It was as if they invited him to the Whitehouse to set him up for a lecture and scolding. They had no intention of anything other than humiliating him in front of the world. It's shameful what our administration has done.
it was 100% the purpose, but it looks like it worked out badly. They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly prepared for this confrontation. I mean, I just can't imagine anybody staying that cool in front of such provocations.
He did one mistake though, when he asked "Can I speak/say something?" to Trump, and Trump said no. This is lesson learnt for the future (for myself too in terms of public speaking).
But overall, he did rather well, considering the shit-show it was.
I still can't believe Trump publicly tries to humiliate an ally like this, and at the same time calls Biden "the stupid President".
Stupid or not, perhaps he is, but not to stay in public like that. It shows Trump doesn't respect the function of the US President and shits on the vote of the citizens.
I don't think I'd consider that a mistake. Not that it matters to everyone but it's one more asshole thing to know Trump did, which was only publicized because Zelenskyy respectfully asked for his turn to speak. Other leaders are likely to have taken note of that: Trump isn't even pretending that you're equals.
To some common folk, it will make Zelenskyy look weak but also consider this exact thread in which people say his calm demeanor makes him look strong. I'd wager Zelenskyy is interested in impressing the latter folk and not interested in impressing the former.
Yup, I’d wager that given how the meeting had gone thus far, he made the strategic decision to specifically do this. He knew that this would be spun in whatever way Trump wanted, so it was better to win another point with the group that is smart enough to look past the talking points that Trump is going to push onto the media.
> Other leaders are likely to have taken note of that: Trump isn't even pretending that you're equals.
They’re not equals and to pretend otherwise is delusional. One is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. The other is broke and soon to be defenseless.
I love Zelensky and I think he's a hero, but I don't think he did well at all. People think he did well because they love him, but objectively I think he made quite a few mistakes besides the one you mention.
The first one is getting emotional in the first place. His team and Ukraine's intelligence services should have spent weeks interrogating and trying to provoke him in order to desensitize him to this kind of shit. Trump, Vance and Musk are primarily trolls and they should be dealt with as such.
He should not have interrupted Vance answering him either. That was fatal.
He needed to stay calm and slow. He did better than any of us could ever have done, but it wasn't quite enough for this situation. He could have looked a lot stronger and I think we need everything we can possibly get in the situation we're all in right now.
Given the situation, he did stay calm and slow. He did an excellent job trying to keep the cadence measured.
But Trump jumped in angry at the implication that one day Putin will come for the US. That is when Trump stated his machine gun speech … millions will die, world war 3.
This was a shameful day for America. Period. Full stop.
When Trump jumps in like that, it's a real fear he has. Trump is really for real scared of the Russians. Why? Well, one can muster a couple of hypotheses.
He’s not scared of the Russians. He’s scared of the voters thinking they should be scared of the Russians. When Zelenskyy said the Russians will come for America, Trump was angry because he knew it was going to scare voters and lose him support.
Based on the livestream of the incident, I personally think the issue was the lack of a Ukrainian-English translator.
Vance was absolutely trying to score domestic political points by undermining Zelenskyy, but Zelenskyy was unable to communicate or respond in the manner he wanted to, and definetly committed some obvious Russian L1 / English L2 mistakes (Zelenskyy's first language is Russian and this can be seen by his "costume" statement, because the direct translation for suit across the CIS is костюм/costume [0][1][2][3] because of French influence), and he inadvertently insinuated that Trump wasn't doing enough even though he was trying to join Vance in dunking on the previous admin.
This is why the Japan and India meetings with Trump had English translators despite Ishiba and Modi having a similar level of English fluency to Zelenskyy.
may not have been a mistake - I think Z was trying to maintain the high ground and force Trump to act poorly (by saying no); bad optics for Trump (unless you're MAGA)
It is definitely going to become a meme, the way he sat there like a scolded kid while Trump said "No. You've talked a lot today. Look, you're not winning this. You're not gonna win this"
Felt like watching your friend get scolded by his parents when they find a cigarette in his backpack
> Trump doesn’t respect the function of the US President
Probably why people voted for him.
> shits on the vote of the citizens.
yes 4 years ago. But now… can’t really say we didn’t know what we were voting for. I didn’t vote for him, but most of my fellow Americans did, and we gotta live with that, and hope we learn.
- an American citizen who wasn't able to vote in multiple presidential elections due to nonsense like being unregistered without notification in a state with an early registration deadline
I don’t think it was some elaborate ruse… he is a trained actor but his frustration seemed very real. And maybe he shouldn’t have shown it but I do think he was simply reacting to what was unfolding in front of him.
IMO he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Maybe he could have been more professional and statesmanlike but I don’t think it would have earned him a thing. The US strategy seems locked in at this point and it’s a pro-Russia one. He could have really flexed the “deal with a heckler” muscles but the risk is far too great.
European leaders are queuing up to restate their support for Ukraine after this and I think that’s probably the best he could have gotten from it anyway.
> They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly prepared for this confrontation.
The Trump-gang seems to underestimate everyone and everything. I still don't know whether they mean all this excessive behavior for real, or if this is an elusive ploy to divert from something else. Trumps seems to operate by selling big to gain small, but I can't really understand yet what his real long-term goal seems.
But at this point it seems other politicians around the world have got an understanding of him and his behavior and started playing along. I'm curious if Zelenskiy did the same, he certainly gained more from this than if he had been avoided it from the beginning.
The long-term goal is to fix themselves and their family at the top of the social hierarchy just in time before biotech bros discover immortality, thus saving their place permanently in the newly ossified social order. This is the last chance fix it before the true end of history, or some bullshit like that.
That felt really gross to watch. I don't know what else to say that's more high-level thinking and adds to the conversation. A straight up "mean girls" moment.
