Starmer and Zelenskyy.
A Hug Between The Two Leaders.
One cannot forget the awful scene where Trump and Vance seemingly ambushed Vlodymir Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy tried to defend himself, but the president and his vice president humiliated their VIP. The clash occurred over Zelenskyy's defiance of Russia. Zelenskyy said it was okay for the US, "You have an ocean separating you from Europe". Zelenskyy continued: "You will feel the influence of Russia". At that point, Trump said, "Don't tell us what we will feel. You (Zelenskyy) are in no position to bargain". Trump accused Zelenskyy of endangering the world with his continued defiance of Putin. Zelenskyy was there to sign a mineral deal. So that rare earth minerals could be sent to the US, in return for past and present US help for Ukraine.
However, Zelenskyy was more or less booted out of the White House. Zelenskyy's motorcade was waiting for him. It took off, leaving a mineral deal unsigned. Leaving US support for Ukraine in the balance. It is understandable why Zelenskyy cannot go along with Trump's peace plan. The deal favours Putin and leaves Ukraine at a severe disadvantage.
Before the blow up between Zelesnskyy and Trump, Trump said he would continue sending weapons to Ukraine. For US boots to be on the ground in Ukraine in a peace deal. However, with the falling out between the two presidents, all this is now up in the air.
The reception Sir Keir gave to Zelenskyy was far removed from the hostile reception Trump gave. Both men hugged and sat by a fireplace (not unlike the Trump-Zelenskyy debacle). Except the Starmer-Zelenskyy meeting was a far more pleasant affair. The hugging and the friendly atmosphere were undoubtedly real. The hugging and bromance would have been noticed in Washington. Sending the "Orange one" a message that Starmer agreed with Trump for peace, but not necessarily, the way to get there. Zelenskyy knew he was on safe ground in the UK. The UK will continue to support the Ukrainian war effort.
Other European leaders came to Downing Street to assure Zelenskyy he had their support. Giorgia Meloni, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, etc, all pledged continued support for Ukraine. Starmer telephoned Trump, so a peace deal is still doable.
The onus to repair relations between the US and Ukraine is on Sir Keir. Can he serve as that bridge between Trump and Zelenskyy? Starmer already has a large weight on his shoulders. Acting as a bridge between Europe and the US on Ukraine and other issues. When dealing with an unpredictable (some say psychotic) person like Trump, Sir Keir's legal training will be handy.
Sky's Yalda Hakim attended a news conference with Vlodymir Zelenskyy. The press meeting was held at Stansted airport. Ms. Hakim observed a defiant and happy man despite Zelenskyy's mauling by Messers. Trump and Vance. Zelenskyy told Ms. Hakim he would resign if Ukraine could join NATO. That shows that Mr. Zelenskyy would sacrifice his political career for Ukraine to join NATO. Zelenskyy has stood at the helm of the country. He could have fled into exile, leaving his country to face the full might of Russia. Instead he chose, like Churchill, to lead the fight against Vlad "The Invader" Putin.
Zelenskyy and the fate of his country are unknown. At some point, surely, a peace deal must come about. Will Ukraine get a fair deal? Will Zelenskyy still be the leader, all remains to be seen!
Trump has always wanted Europe to pay more for the US defending it. Also, step up militarily, not leaving all the heavy lifting to the US. By hook or crook, by engineered event or just how the cookie crumbles, Trump bit by bit is getting his way.
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Kemi Badenoch: US and UK Will Disagree.
Ahead of Sir Keir's meeting with the 'Orange One' in Washington, Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch has been spouting about the British Prime Minister's trip. Ms. Badenoch said, "The UK doesn't have to agree with the US on everything". The relationship needs to be "realistic". Speaking to Sky News's Political Editor Beth Rigby, she said the US "is not an authoritarian regime and shares the same Western values as the UK, including free trade, free enterprise, and free speech.
