Trump's Betrayal and Europe's response
No one in Europe will ever forget this.
Trump has suspended arms deliveries to Ukraine. Much worse, he's cut off access to American intelligence. Europe cannot replace this. Building something like the American intelligence system, which can monitor the entire battlefield, will take years.
Without our detection, interception, and analysis, Ukrainians can’t see the missiles and drones that Putin fires at them every day. It can’t overcome Russian ground-to-air jamming. Given that Musk is now proposing to cut off Starlink, too, the Ukrainian front—which is more than 1,200 kilometers long—is all of a sudden incredibly vulnerable. Ukrainian units risk being captured by Russians and tortured for months.
Trump is strangling Ukraine. No one in Europe will ever forget this.
A few days ago, Tim Miller of the Bulwark asked me to come on his podcast to discuss the speech Macron gave, last Wednesday, in which he called for massive European rearmament and discussed using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the Continent from Russia. Tim wanted to know more about what prompted the speech and how France was understanding events in the US. I was in Africa1—so I wasn't in direct touch with the mood in France—but I did my best:
Tim asked me whether Europe could pull itself together in time to save Ukraine and itself. “Let me give you the optimistic and the pessimistic scenario,” I said. But we only had a few minutes to speak, and after I described the most obvious reasons for pessimism, Tim asked me a question about Macron’s strategy, the conversation took a detour, and I never offered the optimistic scenario. I'll sketch that out—and elaborate on some of the other points I made—over the course of the coming week.
First, though, let’s look at the speech itself. In French:
In English:
The full text in English, and my translation, below:2
Frenchwomen, Frenchmen, my dear compatriots:
I am speaking to you this evening in light of the international situation and its consequences for France and for Europe, and doing so after several weeks of diplomatic action. You are legitimately concerned about the historic events that are disrupting the world order.
The war in Ukraine, which has resulted in nearly a million deaths and injuries, continues with the same intensity. The United States of America, our ally, has changed its position on this war. It is supporting Ukraine less and engendering doubts about what will happen next. At the same time, the same United States of America intends to impose tariffs on products from Europe. The world continues to grow more brutal, and the threat of terrorism has not abated. Overall, our prosperity and security have become more uncertain.
It must be said that we are entering a new era.
The war in Ukraine has now been going on for more than three years. From the very first day, we made the decision to support Ukraine and sanction Russia, and we were right to do so, because it is not just the Ukrainian people who are fighting courageously for their freedom, it is our security that is under threat. If a country can invade its neighbor in Europe with impunity, there is no security for anyone. The law of the jungle would apply, and peace could no longer be guaranteed on our continent. History has taught us this.
Beyond Ukraine, the Russian threat affects the countries of Europe. Affects us.
Russia has already transformed the Ukrainian conflict into a global conflict. It has mobilized North Korean soldiers and brought Iranian equipment to our continent, while helping those countries further arm themselves. President Putin’s Russia violates our borders to assassinate opponents. It manipulates elections in Romania and Moldova. It is organizing digital attacks against our hospitals to impede their operation. Russia is trying to manipulate our opinions by spreading lies on social media.
Basically, it is testing our limits, and it is doing so in the air, at sea, in space and behind our screens. This aggression seems to recognize no borders. Meanwhile, Russia continues to rearm, spending more than 40 percent of its budget for this purpose. By 2030, it plans to further increase its army, to have 300,000 additional soldiers, 3,000 tanks and 300 more fighter planes.
Who can believe, in this context, that today’s Russia will stop at Ukraine?
Russia has become—now and for years to come—a threat to France and to Europe. I deeply regret this, and I am convinced that in the long term, peace will be achieved on our continent, with a Russia that is once again pacified and calm. But the situation that I am describing to you is this one, and we must deal with it.
Faced with this world of dangers, it would be madness to remain spectators. We must now make decisions about Ukraine without further delay—for the security of the French, for the security of Europeans.
First, for Ukraine. Initiatives promoting peace are heading in the right direction, and we welcome this progress. We must continue to help the Ukrainians resist until they can negotiate a solid peace with Russia—for themselves and for all of us. This is why the path to peace cannot involve abandoning Ukraine. Quite the contrary. Peace cannot be concluded at any price and under Russian diktat. Peace cannot mean the capitulation of Ukraine. It cannot mean its collapse. Nor can it mean a too-fragile cease-fire.
