Propaganda Siren: Silencing The Voice Of America
The motivations for attacking VOA were hardly budgetary. The White House cited a number of sources to back the claim that the organisation had become an outlet of 'radical propaganda.' VOA veteran Dan Robinson features, calling it 'a hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting leftist bias aligned with partisan national media.' The Daily Caller moaningly remarks that VOA reporters had 'repeatedly posted anti-Trump comments on their professional Twitter accounts, despite a social media policy requiring employee impartiality on social media platforms.' The Voice, not aligned with MAGA, had to be silenced.
The measure by Trump drew its inevitable disapproval. VOA director, Michael Abramowitz, stuck to the customary line that his organisation 'promotes freedom and democracy around the world by telling America's story and by providing objective and balanced news and information, especially for those living under tyranny.' Reporters Without Borders condemned the order 'as a departure from the US's historic role as a defender of free information and calls on the US government to restore VOA and urges Congress and the international community to take action against his unprecedented move.'
As with much criticism of Trump's seemingly impulsive actions, these sentimental views proved misguided and disingenuous. Trump is on uncontentious ground to see the Voice as one dedicated to propaganda. However, he misunderstands most nuttily that the propaganda in question overwhelmingly favours US policies and programs. His quibble is that they are not favourable enough.
Prohibited from broadcasting in the United States, VOA's propaganda role was always a full-fledged one, promoting the US as a spanking, virtuous brand of democratic good living in the face of garden variety tyrants, usually of the political left. Blemishes were left unmentioned, the role of the US imperium in intervening in the affairs of other countries considered cautiously. Loath to adequately fund domestic public service providers like National Public Radio (NPR), the US Congress was content to fork out for what was effectively an information arm of government sloganeering for Freedom's Land.
The VOA Charter, drafted in 1960 and signed into law as Public Law 94-350 by President Gerald Ford on July 12, 1976, expressed the view that 'The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners.' It stipulated various aspirational and at times unattainable aims: be reliable on the news, have authoritative standing, pursue accuracy, objectivity and be comprehensive. America was to be represented in whole and not as any single segment of society, with the VOA representing 'a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.' US policies would be presented 'clearly and effectively' as would 'responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.'
The aims of the charter were always subordinate to the original purpose of the radio outlet. The Voice was born in the propaganda maelstrom of World War II, keen to win over audiences in Nazi Germany and its occupied territories. Authorised to continue operating by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1946, it continued its work during the Cold War, its primary task that of fending off any appeal communism might have. Till October 1948, program content was governed under contract with the NBC and CBS radio networks. This troubled some members of Congress, notably regarding broadcasts to Latin America. The US State Department then assumed control, authority of which passed on to the newly created United States Information Agency (USIA).
In such arrangements, the objective of fair dissemination of information was always subject to the dictates of US foreign policy. What mattered most, according to R. Peter Straus, who assumed the directorship of VOA in 1977, was to gather 'a highly professional group of people and trying to excite them about making the freest democracy in the world understandable to the rest of the world – not necessarily loved by, nor even necessarily liked by but understood by the rest of the world.' The State Department left an enduring legacy in that regard, with the amalgamation of its Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs with the USIA in 1978 during the Carter administration. Furthermore, prominent positions at the Voice tended to be filled by career members of the diplomatic corps.
Given that role, it was rather rich to have the likes of Republican Congresswoman Young Kim of California question Trump's executive order, worried that closing the Voice would effectively silence a body dedicated to the selfless distribution of accurate information. Accuracy in that sense, alloyed by US interests, would always walk to the dictates of power. Kim errs in assuming that reporting via such outlets, emanating from a 'free' society, must therefore be more truthful than authoritarian rivals. 'For a long time now, our reporting has not been blocked by adversaries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea,' she claimed in March. 'Now, we are ourselves shutting off the ability to get the information into those oppressed regimes to the people that are dying for the real truth and information.' As such truth and information is curated by an adjunct of the State Department, such people would be advised to be a tad sceptical.
