Any Questions, the flagship BBC radio 4 political debate programme, came on Friday to Dunblane Cathedral. I went along. It occurred to me that following a week of sensational politics (and this was even before President Zelenskyy was “entertained” in the Oval Office), it might be an interesting show. In the event, to be honest, I regretted going. Dunblane Cathedral is very familiar to me because, as it so happens, I attend weekly, one might say “religiously”. I sat in my usual pew, about two thirds of the way to the back. Big, as it turned out, mistake. Couldn’t hear a thing. Well, slight exaggeration, I could pick out most of it if I strained to listen. But was it worth the effort? You would have thought that BBC radio, whose modus operandi intimately involves sound, would have been able to render the panel audible to the audience in the cathedral as well as at home. Not so. But you know, I don’t think the BBC were that bothered. Their end product comes over the air waves, and they were quite indifferent to the experience within the hall. And it wasn’t just me. I glanced across the aisle to another listener who I noticed had taken to reading the bible. This reminded me of a line in Darkest Hour, a film about the political build up to Dunkirk, when Churchill telephones a general in the middle of the night, essentially to kick off Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force. “Am I interrupting you?” “No, I was merely reading my bible.”
But actually, I don’t really want to discuss the acoustics of Dunblane Cathedral, rather to use the programme as a springboard to further discussion of its content. As it so happened, a couple of hours before the programme went on air, President Zelenskyy had the meeting in the Oval Office with President Trump, which turned so sour. I had heard some of the “chat”, when it was breaking news, and frankly was completely appalled. So when Douglas Alexander, Labour MP for Lothian east and the UK Government’s minister for trade policy and economic security, voiced support for Zelenskyy, I was happy to applaud. But I promised myself to delve into the whole debacle.
Accordingly, I found on the internet a recording of the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting, and I watched it in its entirety. It has been widely characterised as a complete disaster, but if you watch it, most of it is completely normal. It’s about 50 minutes long, and the first 40 minutes – well, I wouldn’t exactly say it was a love-in – but it was perfectly civil. Granted there wasn’t much of a meeting of minds. President Zelenskyy wanted President Trump to understand that Putin is a terrorist and a killer. Where Sir Keir Starmer had shown Trump a letter from King Charles, Zelenskyy showed Trump pictures of Russian war atrocities. President Trump wanted to focus on a US-Ukraine trade deal involving rare earth minerals, and he had nothing at all to say about security guarantees.
And then something extraordinary happened. The mood changed. All of a sudden, it turned on a dime. Why? There was a kind of harbinger, when a reporter on the floor asked Zelenskyy, “Why don’t you wear a suit?” It might have been a light-heated jibe, but it wasn’t. Ever since the conflict started, Zelenskyy has dressed in a trade-mark black outfit, basically a uniform. To his credit, Zelnseskyy made light of it. “When we have victory, I will wear a costume. A suit like yours, maybe better, but maybe less expensive.” Airy persiflage, no doubt – perhaps reminiscent of Zelenskyy’s previous career as a comedian – but I remembered that when Admiral Sir Roger Keyes attended the Norway Debate in the House of Commons on May 7th and 8th, 1940, to strongly criticise Chamberlain’s government, he was dressed in the full uniform of an admiral of the fleet. Nobody questioned his dress code. The government fell on May 10th.
After the suit question, it all went downhill. The vice-president, J. D. Vance, made some comments about reaching a deal, and then President Zelenskyy said, “Can I ask you something?”
“Sure.”
Zelenskyy outlined a brief history of the last 10 years and all the agreements that Putin had reneged upon, and essentially asked, how can you make a deal with somebody like that?
J. D. Vance didn’t like that, and he resorted to an argument ad hominem. Apparently Zelenskyy was being disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Allegedly throughout the meeting, he had never said “thank you”. Actually it was the first thing that he said. Zelenskyy was never anything but respectful. Not once did he say anything intemperate. But he did say that a cease fire with Russia would be useless unless it was backed up by some kind of established security assurances.