And why? Because here, too, we have experience from the past. We cannot forget that Russia began its invasion of Ukraine in 2014, that we then negotiated a ceasefire in Minsk, that the same Russia did not respect this ceasefire, and that we were not able to maintain it, due to the absence of robust guarantees.
Today, we can no longer take Russia at its word.
Ukraine has a right to peace and security for its own sake. It is also in our interest, and it is in the interest of security in Europe. This is why we are working with our British, our German, and our other European friends. This is why you saw me, in recent weeks, gathering several of them in Paris and going to meet them a few days ago, in London: to consolidate the necessary commitments for Ukraine. Once a peace that ensures Russia will not invade Ukraine again is signed, we must prepare for it.
This will certainly involve supporting the Ukrainian army over the long term.
It will also, perhaps, involve deploying European forces. They would not go to fight today, they would not go to the front line. But they would be there after the signing of the peace treaty, to guarantee that it is fully respected.
Starting next week, we will bring together, in Paris, the chiefs of staff of the countries that wish, in this regard, to accept their responsibility. This is a plan for a solid, lasting, verifiable peace—one we have prepared with the Ukrainians and several European partners—and I have defended this plan across Europe and in the United States, fifteen days ago. I want to believe that the United States will remain by our side. But we must be ready if this is not the case.
Whether peace in Ukraine is achieved quickly or not, the European states must, given the Russian threat that I have just described to you, be able to defend themselves better and deter any new aggression. Whatever happens, we must equip ourselves better, and improve our defensive position, for the sake of peace itself—to deter.
In this respect, we remain committed to NATO and our partnership with the United States of America, but we must do more to strengthen our independence in defense and security. The future of Europe does not have to be decided in Washington or Moscow.
And yes, the threat is returning from the East. The innocence, so to speak, of the last thirty years, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, is now over.
In Brussels tomorrow, at the extraordinary council that will bring together the 27 heads of state and government [of the EU] with the [European] Commission and the President of the [European] Council, we will take decisive steps. A number of decisions that France has been urging for years will be made. Member states will be allowed to increase their military spending without taking into account their deficit limit. Massive joint financing will be furnished to purchase—and produce, on European soil—munitions, tanks, weapons, and some of the world’s most innovative equipment. I have asked our government to be mobilized so that this both strengthens our military as quickly as possible and accelerates our re-industrialization in every region. In the coming days, I will bring together the relevant ministers and industrial partners.
We have argued for the past eight years that Europe must be capable of defending itself. This is now becoming a reality. This means European countries will be more ready to defend and protect themselves, will jointly produce the equipment they need on their own soil, will increase their cooperation, and reduce their dependency on the rest of the world—and this is a good thing. Germany, Poland, Denmark, the Baltic States, and many of our partners have announced unprecedented efforts in military spending.
With action now underway, France has a special status. We have the most effective army in Europe, and thanks to the choices made by our elders after the Second World War, we are equipped with nuclear deterrence capabilities. This means we are much better protected than many of our neighbors. Furthermore, we didn’t wait for the invasion of Ukraine to notice that we live in a worrying world. Thanks to the two military spending laws I proposed and for which successive parliaments voted, we have doubled our Armed Forces budget in nearly ten years. But given the evolution and acceleration of threats that I just described, we must make new budgetary choices. Further investment has now become essential.
I have asked the government to work on this as quickly as possible. These new investments will require the mobilization of private and public funding, without increasing taxes. To do this, we will need reforms, choices, and courage.
Our nuclear deterrent protects us. It is complete and sovereign—French from start to finish. Since 1964, it has always, explicitly, played a role in preserving peace and security in Europe. But in response to the historic call of the future German Chancellor, I have decided to open a strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent through our deterrent. Whatever happens, the decision has always been and will remain in the hands of the President of the Republic, [who is] head of the armed forces.
Controlling our destiny, becoming more independent—we must work toward this militarily, but also economically. We must have economic, technological, industrial, and financial independence. We must be prepared for the United States to levy tariffs on European goods, as they have just done to Canada and Mexico. This incomprehensible decision—for both the American economy and ours—will have consequences for some of our sectors. It increases the challenge of this moment, and it will not go unanswered by us. While preparing our retaliation with our European colleagues, we will continue, as I did two weeks ago, to try everything to convince the President of the United States of America that this decision would harm us all. I hope to persuade and dissuade him.
