The images from the Oval Office were grotesque. Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on his ability to “make deals,” sat across from a beleaguered Volodymyr Zelensky and did what can only be described as political hazing. Instead of offering assurances of support, Trump harangued and hounded the Ukrainian president, all while dangling an exploitative mineral deal before him — one that offers no security guarantees, only the faint scent of transactionalism masquerading as diplomacy.
It was a moment that should chill anyone with a passing knowledge of history. Because what we witnessed wasn’t just another Trumpian tantrum; it was the re-run of an old, dark playbook. The optics of Trump cosying up to Putin’s interests at Ukraine’s expense are hauntingly reminiscent of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin, with all his paranoid cunning, believed that Hitler’s outstretched hand was one of good faith — or at least mutual self-interest. He was wrong. Hitler, never one to honour a deal longer than it served him, turned on the Soviet Union with all the fury of a betrayed beast. The lesson? Dictators do not negotiate in good faith, and deals with devils have expiry dates written in invisible ink.
Much like Stalin, Trump seems to think that he is the one playing Putin, rather than the other way around. But history warns us otherwise. Putin is not in the business of charity, and if Trump believes that he can carve up Ukraine without consequence, he should prepare for the boomerang of reality to swing back hard. A Europe at war does not exist in a vacuum; its consequences ripple across oceans and economies, inevitably pulling in those who thought they could spectate from the sidelines. America, no matter how much Trump wishes it otherwise, cannot simply disengage from a world that is set aflame.
There has been much talk, too, about the parallels between our current moment and the prelude to the Second World War. Some say the comparisons are excessive, an exercise in hyperbole designed to whip up hysteria. And yet, it’s hard to ignore the memes —oh, the memes!— of Trump as Chamberlain, proudly holding aloft his own “peace in our time” document. Except we don’t need a photoshopped white piece of paper, because we have a real one. The one Keir Starmer handed to Trump: a formal invitation for a state visit to meet the King. Something that goes beyond inviting a person, but inviting Trump’s ideas and validating him.
Now, I understand why Starmer did it. Soft power is still power, and diplomatic overtures can often achieve more than hardline posturing. But if there’s one thing we are learning, it’s that Trump has no real intention of helping Ukraine. He may accept the grandeur of a state visit, may sip the tea and nod along to whatever pleasantries are served with the biscuits, but the fundamental truth remains: he does not care. It is, at best, a strategic necessity; at worst, another sheet of paper in a long history of useless accords.
Would withholding the invitation change anything? Likely not. If anything, it would only deepen Trump’s inclination to thumb his nose at European allies. So, we kick the can down the road and hope that when the time comes, the moment will meet the man, rather than the other way around.
But there is a lesson here — not just in history, but in action. Starmer has often talked about moving away from a ‘Party of Protest,’ to one of power. Starmer has argued that power matters more than protest, that to govern is better than to merely shout from the sidelines. But what is power if not the ability to stand up to injustice? What is power if it does not serve those who need it most? A power that does not challenge, does not question, does not fight for principle — is it power at all? Or is it simply the illusion of it?
We, as Lib Dems, know that protest is not just noise; it is the early tremor of change. We do not have to sit silently while the world tilts on its axis. We can —and must— make our voices heard. Because history is watching. And if we are to learn anything from the past, it is that silence in the face of tyranny is its own kind of complicity.
So, let us be loud. Let us be unyielding. Let us be, if nothing else, the inconvenient conscience of those who would rather look away. Because if we do not, who will?
* Andrew Chandler is the Digital Officer for North Staffordshire Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
University of Dundee Tower Building #dundeewestend
What is the tipping point in Palestine Action arrests?
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
expats
Simon McGrath
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
19 Comments
Many around Trump have been bewidered by his admiration and almost fawning over Putin, a callous killer that imposed a reign of terror on Russia and its neighbours. Over the course of the past six weeks much of the Trumps actions appear to resemble the early actions of Putin’s first term from 2000. The enfeeblement of the free press, the selection of friendly oligarchs to conslidate economic and political power around the Presidency, the absolute control over the congress, the military and the organs and state, moves to change the constitution to allow for a 3td term.