I'm 61. I never in my life thought we could be in this situation. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." We elected Trump again knowing exactly who he is.
I'm not disappointed in Trump; he remains exactly who I thought he was even before running in 2015. I'm disappointed in how many of my fellow citizens applaud his buffoonery, ignorance, and malice. While Trump himself is not competent, he has surrounded himself with people who can actually do the damage.
To conservatives who are about to say I'm a snowflake liberal, I ask you this: if Biden had invited George Soros to run wild through the government and ignore the laws, demanded a $800B reduction in the military budget and reallocated it to distribute to those in poverty, commanded schools to hire only gay people, fire anyone who didn't declare loyalty to Biden, and had minions collecting all your data for whatever purposes, and threatened to wipe out Israel unless they gave over their country to the Palestinians, what would you have done?
I can't even construct a proper analogy because those goals above are just a parody of what the left wants, whereas Trump/Musk are actually doing that about actual right wing wishes.
How to the ground work was laid leading up to trump getting into office deserves a documentary. He just had to say some memetic/populist words that had been unadressed/supressed/agitated for years leading up
I'm 29 and i voted for trump. I'd like to share my perspective for you to gleam alittle insight into my generation and why we voted for trump.
if Biden had invited George Soros to run wild through the government and ignore the laws, demanded a $800B reduction in the military budget and reallocated it to distribute to those in poverty,
- This sounds awesome. He's got a plan, he executed. If we didn't piss off our allies, we could probably ride on our military spending lorals from decades past. It would probably completely irradicate poverty, if he got the whole 'left' side of silicon valley to start building super cheap sky scrapers for the homeless. it'd be a pretty cool golden age. But here lies the issue... He inacted radical change towards some end, and hired some of the smartest minds in the world to help him enact his policys.
commanded schools to hire only gay people,
-..... Hmmmmm, Sounds like we'd have a complete population collapse in about a single generation. I'm a normal dude, i've had gay friends, trans friends, w/e. But do i disagree with them on that issue? Do i think this should be taught in school at all? no... so yeah, i'd be pretty pissed and i'd homeschool my kid forsure.
fire anyone who didn't declare loyalty to Biden,
Well.... Yeah, i mean, that's how a cabinet works, right? The people voted for the president, so who are you to defy the people? get in line or get out.
and had minions collecting all your data for whatever purposes,
- Well... They hopefully used the data to irradicate the military budget.
and threatened to wipe out Israel unless they gave over their country to the Palestinians, what would you have done?
at 61, i'm suprised in your inability to see the world as... real... with real violence. People seem to forget that a couple generations ago the entire world was imperialistic with a large percentage of the human population as slaves. We are those same people, our evolution didn't change in 250 years. Only with a complete monopoly on violence can you ensure peace between neighbors. This war has been going on for too long and will never end if a complete monopoly of violence is not secured. So honestly, if he came in and ended the war, i don't really care how he'd do it. Pick a side is a side as any. but like... hamas is literally a terrorist organization funded by iran so....
Thank you for your detailed and considered reply. I'm going to push back, but please understand it is my way of understanding your position better. I am not attempting to change your mind.
Having a plan and executing on it is not intrinsically good if the plan itself is corrupt. It is telling that Project 2025 was disavowed by Trump before the election due to its many unpopular goals, but obviously that was a ruse and than plan is being carried out. That doesn't fit your description of it is commendable to carry out that plan.
Many of these plans are just based on pretext. P2025 isn't going to reduce the debt -- the money saved by cutting social services will be rerouted to the military and bankroll tax cuts that are clearly advantageous to the rich. Recall in Trump's first term there was the case of megacorps using accounting tricks (like "the double irish") to avoid paying taxes that were otherwise legally due. Trump gave away an immediate trillion dollars via that amnesty and reduced rates going forward for trillions more. If the real goal was debt reduction, we'd be reverting those tax giveaways and restoring the capital gains tax to a higher level.
"Hmmmmm, Sounds like we'd have a complete population collapse". I agree, as would just about everyone, that such a policy would be bad. But that doesn't address my point: should Biden/Soros be allowed to ignore the laws to do it?
"i mean, that's how a cabinet works" Nobody is upset that Trump is replacing political appointees. The problem is that he is turning apolitical positions into political positions. Should the IRS be staffed with political appointees? The DOJ? The FBI? By claiming for years that he is the victim of a politicalization of the DOJ, it is the pretext for actually politicizing the DOJ.
"hopefully they used the data to irridicate the military budget." First, the military budget is set to increase. Second, why offer him the benefit of the doubt? It is OK he is violating laws just in case he is doing it for good? Half of Trump's former inner circle, lifelong Republicans, refused to endorse him, many expressly saying he is manifestly unfit. The data is that Trump is transactional and is motivated only by self interest.
What would I have done about Gaza? Yes, it is a Gordian knot of conflicting principles. But again, that isn't my point. Biden didn't ask for the cleansing of Israel, unlike Trump who has called for a cleansing of Palestine. Is this playing out like you expected when you voted for Trump? Your response seems to indicate you have bought into the cartoonish version that the right pushes of the conflict: looking only at the violence done to Israel without acknowledging the violence done by Israel. To disclose my position, of course, I don't want bombs falling on the heads of Israelis and Israel has the right to defend itself. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Is your problem that they should behave more honorably? We can help that by giving them billions of dollars annually and giving them some nukes. Sarcasm aside, it is like people complaining about Iraq using IEDs; of course I don't want to see US soldiers blown up, but to complain about them resorting to primitive tricks while we occupy and bomb the crap out of their country is rich.
< the money saved by cutting social services will be rerouted to the military and bankroll tax cuts that are clearly advantageous to the rich.
Biden campaigned on ending those tax cuts. He did not end the tax cuts. These are not new, and these are from trumps first term.
