For once, on Ukraine Starmer gets it right – and Trump couldn’t be more wrong. Let me explain:
It’s a rare thing, these days, to say Keir Starmer is doing something right—whether he means it or not.
But when it comes to Ukraine, let’s put credit where it’s due: Starmer is standing on the side of international law, democratic sovereignty, and moral clarity.
While Donald Trump flirts with appeasement and treats Russia’s land grab like a business deal waiting to be signed, Starmer and the UK government have aligned with President Zelenskyy in rejecting the idea that Ukraine should give up Crimea to end the war. It’s the right call—and one that deserves to be recognised.
🧡 **Support Vox Political**
If you value independent political journalism that holds power to account — without corporate or party influence — please consider supporting this work. Even £1 helps keep it going.
👉 Support here via Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Trump’s “peace” plan: appeasement dressed as diplomacy
In an outburst on Truth Social, Trump claimed that 5,000 soldiers are dying each week, and that it’s time to “get the Peace Deal DONE!” But the deal he’s pushing isn’t peace—it’s surrender.
His team, including Vice-President JD Vance, has floated the idea of “freezing the lines” roughly where they are now in other words, Ukraine should hand over territory that has been occupied, bombed, and brutalised by Russian forces—including Crimea, which was illegally annexed in 2014.
That’s not a ceasefire. It is the validation of aggression.
It tells future autocrats that if they invade, commit war crimes, and hold on long enough, the West will eventually shrug and let them keep what they’ve stolen.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Starmer: standing with Ukraine
Contrast this with Starmer’s position. Without fanfare, he has backed Zelenskyy’s refusal to accept a peace deal that legitimises Putin’s invasion, and he’s right to do so.
Starmer’s support isn’t based on empty slogans, but on a firm understanding of the stakes: this is not just about Ukraine—it’s about the rules that govern the international order.
In this moment, Starmer is doing what too few leaders do—choosing principle over expediency.
And that principle is clear: you do not change borders by force.
You do not reward the aggressor for crimes committed.
You do not trade away another country’s sovereignty to tidy up a messy conflict.
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
Would we accept the same?
Flip the scenario for a moment. Would the UK be expected to give up the Shetland and Orkney Islands if Norway suddenly decided they belonged to them?
Would the US be told to “move on” if China occupied Hawaii and called it a done deal?
Would France accept the loss of Corsica because the Russians decided it had “historic ties” to Moscow?
Of course not. So why should Ukraine?
Trump may dress this up as pragmatism, but it’s just old-school appeasement, updated for a post-Truth world.
And appeasement never works—not with fascists in the 1930s, and not with Putin now.
Zelenskyy isn’t the obstacle to peace – Putin is
Trump has even accused Zelenskyy of blocking peace by refusing to accept US terms. That’s a twisted logic.
Zelenskyy is willing to negotiate. He has already compromised by agreeing to talk while his country is still under attack.
But a ceasefire that leaves Crimea in Russian hands is not a compromise—it’s capitulation.
Let’s remember: it is Ukraine that was invaded. It is Ukraine that is being shelled. And it is Ukraine that is expected—by Trump, at least—to give up territory just to end the violence.
The burden is always on the victim to accommodate the bully. That’s not diplomacy. It’s coercion.
A moment of moral clarity
We should always be wary of giving Keir Starmer too much credit.
His record on key issues—NHS, civil liberties, economic justice—is often muddled at best.
🧡 **Support Vox Political**
If you value independent political journalism that holds power to account — without corporate or party influence — please consider supporting this work. Even £1 helps keep it going.
👉 Support here via Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
But on Ukraine, he’s made the right choice. He’s sided with law over lawlessness, with sovereignty over brute force.
Trump, meanwhile, continues to reveal his own worldview: one where might makes right, and where borders, democracies, and treaties are just chips to be traded.
Let’s hope more leaders follow Starmer’s example here—and not Trump’s. And I don’t get to write that very often!
ADDITIONAL – 3.38am BST, April 25, 2025: There has been some pushback in comments on the article which deserves to be addressed – not only to prevent the piece from being undermined but to ensure that nobody falls prey to falsehoods. At this time, there appear to be five claims, so here they are – with responses:
“Crimea voted to join Russia” – True?
Partial truth, mostly misleading.
-
Yes, a referendum was held in Crimea in 2014 after Russian forces had already taken control. But it was not a free or fair vote. It was conducted under military occupation, with international observers banned. Even Russia’s own internal reports suggested turnout and support were vastly exaggerated.
-
The UN and almost every country in the world (except a handful of authoritarian allies) refused to recognise the result.
-
The idea that “Crimea voted to join Russia” is often repeated but ignores the illegal annexation and violation of international law, including the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia had pledged to respect Ukraine’s borders.
👉 Conclusion: The “vote” is not legitimate under international law. Saying Crimea “voted” to join Russia omits the context of military occupation and coercion.
“Ukraine has been killing Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas since 2014” – True?
There is a nugget of truth here—but wrapped in a distorted narrative.
