Russia’s favored resolution to the war, without even allowing Zelensky a seat at the negotiating table. And the resource deal he’s pursuing amounts to World War I–style reparations, but extracted from the victim of aggression. It would force the Ukrainians to hand over the wealth beneath their ground, without any guarantee of their security in exchange. The extortion that Trump proposes would deny Ukraine any possibility of recovering economically, and consign its people to a state of servitude.
In this new moment of crisis, Zelensky is reverting to the role he played in the war’s earliest days. Confronted with blunt force, he’s bravely resisting. Squaring up to the bully, he accused Trump of swimming in disinformation. Despite all the pressure the United States has applied on him to accede to the mineral deal, he’s refused. Yesterday, he said , “I am not signing something that ten generations of Ukrainians will have to repay.” Knowing that Trump will never set aside his personal animosity toward him, he offered to resign in exchange for a Western security guarantee.
He has resisted the administration’s demands despite the fact that he has no leverage in his dealings with the U.S. other than moral suasion and a limited ability to get in Trump’s way. Ukraine’s military is entirely dependent on American arms, and its European allies can do almost nothing, at this late date, to fill the void. In the end, given Ukraine’s tenuous existence, Zelensky might have little choice but to accept whatever Trump imposes, but at least he’s shown that there’s a course other than immediate surrender.
Once upon a time, the United States poured diplomatic resources and military aid into Ukraine so that it wouldn’t descend into Russian-style autocracy. Now it’s the United States that’s headed in that direction. In the form of Elon Musk, an oligarch has captured the power of the American government, through which he can invisibly advance his own interests. The president is attempting to intimidate (and sue) the media into complying with the administration’s agenda. The norms of the administrative state have been shattered so that Trump can reward cronies and punish enemies. And in the most literal sense, the United States is collaborating with Russian autocracy so that the foreign policies of the two regimes are more closely aligned.
American institutions have largely faltered amid Trump’s assault, and European allies have aimlessly panicked. But Zelensky ’s very presence reprimands the West for its futile opposition; his resoluteness shames Republicans, who once admired him as a latter-day Winston Churchill, for their own abject capitulation. Although he arguably has more to lose from a Trump administration than anyone on the planet, he’s kept pushing back, with resourcefulness that recalls Ukraine’s guerrilla tactics immediately after the Russian invasion. When the history of the era is written, Zelensky will be seen as the global leader of the anti-authoritarian resistance, who refused to accept the terms that the powerful sought to impose on his nation. He clarified the terms of the struggle with his heroic example. He reminds despairing liberals, “We are still here.”
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
Is it your position that Ukraine doesn’t need to pay us anything back?
Do they need to pay us anything back? After all, it’s aid. Are there terms that read like a purchase or a loan? That’s different from aid, isn’t it? You don’t save a man from drowning and then send him a bill - at least, I wouldn’t.
My understanding is that a lot of the aid ends up back in our pockets anyway. It’s used to purchase American weapons and fund replenishment of American supplies. I don’t know all the exact figures (but you can Google this is if you like), but I do know that if we approve $80 billion in aid, we don’t just send Ukraine a check for $80 billion.
I would think you’d want the responsible party to pay for damages. Maybe? Shouldn’t Russia be paying something?
Ukraine isn't a man drowning. Just another European leach that refuses to let go.
Also, Russia is winning the war against Ukraine- since when do victors pay for damages?
We do. All the time. Civil War Reconstruction. The Marshall Plan. Japan. Korea.
Those weren't payments for damages and they weren't concessions made by the winner as part of a peace agreement. Not to mention, "All the time" is quite the overstatement.
Korea.
What happened there?
Good grief, Sean, you are trying to nit-pick on a point by Tacos! that you damn well know is correct: the USA has on multiple occasions helped rebuild nations after a war. This is not unusual.
The Marshall plan is the 800lb gorillas and by itself is sufficient. But we can add Afghanistan and Iraq to the list provided by Tacos!.