>Second, why offer him the benefit of the doubt? It is OK he is violating laws just in case he is doing it for good?
Can you tell me what laws he violated? have you actually seen the doge website? They are using FPDS-NG which is all public information... They are all vetted and passed a background check.
Finally, on Palestine... Yes, they elected an internationally known criminal organization, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the department of state to run their country. They then murdered a bunch of people at a music festival to give israel all the ammunition it needs. Now it's crying foul because Sharīʿah turns out to be a very evil way to govern yourself. Again, not saying israel is blameless in the last 100 years of fucked up shit that they have done to eachother, but you keep poking a bigger bear, doesn't matter who was wrong, that's not how war works.
How do I know what Trump's administration is going to do in the future? Project 2025 laid it all out. Secondly, a President doesn't directly control the budget -- that is the job of congress. There are some things directly in the purview of the president, but everything else has to be done the "the bully pulpit" via negotiating with congress. So, no Biden could not unilaterally change the law -- he failed to get congress to do it.
Trump is operating on the novel legal theory of the unitary executive -- that the executive branch really has all the power and the other two are subordinate and operate at the will of the President. I don't understand how people can listen to Trump assert this and the the next moment Trump is railing about how Obama broke the law by spying on Trump's campaign. If they really believe "if the president does it, then it is legal" then how could Obama have broken the law.
We aren't entirely sure what he is up to, but clearly allowing unfettered access to Musk's minions, none of whom have clearance, to hover up all data and install who knows what software on the computers of every department is not legal. Clearly, demanding George to "find 11,780 votes" is not legal. Illegally taking top secret documents, lying about having them, actively moving them when the Feds came to collect them, all illegal. Clearly, keeping cooking books and keeping two sets of books in his personal business are not legal. He has taken in tens of millions, possibly billions, despite the emoluments clause (the open extortion of media companies in the first case, the pump and dump trump crypto coin, the suspect investments from Qatar and others into Kusher's failing real estate deals).
Humiliating people does appear to be a common theme with the administration, one just has to look at the photo they put out after winning with RFK and the McDonald's takeout on airforce one. Also all the women jockeying for various positions getting plastic surgery, looking like an army of botox'd stepford wives. I'm no armchair psychoanalyst so I can't tell you what it means. Just that it's very.. apparent and intentional.
I think it was disgusting what Trump and Vance did, but I don't believe for a second that everyone will view it that way. The 40% that voted for them will view this as an ass whooping Trump/Vance gave Zelensky. They're all in on the grift, there's no reason this will turn them off.
Now, if SS or Medicaid is gutted... that will be the turning point for this admin.
> Now, if SS or Medicaid is gutted... that will be the turning point for this admin.
They are in the process of being gutted ... but Trump, Musk and the right wing media will spin it as being Biden's fault, and those same people will accept it as gospel truth.
Indirectly, yes. They're trying to make the administration of SS and Medicaid fail. Do they have the balls to make a frontal assault? We'll see.
Either way, it's going to be interesting to see them blame any problems on Biden.
I wonder if Trump got Elon in to do the axing just so he could blame him if his base turns on him. Remember the first cabinet meeting? He made a joke about firing Elon. To me, that was a reminder to everyone who is in charge. Also, Elon didn't even have a chair at the table. What a power play.
I’m in that 40% and I think today was fantastic. It lets people see what these things are really like.
Zelensky came to the USA to sign an already agreed-to minerals deal that would have (eventually) paid back the billions of dollars they’ve received. There were no additional security guarantees. No further agreements. This was back pay. And it was agreed to before he left Ukraine.
He reneged, got called out for demanding further security guarantees, thought he could bluff them into agreeing to more, and summarily got his ass handed to him on live TV. Trump is not the one that tried to change the deal.
The real moment of the day was when Trump asked him point blank if he even wants a ceasefire. And he couldn’t say yes.
You can’t end a war diplomatically if there’s no will to stop fighting and accept peace. For lack of a better term, Ukraine is in a shit position. Billions more dollars will not change that, it will just cost more blood.
If people think the situation and accepting the current positions is bad now, just wait to see how bad it will be when the USA weapons spigot gets turned off.
Considering America signed the Budapest Memorandum pledging to assure security in Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine to hand over its nuclear weapons to Russia... all this is going to do is spur countries no longer reliably protected by the US to develop their own nuclear weapons.
I think the risk of nuclear war in the future just went up.
If I steal half your house, kill one of your children, and then ask for a cease fire, while I still get your kitchen and living room - what are your thoughts?
Would you be mad if you gave up your guns and your neighbor promised to protect you and then he said, unless you give me your back yard, I'm not helping, I know we had an agreement, but oh well, good luck on your own?
Why would you want to enter another agreement with this neighbor when he's already opportunistically screwing you over on existing agreement?
The tertiary definition of "diplomatic" is "employing tact and conciliation especially in situations of stress". That means acting calmly and rationally in the types of insane situations that you're describing.
Nobody is saying Zelensky and Ukraine should be happy with where they've ended up. War is terrible and the desire for revenge or retribution will never subside. Diplomacy is putting aside that raw emotion to get the best deal you can, working with the situation that you have.
For them to come to USA to sign an agreement, renege, demand more, and create a spectacle in front of the cameras, is incredibly non-diplomatic. You can see it on the face of the Ukrainian ambassador: https://www.newsweek.com/photo-ukrainian-ambassador-amid-tru...
That minerals deal was going to be the first step toward peace. But Zelensky royally fucked it up. And the only way to fix it is going to be for him to come groveling back or step down so someone else can do the groveling. And that's not a desire of mine, that's the reality of the situation. Their country is broke and will run out of ammo in six months without further assistance. As Trump said during the call, he has no cards to play.
> That minerals deal was going to be the first step toward peace.
