I must admit that even considering the total amorality of the President of the United States of America, I am stupefied by the events of the past few days/ weeks concerning the war in Ukraine.  This week the United States of America refused to support a UN Security Council Resolution which cited Russia’s aggression, an action which was swiftly followed by their own drafted resolution which explicitly failed to mention the invasion.  Alongside this, Donald Trump sought to begin ‘peace’ negotiations with the aggressor without the Ukraine being present – to which he subsequently decided to inform the Ukraine that he expected that the contributions made by the United States of America for the war effort be repaid more than four-fold.

The United States of America has provided a total of $119bn in funding to Ukraine since the start of the war – some $69bn of which is direct military aid.  Donald Trump is incorrectly claiming that the United States of America has provided either $300bn or $350bn depending of which interview you watch… although neither is anywhere near the truth.  The President of the United States of America also claimed that the US has provided more aid than anyone else – which as a single contributor is at least arguable, although combined Europe has provided $138bn in aid.

This apparently is the justification for Donald Trump demanding access to $500bn worth of mineral resources found underground within Ukraine’s borders – far more than even the ridiculously fantastical sums Donald Trump is claiming the Americans have provided.  Whether or not the sums are correct is (to my mind) completely beside the point – the sum could be $600bn given in aid for all that it would change the core principle of what the United States of America is saying with this act: peace is a loan, and comes at a high price.

I ask that you forgive my naivety in this area, however I suffer from the belief that there is a difference between a principle and a chargeable service: the former being a behaviour to which one adheres and the latter being an action undertaken in exchange for something (usually money).  Now I appreciate that in recent years, the behavioural norms concerning warfare seem to have shifted dramatically – to the extent that actions are no longer judged empirically but based upon whether or not the party performing the action is a friend or not.  Are we to infer from this position that in fact the United States of America does not (despite its protestations) believe in protecting peace and freedom unless it is in exchange for money?  Or rather is this yet another example of the silent inaction so poetically exemplified in ‘First they Came‘ by Martin Niemöller in 1946?

Because in all honesty, if the much-vaunted principles that societies claim to espouse can be reduced to a simple question of money – then why bother espousing them at all?  Surely we would all be better off in the knowledge that any country will help you in whatever endeavour you like as long as you can pay.  The premise that morals are subject to market forces suggests that at the core, the morals are not morals at all – they are nothing more than a fairy story that we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better.

Not only is there a question of ‘purchaseable morality’ but throughout the provision of military aid to the Ukraine by all parties, there have been specific restrictions placed on the manner and the use of the military aid provided.  Right up until the third year of the war, the United States of America and the United Kingdom have both provided missiles and have forbidden Ukraine to fire these missiles into Russian territory.  The utter absurdity of this has resulted in the Ukraine being capable of defending itself – but only within its own territory: effectively allowing the Ukraine to bomb its own cities and to continue to destroy its own infrastructure in the hope of harming the invading forces.  It would follow through this method, that Russian troops may well die inside Ukraine, but that nothing will impede Russia from training and providing more troops from inside Russia – the policy by its very nature is limited.  It seems plainly idiotic to me to wish to assist a country in its own defence, and yet to then limit its ability to utilise that aid.  When we consider this together with the ‘demand for payment’ from Donald Trump, we have an even more egregious situation in which one country is willing to help another (at a price) but only on condition that they don’t actually use the provided aid to its maximum effect.

The net result is effectively a drawing out of the war rather than an ending of it, and a drawing out of the war with only one objective: the financial gain of the ‘aiding’ party.  This takes the concept of proxy-wars to a whole new level – no longer are we simply ‘testing’ our weapons by giving to another country, or asking another country to fight our battles for us – no we are now asking another country to prop up our economy with their war!  What the actual fuck?

If you have to think about the cost of upholding a principle, then quite frankly, it isn’t a principle.

Please do not misunderstand, I am not surprised by this as much as I am totally disgusted.  The fallacy of the rule of law (on any level and not simply internationally) is well and truly dead – there are no more pretenders to this ideal; merely people who pretend.