The falling out of favour with Trump, not just of the Voice, but such anti-communist creations of the Cold War like Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, is a loss for the propagandists. Arguments that stress the value of their continued existence as organs of veracity in news and accuracy, correctives to the disinformation and misinformation of adversaries, are deludedly slanted. All forms of disinformation and misinformation should be battled and neither the Voice's critics, nor its fans, seem to understand what they are. VOA and its sister stations could never be relied upon to subject US foreign and domestic policy to rigorous critique. Empires are not in the business of truth but power and effect. Radio stations created in their name must always be viewed with that in mind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
Other recent surveys find significant dissatisfaction with Trump's handling of the economy. When he was sworn in, Trump promised a new 'Golden Age'. It's clear that, six months into his presidency, the public isn't buying all the hype. Trump would like nothing better than to point to successes in his second term, and he has had some. The swirling Epstein controversy makes that difficult. Trump has tried to dismiss the controversy as Democratic-manufactured fakery, though this was always an issue generated by conspiracy theorists in the President's base. He wants Attorney-General Pam Bondi to seek the release of pertinent grand jury testimony, a dodge that doesn't address demands for full transparency. For now, he seems stuck, unless his threatened lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a story that says he sent a risqué 50th birthday note to Epstein (which he denies) consolidates his base. The White House would like to change the subject, but when press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to do that at the top of her Thursday briefing (Friday NZT), her lengthy opening statement helped to highlight apparent concerns about public sentiment on both the economy and immigration. Leavitt reeled off statistics trying to make the case that the economy is working for people. She provided citations of arrests as evidence that Trump is ridding the country of migrants with violent criminal records. It will take more than that to drown out the Epstein controversy and change public opinion about his other policies. Trump's successes This comes at a moment when the president has notched some clear successes. Congress approved the big tax cut and immigration bill. The Supreme Court has given him some victories, including a green light to fire thousands of federal workers. The airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities has brought a ceasefire between Iran and Israel and set back Iran's nuclear programme. Nato nations have agreed to increase defence spending. This past week Trump agreed to send Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine, paid for by the Europeans. That decision came after his public complaints about Russian President Vladimir Putin's continued assault on Ukraine and public perceptions that the Russian leader has played the American president on the issue of a ceasefire and settlement of the war. Immigration and raids Trump also has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Illegal crossings are at a low point. His problem is that people don't like other aspects of his immigration policy: the aggressive round-ups of undocumented and sometimes legal migrants, the deployment of US military forces to Los Angeles to quell protests, numerous legal battles over the deportations that have pitted the Administration against the courts. All have contributed to the reshaping of public opinion. The result is something Trump could never have imagined when he was sworn in: The public now sees the value of immigration more positively, and widespread deportations and the Administration's enforcement tactics less positively. Last year, 55% of Americans said they wanted a reduction in immigration, according to Gallup. Today, that's dropped to 30%. Gallup also notes that a record 79% of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country. That's a 15% jump in the past year. Meanwhile, support for hiring more border agents, which is supposed to happen under the new 'big, beautiful bill' the President signed on July 4, has declined by 17% in the past year. Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants has dropped nine points, to 38%. In the Gallup poll, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become US citizens has risen eight points to 78% - though that's a bit lower than the 84% in 2016. The percentage of Republicans who support a path to citizenship has risen from 46% a year ago to 59% today. The Washington Post's average of high-quality polls shows a clear deterioration in Trump's approval rating on immigration. In May, the average showed Americans evenly divided. The average so far in July shows 42% saying they approve and 54% disapproving. The protests that erupted in early June appear to be the catalyst for a reappraisal of Trump on immigration. Before the protests, his immigration approval rating was 49% positive, 49% negative. Since then, the average of the post-protests polls shows his standing at 42% positive, 54% negative. The economy and tariffs Before he was sworn in, public expectations for Trump were highest on the economy and immigration, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll of swing state voters. In that survey, 62% said they expected Trump to do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on the economy and 59% said they thought he would do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on immigration. Also, 46% said they thought his presidency would help their finances, with 31% saying it would hurt them financially. Until the pandemic took hold in the northern spring of 2020, Trump enjoyed relatively strong ratings on the economy. Things deteriorated during the pandemic and judgments were about evenly divided just before the 2020 election. Today the public is dissatisfied with his economic performance. An Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs survey last week showed that 38% approved of his economic management and 60% disapproved. A Quinnipiac University poll put his economic approval numbers only slightly better: 43% approving, 55% disapproving. In the AP-NORC poll, nearly half (49%) said his policies have done more to hurt them than help them. About one in four (27%) said they have done more to help them. The rest said the policies have not made a difference. A majority said the new tax bill will do more to help the wealthy and that it will hurt people with lower incomes. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% said they approved of his handling of trade, with 56% disapproving. Predictions that Trump's tariffs will trigger a major new bout of inflation have not been borne out, though all the tariffs are not in place. The Federal Reserve has been cautious about cutting interest rates because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. Trump continues to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he would like replaced, to cut those rates substantially. Many economists say a cut of the size Trump wants would risk an inflationary spike. There's history to buttress those concerns. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and the subsequent loosening of monetary policy helped unleash an inflationary rise. Trump continues to accumulate power in the presidency and exercise it to change government and major institutions. He plays a dominant role in the world. But his six-month report card provides indications that the public hasn't fully bought into his programme, warnings that he can't easily ignore.
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Inside a 15-year bond between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein
Another accuser recalled being eyed by Trump during a brief encounter in Epstein's office and claimed that Epstein had told Trump at the time, 'She's not for you'. Another woman has said that Trump groped her when Epstein brought her to Trump Tower in Manhattan to meet him. This past week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump gave Epstein a note for his 50th birthday in 2003 that included a sketch of a naked woman and a cryptic reference to a 'secret' the two men shared. Trump has denied writing the message and filed a libel lawsuit challenging the story. The New York Times has not verified the Journal report. Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein case and has said he had 'no idea' that Epstein was abusing young women. In response to a request for comment about the United States President's history with Epstein, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Trump had barred Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club 'for being a creep'. 'These stories are tired and pathetic attempts to distract from all the success of President Trump's Administration,' she said in a statement. Trump and Epstein largely went separate ways after a falling-out around 2004, taking drastically different paths — one towards jail and suicide, the other towards further celebrity and the White House. As criticism of the handling of Epstein's case mounted over the years, some of Trump's staunchest allies promoted theories that the government had covered up the extent of his network to protect what they have described as a cabal of powerful men and celebrities, largely Democrats. Now, that story has entangled Trump himself in what amounts to one of the biggest controversies in his second White House stint. The conflict has come primarily from his own appointees, who, after months of promoting interest in the files, abruptly changed course and said there was no secret Epstein client list and backed the official finding that Epstein had killed himself. Still, under mounting pressure from his own supporters to release the government's files on Epstein, the President ordered the Justice Department to seek the unsealing of grand jury testimony in the criminal case brought against Epstein in 2019 and one year later against his longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence on a sex-trafficking conviction. She has asked the Supreme Court to consider her appeal. Even if they are released, the transcripts are unlikely to shed much light on the relationship between the two men, which did not figure prominently in either criminal case. What seemed to draw them together, according to those who knew them at the time, was a common interest in hitting on — and competing for — attractive young women at parties, nightclubs, and other private events. Virginia Giuffre, who maintained that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to Prince Andrew and other famous men, and who died by suicide last April, speaks at a news conference outside