In sum, it has been many decades since we’ve had to make the kinds of decisions this moment demands of us. About our agriculture, our research, our industry, all of our public policies—we cannot have the same debates as before. This is why I asked the Prime Minister and his government—and I invite all the political, economic, and trade union forces in the country to work alongside them—to offer proposals in light of this new context. Tomorrow's solutions cannot be yesterday’s habits.
My dear compatriots: Faced with these challenges and these irreversible changes, we must not succumb to excess of any kind, neither the excess of the warmongers, nor the excess of the defeatists. France will follow only one path, pursuing peace and freedom, faithful to its history and its principles. This is what we believe for our security, and this is also what we believe to defend democracy, a certain idea of truth, a certain idea of free inquiry, of social respect, a certain idea of freedom of expression that is not about hate speech, a certain idea of humanism. This is what we have inherited and what is at stake.
Our Europe has the economic strength, the power, and the talent to meet the challenges of this era, and whether we compare ourselves to the United States of America or, a fortiori, to Russia, we have the means. We must therefore act by being united as Europeans and determined to protect ourselves.
This is why the homeland needs you, your commitment. Political decisions, military equipment and budgets are one thing, but they will never replace the strength of a nation’s soul. Our generation will no longer receive the dividends of peace. It falls to us to ensure that our children reap the dividends of our commitment, tomorrow.
So let us face things, together.
Long live the Republic.
Long live France.
Tim was struck by the words, “I want to believe that the United States will remain by our side. But we must be ready if this is not the case.” He asked what I made of it. I was surprised that he was surprised: What else would the French conclude?
Tim’s reaction suggests to me that perhaps the way the Trump Administration’s behavior has been understood—in Europe and around the world—is not being fully reported in the United States. The American media has, to a significant extent, already been cowed. Fearful of alienating Trump’s supporters or fearful of Trump himself, it is hesitant to use the language that everyone in France is using. Since the ambush of Zelensky in the Oval Office, the headlines here have been stark, the language clear. The word that is repeated, over and over, is “trahison.”
A sample:
The announcement had the effect of a bomb in Kyiv, but also in almost all European capitals. …
“No one is surprised in Ukraine (but) Ukrainians are shocked," wrote independent war reporter Cyrille Amoursky … “We always expect the worst, but we don’t hope for it. This is the worst-case scenario.” … the journalist reports “a hot reaction” from one of his Ukrainian friends. “Honestly, this world deserves the Third World War. When I say ‘this world,’ I mean the world of this fucking West,’ she rages. ‘They deserve to choke in blood once again, because they continue to walk on the same rake.”
“In fact, Trump believes that he has no price to pay by withdrawing from the war in Ukraine. For him, “it’s not his war" but that of Biden and the Europeans, two categories that he hates, notes Olivier Kempf. “He leaves it to the Europeans who are not consulted but who will have to manage the consequences.”
‘We continue to talk about ‘our American allies.’ Let's stop being naive or hypocritical,” says Gilles Gressani, director of the geopolitical magazine Le Grand Continent … “Yesterday, with the announcement of the division of Ukraine, it was the division of Europe that began.” …
For French MEP Raphaël Glucksmann, “We are back at that 1938 moment of our history, that Daladier and Chamberlain moment, which always comes back, and which I feared for three years. In Munich, Czechoslovakia was offered to Hitler on a tray. There, Trump engaged in discussions with Putin on Ukraine without Ukraine and without Europe,” he continues, referring to “this American treason.” A Russian success despite “lasting losses.”
… "The big question, finally, will be ‘What attitude will we see from Russia?". For the moment, beyond the nice phone call, Putin is taking a maximalist line: “I want everything, to begin with, and we’ll see what you give me next,” says Stéphane Audrand. “Ukraine’s future is in the balance and the country is at obvious risk of destabilization that achieves Russia’s goals. If Moscow obtains the demilitarization of part of the Ukrainian army, or a right to scrutinize the elections, the danger is immense.”
“The Russians will have achieved many of their goals, despite lasting losses,” observes Olivier Kempf. They get a success but come out weakened. The war in Ukraine will indeed have cost Russia a fortune, economically, demographically, and militarily. But Vladimir Putin will come out strengthened. Enough to make Eastern European countries, and in particular the Baltic countries, fear another war soon.”
(Washington) Volodymyr Zelensky had come to negotiate with the President of the United States. He found himself in front of the Red Army Choir.
