Trump Brings a Day of Historic Shame for the United States
In time, I feel pretty certain we'll learn that this ambush was planned in advance. If you watch the tape of this afternoon's Oval Office meeting, you'll see that Volodymyr Zelenskiy wasn't saying anything confrontational or disrespectful. He was explaining the history of the situation as he saw it. But the fix was in.
To review quickly: The confrontation starts with Donald Trump saying, 'I'm aligned with the world … I'm aligned with Europe.' Then JD Vance interjects with a denunciation of Joe Biden and praise of Trump for leading this round of diplomacy. Then Zelenskiy starts to explain how Vladimir Putin invaded his country in 2014, and no one did anything. Then he even said (at 2:10), 'God bless, now, President Trump will stop him.'
Then he noted the signed agreements Putin had violated and asked Vance, 'What kind of diplomacy are you talking about?' And that's when Vance delivered his lecture, after which Trump came with his warnings that Zelenskiy was 'gambling with World War III.' We all know where it went from there.
Last weekend, I went to the Principles First conference in Washington, a large gathering convened mostly by anti-Trump former Republicans. Garry Kasparov, the Russian dissident, was one of the speakers. He uttered a very simple line that chilled the thousand or so people in the room: 'The United States has changed teams.'
If anyone doubted that before this horrifying exchange Friday, it surely can't be doubted now. You had the president of Ukraine who, whatever his flaws, was representing a democracy—a struggling and imperfect democracy, for sure, but one that was invaded by a gangster regime; a country of 38 million people ravaged by a country of 144 million. He came to Washington willing to meet with a president whom he knows to be hostile but ready to sign a totally one-sided deal giving that president control over his country's mineral rights. That he decided not to sit there in silence as lies were being told about him and the nature of Putin's invasion was renamed impertinence. And in that moment, about three minutes and change into the tape linked to above, the United States of America symbolically and visibly switched from being the leader of the free world to being a partner of the global authoritarian axis.
I know; our leadership of the free world has been awfully spotty. But at least we declared ourselves to be seeking such a thing. At least it was possible for critics and dissenters to hold the United States to its words and its stated principles. No, that didn't save many lives in Iraq. But in diplomacy, it counts for something. For allies, it means that they can tune to our frequency, seize on some bedrock consistency, and foster engagement. It also means that at least in theory, and sometimes in practice, we promote democracy and liberation around the world—and that where we fail to do that, we can be rightly criticized, corrected, and on occasion, shamed.
That's gone. Now, we are in theory and practice on the side of autocracy.
Just Friday morning, Zelenskiy met with a bipartisan delegation of senators. That meeting apparently went very well. Senators from both parties praised him. Republican Roger Wicker tweeted about 'the huge step forward' represented by the meeting and the looming deal. Well, that's open to question, but at least it showed that Republican senators were ready to give Zelenskiy some support.
Later, after what happened in the White House, Wicker deleted the tweet.
And he's been one of the few courageous members of that party. Now he'll hide. But hiding is a lot better than what some of them are doing. Exhibit A, to no one's surprise, is Lindsey Graham.
Last week, Graham said to Zelenskiy: 'You're the ally I've been waiting for all my life.' Friday afternoon, he called Zelenskiy 'disrespectful, and I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskiy again.'
'Disrespectful.' Note the word. Note its focus on Trump personally; Trump's feelings. This isn't how people talk in democracies. It's how they talk in countries where the moods and whims of the Dear Leader dictate policy. And that, alas, is where we now live.
They may yet circle back to a deal—a deal that was one-sided enough that you wouldn't be thought a fool to observe that Ukraine was getting screwed, but at least it was a bridge to something better. Instead, it will be somewhat up to the public opinion of the governed to decide if our nation isn't screwed as well—for now, we're still enough of a democracy that that matters.
Whether we can say that a year from now is an interesting question. MAGA America, of course, loves what happened. Normal Earth America is appalled. Then there are those famous people in the middle. The ones who thought Trump would lower egg prices on day one. The ones who thought the businessman would bring order. The ones who have now in many cases personally been caught up in the chaos and disorder in which Trump and his co-president revel, and lost their jobs. We can only hope that, while they probably don't especially care about Ukraine, they find their president's behavior mildly embarrassing.