No, it was the first step toward conceding everything to Russia, also conceding to an outrageously overzealous US (for reasons unclear to anyone outside the Trump bubble), with a guaranteed future war with zero protections.
If they wanted to give Russia everything they wanted, they could've done that years ago, and not given up minerals to the US.
Diplomacy has been tried multiple times before, even with security guarantees from the usa. Still Putin invaded. There can not be lasting peace without actual guarantees (for which use is not even a trustworthy party anymore). Because Putin will rebuild and invade again as he did after the last time.
This is what Zelensky tried to explain to Vance before the discussion blew up.
> The real moment of the day was when Trump asked him point blank if he even wants a ceasefire. And he couldn’t say yes.
The reason why he didn't answer is because the answer is meaningless. Putin won't respect a cease fire. And if you think he would, you are completely clueless about the history of that region and what has already transpired. The "guarantee" that Putin gave that he would not invade if Ukraine gave back their nukes. That promise was ignored in 2014 when he took Crimea.
As for the rest of your reply: I assume you are discussing this in good faith and you're not trolling. If the US withdraws support and Ukraine falls to Russia, what do you think will happen after that? Is the rest of Europe (east and west) safe from further incursions?
Some people only care about simple stuff. You know like partying or having fun? US Government being a shit show? War stuff happening halfway across the planet? Some people don't care about that. They don't care if the government they are in is a democracy or a dictatorship. Some people just want to smoke weed everyday, play video games, fish, travel, spend time with family, or get laid... If the current government (whatever shape or form it is) isn't preventing them from doing what it is they want to do, then they don't really care. And reality is, there's a lot of such folks who's pursuits are rather unaffected by the current state of affairs, even if they're large amounts who are. You might think that they should care, and reasonably so, but fact is, some won't until it actually is (too late).
> But will the American people see what the rest of the world sees, or will they continue supporting Trump and Vance?
Attributed to (the half-American) Winston Churchill: "The American people can be counted on to do the right thing — after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
It is consistently misattributed to Churchill and misquoted to be about Americans. The quote is actually from Abba Eban, and what he said was, "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives."
I honestly don't think there's anything Trump could do to lose the support of his MAGA base. There have been so many times when I've said "surely they'll see what he is now" only to be mistaken. It's truly a cult.
Trump and MAGA people are really 'till death do us part.....
The people that suffered the most from the first Trump administration are the white republicans: they died because they did not want to be vaccinated against COVID nor wear masks. In 2024 white republicans voted for Trump even though they were personally hurt by Trump's COVID advice.
One of my friends is a Trump supporter who almost died of COVID (he got intubated!!). His wife also got COVID. Never you mind: both of them voted for Trump in 2024.
Right, short of his actions resulting in them being fired, losing medicare or other direct impact, there is no way they will change course, they are too deep in to the grift.
That assumes that Trump, Musk and the right wing media won't spin that as Biden's fault, and that Trump is "working on something better". They will, and they will believe him.
It 100% looks like they were planning to force a confrontation. Notice how all the escalation is them, they start escalating over basically nothing, and they keep trying to crank up the temperature while Zelenskyy's keeping things nice and even. This didn't happen the last couple times world leaders made far more confrontational statements in a similar setting, but also Vance wasn't there to provide emotional support those times and, well, there are some common sayings about the actual nature of a bully.
I think Zelenskyy didn't give them the sound-bites or vibe they were looking for, but they're claiming some kind of victory (WTF) on social media anyway. Meanwhile all they managed to do was look some combination of stupid, childish, and traitorous, while he came out looking incredibly restrained, and overall more-articulate than them despite the handicap of speaking in English rather than his native tongue.
Sounds like when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and destroyed Tucker Carlson who had attempted to escalate and get angry. And Jon was like "this is theater."
First he wanted to hold Stewart to journalistic standards as a comedian that Carlson was not meeting as an actual journalist and got utterly destroyed in response. He then called for an emergency commercial break, and after the break tried to bait Stewart for not being funny in their interview, despite being completely responsible for the topic. Got utterly destroyed again, and their show got cancelled.
If the past 20 years have taught us anything, including Carlson's history since that segment, it's that this kind of "destroyed" (see also: "destroyed" on Twitter) is not a remotely useful kind of "destroyed", no matter how plain and thorough the destruction.
Tucker got so destroyed that he went onto make 10s of millions a year at Fox, for years, and now he gets to interview fascist skull measurers all day on Twitter.
I disagree that it looked like a planned confrontation and that all the escalation is on Trump and Vance
Vance made a comment about the US' goal to be diplomatic.
Zelensky speaks up and says he wants to ask Vance something. He then goes on to talk about how Putin annexed Crimea and that between 2014 - 2022 Putin was murdering Ukrainian citizens and ignoring cease fires. He mentioned that nobody did anything to stop Putin, implying that Trump didn't do anything during his first term in office. Then Zelensky ends with something along the lines of "so what do you mean diplomacy" to Vance.
Even if Zelensky's statements were correct, that was not a wise course of action to attempt to call out the President and VP while you're in the Oval office. The meeting erupts from there.
Regardless of how you feel about the current administration, it is a fact that Ukraine has been dependent on the US' aid. I don't know what Zelensky expected to gain from those statements.
What would Ukraine gain from a deal where they give up their natural resources in exchange for a pinky promise between an invading dictator and his 'wanna-be dictator' friend to allow Ukraine to remain an independent country?
What did the USA gain by giving billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine?
My understanding is that the mineral deal is back pay. And if the development is going to be done by American firms, then of course there’s a security alignment for the USA.
The dumb move of the day was on the part of Zelensky thinking he could somehow expand things at the last moment or on live TV.
We destroyed half of Russia’s military without shedding American lives. We defended the principle that people should govern themselves and not be dominated by force.