We have never seen such an attempt at humiliation and extortion by a political leader live from the White House.
“I'm glad the American public was able to see that," said Donald Trump after this incredible event.
It’s a good thing indeed. We could see how pro-Russian the Trump administration is now. And how much it will try to take advantage of a peace to come.
Many compare the new American attitude towards Russia with the policy of appeasement of Europeans towards Germany in the 1930s. But it is not Munich 1938. When Neville Chamberlain was going to sign treaties with Hitler, after he invaded a country, he was not trying to gain a financial advantage from the invaded country. He was only trying to avoid war in Europe—including at home in the United Kingdom. It was weak, but it wasn't malicious. …
The French polling firm Elabe published a survey indicating that three out of four French people—73 percent—now believe that the United States is no longer their ally. Only the far right thinks otherwise.
More than three quarters of the French public are concerned, as well, that the conflict in Ukraine is spreading—and 64 percent are worried that it is spreading to France.
So no, the starkness of Macron’s speech didn’t surprise me.
What surprised me was that a French senator came to speak for Americans who are outraged by Trump far more effectively than any member of our political class. If you haven’t yet watched Claude Malhuret’s speech, it’s here:
But the subtitles aren’t quite accurate. Here’s my translation:
Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Ministers, My dear colleagues,
Europe stands at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is faltering, Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia is growing stronger.
Washington has become the court of Nero—an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers, and a buffoon on ketamine in charge of purging the civil service.
This is a tragedy for the free world, but above all, it is a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is clear: being his ally is futile, for he will not defend you; he will impose higher tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictators who invade you.
The so-called master of the deal is now demonstrating the art of the deal on his knees. He believes he can intimidate China by capitulating to Putin, but in witnessing such a disaster, Xi Jinping is likely accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.
Never in history has a US president surrendered to an enemy. Never before has one supported an aggressor against an ally. Never before has one trampled the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could stop him, fired the military leadership in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and seized control of social media.
This is not an illiberal drift—it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember: it took only one month, three weeks, and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its constitution.
I have faith in the resilience of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in just one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his previous presidency. We were at war with a dictator—now, we are fighting against a dictator backed by a traitor.
Eight days ago, at the very moment Trump was patting Macron on the back at the White House, the United States voted at the UN alongside Russia and North Korea against the Europeans who demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops.
Two days later, in the Oval Office, the draft-dodger lectured the war hero Zelensky on morality and strategy before dismissing him like a stable boy, ordering him to submit or step down.
Last night, he crossed another line of infamy by halting the promised arms deliveries. How should we respond to this betrayal? The answer is simple: we must stand firm.
First and foremost, we must not be mistaken: Ukraine’s defeat would be Europe’s defeat. The Baltics, Georgia, and Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half a continent was ceded to Stalin.
The nations of the Global South are watching the outcome of this conflict to decide whether they should continue respecting Europe or if they are now free to trample over it.
What Putin seeks is the end of the world order established by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, founded on the fundamental principle that territorial conquest by force is forbidden.
This principle is the very foundation of the UN, yet today, the Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the victim because Trump’s vision aligns with Putin’s: a return to spheres of influence, where great powers dictate the fate of smaller nations.
To me, Greenland, Panama, and Canada; to you, Ukraine, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe; to him, Taiwan and the South China Sea.
At oligarch gatherings on the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, they call this “diplomatic realism.”
We are, therefore, alone. But the narrative that resistance to Putin is futile is false. Contrary to Kremlin propaganda, Russia is struggling. In three years, the so-called second army of the world has managed to seize only scraps of a country with a population three times smaller.
With interest rates at 25 percent, collapsing foreign currency and gold reserves, and a demographic freefall, Russia stands at the edge of the abyss. This American lifeline to Putin is the greatest strategic mistake ever made during a war.
The shock is brutal, but it serves one purpose: Europeans are waking from their denial. In one day in Munich, they understood that Ukraine’s survival and Europe’s future rest in their hands, and they now face three imperatives.
First, accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American betrayal, ensuring its resilience and securing Europe’s place in any future negotiations.
This will be costly. We must break the taboo on using frozen Russian assets. We must circumvent Moscow’s accomplices within Europe through a coalition of willing nations, including, of course, the United Kingdom.