In every instance, we gave money, material, and manpower to rebuild places we helped destroy in war. We weren’t forced to do it. We did it because it was the smart thing and the moral thing to do.
In the years after the Korean War, the United States gave billions of dollars in aid and it has since resulted in an economically vital ally.
So not applicable to this situation whatsoever.
the United States gave billions of dollars in aid and it has since resulted in an economically vital ally.
Ad the US did not destroy south korea...
When has a victor been obligated as a part of a peace agreement to rebuild a nation after the war? Because we are the most generous country in the history of the world, we've done it voluntarily. Do you think Putin's Russia is the equivalent ?
A little perspective. We were running a budget surplus at the time of the Marshall Plan, and the amount spent was smaller in today's dollars than the amount we've already given Ukraine. And that's before the interest costs we will incur from borrowing the money are factored in.
As of today, with Trumps capitulation to Russia at the UN, the president of the United States is no longer "the leader of the free world", an unofficial title the POTUS has held for at least 80 years.
It is astonishing watching you struggle so mightily to reject the simple notion that Russia should make some effort to rebuild Ukraine.
Nobody claimed it was an obligation.
What was claimed is that it was the right thing to do.
Of course what they should do in a fair world and what they would do in the real world are two different things. If you want to take a look at what Russia should have done to be fair they should have stayed in their own borders three years ago. But here we are.
Yes. Instead of discussing realistic possible outcomes based on the world as it exists, it's just flights of fancy in which Russia suddenly morphs into an altruistic neighbor volunteering to do the right thing.
And of course blame Trump when that doesn't happen.
All non sequiturs since the US fought in all those wars.
No US boots on the ground in Ukraine. Huge difference.
I don’t see the difference. The US fought in wars and repaired damage. Russians fought in Ukraine and I see no reason why they shouldn’t help repair Ukraine. Why are you opposed to this?
I haven’t suggested that the US should pay to rebuild Ukraine.
Never said I was
So what? Neither did I.
President Zelensky should have looked Bessent in the eye and told him fuck you. Or he could have spit in his eye
How many billions do we borrow to give Ukraine? Will any progressive ever say there is a limit to the amount of money we should borrow on Ukraine's behalf? Odd how 10 years ago they mocked the idea that Russia was a threat and now they are willing to borrow unlimited amounts of money to fight.
Why does Ukraine deserve treatment we wouldn't even give to Great Britain when it was fighting Nazi Germany? Great Britain paid us with gold (FDR essentially bankrupted GB), or foreign bases and/or repaid the aid we gave it over decades. It was still paying us back this century. Zelensky just gets money. Must be nice.
I am not signing something that ten generations of Ukrainians will have to repay.”
But he demands the US give him money that ten generations of Americans will have to repay.
We cannot have a productive discussion about Ukraine because people like you put a moronic, buffoonish pathological lying grifter back in office. Trump lies as easily as he breathes.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that Trump intends to personally financially profit off whatever happens in Ukraine.
When you poison the well like we did by electing Trump you are not going to have any good drinking water.
We can't have a productive discussion about Ukraine because the left wing can't articulate a goal other than bitching about Trump. Since Trump doesn't want to continue borrowing billions to give Ukraine forever and ever, the left supports borrowing billions to give to Ukraine.
As compared to the unqualified candidates that Democrats put forward that literally spent the last four years wrecking the country while lying about it.
How? You made the accusation, now prove it!
Again, Trump won because Democrats spent the last 4 years destroying the country and lying about it. Seems voters weren't as stupid as Democrats wanted them to be.
No, actually he asked really nicely. He said “please” and “thank you.” I don’t remember him demanding anything.
And then after he asked real nice, we decided that it was in our national interest, and the interest of the region (which is populated by people we call “allies” and “friends”) to help him push back on Russian aggression - something America has considered important for 80 years.
You got the simple talking points, but now try and answer the question of where this goes.