If other large powers stop being afraid of the US, and if allies can't trust the US, then the US will lose its status and the losses from that are probably a lot more than the billions given to Ukraine.
His point, which he made very clearly, was not criticism of the US; it was distrust that Putin would honor a ceasefire. Zelensky explained that diplomacy is not enough, asking what diplomacy alone will accomplish with someone who doesn't honor their deals.
Vance took it in a really weird direction, first pushing "the kind of diplomacy that is going to save your country", then accusing Zelensky of not saying thank you (despite him having said thank you several times that very meeting?).
The reporters reiterated Zelensky's point, asking what Trump would do if Putin breaks the deal, and Trump just shoots down the possibility, saying he doesn't think it would happen and the possibility isn't worth considering. "What if a bomb drops on your head right now". His only justification being that Trump is president and Putin wouldn't do that to Trump.
Zelensky needs guarantees or the ceasefire isn't worth it to him, so it's fair for him to push back on the lack of guarantees even at the risk of annoying Vance. But they snapped back at him in a very unreasonable way.
I agree that Zelensky's main point was definitely that Putin can't be trusted.
But, he also highlighted a couple of times that that no one did anything to stop Putin which implies that the US didn't do anything. Which could be taken as criticism. Also, ending his statements with "So what do you mean diplomacy" is clearly a snarky response.
The fact is Zelensky has no leverage. He was given aid from the US, apparently as a grant. The US has no obligation to help Ukraine. My understanding is that the aid was given to Ukraine in the hopes that it would weaken Russia. That gamble doesn't appear to be working.
If he didn't like the terms of the deal, it should have been discussed in private, before coming to the US. Instead, he chose to push back in a public forum. So I don't feel the response he got was unwarranted.
An analogy that comes to mind is helping out a friend that just lost their job. You give them money and a place to stay and over time the friend starts to feel entitled to your generosity. Eventually, you get tired of it and give them a deadline to find their own place. Then during dinner with a group of friends, they complain to the table that you only gave them 3 months left to stay instead of 6...
I got carried away with the analogy and of course it doesn't capture the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, but I feel like it captures the core sentiment.
That's not really true. His leverage is that it's also in the interests of the US to maintain norms in which territorial conquest is not rewarded. "Crime doesn't pay". He also attempted to convince the US of this but was brushed off.
Looking at it as a one-off situation in which the US doesn't have any interest results in it not being a one-off situation, because if Ukraine loses then everyone starts itching to take land from their neighbours. And everyone else starts arming themselves with nukes, having seen what Ukraine got for giving them up. That's the path to World War 3. And the US might realize then, with regret, that it was easier to plug the dam when the crack was small.
Trump doesn't understand this. He made it clear that he doesn't see it as an iterated game, just a one-off. Or perhaps he's the one who wants to establish norms of taking over neighbours with force?
As for an analogy, a better example is that your friend's house is being broken into by a notorious gang of criminals threatening the neighborhood, and his children have been picked off one by one, and he's knocking at your door screaming "I'll hold them off if you can pass me some more ammo!", and you're haggling him down for his furniture.
When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US was happy to send the Taliban weapons. That wasn't for love or charity. It was American self-interest. So is this.
I suppose its arguable that it wasn't the most diplomatic thing to say in the moment. But I can't fault the guy for pointing out the undiplomatic behavior while his country is being squeezed by Russia and US (wrt mineral rights). How frustrating it must be to hear "have you tried diplomacy?" in the context of an invading force.
Oh wow, makes sense that the video was clipped. The first video I clicked had the entire segment so I guess I got lucky.
I can understand his frustration as well. But, he's a leader at war and lives of his men depend on his actions. The moment is much much bigger than him.
It was an absolutely fair question. Trump and Vance are saying let’s solve it with diplomacy. Zelenskyy provides facts confirming the impossibility of doing diplomacy in good faith. Agreements don’t have any value when history shows the other party not respecting the agreements. So, “what kind of diplomacy you mean?” is a fair question.
Vance’s answer “I mean the kind of diplomacy that would save your country” is a meaningless bullshit sentence.
He's trying to make the point that they can't talk peace without material guarantees of security from their allies as part of the deal, which guarantees are absent from the White House's agreement, because they just had an agreement without such guarantees shit all over by Putin, so it's, you know, kinda pointless to do that again. It's making concessions on paper for no guarantee of peace, with an adversary that's already broken a similar agreement, leading to this very conflict. Why make concessions with no guarantee of security in return, when there's zero reason to believe Russia will keep their word? He actually manages to get most of that explanation out, in between interruptions and non sequitur digs from the other two.
The difference between this and the more confrontational corrections of Trump's bullshit in similar situations recently, by Macron and Trudeau, is stark. Trump and Vance were primed to pounce.
Remember that Z has to answer to the people of Ukraine. People who have been dying in defense of their borders -- and a volunteer army, not conscripts, mind you.
He wanted/needed American aid, but there was no way he could just go in there and kiss the ring, while being slandered as the aggressor and letting Putin off the hook. There's no way that would fly for his people back home -- remember that they are as much of an audience as the Americans.
His best outcome was peace with security guarantees (not on offer from the White House—who knows what might have happened if anyone else had been invited to these patently absurd two-party talks, to maybe sweeten the deal for Ukraine? Christ, how ridiculous).
Failing that, this is a pretty good outcome, in the scheme of things. He outed Trump as a committed Russian ally, not behind closed doors, but on international television so nobody (who matters in this context, I mean world leaders, not Trump voters) can ignore it. He may have just kicked over the final leg holding up the American-centered security apparatus, in such a shocking and spectacular fashion that others will be compelled to form a new one without us, which is something they absolutely need if they're going to keep fighting and the US is withdrawing support. They need other countries not to follow America's lead.
Yeah it might actually get Europe to take matters into their own hands (which Trump would see as a win for the US but which is long term very much a loss for the US). It also might push the EU more towards China. In fact if I were China right now I’d start making overtures to Europe.