Second, demand that any agreement includes the return of kidnapped children, prisoners, and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia, and Minsk, we know the worth of agreements with Putin. Such guarantees require a military force strong enough to prevent another invasion.
Finally—and most urgently, because it will take the longest—we must build the European defense system that has been neglected in favor of the American umbrella since 1945 and dismantled after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the democratic leaders of today’s Europe will be judged in history books.
Friedrich Merz recently stated that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is an acknowledgment that France has been right for decades in advocating for strategic autonomy.
Now, it must be built. Massive investments will be required. The European Defense Fund must be strengthened beyond Maastricht debt criteria, weapons and ammunition systems must be standardized, Ukraine—now Europe’s largest army—must be integrated into the Union, the role and conditions of nuclear deterrence must be reconsidered based on French and British capabilities, and missile defense and satellite programs must be relaunched.
The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is an excellent starting point. But much more will be needed.
Europe will only regain its military power by regaining its industrial power. In short, we must fully implement the Draghi report. For real this time.
But Europe’s true rearmament is its moral rearmament.
We must persuade public opinion in the face of fatigue, fear of war, and, above all, Putin’s collaborators—both the far right and the far left.
Yesterday, before you, Mr. Prime Minister, they once again argued in the National Assembly against European unity and against European defense.
They claim to seek peace. But what neither they nor Trump admit is that their peace is one of capitulation—the peace of defeat, replacing the de Gaulle of Zelensky with a Ukrainian Pétain at Putin’s beck and call.
It is the peace of collaborators who, for three years, have refused all aid to the Ukrainians.
Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in recent days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and the cascade of reckless decisions taken in the past month have begun to stir American resistance.
Poll numbers are plummeting. Republican lawmakers face hostile crowds in their districts. Even Fox News is growing critical.
Trumpists are no longer unchallenged. They control the executive, Congress, the Supreme Court, and social media.
But in American history, the defenders of freedom have always prevailed. And now, they are beginning to rise.
The fate of Ukraine is decided in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who stand for democracy—and on our ability here in Europe to unite, to secure our common defense, and to restore Europe as the great power it once was and hesitates to become again.
Our parents defeated fascism and communism at the cost of immense sacrifices.
The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.
Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.
Malhuret has been surprised by the number of responses he’s received from Americans—in his estimate, 99 percent of the replies he’s received have been from us. Again, my translation below:
I received thousands of messages on Twitter or by email, but what struck me the most was, indeed, the messages that come from the United States. A good part of them say that it is still incredible that it is a Frenchman who has to make this speech and that their American politicians are unable to do so.
One has the impression that a good part of the American public obviously condemns Trump’s methods, but that they are waiting for response. Today the leaders of the Republicans are petrified because Trump scares them, and they do not dare say anything ... while many think the same thing as I do! The Democrats are still singed by their defeat in November and the party has not yet reorganized, has not found a leader to take over. Americans seem to feel an absence, a tragic absence, in the fact that there is no response to Trump inside the country.
It is a tipping for the world, a risk of breaking the transatlantic alliance. This is a considerable change that can only lead to great concern, for Ukraine first, for Europe next, and for the world in general. On my part, as on the part of many people, Trudeau for example, there is a lot of anger. What seems most important to me, what comes up most often, is the word betrayal. When you are betrayed in this way by allies, everyone feels, obviously, a very strong reaction.
Force is the only language this kind of apprentice dictator understands, and I am noting that inside the United States, in neighboring countries, and in Europe, we are currently seeing calls to boycott American products. They only understand force, and therefore I am happy to see that this is what is happening. We are not running to the shelters, but answering.
There is something very wrong with the Democrats. Why should they be incapable of speaking like this?
There is something very wrong with The New York Times. Why should it be incapable of producing one single front page commensurate with the gravity of these events?
There is something very wrong with us. Why are our protests so scattered and muted?
It gives Malhuret comfort to think that Republican lawmakers are facing hostile crowds. But those crowds look desultory to me. They are nothing like when I would have said Americans would do in the face of such a threat to everything America has ever been and might be.
My friend Alex Hurst wrote this article for the Guardian last week: Trump dreams of a MAGA empire—but he’s more likely to leave us a nuclear hellscape:
… Europe’s leaders seem to have understood the seriousness of this swift-moving moment. “I want to believe that the United States will stay by our side, but we have to be prepared for that not to be the case,” said Emmanuel Macron in a broadcast to the French nation on Wednesday night. Macron opened the door to the “European dimension” that France has historically maintained with regard to its nuclear deterrent being made more explicit. France is the only EU country with nuclear weapons.