And I wonder what they'll find it six months from now, or a year, or two years, or whenever Putin finds the time to be right, that he'll regroup and try to wipe Ukraine off the map. Because he'll do it if he can. And the president of the United States won't lift a finger.
We'll be able to trace it all to this disgraceful moment, this day of historic shame for the United States. We've changed teams.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
26 minutes ago
- UPI
EU targets Russia with sanctions, lower oil price cap
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (R) and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas briefed the press Monday on the 18th package of sanctions against Russia, in Brussels, Belgium. Photo by Olivier Matthys/EPA-EFE June 10 (UPI) -- The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled its latest in a series of sanctions against Russia targeting energy exports, infrastructure and finances. "Oil exports still represent one-third of Russia's government revenues," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said at a news conference in Brussels, Belgium. "We need to cut this source of revenues," she added. The measures aimed to put pressure on Moscow to end Russia's war in Ukraine include a proposal to lower the current $60 oil price cap to $45 per barrel and bans use of the Nord Stream pipelines between Germany and Russia. At least nine individuals and 33 companies will be slapped with asset freezes. And the EU will consider adding another 77 boats part of Russia's "shadow fleet" banned in European ports of entry, part of at least 300 other barred Russian vessels. In addition, at least 22 Russian banks will be cut off from the SWIFT international banking system and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Von der Leyen called the sanctions "robust" and "hard-biting" and added that Russia's economy has already been bowing to past pressure. "Russia continues to bring death and destruction to Ukraine," she said Monday at the press conference with Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat. "Our message is clear: This war must end." Kallas called Russia's military invasion of Ukraine "outright illegal." She said it was "clear that Russia does not want peace," adding it is "cruel, aggressive and a danger to us all." It arrived ahead of this weekend's G7 summit in Alberta, Canada where the new oil price caps will be discussed. "With this package, we step up pressure on Russia," stated von der Leyen. "Our objective is very clear: We are reiterating the call for a full, unconditional ceasefire of at least 30 days," she said.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters
The halls of academia have long been considered sanctuaries of critical thinking, intellectual discourse, and the pursuit of truth. Universities across the globe pride themselves on fostering environments where diverse perspectives can be examined, debated, and understood through the lens of scholarly rigor. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed a troubling trend within certain African academic institutions: a marked bias toward Russian narratives that undermines the very principles of academic integrity and intellectual honesty that universities claim to uphold. This bias is not merely an abstract concern about geopolitical alignment; it represents a fundamental betrayal of the educational mission that universities exist to fulfill. When academic institutions abandon objectivity in favor of political positioning, they fail their students, their communities, and the broader pursuit of knowledge that defines higher education. The stakes could not be higher as universities shape the minds of future leaders, policymakers, and citizens who will navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. Across various African universities, a concerning pattern has emerged since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rather than maintaining the scholarly distance necessary for objective analysis, numerous institutions have embraced narratives that closely align with Russian state propaganda. This manifests in multiple ways: academic conferences that present one-sided perspectives on the conflict, research publications that uncritically amplify Moscow's justifications for the war, and classroom discussions that frame the invasion through the lens of Western imperialism rather than examining it as a clear violation of international law. Read also: Ukraine must look beyond the EU for its agricultural future The roots of this bias are complex and multifaceted. Historical ties between the Soviet Union and various African nations during the Cold War era have created lingering sympathies that some academics appear unable to separate from contemporary realities. Additionally, legitimate grievances about Western colonial history and ongoing concerns about neocolonialism have been exploited to create false equivalencies between Russian aggression and Western influence. Some academics have conflated criticism of Western policies with support for Russian actions, creating a dangerous intellectual blind spot. Economic factors also play a role. Russian investment in African educational infrastructure, scholarship programs, and research partnerships have created institutional relationships that some universities appear reluctant to jeopardize through objective analysis of Russian actions. This economic dependence has compromised academic freedom, creating situations where financial considerations override scholarly integrity. The influence of Russian state media and disinformation campaigns cannot be overlooked. RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik have specifically targeted African audiences with sophisticated propaganda operations designed to shape public opinion. Unfortunately, some academics have proven susceptible to these narratives, either through genuine belief or through a misguided sense that amplifying Russian perspectives represents intellectual diversity. When universities abandon objectivity, the consequences extend far beyond the ivory tower. Students who receive biased education are ill-equipped to understand complex global issues, make informed decisions as citizens, or contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. They graduate with skewed worldviews that may influence their professional and personal choices for decades to come. The credibility of African scholarship suffers when institutions are perceived as politically motivated rather than academically rigorous. This damages the reputation of African universities in international academic circles, potentially limiting collaboration opportunities, research partnerships, and the mobility of African scholars. