US betrayal of Ukraine is the rehearsal for a grander bargain with Moscow and an assault on continental solidarity, says Guardian columnist Rafael Behr

Aprime time current affairs programme; a discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine. “He’s doing excellent things,” says a firebrand politician on the panel, before listing White House actions that have belittled Volodymyr Zelenskyy and weakened his battlefield position – military aid suspended; satellite communications obstructed; intelligence withheld. “Do we support this?” It is a rhetorical question.

“We support it all. Absolutely,” the celebrity host responds. “We are thrilled by everything Trump is doing.”

Such approval might not be out of place on polemical rightwing channels in the US, but these exchanges weren’t broadcast to American audiences. The show’s anchor is Olga Skabeyeva, one of Vladimir Putin’s most dependable propagandists. To hear the highest pitch of praise for Trump’s bullying of Ukraine you need to watch Russia’s state-controlled Channel One.

When Russian and US delegations met in Saudi Arabia last month to discuss a resolution to the war in Ukraine, the most revealing feature of the conversation was the exclusion of any Ukrainians.

Less discussed, but still significant, was the inclusion in Putin’s delegation of Kirill Dmitriev, an alumnus of Stanford University, McKinsey and Goldman Sachs, now head of the Russian state investment fund. His pitch was that US businesses have foregone billions of dollars in profits by quitting Russia. Sanctions against Moscow are presented as another way that Ukraine and its European accomplices are ripping off America. Shortly after the Saudi meeting, Dmitriev was formally appointed Putin’s “special representative for investment and economic partnership with overseas countries”, with a mandate covering deals with the US.

  • jjpamsterdam@feddit.orgEnglish
    4·
    7 hours ago

    This will really be an interesting question for the so-called global south. Since most countries there are generally considered to politically align with China/Russia due to “anti imperialism”, it’s going to be interesting to see if they remain on the side of Russia although this is now the side of the US or whether they alternatively remain opposed to the US but find themselves on the same side as the Europeans.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      3·
      6 hours ago

      Since most countries there are generally considered to politically align with China/Russia due to “anti imperialism”,

      Are you sure about that? To my knowledge some countries align strongly with Russia or China (mainly Russia as China doesn’t pursue alliances outside their immediate sphere of influence), but the vast majority are opportunists who only marginally sway one side or the other. I’m from the Middle East so I can’t speak much to other regions, but anti-West sentiment is mostly a common people thing that doesn’t make its way to the top levels of government (which are, as I said, primarily concerned with getting the best deal they can). For example geopolitically Egypt is American-aligned because America is supporting the floundering regime financially and militarily, and Morocco naturalized relations with Israel in exchange for US recognition for their claims over Western Sahara. The countries that do align with Russia due to “anti-imperialism” are mostly looking for a new boss to replace the old boss because they hate the old boss (stares at France). This is all to say: Russia and America aligning is of no immediate concern to most countries that don’t have close ties to Western Europe; it’s all about navigating conflicts between global powers and getting the best deal possible for oneself and one’s country.

      A notable exception is probably Iran, which will probably be distanced by Russia if the US-Russia alignment fully progresses. However, this is because Iran is trying to attain regional dominance, so rather than getting the best deal they know the deal they want and they’re trying to get it.