A common topic readers ask me to write about is Ukraine. I have been researching and I have learned that there are many narratives.
I have spoken to more than one person across the globe, with family members in special forces who tell me not to believe what I read about Ukraine (or any conflict for that matter). Others claim that Ukraine is corrupt. For some, Ukraine should not have goaded Russia through looking for NATO or EU membership. Meanwhile if you compare the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Ukraine you come upon a difficult double standard. As we come to over two decades of the invasion of Iraq you will find many podcasts now overtly relaying an illegal invasion, plunging Iraq into instability, unleashing sectarian violence and the follow on effects of a growth in extremism on Western soil. Iraq like Gaza, struck a chord with people in the West and the double standard with which some perceive the value of Arab life versus European. Indeed if you want to know why we have so many immigrants from those lands? Read up on Iraq.
Most recently I have been researching the link between Ukraine and Israel, with people claiming Zelenskyy is a Zionist.
It appears that some young white British people think we should not support Ukraine, either because they think we should support Gaza more, or because they believe we should not be involved in war at all.
So there are controversies about Ukraine, the aid and our involvement.
But seriously.
No matter what you think of Ukraine, wasn't that Oval Office meeting just horrid to watch? What did it trigger for you? For me it was a pile on. And like most pile ons, the piler on-ers are always the worst kind of people.
I don’t play football, but I think those who know about it would say that JD Vance set it up well. He inserted himself into a conversation that quite frankly didn’t involve him and blew it up.
I watched the meeting live and I want to cover the things that have become even clearer to me from it.
And the first and lasting thought of that meeting was how phallic it was.
AP
Masculinity weaves entirely through that encounter.
Each of Zelenskyy, Trump and Vance, at one stage are ALL sitting with their hands “in that area” with their knees at 45 degrees and their heels outwards. We know Trump likes to widen and closes his hands like he is clapping in “that area” or hold a power pose with his hands.
Meanwhile Vance does the other manspreading where he sits with his legs at right angles, but his knees only a little apart, and in a way where we see his socks as his trousers ride up. Meanwhile his hands rest in “that area”.
Because Vance’s suits don’t fit him, the trousers ride up “in that area” also.
For me it was all too much, too aggressive and unbearably childish.
Can we please get these men to keep their hands somewhere else? To close their legs?
DESPOTIC ENTOURAGE
Then there is the issue of the sheer number of people in the room. It is not common to have so many people in power in that room in bilateral meetings. Historically does the Vice President watch on? But in the Trump Oval Office, he has a row of people looking on. It is very despotic. What I would have expected of Sadaam Hussein, a row of men ready to tend to their leader.
Trump does things differently. In fact, he does not act like a Western leader. He is giving North Korea meets Assad meets village dictator vibes.
And he says what he wants.
In the meeting with Starmer the day prior, he claimed not to remember calling Zelenskyy a dictator. So he forgets what he wants to too.
But yesterday we learned that Zelenskyy also does things differently.
The Oval Office has had a conveyor belt of people come through of late.
Each and every leader has been put to the test. The King of Jordan sat quietly as Trump spoke of “taking Gaza”. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, who stands confident with a massive mandate in India humorously quipped that MIGA (Make India Great Again) plus MAGA makes MEGA. Netanyahu has had the best time there.
Macron, did what Macron does, he was charming and was in full manage “this dog on the leash” mode. Yet in that meeting there was also a LOT of touching and hand grabbing. Did Macron actually achieve anything?
And then there was Sir Kier Starmer.
Whilst I remain quite bemused with so much of what Starmer is doing to the UK economy, I think that he did well with Trump. He stood firm when Vance hysterically talked about free speech and pushed back that he was proud of free speech in the UK. He also sat like a gentleman.
But whether you like Starmer or not, he did not come away with much in that Oval meeting either. Yes, offering Trump the letter from King Charles for a state visit was funny and soft power diplomacy, but we cannot forget that Trump did kind of suggest to the UK that we are on our own to an extent.
If anything, Starmer maintained the status quo. But don’t we need more than this?
And I am wondering whether watching the leaders allow Trump to rewrite the rules, say untruths and rewrite the rules in these meetings whether Zelenskyy went there to retaliate?
