Raymond de Souza: Why is Trump suddenly warming up to Ukraine?
- Laura Loomer, a close Trump ally known for spreading Russian propaganda, recently reversed her stance on the Ukraine war after visiting Kyiv, influencing Trump’s warming attitude toward President Zelenskyy.
- Ukraine, lacking direct diplomatic access to the Trump administration due to unappointed ambassadors and absent envoys, may be using influencers like Loomer to communicate on the ground.
- The article suggests moral ambiguity in international relations under Trump, highlighting how countries like Canada and Ukraine might consider unofficial payments or donations to gain favor or resolve disputes.
- Trump’s administration granted Qatar a NATO-like defense guarantee shortly after receiving a $400 million Air Force One jet from the Qatari royal family, illustrating quid pro quo diplomacy encouraged by Trump’s approach.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy headed into his Tuesday meeting with President Donald Trump coming off a significant victory. Not on the battlefield, though that seems to be moderately turning in Ukraine’s favour, but in MAGA’s online world, to which Trump pays great attention.
I did not realize, as I was writing my column on Ukraine last week, that Laura Loomer was sympathetically interviewing Zelenskyy in Kyiv. Loomer, who spews all sorts of online invective, is close to Trump.
After years of parroting Russian propaganda, Loomer visited Ukraine last week and reversed her position on the war. She previously had Vice-President JD Vance’s position — he who is proudest of cutting off aid to Ukraine — though expressed in incendiary language, all the better to be a MAGA influencer and get privileged access to Trump. Apparently she spoke to him twice during the trip, and several times since her return.
Given that Trump has not appointed ambassadors to Kyiv (or Moscow), and his special envoys refuse to set foot in Ukraine (while eight times paying court to President Vladimir Putin), it is as close as he might get to an on-the-ground briefing from someone he trusts. Reports are that he is warming up to Zelenskyy, for whom he had previously reserved special contempt.
MAGA has maintained a cold fury against Zelenskyy ever since he refused Trump’s request in his first term to engage in some friendly lawfare against alleged Biden family corruption in Ukraine. That attempt to use presidential power for partisan benefit led to Trump’s first impeachment.
Using official power for personal benefit is, nevertheless, the way things are done in Trumpworld and so fevered questions have been asked. Did Ukraine pay Loomer to visit? She denies it.
Why would Zelenskyy sit down with such an appalling person, who trafficks in the most rank online bile? There is only one answer. Loomer’s influence is significant. In April 2025, she met with Trump in the Oval Office to sow suspicion about the fealty of several staffers on the National Security Council. Trump fired them within 24 hours.
Perhaps Loomer’s about-face on Ukraine was the result of doing some belated research and discovering in fact that one country brazenly invaded another. Or perhaps she was bought.
Her ethics, such as they are, do not merit much attention. Another question is more relevant. Would Ukraine have been wrong to buy her as a conduit to the Trump administration? Or more boldly, would Ukraine be wrong if it attempted to buy the Trump family?
For that matter, would Canada?
The easy answer is yes. Bribery is immoral. But so is not telling the truth, and both Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Mark Carney routinely say positive things about Trump that they cannot possibly believe are true.
Carney was justly criticized last week for not speaking honestly about Trump’s hostage-taking of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. He did not want to acknowledge that Canada was bullied by gangster tactics.
What though if Carney had embraced a bit of gangsterism?
The owners of the rival bridge across the Detroit River, the Maroun family of Michigan, donated US$1 million (C$1.4 million) to MAGA Inc. in January. Not long after, the Trump administration decided not to honour the original agreement, kidnapped the opening and demanded that Canada pay ransom. Carney was not about to boast about being a victim of extortion.
What if instead, Canada offered a $5 million donation to the Trump presidential library project? Or to invest in son-in-law Jared Kushner’s investment fund, as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states have done? Or to funnel cash into the Trump family crypto business? Or simply to cut a certified cheque to Donald Trump Jr.? It is not unreasonable to think the problem would have been solved and, ethical questions aside, Canadian taxpayers would have saved a great deal of money.
Speaking of the Gulf states, Zelenskyy must have marvelled that last September, by executive order, Trump granted to Qatar the equivalent of a NATO Article 5 guarantee: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.”
In case of such attack, “the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military.”
The proximate cause for the defence pact was an Israeli operation in Doha, attempting the assassination of a Hamas negotiator. Remarkably, in light of an Israeli action against Hamas, Trump granted NATO-like status to Qatar, a key Hamas patron.
Perhaps it had something to do with Qatar giving Trump — his library, to be specific — a new Air Force One, valued at US$400 million? That was a bargain for the Qatari royal family, which had been trying to unload the jet for five years and found no takers. They gave it to Trump in May and got a military defence pledge in September. It was the deal of the century.
Neither Canada nor Ukraine aspire to Qatari techniques of diplomatic bribery. But the Trump administration encourages allies — if the Qataris could be considered such — to think that way.
National Post