-
There has been a war in the Donbas since 2014, but it was triggered by Russian-backed separatists seizing territory and declaring “people’s republics.” Ukraine responded militarily.
-
Civilian casualties did occur on both sides, and yes, thousands died, but the idea that Ukraine was simply “slaughtering civilians” is a Russian propaganda narrative.
-
The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), which monitored the conflict, never concluded that Ukraine was committing genocide or targeting civilians as policy. Russia, in fact, blocked many investigations.
👉 Conclusion: The Donbas war was brutal and tragic, but portraying it as one-sided Ukrainian “terrorism” is a distortion that aligns with Kremlin talking points.
“The US orchestrated a coup in 2014 (Euromaidan)” – True?
Misleading conspiracy theory.
-
The Euromaidan revolution was a popular uprising, sparked by Yanukovych’s sudden U-turn on an EU association deal. Protests involved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.
-
The US did support the protest movement diplomatically and provided NGO funding, but there is no evidence of a CIA coup. Claiming the entire revolution was US-orchestrated dismisses Ukrainians’ agency and participation.
👉 Conclusion: This is a long-debunked Russian narrative used to delegitimise Ukraine’s post-2014 government.
“Russia intervened to protect Russian speakers and prevent genocide” – True?
No. This is a false justification.
-
The “genocide” claim was Russia’s main pretext for the 2022 invasion, but it has been rejected by the International Court of Justice.
-
No credible evidence exists of genocide against Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
-
The claim that Russia is “preserving life” while invading a sovereign country and launching missile strikes on civilians is, frankly, Orwellian.
👉 Conclusion: This claim is part of Russia’s legal and moral cover story, but it has been internationally debunked.
“Zelensky dismantled workers’ rights and welfare” – True?
This part is more nuanced.
-
Ukraine has implemented neoliberal reforms, including privatisation and changes to labour laws, under pressure from Western institutions like the IMF.
-
These reforms are controversial and not universally supported by Ukrainians, particularly on the left.
-
That said, comparing this to genocide or Russian military occupation is a false equivalence. Criticising Zelensky’s domestic policies is valid—but does not justify territorial invasion.
👉 Conclusion: This part contains valid criticism, but it doesn’t excuse or justify Russia’s actions.
Does it undermine the article?
Not at all. In fact, it reinforces the need for it.
The core message of the article is about the principled position that:
-
Borders should not be changed by force,
-
Appeasement emboldens aggressors, and
-
Ukraine deserves the same right to defend its sovereignty as any other nation.
There is nothing in these criticisms to defeat that.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
On Ukraine Starmer gets it right – and Trump could not be more wrong
For once, on Ukraine Starmer gets it right – and Trump couldn’t be more wrong. Let me explain:
It’s a rare thing, these days, to say Keir Starmer is doing something right—whether he means it or not.
But when it comes to Ukraine, let’s put credit where it’s due: Starmer is standing on the side of international law, democratic sovereignty, and moral clarity.
While Donald Trump flirts with appeasement and treats Russia’s land grab like a business deal waiting to be signed, Starmer and the UK government have aligned with President Zelenskyy in rejecting the idea that Ukraine should give up Crimea to end the war. It’s the right call—and one that deserves to be recognised.
🧡 **Support Vox Political**
If you value independent political journalism that holds power to account — without corporate or party influence — please consider supporting this work. Even £1 helps keep it going.
👉 Support here via Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Trump’s “peace” plan: appeasement dressed as diplomacy
In an outburst on Truth Social, Trump claimed that 5,000 soldiers are dying each week, and that it’s time to “get the Peace Deal DONE!” But the deal he’s pushing isn’t peace—it’s surrender.
His team, including Vice-President JD Vance, has floated the idea of “freezing the lines” roughly where they are now in other words, Ukraine should hand over territory that has been occupied, bombed, and brutalised by Russian forces—including Crimea, which was illegally annexed in 2014.
That’s not a ceasefire. It is the validation of aggression.
It tells future autocrats that if they invade, commit war crimes, and hold on long enough, the West will eventually shrug and let them keep what they’ve stolen.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Starmer: standing with Ukraine
Contrast this with Starmer’s position. Without fanfare, he has backed Zelenskyy’s refusal to accept a peace deal that legitimises Putin’s invasion, and he’s right to do so.
Starmer’s support isn’t based on empty slogans, but on a firm understanding of the stakes: this is not just about Ukraine—it’s about the rules that govern the international order.
In this moment, Starmer is doing what too few leaders do—choosing principle over expediency.
And that principle is clear: you do not change borders by force.
You do not reward the aggressor for crimes committed.
You do not trade away another country’s sovereignty to tidy up a messy conflict.
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
Would we accept the same?
Flip the scenario for a moment. Would the UK be expected to give up the Shetland and Orkney Islands if Norway suddenly decided they belonged to them?
Would the US be told to “move on” if China occupied Hawaii and called it a done deal?
Would France accept the loss of Corsica because the Russians decided it had “historic ties” to Moscow?
Of course not. So why should Ukraine?