How many billions do we borrow to give Ukraine? Will any progressive ever say there is a limit to the amount of money we should borrow on Ukraine's behalf? Odd how 10 years ago they mocked the idea that Russia was a threat and now they are willing to borrow unlimited amounts of money to fight.
Why does Ukraine deserve treatment we wouldn't even give to Great Britain when it was fighting Nazi Germany? Great Britain paid us with gold (FDR essentially bankrupted GB), or foreign bases and/or repaid the aid we gave it over decades. It was still paying us back this century. Zelensky just gets money. Must be nice.
That wasn’t the issue. The issue was Ukraine “demanding” money from us. That’s not how it happened.
Your other questions are fine, but not the point of my reply. I am not happy with the way the US or Europe responded in this situation, but my dissatisfaction does not make it fair to demonize Ukraine.
The point is they aren't offering anything in return. They just want us to borrow apparently unlimited money on their behalf.
make it fair to demonize Ukraine
I'm not demonizing Zelensky. He's obviously made the calculation Russia is not enough of an existential threat to burden future generations of Ukrainians with a debt to America. Good for him for looking out for future generations. By not drafting young adults and refusing to pay for help, he's trying to put Ukraine in stronger future position, as he should be. It's his job to look after Ukrainians, not protect the interests of future Americans. It'd be nice if others cared about that sort of thing.
Fuck this ungrateful piece of shit, The UN just voted on a resolution to demand Russia give back all the territory, time to suit up bitches and put your money where your mouth is. Who is sending their troops first? I hear Justin is looking for a new gig, maybe he can go fight in black face.
Yep, plenty of “patriots” here are ready to ruck up and fight for Ukraine.
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he's got himself a terrible pain
way down yonder in old Ukraine
so put down your iPads and pick up a gun
we're gonna have us a whole lot of fun
don't ask me cuz I’m ready to train
next stop is lovely Ukraine
and it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates
well there ain't no time to wonder why
whoopee! we're all gonna die
pack your boys off to lovely Ukraine
c'mon pops, don't hesitate
send ‘em off before it's too late
be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box
…… hats off to Country Joe and the Fish, all adjustments by Sparty
They don't have to wait for Uncle Sam. Ukraine needs bodies to feed to the Russian meat grinder right now!
So get off your asses all of you hawk leftists and head on over to Ukraine. They have plenty of weapons for you to fight with; and the tactics are WWII- so no worrying about having to learn anything other than digging a deep enough hole and praying the shelling doesn't hit flush.
Trumps stooge in the UN delegation, Elise Stefanik, voted with Russia and North Korea, and against all our actual allies, at the UN today.
So John, how much money do we need to give to Ukraine, You see i used the term give. because Zelensky is a perfect democrat stooge, he wants others to pay for his fuck-ups and mistakes. He spent so much time sucking democrat American dick under Biden i'm surprised your party didn't name him instead of the other whore to be President.
The basis for any INTERNATIONAL popularity Putin may have is white supremacy.
You talking about Ukraine there John?
Fascists and Nazis abound in Ukraine and Zelenskyy has rolled them into the military and government.
He has even adopted fascist tactics of suspending elections; banning political parties; arresting his political opponents; and banning all but state run media.
Why are leftists so willing to support such a fascist country?
The faux John Wayne in tailor made khakis has buffaloed Democrats and leftists into giving Ukraine billions they have no intention of ever paying back.
You expect the US tax payer to foot the bill to rebuild Ukraine as well?
A lot of MAGAs are too stupid to admire Putin for geopolitical reasons. They admire him as the front man for an international white nationalist movement.
Call them thugs. I do
The real truth is that Trump's plan to end this war is the only one that has any chance to prevail. I can't understand why the lefties want to see this war continue indefinitely. The answer must be is to simply see Trump fail. That's illogical and unpatriotic
It is easy for you to just make you a ridiculous fantasy that people want this war to continue indefinitely and then engage in criticism of same. Strawman arguments are easy. And they are dishonest. But typically are used when someone cannot come up with anything better.