But of course none of this meeting can be unpicked without the V word, as Zelenskyy was pushed.
V is for VILE
Not my words, but Alistair Campbell who has on Britain’s most popular podcast, called Vance, vile.
Yes I think Vance wears his suits too small, and yes I think he also wears eyeliner. But these are not relevant. What is important about Vance is that he is showing how unqualified he is.
At the Munich Security office he showed us his weird world of thought. That Trump was the new sheriff. That Putin was not the threat to Europe and the UK but free speech was.
And out of nowhere in this meeting, Vance went off on one for Ukraine not saying thank you, not showing respect and trying to “litigate issues in front of the American media”. A statement so bizarre when both he and Trump lie in front of their own media. And we know they are not telling the truth as all week their numbers on the money America send to Ukraine have been wrong, as have their views on the money Europe has sent. As are the aspersions that Zelenskyy is not grateful - he says thank you all the time.
And let’s face it, we only ask people to thank us, who we do not see as equals or like.
And Vance did raise his voice at Zelenskyy. He did attack Zelenskyy and I think that unless you like bullies, that Zelenskyy came out as the better man.
In each and every conflict we are seeing, the underlying common theme is that they all originate from bullying. Whether it is Israelis putting Palestinians in an open prison, whether it is Hamas killing Israelis on October 7, whether it's the merciless killing of Palestinian children, war in Sudan and Congo and more, we are all just watching on as people are being bullied, and attacked and people are not speaking up enough.
They say we need actions, not words, but in the world right now, we need words not killing. And if these leaders cannot use their words properly, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Zelenskyy comes out on top, because they ganged up on him, and he simply spoke up.
COSPLAY
Despite his English wavering, when one American onlooker criticised him for not wearing a suit, he looked belittled and then came back quickly. Interestingly he referred to the suit as a “costume” and that he would wear one after the war.
Even better, he retorted that perhaps he would wear one better than the man who had asked him the question and then said “thank you”.
And this is my second lasting impression of this meeting. Zelenskyy is right. They are in costume and that is the problem. The fact is, the person makes the attire. And politics has been hijacked. Call it the wolf in sheep’s clothing, call it the emperor’s new clothes - there is enough precedent in history to educate us that we are in a terrible position with charlatans dressed as saviours.
Trump said that the meeting was a good eye opener to the American public as to what Zelenskyy is. On the contrary, this meeting shows you what the leaders of the free world are - Men who cannot hold decorum, who have no self restraint and men who gang up on another man.
And if this is how they speak with men in meetings in front of the world media, I am left wondering how do they treat their wives? How a man behaves in work is precisely a blueprint for how they treat their wives and sisters and daughters.
But we know how they treat the women in their families. The women are simply used to sell their ideas and look dutiful. Remember that comment Trump made about how beautiful Starmer’s wife was? What even was that comment?
A DOG-OSPHERE
But let us not also be so complacent to think that this is solely a manosphere - a word much banded about in politics. Trump got to where he is due to a white female vote. Whilst not in majority, women of colour also voted for him. Meanwhile in Europe, right wing politics is also glued by women in the lead. Take your pick from Meloni of Italy, Badenoch in the UK, Weidel in Germany and Le Pen in France.
I welcome all narratives on the situation in Ukraine, but whatever your position on it, it would also be complacent to surrender to Putin.
And Trump is surrendering to Putin.
Trump thinks Putin has allied with him.
In fact all Trump is showing to the world is that he is scared of Putin and wants to appease him.
A law firm partner I used to work, with would criticise his male colleagues to me and tell me that they all needed their nappies changed. But I think we are dealing with dogs and not babies.
Trump is submitting to Putin, and Putin is emerging as the Top Dog.
This is appeasement, and everyone knows what happens when countries collectively appease.
Starmer will make himself a key person in this conflict I suspect, and I welcome that, but for as long as he too doesn’t counter the narrative actively with dialogue, that strategy too is merely buying time, not peace.
And someone please put Vance on a leash.
Thanks, and have a great weekend.
Ludology
The description of the mens' body language was great, except you missed one of Trumps most frequent hand placement, which is almost a perfect rendition of Sign Language for "vagina". Does he wish he had one?