> did the us held elections while world war 2 was happening?
> Elections were held on November 7, 1944, during the final stages of World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was easily re-elected to an unprecedented fourth term, and the Democratic Party retained their majorities in both chambers of Congress.
Their course of action was bullshit. "Sure, diplomacy has failed you the last four times, and we've interfered plenty. So why not try it a fifth time?"
They expected Zelensky to be Charlie Brown kicking the football.
We have no fucking right to the "mineral rights" in Ukraine.
Zelensky used to be a stand-up comedian. He has plenty of experience thinking on his feet in front of a tough audience of drunks and fools.
I'm wondering what all the people in the US military and government who swore to protect the US from "all enemies, foreign and domestic" are thinking now.
I disagree. If you watch the entire 50-minute video [1], everything was going very smoothly until the final question. If Trump and Vance had intended to provoke Zelenski, why would they have spent the first ~40 minutes chatting with him amicably and only become heated in response to one specific remark he made at the end?
Even worse with Kaja Kallas, she flew into US and Rubio cancelled the meeting. Not sure if she was supposed to meet Trump or not but that's still a case of US bullying its allies all the while sucking up to Putin.
The spat started when Vance made a point addressed to the US media (not Zelensky), and Zelensky interjected to confront Vance for his statement.
Up until that point there had been 40 minutes of cordial discussion. I don't think it was intended that the talks would break down and the deal would fall through.
Richard Hanania believes that we should repeal large portions of the Civil Rights Act and has previously posted extreme racial hatred on white supremacist websites.
But frankly in today's world where we've got people making serious decisions in government who are avowed segregationists I think it is rather important to mention when people oppose the Civil Rights Act when considering their opinion on political news.
Hanania's opinions here are not one weird quirk. They are central to the modern GOP's project.
I am sorry, but this is stupid. You brought an argument on the basis that it comes from a neutral source. Turns out, it was not a neutral source. What do you do: hide the source.
Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
I was not leaning on the credibility of this person in any way except to say that it changed his mind on this one specific issue.
When a reply mentioned unrelated past statements from the same person, it was clear that they wanted to tar the statement by association rather than discuss it substantively.
And I think that you should be immensely skeptical of what somebody like Hanania is trying to do to your mind and beliefs.
I believe that mentioning that he is a virulent racist who is actively seeking a much more brutal and unjust world is critical to the substance of his other political writing. These are not unrelated statements.
I initially saw just the latter part of the meeting where the conflict happens and it seemed like a premeditated thing, but after finding a video that shows the meeting from the beginning[1], I agree that it comes across differently.
It seems like they were having a pretty good meeting, right up until Vance decides to interject his stupid talking points, and then the exchange between Vance and Zelensky gets Trump to launch into his bizarre grievance tirade. It's like dementia was in full-self-driving mode and had no brakes.
Maybe Vance got what he wanted out of this meeting, but I could plausibly believe that Trump wasn't planning for it to blow up like this -- he just didn't have the level of self-control or self-awareness to stop himself. Which isn't exactly a good look either.
What did Vance say addressed to the media that Zelensky shouldn't have responded to? I've watched the video a few times and I don't really get what you're talking about
In the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o), at 38:15 you can see the press ask a question that Trump (and then Vance) are responding to, directly prior to where your video begins.
Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all.
Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
JD basically said "why don't we try diplomacy?" and Zelensky rightfully pointed out that they have already tried for multiple years, including a full ceasefire agreement in 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements). Then Russia invaded Ukraine and tried to takeover the whole country. Either Vance has no idea what he's talking about or he wanted to provoke Zelensky.
Also, Vance's claim that Trump is the first one to actually engage in diplomacy is pretty wild, considering that Trump called Zelensky a dictator and essentially succumbs to all of Putin's demands, going so far as to side with Russia in the UN.
I didn't say that it was inaccurate or invalid per se, only that he made the decision to pick a fight on live TV in what was previously a cordial conversation, and this (to me) strongly refutes the idea that Trump and Vance intentionally set this up to humiliate Zelensky.
I see that. However, it seems weird to broadcast this whole negotiation/talk/hour itself. Even the parts before that weren't really insightful or well formatted. It seems unprofessional and embarrassing for the US to do it in this way, even without the eventual climax.
We should broadcast everything all branches of government do all the time, across thousands of channels so that the people can watch it all and make their own decisions on everything. Now that's transparency.
What tripped my spider sense is these two comments from Trump:
TRUMP: "But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long."
TRUMP: "All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television."
I just watched Trump greet Zelensky entering the Whitehouse with words like "and he even got all dressed up", foreshadowing Tulsi Gabbard's journalist boyfriend asking Z why he doesn't wear a suit.
It was definitely a planned media ambush intended to undermine support for Z and Ukraine.
I've watched the whole video and Vance was asked a question about diplomacy in the Ukraine war, the idea that Zelensky doesn't get to respond to that while he's sitting in the room seems absurd. Why have him there if he can't give his opinion on diplomacy in Ukraine?
If he was asked a question on American politics I would tend to agree but this is Americans here espousing their views on Ukrainian politics and then expecting to not hear the Ukrainian side to it.
Zelensky is negotiating continued American support for Ukraine. He can respond to whatever he wants, but if he's picking a fight publicly with the administration's position in a delicate multi-party negotiation, that can end up impacting his ability to get the support he needs.
His point that Russia has not abided by previous agreements is well-taken. Clearly any future cease fire will need better enforcement provisions. But this is putting the cart before the horse: the deal that should have been signed today was not a cease fire, it was a mineral rights agreement. If and when a cease fire is on the table that Zelensky feels will be unenforceable, then he can criticize its provisions.
