The Nameless Mountain
Can Trump hide his love for Zelensky as deep as those minerals?
There’s this metaphorical mountain that exists in life and it stands nameless. This mountain has not yet had anyone strike a flag into its worthy peak, though countless figures have laboured up its slippery slopes. The two faces of this mountain, while subdivisible into infinite variations, can largely be classified under the two distinctions of Infatuation and Disdain. These slopes are dripping in that oh so human catalyst to losing control called passion. And how miserable it is to sit at the bottom of this mountain, void of meaning and limp. However, the closer you are to the top, the less time it takes to scale a lateral 360 around this mountain, quickly pivoting from the face of Disdain to Infatuation.
Alright, I’ll scale back the geological metaphors. It took Trump a couple of days to pivot from the opinion of Zelensky being a dictator to, “Oh, did I say that?” to a post stating Zelensky is Ukraine’s best president ever, and then, a few days later, here we are with a White House “blow-up” and a, “How disrespectful of him.”
There has been talk about Trump’s suspected disdain for Zelensky ever since the episode in 2019 when the former refused to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine. While that isn’t one of Trump’s talking points for obvious reasons, it’s a happening many people point to as a factor to Trump’s apathy for supporting Ukraine. Indeed, there are a few elements between Trump and Zelensky which don’t have to do with the geopolitics of the current war going on in Ukraine, but rather the simple politics of getting elected. As Vance heckled during Zelensky’s White House visit, “You campaigned for the opposition!”
It’s clear the White House administration had a plan for the Ukrainian President’s visit. Unable to gain any leverage on Putin and unwilling to follow a policy echoing that of Biden, Trump’s plan for peace (or giving up Ukraine) has led to discrediting Zelensky (with fake statistics on his approval rating) and labeling him as the actor unwilling to work towards peace. The next move for that plan unfolded today in the Oval Office, and Vance played his part loud and clear.
To address the VP elephant in the room, Vance’s disdain for Europe and Ukraine is stuck at the bottom of this nameless mountain. I believe he is there because he in fact knows very little about Europe and its relationship to the US, and he is completely unaware that America already dominates Europe on both a political and economic level. Jittery to please conservative American constituents who revile socialist Europe, little does he know his brave speeches will do very little beyond stimulated blood flow to MAGA’s groin. Today, he was eager to egg on Zelensky with common Kremlin talking points, and while Vance was surely hoping the bull would burst out in rage at the red flag of propaganda he was waving in Zelensky’s face, the bull simply stood up and said, “Gentlemen, Putin is a liar and will eat your lunch.” And that was enough to be “disrespectful”. Europe was quick to express support for Zelensky.
Going back to Trump, while there’s a lot of rubble to look at from the White House “blow up”, what lies unseen beneath is even more fascinating. It’s invisible. But maybe you can just sense it. I almost saw a sparkle and flitter in Trump’s eye as he said after getting up and close with Zelensky, “This will be great television.” Oh my! A man after Trump’s own heart.
Indeed, in principle, is there much difference between Zelensky’s khaki attire and Trump’s red MAGA hat? If Macron were present in his slim-cut suit, one might say he was the odd man out.
As a man who likes to make a deal (though it’s debatable whether that was ultimately Trump’s goal), after some flirtatious spinning of the pen and a dramatic walk-out, Trump’s emotions still have some settling to do, and there very well might be a few more laps of contouring around our nameless mountain before Trump’s and Zelensky’s relationship settles. One thing is for sure, many are eager to see what lies beneath.
In terms of Putin, while admiration from Trump is clearly apparent, there is no real relationship there. Only time will tell if Trump’s head will clear up to see the unfeasibility of any offer Putin may throw out there.
So who will win Trump’s heart? The elusive and seductive Putin or the passionate blaze of Zelensky?
About the Creator
Wencer Spoods
Hello! I like how language can be used in infinite ways to organize thought and feeling.
Keep reading
More stories from Wencer Spoods and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Sally
Sally was the mysterious old lady that lived across the street. That name, Sally, carried the interesting connotation of belonging to an elderly person. Many names carry weight to them, sometimes particular to the person that hears them, and yet others carry a more universal weight, or in this case, age. She fit in with people like my grandparents. Her garb was typically adorned in gray, light pink and blue, her nose strenuously supported oversized glasses, her thin, gravity defying hair floated in some invisible aqueous environment, and her wrinkles convincingly accentuated a lifetime of movements. Such a person occasionally captures my attention, if only for a moment, and a strange (as in foreign and confusing) feeling comes over me. This feeling that the world I accepted and the people I knew to inhabit it were cracking and falling apart, and that the ownership of my place in the world, which I believed in with a subconscious self-entitlement, was blatantly temporary. Strange? Maybe. However, to be frank, the elderly can seem drastically different with their sense of humor, their way of talking, their smells, etc. Is such my fate? Oh no! It’s almost as if they themselves are a different type of human. It’s as if they grew up in some completely different environment. It’s almost as if... they’re from a different planet.
By Wencer Spoods3 years ago in Fiction
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.