With protests building across the country including townhall meetings with republican representatives. Trump has charged – “Paid ‘troublemakers’ are attending Republican Town Hall Meetings. It is all part of the game for the Democrats, but just like our big LANDSLIDE ELECTION, it’s not going to work for them!” Trump dismisses GOP town hall backlash as result of ‘paid troublemakers’. This mimics Putin’s playbook of dismissing any popular protest in Russia as the activities of paid agents of foreign powers.
Now Trump has issued a ban on what he deems to be ‘illegal’ college protests and threatened students with arrest and deportation Trump issues ban on ‘illegal’ college protests as he threatens students with arrest and deportation
Trump has ordered the release of the files on the assassinations of Robert Kennedty and Martin Luther King in 1968. That same year saw the gunning down of protestors at the 1968 Democratic convention and of University students in 1970 at Kent State University. Is there where the US is heading again?
Further proof that a USA, under Trump, cannot be trusted is Trump violating the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement he signed during his first term..
If you stab friends in the back and welcome hostile nations you end up with no friends and the hostile nations are still hostile..
The Appeaser is the one who gets eaten by the dragon last!!!
Good article sums it up accurately and leaves the UK chasing the impossible dream of a changed Trump who we can do business with.
I hope that Trump is around after 4 years to take the Consequences of his actions as those standing behind him may be even worse.
@David Garlick
Andy the author here. Thank you for those kind words as I felt very proud of this article. And I completely agree. I fear we are thinking this Trump first presidency rather than the Trump we have now in hope we can just kick things down the road to buy time. Trump has already sowed up his opinions and like you said, Starmer and the UK Government is chasing a dream.
I don’t agree Starmer is chasing a dream. He is pragmatically trying to stop a dreadful situation getting much worse……….. and however difficult that may be I wish him good luck with it.
@David Raw
While I understand that sentiment David what accomplishment has Macron and Starmer achieved. Nothing. In fact, worse than nothing, today they have pulled intelligence sharing from Europe and Ukraine. Nothing can persuade me that Starmer can change the tied. He’s playing us along I am afraid, imho.
@ Andrew Chandler, “what accomplishment has Macron and Starmer achieved ?”…. You don’t (and can’t) know that, Andy, (and neither do I) short of obtaining a hotline to the Intelligence Services.
What I do know is that Trump is full of noise and unpredictable. As Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has a duty and a responsibility to make an effort to mitigate and modify the situation. It’s far too early to condemn him…… though no doubt it’s tempting and satisfying to do so on LDV.
One of my earliest political memories is of Jo Grimond visiting J.F.K. in the Whitehouse. Seems a long long time ago now, though I doubt whether Sir Edward will be getting a similar invite…. or be able to talk of any accomplishment on this matter.
I have rarely read such excellent and explicit fluency
@David Raw
David can you please refrain from aggressive and belittling behaviour please. I have been very cordial with you so far.
Whilst I understand the sentiment the evidence has so far shown that Trump has heeld to anything so far that Starmer has done. I have spoken to many friends who originally praised Starmer (as did I originally) but after the events in the Oval Office a lot of them are now saying that he looks weak and living in a dreamworld. Trump will often respond to people who look weak or grovel in kind by stepping over them.
Also, you haven’t really answered my achievements things because its more plainly obvious that at this point, Zelensky, Starmer, Macron have all come to Washington and figured out they’ll get nowhere with Trump. This is why Europe needs to and show far had been showing signs of stepping up. Otherwise if things had worked out to plan it we would be having this conversation now would we.
@David Raw
Actually re-reading the first line of your reply I actually got stronger words from you. Please don’t be patronising with that intelligence line if we want to have a decent conversation or I will just not engage.
@Ian Gibbons
Thank you Ian. Appreciate it.
The USA is highly polarised even more so than the UK during the Brexit fiasco under Boris Johnson. If Trump’s rhetoric is to be believed he seeks to implement an austerity budget including defence cuts and balance trade with a view to returning the US to a major manufacturing centre. His foreign policy appears to adhere to the Monroe doctrine of dominating the Western hemisphere while relying on the shield of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to isolate America from conflicts elsewhere in the world. The policies appear to have the support of at least half of the American public.