court after Epstein's jailhouse suicide, on August 27, 2019. Photo / Jefferson Siegel, the New York Times Palm Beach neighbours Trump and Epstein appear to have met around 1990, when Epstein bought a property 3.2km north of Mar-a-Lago and set about staking a claim in Palm Beach's moneyed, salt-air social scene. Trump, who had purchased Mar-a-Lago five years earlier, had already established his own brash presence in the seaside enclave as a playboy with a taste for gold-leaf finery. The two had much in common. Both were outer-borough New Yorkers who had succeeded in Manhattan. Both were energetic self-promoters. And both had reputations as showy men about town. In 1992, an NBC News camera captured the pair at a Mar-a-Lago party that featured cheerleaders from the Buffalo Bills, who were in town that weekend for a game against the Miami Dolphins. At one point in the footage, Trump can be seen dancing amid a crowd of young women. Later, he appears to be pointing at other women while whispering something in Epstein's ear, causing him to double over with laughter. Months later, when Trump hosted a party at Mar-a-Lago for young women in a so-called calendar girl competition, Epstein was the only other guest, according to George Houraney, a Florida-based businessman who arranged the event. Houraney recalled being surprised that Epstein was the only other person on the guest list. 'I said, 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs,'' Houraney told the New York Times in 2019. 'You're telling me it's you and Epstein?'' Houraney's then-girlfriend and business partner, Jill Harth, later accused Trump of sexual misconduct on the night of the party. In a lawsuit, Harth said Trump took her into a bedroom and forcibly kissed and groped her and restrained her from leaving. She also said that a 22-year-old contestant told her that Trump later that night crawled into her bed uninvited. Harth dropped her suit in 1997 after a related case filed by Houraney was settled by Trump, who has denied her allegations. Trump and Epstein were spotted again at a 1997 Victoria's Secret 'Angels' party in Manhattan. The lingerie company was run by Leslie H. Wexner, a billionaire businessman who handed Epstein sweeping power over his finances, philanthropy, and private life within years of meeting him. Court records show that Trump was among those who got rides on Epstein's private jet. Over four years in the 1990s, he flew on Epstein's Boeing 727 at least seven times, largely making jaunts between Palm Beach and a private airport in Teterboro, New Jersey, just outside New York. 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,' Trump told New York magazine in 2002. 'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' An Encounter at Mar-a-Lago In 2000, court records show, Maxwell, a British socialite who had long been tied to Epstein, struck up a conversation with a 17-year-old girl outside a locker room at Mar-a-Lago. Her name was Virginia Giuffre, and she was a spa attendant at the club, having got the job through her father, who worked there as a maintenance man. According to Giuffre, Maxwell offered her a job on the spot as a masseuse for Epstein after seeing that she was reading a book about massage, telling her that she did not need to have any experience. She said that when she was brought to Epstein's Palm Beach home, she found him lying naked on a table. Maxwell, she claimed, instructed her on how to massage him. 'They seemed like nice people,' she later testified, 'so I trusted them.' But over the next two years or so, Giuffre claimed that she was forced by Epstein and Maxwell to have sex with a series of famous men, including Prince Andrew. The prince has denied the accusations and declined to help federal prosecutors in their investigation of Epstein. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, always maintained that she was trafficked to the prince and other men, once telling the BBC that she had been 'passed around like a platter of fruit' to Epstein's powerful associates. Some women who were in Epstein's orbit have said they encountered Trump during this period. One woman, Maria Farmer, who has said she was victimised by Epstein and Maxwell, described an encounter with Trump in 1995 at an office that Epstein once kept in New York City. An art student who had moved to New York City to pursue a career as a painter, Farmer recalled in a 2019 interview that when she was introduced to Trump, he eyed her, prompting Epstein to warn him, 'She's not for you'. Farmer's mother, Janice Swain, said her daughter had described the interaction with Trump around the time it occurred. Stacey Williams, a former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, has said she was groped by Trump when she was introduced to him by Epstein, whom she was dating at the time. It was 1993, she said, and she was on a walk with Epstein on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan when he suggested that they pop into Trump Tower to say hello to Trump. Williams thought nothing of it at the time because, as she later put it, 'Jeffrey talked about Trump all the time'. After Trump greeted them in a waiting area outside his office, Williams said, he pulled her toward him, touching her breasts, waist and buttocks as if he was 'an octopus.' She said she later wondered whether she had been part of a challenge or wager between the two men. 