Trump may dress this up as pragmatism, but it’s just old-school appeasement, updated for a post-Truth world.
And appeasement never works—not with fascists in the 1930s, and not with Putin now.
Zelenskyy isn’t the obstacle to peace – Putin is
Trump has even accused Zelenskyy of blocking peace by refusing to accept US terms. That’s a twisted logic.
Zelenskyy is willing to negotiate. He has already compromised by agreeing to talk while his country is still under attack.
But a ceasefire that leaves Crimea in Russian hands is not a compromise—it’s capitulation.
Let’s remember: it is Ukraine that was invaded. It is Ukraine that is being shelled. And it is Ukraine that is expected—by Trump, at least—to give up territory just to end the violence.
The burden is always on the victim to accommodate the bully. That’s not diplomacy. It’s coercion.
A moment of moral clarity
We should always be wary of giving Keir Starmer too much credit.
His record on key issues—NHS, civil liberties, economic justice—is often muddled at best.
🧡 **Support Vox Political**
If you value independent political journalism that holds power to account — without corporate or party influence — please consider supporting this work. Even £1 helps keep it going.
👉 Support here via Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
But on Ukraine, he’s made the right choice. He’s sided with law over lawlessness, with sovereignty over brute force.
Trump, meanwhile, continues to reveal his own worldview: one where might makes right, and where borders, democracies, and treaties are just chips to be traded.
Let’s hope more leaders follow Starmer’s example here—and not Trump’s. And I don’t get to write that very often!
ADDITIONAL – 3.38am BST, April 25, 2025: There has been some pushback in comments on the article which deserves to be addressed – not only to prevent the piece from being undermined but to ensure that nobody falls prey to falsehoods. At this time, there appear to be five claims, so here they are – with responses:
“Crimea voted to join Russia” – True?
Partial truth, mostly misleading.
Yes, a referendum was held in Crimea in 2014 after Russian forces had already taken control. But it was not a free or fair vote. It was conducted under military occupation, with international observers banned. Even Russia’s own internal reports suggested turnout and support were vastly exaggerated.
The UN and almost every country in the world (except a handful of authoritarian allies) refused to recognise the result.
The idea that “Crimea voted to join Russia” is often repeated but ignores the illegal annexation and violation of international law, including the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia had pledged to respect Ukraine’s borders.
👉 Conclusion: The “vote” is not legitimate under international law. Saying Crimea “voted” to join Russia omits the context of military occupation and coercion.
“Ukraine has been killing Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas since 2014” – True?
There is a nugget of truth here—but wrapped in a distorted narrative.
There has been a war in the Donbas since 2014, but it was triggered by Russian-backed separatists seizing territory and declaring “people’s republics.” Ukraine responded militarily.
Civilian casualties did occur on both sides, and yes, thousands died, but the idea that Ukraine was simply “slaughtering civilians” is a Russian propaganda narrative.
The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), which monitored the conflict, never concluded that Ukraine was committing genocide or targeting civilians as policy. Russia, in fact, blocked many investigations.
👉 Conclusion: The Donbas war was brutal and tragic, but portraying it as one-sided Ukrainian “terrorism” is a distortion that aligns with Kremlin talking points.
“The US orchestrated a coup in 2014 (Euromaidan)” – True?
Misleading conspiracy theory.
The Euromaidan revolution was a popular uprising, sparked by Yanukovych’s sudden U-turn on an EU association deal. Protests involved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.
The US did support the protest movement diplomatically and provided NGO funding, but there is no evidence of a CIA coup. Claiming the entire revolution was US-orchestrated dismisses Ukrainians’ agency and participation.
👉 Conclusion: This is a long-debunked Russian narrative used to delegitimise Ukraine’s post-2014 government.
“Russia intervened to protect Russian speakers and prevent genocide” – True?
No. This is a false justification.
The “genocide” claim was Russia’s main pretext for the 2022 invasion, but it has been rejected by the International Court of Justice.
No credible evidence exists of genocide against Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
The claim that Russia is “preserving life” while invading a sovereign country and launching missile strikes on civilians is, frankly, Orwellian.
👉 Conclusion: This claim is part of Russia’s legal and moral cover story, but it has been internationally debunked.
“Zelensky dismantled workers’ rights and welfare” – True?
This part is more nuanced.
Ukraine has implemented neoliberal reforms, including privatisation and changes to labour laws, under pressure from Western institutions like the IMF.
These reforms are controversial and not universally supported by Ukrainians, particularly on the left.
That said, comparing this to genocide or Russian military occupation is a false equivalence. Criticising Zelensky’s domestic policies is valid—but does not justify territorial invasion.
👉 Conclusion: This part contains valid criticism, but it doesn’t excuse or justify Russia’s actions.
Does it undermine the article?
Not at all. In fact, it reinforces the need for it.
The core message of the article is about the principled position that:
Borders should not be changed by force,
Appeasement emboldens aggressors, and
Ukraine deserves the same right to defend its sovereignty as any other nation.
There is nothing in these criticisms to defeat that.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
We have an Education Secretary who wants to overwrite history with lies