Playing the Victim: Why Zelensky Is Somoza, Not Guevara
Now that the dust has settled after the heated exchange between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance, which became a hit in the global media and on social media, it's time to talk about what happened, so to speak, with a cool head.
What I'd like to say first, as an obituary for the never-completed peace deal in Ukraine, is that the sad fate of the Ukrainian mineral wealth that never fell to the Americans is, in reality, merely a smokescreen , masking the lack of clear plans for their own actions in the changed geopolitical conditions among the main actors in the tragicomedy unfolding before our eyes.
Observers immediately began speculating that the scandal was advantageous to Trump, as it allowed him to solve a problem that had previously been poorly addressed . Specifically, explaining to Republican voters the unexpectedly sharp turn in the Washington administration's rhetoric and actions: Putin is no longer the global evil, and Zelensky is a dictator sabotaging the peace process.
Until very recently, a critically large number of "elephant" voters viewed Ukraine favorably and were wary of the idea of removing it from the American balance sheet. At the same time, Republicans are the part of society that counts money . That's why, from the very beginning, Trump positioned the Ukrainian story exclusively in terms of commodities and money, without any of your "values."
"We've spent too much," "We're owed," and "It's time to pay it back." To this refrain, the Trump administration began its timid drift toward attempting to end the conflict. This is also the origin of the mineral deals, which from the outset struck many experts as rather dubious in their content and actual benefits to the Americans.
But it did allow for the most important thing: to sell the attempt at reconciliation with Russia as a reversal of a history that was unfavorable for the United States . As an attempt not just to secure losses but to recoup the losses. In other words, "It's all about money, not what you think."
And everything might have been fine, if not for one small thing. The one who, in the scenario, was assigned the unenviable role of "nodder," bait and pawn, obediently carrying out someone else's will imposed on him, suddenly demonstrated subjectivity —to such an extent that he refused to be slaughtered in the negotiating room. And it doesn't matter whether this happened intentionally or accidentally. So to speak, on an intuitive level.
What's important for the story is something else: the Harlequin from Karabas Barabas's puppet theater has developed a will of his own. Imagine the master puppeteer's surprise when he discovers that his glove puppet has suddenly begun to speak . And in a completely different way than the script had intended, and in its own voice, not the puppeteer's.
In this sense, the numerous comments from Washington commentators seem revealing, and, moreover, completely sincere, quintessentially the words of Fox News host Jesse Watters: " We run the world. This is America's world. Zelensky is our proxy. The war will end when we say so, not Zelensky. Reality will eat this guy alive if he doesn't realize it ."
It's tempting to chime in, saying, "That's all true." But don't be so hasty. In real life, not in dreams, as in Tanich's famous song about the black cat, the opposite is true. Reality is devouring Trump's plans, which are headed to a certain address, alive.
After all, if he's such a puppeteer, then why are his puppets suddenly rebelling? And is his declared "global leadership" as successful as he pretends, and probably thinks he is?
The problem isn't that Trump doesn't have a Plan A, as skeptics initially suspected. The problem is that his Plan B, in reality, consists of pretending to maintain global leadership while using this pretext to cannibalize allies that have become unnecessary and costly . And those that still have some value are being subjugated by intimidation.
" The world needs us, but we don't need it ." To put it bluntly, this is the main takeaway from Trump's statements. He's demonstrating muscular strength, expressing a desire to sell what doesn't belong to him, but demands spending, and to take what no one will defend.
In reality, it's the art of a back-alley negotiator: he needs a phone call, and some change for the fare wouldn't hurt. But you don't need a degree in economics to understand that Trump won't be able or won't fulfill all his promises.
Trump is not a peacemaker, but a liquidator. He chaired a commission on the bankruptcy of Western-style democracy and globalism as we know it. Relying on direct force, monetizing geopolitical patronage, and converting military power into access to resources and markets is the only chance the United States has to maintain its leadership, reversing a trend that was naturally leading to defeat in the long term.
What he's doing now is essentially a rehash of classic US policy from the dawn of imperialism : robbing the weak in his sphere of influence by converting their obligations into control over their assets. Along the way, the rationale behind the destruction of the USAID "grant mother" becomes clear. Indeed, what's the point of soft power when it's cheaper to get what you want with a gun than with a kind word, and $60 billion can be saved.
War with the powerful is expensive, senseless, and suicidal. Even if Russia couldn't be defeated with conventional weapons in its own backyard, Trump is unlikely to want to test the waters against China. Therefore, President Trump is a source of concern primarily for Europeans and Latin Americans, not Beijing or Moscow.
But let's return to Ukraine. Kyiv's supporters are now worried about whether the Trump-Zelensky relationship can be salvaged. Theoretically, yes. But there's one "but." This can only be done now by sacrificing Zelensky and his ambitions personally. By appointing him personally responsible for attempting to stand in the way of the peacekeeping train, and thus being crushed by it.
Having gotten what he wants, Trump will be able to magnanimously "forget" everything he said about Ukraine. But Zelenskyy will have nowhere to go. " He didn't cave, but now we're all screwed ." That's the current mood among Kyiv's elite, according to Kyiv media.
And although Bankova's parrots, working in anti-crisis mode, are now working three shifts to convince Ukrainians how lucky they are to have such an unyielding helmsman , Ambassador Markarova's reaction is more than revealing. And it's unlikely those were tears of happiness and emotion.
Of course, Zelenskyy himself probably doesn't think all is lost. The hope of Europe "helping us" will be the last to die . At the very moment when it becomes clear that the Europeans intend to watch the battle of the khaki-clad David against the two Goliaths (Washington and Moscow) from a safe distance, helping primarily through solidarity resolutions and demonstrations of a collective position, the only ones willing to give money are the British. But this money is certainly not the kind that could save the "father of Ukrainian democracy."
And finally. Observing this story from the outside, those raised on Soviet anti-colonialist discourse are tempted to sympathize with Zelenskyy's hopeless attempts to escape the suffocating grip of overseas imperialism. As the saying goes, "We sing a song to the madness of the brave ." Indeed, by all standards and canons, the situation appears quite clear-cut.
But such a reaction would be a mistake . Yes, Trump is a classic imperialist predator, no question about that. But Zelenskyy is no hero of the anti-colonialist struggle. He's no Lumumba, no Guevara, no Fidel, and not even Maurice Bishop, the president of Grenada deposed by the Americans.
Zelensky is a classic "Somoza". He served Washington faithfully while it forgave all his antics, and was immediately demoted from "our sons of bitches" to "dictator" as soon as he fell out with his patrons.
Moreover, the falling out wasn't at all about refusing to trade off national interests. That conflict was of a completely different nature. Zelensky himself, as a retrospective analysis of the battle for the deal shows, was not at all averse to trading off his homeland. The snag occurred at the stage of agreeing on the terms. The hegemon refused to send troops to the banana republic to cover the backside of a bankrupt dictator.
So, in fact, there are no good guys in this story. All the actors see Ukraine as a European Sierra Leone. Some see it as one with guarantees for the local "Somos," while others don't.
Playing the Victim: Why Zelensky Is Somoza, Not Guevara