The objection is how Trump is handling this war; that he is clearly, obviously siding with Putin. He is even publicly repeating Putin talking points. It is embarrassing and pathetic that a PotUS would behave this way, but this is the buffoon you keep defending.
Trump is throwing Ukraine under the bus. He is not trying to negotiate a fair 'deal', he is siding with Russia and taking the easy way out.
That, Greg, is the problem.
In case you haven't looked lately, Zelensky has been under the bus for a very long time. Putin holds all the cards in this war and has the staying power to sacrifice his people indefinitely. You never explain in detail how Trump is "siding" with Putin. Trump has to give the appearance of "being nice" to Putin to get him to negotiate for a settlement that will be the best for Ukraine. How would you handle it? Do you have a better solution?
Going forward, if you're not capable of having a discussion without supporting your statements, or persist in the accusatory insults, I won't respond.
What amazing projection! There are dozens of comments where you challenged me, I responded in detail, and you are then totally silent. No rebuttal. Nothing. And that is good because it is better to not respond if you have nothing.
The specifics of the various strategies would be the result of smart analysts and diplomats using their experience and knowledge. I do not have access to these individuals, but Trump does.
What Trump is doing is not even negotiation. It is capitulation. He is taking the easiest route ... throw Zelensky and Ukraine under the bus. And I expected this because Trump flat out does not care about anyone other than himself. He wants the war to end, no matter what, so that he can brag about himself. The first clue that this would be his approach was when he stupidly claimed he could end the war with a phone call.
Only leftists think the side that is winning will be the one making concessions.
Name one time in history that has happened in war?
PS- Democrat lost the damn election. Wasting billions of US tax payer dollars in Ukraine is part of the damn reason!
Everyone knew exactly where Trump stood on Ukraine and ending the war; only leftists seemed outraged and shocked he is actually following through.
Trump is a fucking traitor who wants to monetize Ukraines demise for his own personal benefit. Fuck him.
An utterly stupid, emotional claim.
Trump is obviously trying to 'negotiate' a win for Putin rather than do the hard job of negotiating a compromised peace. And you applaud this.
'I see leftists everywhere ...!!' Get a grip. It is not at all surprising that rational people would criticize what Trump is doing. It is fundamentally wrong and he has stupidly poisoned the well. Worse, he has publicly stated Putin's talking points which you should realize have become Russian propaganda stating that the United States recognizes that Ukraine started this war.
You continue to defend a buffoon.
Remember the days when we would call people "comrade" when they spouted Russian propaganda?
What plan? Trump's only plan has utterly failed.
Trump says he can end the Russia-Ukraine war in one day.
I do believe he would end WWIII...with one push of the button
After he started it.
That's my point.
We should just step back, let things run their natural course, and then make a deal with Russia for the minerals. Russia spans half the Asian continent. We're supposed to believe Russian doesn't have any valuable minerals? Should we just let China have access to Russia's minerals?
If the United States is so hard up for minerals then we need to begin negotiating with Russia. Stop with the rare earth crap, too. The minerals of interest would be ilmenite and rutile. Letting China gain control over titanium would be devastating for the United States.
We could build desalination plants along the west coast to supply water and recover lithium. It's a two-fer. And it'd make a wonderful public/private partnership. But American capital is too lazy and American business leaders are too stupid so there's no way this can happen, even on a cold day in Hell.
No, make deals with nations who could not / would not turn around and effectively threaten us. It is stupid for us to voluntarily be dependent on Russia.
Like China?
What happened to the idea that trade creates peaceful, friendly international relations? That's what we've been told since Bill Clinton signed NAFT and institutionalized dependence on China with the .
No. China is a perfect example of a nation where we should be actively seeking to reduce our dependence.
Yet we aren't.
Democrats would go apoplectic to see you writing such things.
Tone down the hyper-emotional, ridiculously partisan stereotype.
Where do you get the idea that the Ds want the USA to be dependent upon China for our well-being?
I'm stroking out, TiG!!!!!!
lol