'I definitely felt like I was a piece of meat delivered to that office as some sort of game,' she recalled to the New York Times last year. At the time, Trump's presidential campaign denied that the episode had occurred, calling the allegations 'unequivocally false' and politically motivated. In an interview last week, Williams said she was upset to hear Trump referring to some of the Epstein story as a 'hoax' and 'boring' news. 'I mean, it's absurd,' she said of his speaking dismissively of the case. Attorney-General Pam Bondi speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House. The Justice Department asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury testimony from the prosecution of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein as President Trump seeks to dispel a storm of criticism and conspiracy theories coming from many of his supporters. Photo / Eric Lee, the New York Times Parting Ways Eventually, in late 2004, Trump and Epstein ended up squaring off — this time, over a piece of real estate. It was the Maison de l'Amitié, a French Regency-style manse that sat along the ocean in Palm Beach. The two hypercompetitive men each had their lawyers bid on the property. Ultimately, Trump came out ahead, purchasing it for US$41.35 million ($70m). There is little public record of the two men interacting after that. Trump later told associates he had another reason for breaking from Epstein around that time. His longtime friend, he has said, acted inappropriately to the daughter of a member of Mar-a-Lago, and Trump felt compelled to bar him from the club. Brad Edwards, a lawyer who has represented many of Epstein's victims, said Trump told him a similar story in 2009. Not long after the standoff over the beachfront mansion, the Palm Beach police received a tip that young women had been seen going in and out of Epstein's home. Four months later, there was a more substantial complaint from a woman who claimed that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been paid US$300 by Epstein to give him a massage while she was undressed. That led to a sprawling undercover investigation that identified at least a dozen potential victims. Epstein hired a team of top lawyers to defend him — including Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who would later represent Trump, and Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The two men helped negotiate a lenient plea deal with R. Alexander Acosta, who was then the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Under the deal, Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges of soliciting prostitution from a minor. In exchange, he was granted immunity from federal charges, as were all of his potential co-conspirators. He also had to register as a sex offender. In the end, Epstein wound up serving almost 13 months in jail before he was released. For his part, Trump largely steered clear of the controversy. But in February 2015, as he was gearing up for what would end up being a hard-fought campaign against Hillary Clinton, he sought to connect Epstein to her husband. Bill Clinton has 'got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein', Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity during an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference, referring to Epstein's private island where he resided and was suspected of trafficking underage girls. 'A lot of problems.' Clinton has denied visiting the island or having any knowledge of Epstein's criminal behaviour and has said he wishes he had never met him. 'I Wasn't a Fan' In July 2019, Epstein was arrested again. Prosecutors from the public corruption unit of the US Attorney's office in Manhattan charged him with sex trafficking and a conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. Trump, then in his third year in the White House, immediately sought to distance himself from his old friend. 'I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,' Trump told reporters after the charges were revealed. 'I mean, people in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don't think I've spoken to him in 15 years. I wasn't a fan.' The new charges brought renewed scrutiny to the original plea deal. Days after Epstein's arrest, Acosta, who had become Trump's Labour Secretary, announced he would resign amid criticism of his handling of the case. Speaking to reporters about Acosta's decision, Trump reiterated that he had broken off his ties with Epstein 'many, many years ago'. He added: 'It shows you one thing: that I have good taste'. Asked if he had any suspicions that Epstein was molesting young women, Trump replied, 'No, I had no idea'. The next month, after Epstein was found dead in his jail cell in Manhattan in what was later ruled a suicide, Trump weighed in again, reviving what was by then a years-old effort from his first campaign. He shared a social media post that tried to link the death to Bill Clinton. Days later, when pressed about his unfounded claims of Clinton's involvement, Trump did not let up, calling for a full investigation, even though he offered no facts to support his allegations. 'Epstein had an island that was not a good place, as I understand it,' he said. 'And I was never there. So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island?' When Trump was asked about the arrest of Maxwell in the summer of 2020 on charges that included the enticement and trafficking of children, his answer left some of his own allies confused. 