By Nicholas Bishop11 months ago in The Swamp
Ukraine War Briefing: Oreshnik Missile Sparks Anger at UN Security Council
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has once again drawn the world’s attention after the recent deployment of the Oreshnik missile became a focal point of debate at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The missile, reportedly used in the latest skirmishes in eastern Ukraine, has intensified global concerns about the escalating conflict and the potential humanitarian consequences. Diplomats, analysts, and world leaders are closely monitoring the situation as discussions at the UNSC reveal deep divisions among member states over accountability, sanctions, and peace efforts. What Is the Oreshnik Missile? The Oreshnik missile is a newly highlighted weapon in the Ukraine war, drawing scrutiny for its advanced capabilities. Analysts describe it as a medium-range guided missile, designed for precision strikes against strategic military targets. Its use in the conflict has raised questions about proportionality, civilian safety, and adherence to international law. While military officials claim the missile provides tactical advantages, critics argue that its deployment near populated areas risks civilian lives and could violate humanitarian norms. The UN Security Council Reacts The UNSC convened an emergency session following reports of the missile strikes. Member states expressed sharply divided opinions on how to respond. Countries condemning the missile’s use stressed that such actions escalate the war and endanger civilians. They called for urgent investigations and reiterated demands for Russia to adhere to international humanitarian law. Conversely, some nations defended the deployment, framing it as a necessary act of national defense. This division highlights broader geopolitical tensions, reflecting competing interests and alliances that influence the Security Council’s ability to take unified action. Global Outrage and Public Response The news of the Oreshnik missile’s deployment has ignited widespread outrage beyond diplomatic circles. International media outlets and human rights organizations have amplified concerns about civilian casualties, particularly in areas with high population density. Social media has also become a platform for activists, journalists, and everyday citizens to voice their anger and call for immediate intervention. Protests and awareness campaigns in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia emphasize the humanitarian toll of the conflict. These global reactions put additional pressure on world leaders to respond with decisive measures, including sanctions, diplomatic interventions, and peacekeeping efforts. Strategic Implications for Ukraine Military analysts suggest that the Oreshnik missile represents a strategic escalation, signaling a shift in the tactics used in the ongoing war. Its precision targeting may give the deploying forces significant operational advantage, but it also risks triggering stronger international responses. Ukrainian officials have condemned the missile attacks, citing civilian harm and destruction of critical infrastructure. In practical terms, the missile’s use may influence the balance of power in contested regions, particularly in eastern Ukraine where fighting has been intense. Analysts warn that the weapon could intensify the conflict, complicating prospects for negotiations and prolonging human suffering. Diplomatic Challenges at the UNSC The Security Council faces significant challenges in addressing the Oreshnik missile controversy. The council’s permanent members, including the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France, hold veto powers that make unanimous resolutions difficult. In this case, political alliances and opposing narratives have prevented a clear consensus on punitive measures or interventions. Experts argue that the deadlock at the UNSC underscores broader limitations in the international system when addressing conflicts involving advanced weaponry and state actors with competing agendas. Without coordinated action, the risk of escalation in Ukraine remains high. Humanitarian Concerns Humanitarian organizations have highlighted the immediate consequences of missile strikes, including displacement, injuries, and infrastructure destruction. Hospitals, schools, and residential areas in eastern Ukraine have reportedly suffered damage, exacerbating the ongoing humanitarian crisis. International agencies emphasize that protecting civilians must remain a priority, urging both sides to respect international law. They also call for increased funding and access for relief efforts, warning that continued military escalation could worsen the already dire situation for millions of Ukrainians. The Path Forward While the Oreshnik missile has intensified global attention on Ukraine, experts stress that long-term solutions require diplomacy and accountability. Negotiations at international forums, including the UN, must balance security concerns with humanitarian imperatives. Observers note that transparency in military actions, independent investigations, and adherence to international treaties are essential to prevent further escalation. Meanwhile, the global community faces the challenge of supporting Ukraine while avoiding policies that could exacerbate the conflict. Conclusion: A Critical Moment in Global Diplomacy The deployment of the Oreshnik missile and the ensuing debates at the UN Security Council mark a critical moment in the Ukraine conflict. It underscores the intersection of modern warfare, geopolitics, and humanitarian responsibility. As the world watches, the international community faces urgent questions: How can escalation be prevented? How can civilian lives be protected? And what role should global institutions play in mediating a conflict that continues to threaten regional and international stability? For Ukraine, the missile represents both a tactical and symbolic escalation, while for the UN and its member states, it highlights the challenges of enforcing international norms in a rapidly changing conflict landscape. The coming weeks may determine not only the trajectory of the war but also the credibility of global governancein upholding peace and security.
By Aarif Lashari2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.