The UK and Europe generally have to deal with this changed reality, which will most likely see depressed global economc conditions, higher unemployment and increasing international instability.
Protests are unlikely to yield much in the way of changed behaviours by great powers. The 19th-century British diplomatic practice of avoiding permanent alliances from 1815 to 1902, so called splendid isolation, does not appear practical for the UK today. We will need to engage with the effort to bolster European defences against a revanchist Russia, while maintaining pragmatic relations with the USA, China and other world powers.
It is quite possible that Trump’s policies may undermine the dollar as the principal global reserve currency and the Euro may supplant the dollar as the principal international trading currency of Western democracies as confidence in the dollar weakens. The UK should be prepared for that transition.
@JosephBourke
Completely agree with this assessment too. Contrary to what some believe, I’m not suggesting a sharp turn overnight, but we do need to make a slow and steady transition. Clinging to the UK-US ‘special relationship’ at a time when not only the presidency but half of America’s population wants to go isolationist is a strategic dead end. We can’t rely on Democrats winning every few years to keep things steady.
No matter how sentimental we might still be about the transatlantic relationship, we must accept that sentimentality alone cannot shield us from reality. We cannot bank on America when it proves time and again to be an unreliable ally, swaying with every electoral gust. The state visit is regrettable, but we are stuck with it. What matters now is the lesson we take from it: if Europe is to defend Europe, it must be European-led. Our security cannot hinge on the whims of an America that no longer wishes to carry the weight. If Starmer is to buy is us time, then yes, good idea. But Trump is so unreliable that I think the transition will need to pick up speed sooner rather than later by standing by on useless accords.
I would think the best thing the UK can do is, when dealing with the USA under Trump, adopt the same transactional approach that Trump appears to respect. Figure out what things Trump is most likely to want from us (the state visit, saying nice things about him, whatever) and making it clear that those things are conditional on – say – him continuing to support Ukraine. It’s not going to look pretty for the UK Government, and may mean we’ll have to compromise on other stuff that we’d have preferred not to compromise on, but it’s probably the thing that will lead to the least bad overall outcome.
@SimonR I sort of understand and agree in parts with what you’re saying, but my problem is that he has centered his philosophy on a Monroe-esque doctrine of American self interest, if only interest, as someone said—his ‘America First.’ They call it transactionalism, but let’s be honest: it’s not a transaction, it’s a shakedown.
Also, I fear we are five years behind. We treat this as if it’s Trump’s first act, when really, it’s the sequel—one with a script far more refined. This isn’t ‘we can take him less seriously’ anymore. He’s backed by a machine of former Bush-era Republicans, seasoned in power, guiding his second run like men who know the weight of the reins.
So, yes, I see the argument for posturing—playing the game without being seen as weak. But we mustn’t mistake performance for control. And I think it says clearly that America is too unreliable now. Again, we can’t bank on the Dems winning. If there is on hope from this is that this could be a chance for Europe to have a golden age, although that could be wishful thinking for my part.
@Simon R
I fear such transactionalism would need to ask questions on whether for mutual benefit, America’s self interest or direct harm because he has always said he has been no friend to Europe (which is also Putin’s foe).
If this someone we could limit this transactionalism to feeding his own vanity, his own hubris, as you suggested then perhaps we could take the hit while some of us quietly vomit on your mouths. Assuming that is all needed to be contained. I just don’t get a sense so far he wants to engage a serious policy on Ukraine.
When Russian media proclaim that “The USA and Russia are now partners” you know that you are a long way “down the rabbit hole”..
However, Trump is completely irrational and can, and does, turn 180degrees at the drop of a hat…
Starmer is absolutely right to walk a tightrope when dealing with Trump; this party can show their true feelings but Starmer has to remember the diplomatic axiom that ‘Yes’ means ‘maybe’ and ‘maybe’ means ‘no’, but if you actually say, “No!” you are not a diplomat…
Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, is convinced that the Trump-Putin pact is already a reality. He echoes Andrews points in referencing the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and calls for immediate action to prevent history from repeating itself.
Trump-Putin pact echoes old fears
“We did not know then (in 1939 – ed.) that everything was predetermined in the secret Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Today, we have no excuse for such naivety. One can safely bet that the Trump-Putin pact exists,”