'I wish her well, whatever it is,' Trump said. In recent weeks, right-wing influencers and Trump's rank-and-file supporters expressed outrage over his Administration's conclusion that there were no revelations to share about the case — not least because some of the President's top law enforcement officials, including Attorney-General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, had promised to reveal more information about Epstein's crimes. Trump sought to quiet the demands, calling the Epstein scandal a 'hoax' made up by his Democratic adversaries. He also described it as a subject unworthy of further scrutiny. 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?' Trump asked reporters with exasperation at a Cabinet meeting on July 8. 'This guy's been talked about for years.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Alan Feuer and Matthew Goldstein Photographs by: Doug Mills, Jefferson Siegel, Eric Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Half-smiles as Trump offers Ukraine limited aid
There was rejoicing when US President Donald Trump announced that he was going to let Ukraine have weapons after all, but it was conspicuously contained joy. Half-smiles and sighs of relief were plentiful; cheers were absent or faked. The Ukrainians were relieved because this is the first time they will be getting weapons actually ordered by Trump. The stop-go dribble of arms that the US has sent Ukraine at intervals in the past five months was really the tail-end of Joe Biden's last package, although Trump had to approve each shipment. What Trump is willing to send now remains unclear, but at least it's on his own initiative and $US10 billion has been mentioned. And Ukrainians don't care that the money will really be provided by other Nato members, who will buy the weapons from the US but pass them on Ukraine's armed forces. What does concern Ukrainians is that Trump's threatened "secondary tariffs" (more accurately secondary sanctions) on countries like India and China that are still buying cut-rate Russian oil and gas and supporting Moscow's war economy will not start for 50 more days. That gives Russian President Vladimir Putin 49 more days to bomb Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with impunity, and Trump is notorious for shifting his deadlines to later dates. (Taco, as they say — "Trump always chickens out".) Moreover, Trump warned Ukraine not to attack Moscow in return. So, the Russian reaction to Trump's apparent change of heart was relief that it wasn't worse. It is mostly "hot air", wrote Konstantin Kosachev, a senior Russian politician, on Telegram. "A lot can change in 50 days — on the battlefield and in the mindset of those in power, both in the US and in Nato." That's mostly correct, but not so much about Nato, most of whose other members have privately concluded that the United States under Trump is no longer a trustworthy ally. That leaves them dreadfully exposed if Russia conquers Ukraine and they become the next item on Putin's agenda. The historical division of labour within the Nato alliance has left the Europeans lacking in key military categories like aerial surveillance, satellite data and nuclear deterrence. Trump imagines that the recent commitment of most Nato countries to spend 5% of GDP on defence — twice or more than they were spending two years ago — was a response to his demands. It was really a decision to achieve strategic independence from the United States. They have realised they are on their own. Their problem is that it will take at least five years of strenuous effort to reach that goal, and until then they will still need US support — which explains the fake adulation and fulsome flattery they offer Trump at every opportunity. Boot-licking is hard work, and they probably can't keep it up for five years, but every month makes a difference. Most European decision-makers understand that a Russian victory in Ukraine must be avoided at all costs, and that they must therefore do whatever they can to keep Trump on side. Is that really possible? Not if the slide of the United States into a "soft fascism" accelerates. Not if China invades Taiwan and panics the US into a global war. Not if Putin dies or is overthrown, only for an even more ruthless and reckless ruler to take his place. The negative possibilities are big and plausible — but so are less disastrous outcomes. It is still possible to draw a credible scenario in which the current stalemate in Ukraine endures for another year or so and then reaches an "in-place" ceasefire like the one that has lasted in Korea for 72 years. It is possible that the US can be kept in Nato long enough for the European members plus Canada to get their act together and become an independent strategic body. It is possible that China will retain its half-hearted loyalty to the international rule of law and not become another rogue state. It is likewise possible that the United States, having spent some time under a capricious and authoritarian government, will return to its democratic roots, which run very deep. Regime change in Russia might reawaken the desire for democracy that was so prominent in the late 1980s and early '90s. It's not over until the fat lady sings. It's not even over after the fat lady sings. We are heading into a period where all bets are off because climate change will change all other calculations, and the only rational response will be co-operation on a global scale. No promises, but despair is rarely the right move. — Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