However, even if in the short term France’s deterrent—so wisely kept fully independent—is extended to the rest of the EU, would that be sufficient for European states under more immediate threat? Faced with an imperialist Russian regime that has repeatedly invoked nuclear blackmail in its war on Ukraine, chances are the EU will have to seek its own EU-level deterrent at some point in the future.
This is the tragedy that Donald Trump has wrought: the world will rearm, defense stocks will soar. Perhaps we’ll find a new balance; if not, there will be war. Precious resources that should have been used to heal, feed, educate, create, conserve, and explore will be redirected to a world order the United States once knew well enough to do away with.
Why are Americans mutely submitting to the destruction of everything—our world, our values, our prosperity, our friends, our honor?
I can explain why France is reacting the way it is. The country I can no longer explain is my own.
UNBROKEN: Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukraine
Kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyśl
I just returned from a short trip to Marrakesh with our Middle East 201 students. I didn’t announce my absence because I didn’t intend to be absent: Given the magnitude of global events, it didn’t seem the right moment for the Cosmopolitan Globalist to be on vacation, and I earnestly meant to continue working throughout the week. Indeed, I did continue to work throughout the week; but probably unsurprisingly, I never succeeded in concentrating quite closely enough to turn my notes and drafts into finished arguments. The inaugural Cosmopolitan Globalist retreat was too much of a success.
This trip was exclusively for Middle East 201 students, but I used it as an experiment to see what might be involved, logistically and organizationally, in holding a weeklong gathering open to all of our subscribers. I learned a lot about what might work: Above all, I learned that if the gathering is meant to be an opportunity to discuss global affairs in a rigorous and serious way, you must choose a boring destination, not an exciting, noisy, crowded, hectic city that completely compels your attention. A pretty village in the south of France, say, might be boring enough. If, on the other hand, the point is to have an exciting trip and enjoy one another’s company, Marrakesh is perfect.
I’ll ask for your thoughts about this, and what might interest you, later in the week.
I’m not sure whether the linked transcript is an official one. I couldn’t find an English version on the Elysée website, even though they usually publish every major speech in translation. Perhaps they haven’t got around to translating it yet, or perhaps, as I suggested to Tim, they assume that no one in Trump’s circle would pay attention to a speech in French, and this would be for the best. The translation I found is not at all faithful to the original, so I revised it.
I have been naming what is happening treason for the past 45 days...it began with treason against the citizens of the U.S. by taking all power into the executive. Then allowing musk to crash all federal agencies and get into payment systems...a huge threat internally and externally. Then, the gop led congress rolling over, in effect giving him permission to take their constitutional prerogative, thereby becoming traitors to the constitution and their oath of office. Then the staged attack on President Zelenskyy, a smokescreen that every sane person could see through, to do putin's bidding. Of course it is treason. President Macron is correct. The sooner Europe realizes the next step is to use American arms etc to support putin, the sooner Europe will act to defeat trump and his pal putin. It is a nightmare scenario that could be the worst thing ever imagined.
Those at the head of the U.S. government are the most cowardly, greedy, immoral people on the face of this earth. They are willing to betray anyone, to crush any value, spit on the graves of those who died defending freedom and democracy, turn their own nation over to a war criminal and become war criminals themselves, to get something: money, power, influence. Their behavior is despicable. They are traitors not just to our own nation but to all people brave enough to stand up and not submit to tyranny. No. The guy in the WH and his criminal gang of grifters, thieves, frauds, and liars are traitors without exception. But UKRAINIANS are the human beings standing up against tyranny. Standing up for their right to be FREE from putin and russia. This nation and their brave leadership are the leaders of the free world. They lift our hearts as they celebrate their poets, writers, artists, singers, composers; the power of their language and culture declares they will be free and remain free from the abomination that is the regime of trump and the gop, which has become the government of putin on the Potomac. Just read this article and understand the depths of depravity and injustice present in the WH, the executive branch, and the gop led congress. Such an abomination must not be allowed to remain. It must fall and fall hard and soon. Stand with Ukraine and do not submit to the tyranny of trump and putin. They will not and must never prevail.
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/prezident-i-persha-ledi-vzyali-uchast-u-vruchenni-nacionalno-96533