Yet apparently he needed to show more gratitude. At this stage I started to see the meeting as a series of vignettes from various Hollywood movies. In A Few Good Men, a legal drama involving a Court Martial concerning an incident at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Tom Cruise’s character, a young lawyer, is asked by the commanding officer of the base, Jack Nicholson, to show more respect. The look of incredulity on Zelenskyy’s face mirrored exactly that of Tom Cruise.
And I thought of the film Die Hard. There is a character in Die Hard, one Harry Ellis, who thinks he can broker a quick deal between Alan Rickman’s villain, one Gruber, and Bruce Willis’ maverick cop, John McClane. I can solve this problem, easy, right now. Capiche? McClane tells him on the phone that with respect to Gruber, Ellis has no idea what sort of man he is dealing with. The outcome is not good.
Zelenskyy asked Vance if he had ever been to Ukraine. He hadn’t. But he had seen pictures. According to him, guided tours of Ukraine for politicians were some kind of propaganda ruse. Zelenskyy invited him to visit. I don’t think Vance will take him up. An invite to the Oval Office is apparently a great honour, but an invite to Ukraine is hardly worth the time of day. Vance got quite heated. Zelenskyy said, “There’s no need to raise your voice.”
Then Trump took it up, as if he felt the need to outperform his vice-president. “He’s not raising his voice.” Then he raised his voice. Some people think that this whole thing was a mugging, that all along Trump and Vance were going to stick the boot in. I don’t know. I tend to think Trump genuinely lost his temper. There was a lot of finger pointing. Apparently Zelenskyy has no cards. Zelenskyy: “This isn’t a game of cards.” Trump: “You’re are at war.” Zelenskyy, “I know.”
But I wondered, why are they doing all this in front of the cameras? I suppose they must think it will appeal to the electorate. If that is so, God help America.
I greatly admired President Zelenskyy, alone in the lions’ den, having to defend himself in a foreign language (in which he is now remarkably fluent), and not kow-towing to a bunch of bullies. For that is what they are. You don’t invite somebody into your house, point fingers at them, shout them down, and then throw them out.
Any Questions re-aired on Saturday afternoon, and I listened to some of it to make sure I’d heard most of the salient points. Then I listened to Any Answers, the phone-in programme dealing with issues raised, complete. Interestingly, and unusually, the entire programme was given over to the debate about the car crash press conference in the Oval Office. In her preamble to the programme, Anita Anand asked us, “Did you sleep well last night?” Actually I hadn’t. I got home from Any Questions depressed to my boots, and stayed awake half the night.
It’s a fast moving story. On Saturday, Zelenskyy flew to London, where the PM greeted him most warmly at the door to No. 10. Then he flew to Sandringham to meet the King. It crossed my mind that that might have been a royal initiative, but of course we will never know. On Sunday, a broad European church foregathered in Lancaster House, and there was general consensus for continued support for Ukraine, as well as some preliminary initiatives on how to forge a peace. President Macron has an idea for a truce. Was President Zelenskyy aware of it? Zelenskyy: “I am aware of everything.”
Also on the airwaves has been considerable emphasis on the need to re-engage with the USA. It is said that endeavours to arrange another meeting of Trump and Zelenskyy started almost as soon as the car-crash broke up. There has been a suggestion that Zelenskyy needs to “eat humble pie” and “apologise”.
I have a notion that Zelenskyy, God bless him, does not do humble pie. Meretricious, concupiscent sycophancy is not his style. Nor has he anything to apologise for. All he did was speak truth to power. There has been much speculation about how Starmer should “play” Trump. Should he be “diplomatic”, or should he be “combative”?
Neither. He should merely, politely, speak the truth, exactly as Zelenskyy did. If that results in Sir Keir being harangued, and then ejected from the Oval office, then so be it. At least you know where you stand. I think we should be grateful to President Zelenskyy for showing us the true colours of the current US administration. They are interested in power, and the acquisition of wealth. It is highly significant that in a recent UN vote, on a European-drafted resolution on the 3rd anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, condemning Moscow’s actions and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the USA voted against the motion, thus siding with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea. They live in a world of “strong men”, and “spheres of influence”. George Orwell saw it all coming. In 1984, they were dubbed Air Strip One, Eurasia, and Eastasia. This is the world which threatens us.
But there’s still time. Europe can step up to the mark. Capiche.
jamescalumcampbell 