By Franklin Foer
Monday, February 24, 2025
The scene in Kyiv earlier this month recalled the darkest
days of oligarchic rule. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent slipped a piece
of paper across the table to Volodmyr Zelensky. “You really need to sign this,”
Bessent told the Ukrainian president, according to The
Wall Street Journal. The document was a deal to give the United States
the rights to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Ukraine’s minerals.
When Zelensky said that he needed time to consider the proposal, Bessent pushed
the paper closer to him and warned that “people back in Washington” would be
very upset.
The Trump administration was operating in the old spirit
of the kleptocrats who built fortunes in Ukraine and Russia at the dawn of the
post-Communist era, wielding veiled threats to bully the nation’s leader into
hastily handing over precious resources in a shady deal.
To Zelensky’s credit, he did his best to resist Bessent’s
pressure. “I can’t sell our state,” he explained. It was as
if he had actually internalized the message that American diplomats from the Bush, Obama, and Biden
administrations had attempted to drum into Ukraine’s collective psyche:
Ukraine’s democracy depends on it resisting powerful business interests that
seek to plunder its wealth on terms highly unfavorable to the Ukrainian public.
Zelensky’s willingness to stand up to President Donald Trump, holding true to
American values in the face of American intimidation, was a perverse trading of
places.
The moment recalls another episode in Ukraine’s recent
past. Three years ago today, Russian troops streamed across the nation’s
borders, assassins descended on the capital in search of its president,
citizens decamped to the subways in search of shelter. Western intelligence
agencies predicted Ukraine’s imminent demise. And in that moment of despair,
Zelensky strode out into the empty streets of Kyiv, in the dark of night, to record
a video reassuring the world, “We are still here.”
In those initial days of the war, Zelensky began to pose
as a defender of liberalism, fighting on behalf of global democracy. Whether he
actually meant it wasn’t clear. Before the war, his record of curbing
corruption was spotty at best. With his political inexperience, and his strange
unwillingness to prepare his country against the
looming Russian threat, the former comic actor hardly had the makings of a
sturdy bulwark against autocracy.
But he became one in the face of an unrelenting assault.
Having preserved his nation’s independence, however, he’s now facing not one
but two of the world’s most powerful illiberal leaders, conspiring in tandem.
For reasons both petty and pecuniary, Trump seems intent on fulfilling Russian
President Vladimir Putin’s goal of crushing Ukrainian sovereignty. The American
president is pressing for Russia’s favored resolution to the war, without even
allowing Zelensky a seat at the negotiating table. And the resource deal he’s
pursuing amounts to World War I–style reparations, but extracted from the
victim of aggression. It would force the Ukrainians to hand over the wealth
beneath their ground, without any guarantee of their security in exchange. The
extortion that Trump proposes would deny Ukraine any possibility of recovering
economically, and consign its people to a state of servitude.
In this new moment of crisis, Zelensky is reverting to
the role he played in the war’s earliest days. Confronted with blunt force,
he’s bravely resisting. Squaring up to the bully, he accused Trump of swimming in disinformation. Despite all the pressure
the United States has applied on him to accede to the mineral deal, he’s
refused. Yesterday, he said,
“I am not signing something that ten generations of Ukrainians will have to
repay.” Knowing that Trump will never set aside his personal animosity toward
him, he offered to resign in exchange for a Western security guarantee.
He has resisted the administration’s demands despite the
fact that he has no leverage in his dealings with the U.S. other than moral
suasion and a limited ability to get in Trump’s way. Ukraine’s military is
entirely dependent on American arms, and its European allies can do almost
nothing, at this late date, to fill the void. In the end, given Ukraine’s
tenuous existence, Zelensky might have little choice but to accept whatever
Trump imposes, but at least he’s shown that there’s a course other than immediate
surrender.
Once upon a time, the United States poured diplomatic
resources and military aid into Ukraine so that it wouldn’t descend into
Russian-style autocracy. Now it’s the United States that’s headed in that
direction. In the form of Elon Musk, an oligarch has captured the power of the
American government, through which he can invisibly advance his own interests.
The president is attempting to intimidate (and sue) the media into complying
with the administration’s agenda. The norms of the administrative state have
been shattered so that Trump can reward cronies and punish enemies. And in the
most literal sense, the United States is collaborating with Russian autocracy
so that the foreign policies of the two regimes are more closely aligned.
American institutions have largely faltered amid Trump’s
assault, and European allies have aimlessly panicked. But Zelensky’s very
presence reprimands the West for its futile opposition; his resoluteness shames
Republicans, who once admired him as a latter-day Winston Churchill, for their
own abject capitulation. Although he arguably has more to lose from a Trump
administration than anyone on the planet, he’s kept pushing back, with
resourcefulness that recalls Ukraine’s guerrilla tactics immediately after the
Russian invasion. When the history of the era is written, Zelensky will be seen
as the global leader of the anti-authoritarian resistance, who refused to
accept the terms that the powerful sought to impose on his nation. He clarified
the terms of the struggle with his heroic example. He reminds despairing
liberals, “We are still here.”
No comments:
Post a Comment