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. Perhaps most importantly, bias in academia contributes to the broader information warfare that authoritarian regimes wage against democratic values and international law. Universities that should serve as bastions of critical thinking instead become unwitting participants in propaganda campaigns designed to undermine global stability and human rights. The situation becomes particularly problematic when considering the humanitarian dimensions of Russia's war against Ukraine. Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure have been deliberately targeted by Russian forces, creating a refugee crisis that has displaced millions of people. When universities fail to acknowledge these realities or attempt to justify them through geopolitical frameworks, they implicitly endorse violence against civilians and violations of international humanitarian law. African universities must recommit to their fundamental mission of pursuing truth through rigorous scholarship rather than serving as vehicles for political propaganda. This transformation requires several concrete steps. First, universities must establish clear guidelines for faculty regarding the difference between legitimate academic analysis and political advocacy. While scholars should be free to examine controversial topics from multiple perspectives, they must do so within frameworks that respect evidence, logic, and established principles of international law. Second, African universities must diversify their funding sources and partnership arrangements to reduce dependence on any single country or ideological bloc. The current situation, where some institutions appear reluctant to criticize Russian actions due to financial relationships, represents an unacceptable compromise of academic independence. Read also: Hiding in plain sight — how Russia's cultural centers continue to operate in US, Europe despite espionage claims Third, universities must invest in media literacy and critical thinking education for both faculty and students. The susceptibility of some academics to Russian disinformation campaigns reveals significant gaps in the ability to evaluate sources, identify propaganda techniques, and distinguish between credible and manipulated information. Fourth, African universities must strengthen their commitment to international academic standards and peer review processes. When scholars publish work that fails to meet basic standards of evidence and argumentation, it reflects poorly on the entire African academic community. Rigorous peer review can help ensure that African scholarship maintains the quality necessary for international respect and collaboration. The pro-Russian bias evident in some African universities represents more than just a misguided political position; it constitutes a surrender of intellectual independence to foreign propaganda. This is particularly ironic given that many of these same institutions pride themselves on their commitment to African independence and self-determination. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. It means acknowledging uncomfortable truths about allies while maintaining the ability to critique opponents fairly. Most importantly, it means refusing to sacrifice scholarly integrity for political convenience. African universities have a proud tradition of intellectual leadership, from their role in anti-colonial movements to their contributions to post-independence development. This legacy is endangered when institutions abandon their commitment to truth in favor of political positioning. The current moment represents a critical test of whether African higher education will live up to its historical role as a force for enlightenment and progress. The stakes extend beyond the immediate question of how to analyze Russia's war against Ukraine. Universities that compromise their integrity on this issue signal their willingness to subordinate academic standards to political considerations more broadly. This has implications for everything from scientific research to economic analysis to social policy development. African universities stand at a crossroads. They can continue down the path of political bias, sacrificing their integrity for short-term political or economic gains, or they can lead by example by recommitting to the principles of scholarly objectivity and intellectual honesty that define higher education at its best. The choice is not merely about how to analyze one particular conflict; it is about the fundamental purpose and character of African higher education. Universities that choose bias over objectivity risk becoming irrelevant to serious academic discourse and ineffective in their mission to educate future leaders. The world needs African universities that can contribute meaningfully to global conversations about complex issues. This requires institutions that maintain high scholarly standards, resist political pressure, and commit themselves to the pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads. Read also: Can South Africa lead the charge for nuclear safety in Ukraine? Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.
