The Economist, that centuries-old mouthpiece for British imperialism, threatened on April 15 that any such proposal as was mooted by President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, that the four Russian-speaking former provinces of Ukraine that have been reincorporated into Russia remain so, “would be unacceptable to Ukraine and its European partners.” The Brits are Ukraine’s No. 1 “European partner,” both the U.K. and the Zelenskyy regime agree.
The British view is that if they can block a Russian-United States agreement on the grounds needed for resolving the conflict long enough, they can sink the “threat” of peace entirely. Thus, The Economist insists that “Trump’s Ukraine ceasefire is slipping away.… Now insiders say, he hopes to secure a ceasefire within his first 100 days—i.e., by the end of this month. He has started to refer to the conflict as `Biden’s war.’ But if it drags on, he worries it will increasingly become his.”
The Economist simultaneously insists that “the American President increasingly looks like Russia’s willing dupe.” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski is trotted out to call on Trump’s team to realize that the Kremlin is “mocking their good will.” The Economist complains that while “some of [Trump’s] aides had denounced the Russian attack on Sumy,” Trump had not, but spoke instead of a “horrible mistake.” Worse, “diplomats in Washington” report that “some Trump aides say privately that they are `fed up’ with Europe’s effort to strengthen Ukraine,” and the Brits cannot tell whether that’s “a true signal” or just “noise [from] a chaotic administration.”