I don't really view Zelensky here as picking a fight. He was not really belligerent, if I was him I would've been livid at the things they were saying for the exact reasons Zelensky pointed out (and that's if ignoring how they were lecturing on diplomacy when they've spent the last couple months undermining his negotiation positions). I will admit it was a mistake for him to talk in this way but not because there's anything inherently wrong about it, just that Trump loves having his ass kissed and does not handle disagreement in a calm manner. It all seems more embarrassing for Trump and Vance than anything else
I am okay letting Ukraine make their own decisions about their people and their land and willing to help them fight for their country. If someone invaded the US I would definitely fight before I gave it up so I don't begrudge someone wanting to keep their country (I'm always a bit surprised at Americans who expect them to want to give up. Where I grew up a lot of people owned guns and fantasized about fighting the good fight, whether against foreign tyranny or domestic. I've even seen people with a "Give me liberty or give me death" signs up in their house).
All that being said though it doesn't change anything about how the meeting went down. I've been lucky enough where I've literally never worked at a place where that would've been acceptable behavior, I've seen people talked to for less. To do that then double down more later was pretty embarrassing. Zelensky pushing back on their view on diplomacy in Ukraine didn't seem like a particular insult to me to make the meltdown make sense.
as sorta an aside: I was especially confused about them getting mad at Zelensky for telling them how to feel but as a native English speaker saying "you're going to feel it" means more you're going to feel the effects not you're going to feel a specific emotion (like after a hard workout at the gym if someone told me "you're going to feel it tomorrow" it would then be really weird for me to interpret that as them telling me how to feel emotionally). Trump responding he was going to feel strong was surreal and confusing to me. Especially with Zelensky as a non-native speaker it was weird to see Trump be the one struggling more with language. I can sorta understand agreeing with Trump politically but I just don't see how that was an acceptable or even normal way to react.
Anyway, that's a long post. I've watched the whole video and watching it just makes me feel like I've been taking crazy pills so I've thought about it a lot today.
Edit: and I forgot the whole thanking thing. Zelensky famously has thanked the US for aid and it seems like something they should know (even I was aware of it and confused while watching the video). But then Vance just pivoted to being mad about something else. Like people are talking about this like it's a policy dispute but I feel like I just watched some someone's villain arc on "The Bachelor", they seemed like reality TV characters.
> I am okay letting Ukraine make their own decisions about their people and their land
Sure. They can do what they want and so can we. We don’t owe them anything. And honestly, in a way we’re just enablers at this point. We’re enabling them to fight on and enabling them to pointless throw away more lives.
You're contradicting yourself. To maximize that peace and protection of human lives you need real security guarantees, otherwise there will just be a small break before the conquering starts again.
I've watched it. I disagree. Zelensky calmly and reasonably asked JD Vance a question regarding his answer to the reporter. It was all fine until Vance started with the "frankly I think it's very disrespectful" line. HE decided to escalate. What Zelensky asked was reasonable and pretty in character for him. They know he's uncompromising with dealing with Putin. The _diplomatic_ position is to understand both sides and mediate, not to try to get one of the sides to bow down to their aggressor.
watched it once, this is what I saw (Vance suddenly antagonizing Zelensky as if to entrap a known hothead), and then followed by the two sly comments from Trump "that’s why I kept this going so long" and "this is going to be great television"
This guy is a probably a Russian bot. He talks like Ukraine was 2 minutes away from a victory and Zelenskyy just needed to stfu for 30 more seconds to get it.
I think they did, but they didn’t expect Zelensky to punch back. He’s more of a fighter than either of them will ever be. Trump is the classic bully where all you need to do is push back. Then he folds.
Zelensky has nothing to lose at this point. If he takes the deal Trump proposed Ukraine will be paying the US and Russia for having been invaded in 2014 and again in 2022. And let’s not ignore the fact it was the US was propping up the politicians suggesting joining NATO and not renewing the lease on Sevastopol in 2015.
That is the real disgrace. This was a setup from day 1. A win-win to degrade Russia either way at Ukraine's expense.
I wish Zelensky made those points instead. "The US voted to open a NATO path for us, The US asked not to renew the base, and the US refused to negotiate with Russia when tanks were on our boarder. And now you want to walk away?"
Because after bribing Trump with the ability to brag that he won the USA 500B of minerals, they will be able to march in without any US interference...
Are you asking people to read the mind of Putin? Or speculate? It seems reasonable to believe that at the very least Putin wants the territory he attempted to take when he first invaded, Kyiv et.al.
Because both Ukraine and Russia have changed? Ukraine is war torn, deeply in debt, and no longer provides the strategic benefit to Russia it might’ve in ‘22. Russia’s economy and populace needs to recover from being war-oriented.
They have their land bridge to Crimea now, and if I had to speculate, they’d be happy with a neutered neighbor that can’t join NATO, essentially a populated DMZ. I can’t see what benefit in wanting to take Ukraine on again after the dragged out meat grinder it was this time around.
> Ukraine is war torn, deeply in debt, and no longer provides the strategic benefit to Russia it might’ve in ‘22.
Expanded access to the Black Sea and natural gas/minerals were and still are very important to Russia. Aside from these, a total victory would allow Putin to cement himself as a conqueror in Russian history books.
I'd suggest the US, because they propped up the Ukrainian politicians who started saying it out loud they would join NATO (a big No-No since the fall of the URSS) and not renew the lease on Sevastopol (Russia's only naval base that operates throughout the year), but I'd settle with Russia, because, after all, they were first to cross the border with tanks.
I think Europe will see this as a clear sign that Trump just attacked one of their own. I would not be surprised if the EU nations soon call a conclave to discuss establishing a new compact for self defense (and economic interest) that EXCLUDES the US. If this does come to pass, then yes, Trump and all of America will have lost.
This bright shining revelation of just how ugly and stupid Trumpism truly is (and America, by proxy) may realign world powers for decades, to our great loss.
That is an entirely different claim than "trump folds" if anyone pushes back, which doesnt seem at all accurate to me. If anything, he digs in his heels.
The only things that seem to sway him is the sentiment of his voters and the economy.
Bully or not, I think the entire schoolyard theory that bullies fold when pushed back is bunk, cartoon logic. Did Russia give up and go home when Ukraine pushed back?
It sure is awesome having a president where whenever they say anything that's obviously false, it's a toss-up whether it's dishonesty, senility, or just plain ignorance.
As sarcastic as this is and scary at the same time, when you’re right you’re right. Accountability is such a vapid concept in American discourse it is snipping the last vestiges of social contract between leaders and, well, those they claim to lead. Fear and loathing for what may come.
IMO it’s not a toss up, it’s just dishonesty. After a certain point we have to call a spade a spade.
Hell, even Trump supporters know it. Half the reason I’ve heard for that vote is that they know, and are relying on, Trump lying about various things.
Why vote for someone you know to be a liar? Not sure, but I did learn that non-Trump supporters generally take him much more at his word than Trump supporters.
Also fun, one reason can become another. Remember the sharpie-modified hurricane map? That could start as ignorance - he didn't have specific information on a threat to Alabama, but inferred it from a misjudgment of the information he did have. It could also be senility - he was given good information but he is unable to accurately or reliably retrieve it.
And then it became dishonesty when in the face of plenty of evidence to his being incorrect, he chooses to go on national TV and show a map modified with a marker, insisting he was right all along and no, it is the meteorologists who are wrong.
IMO, taking personal shots or in this case escorting Zelensky out because he pushed back is folding. That's not strength, it's petulant child energy who didn't get their way. You saw the same thing in the debates over crowd size.
Only American MAGA supporters saw Zelensky being humiliated.
Anybody else saw Vance and Trump humiliating themselves. Showing the intellectual and emotional capacity of a middle schooler to the world while a man whose people are suffering occupation and mass casualties and deals with death every day just looks stunned.
To anybody with critical thinking skills it feels like Trump & Vance are talking about a TV show or video game. Completely disconnected from reality. Horrifying and shocking level of narcissistic immaturity.
They 100% set him up. A new block in the wall of proving that Trump is a Russian asset or dupe. I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn by anyone paying attention. He consistently kisses up to Putin with little love messages via Fox news and other outlets, while doing his best to alienate the rest of the world. It would be different if he just washed his hands of the whole situation, however he always looks up to Putin and refuses to call him a dictator, I reckon because he was told that he would regret it if he ever did from his Russian contacts.
this seems like a misread. we get something out of sending resources to Ukraine. it's a decently-leveraged way to keep Russia, a would-be superpower, down for the next decade or so, to keep bleeding her without bleeding our own young men.
we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die. to deploy boots-on-the-ground forces for what amounts to a minor territorial war in a country with limited strategic importance beyond being a buffer state. smells too strongly of vietnam and korea.
to those who disagree with this, alright that's a fair position to hold. what number of young Americans is it appropriate for us to sacrifice to hold the donetsk and luhansk oblasts? how many of our children should we send to die? which number is reasonable and which is too great? if you don't believe there's a limit, and we should risk any number of Americans and potential nuclear exchange, why?
the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out. then zelensky decided to, at the eleventh hour, push for a full security deal which isn't tenable from where we stand. this wasn't what had been discussed with Rubio; it was a bait-and-switch pressure tactic. zelensky was trying to either squeeze out that guarantee or humiliate the admin with failure coming from what otherwise would have been successful.
i think the constant lionization of zelensky has gone to his head. he feels confident in disrespecting nations who have invested significant resources in the war by refusing to so much as dress for the occasion, expecting the sort of standing ovation the prior administration and european leaders gave him. i can respect someone who's fighting for causes i generally support, as can most of my countrymen, but zelensky is no holy warrior and we have no moral duty to offer unlimited resources and manpower. we have aligned interests, but if not for that, there are more than enough domestic US issues that we otherwise would not (nor should we) send the sort of resources we have. similar thing with Israel: we have strongly overlapping interests but she needs to mind her place and toe the line if she wants our support.
> we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die.
This is a straw man: nobody asked you to.
> the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out
There was nothing fair in that mineral deal: the US would get resources and Ukraine was getting... nothing. No security guarantees, no military support, nothing. Trump said it himself: he wanted it to get back what the US spent helping Ukraine so far.
it's not a straw man. the security guarantees zelensky requested and used to hold up the deal extend to that.
US state dep't lawyers have generally understood "security assurance" to mean that we won't violate someone's territorial integrity, while "security guarantee" implies the use of military force to defend the security of a nation and her territorial integrity. unless and until we have a fully-autonomous military, this does, in fact, necessitate putting American servicemen at risk of death. this is why i think your analysis is a misread of the situation; i haven't seen media report this distinction well and it's hard to keep track of which treaty terms are vague sympathies with a general direction of action and which promise specific actions.
it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent and to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid they still want. since we are already well into the twelve figures w.r.t. aid to Ukraine it seems pretty reasonable. but i don't particularly think a minerals deal is worth sending young men to die halfway across the world in a border war over land the size of west virginia.
the saudi king was in his own cultural formalwear. the pope did the same. if zelensky wanted to dress down and call it "cultural formalwear", he should have tried an adidas tracksuit. what he did was simple disrespect. it's not the end of the world but i think he owes us more than this "great value steve jobs" routine. i dress better than that for a normal workplace.
"parroting russian talking points" isn't a good response or critique. i don't read RT or alt-right twitter. i agree we have some interest in keeping russia contained and it's generally a good move to put resources behind that. i do not think there's this odd moral obligation to do whatever it takes and back ukraine to the hilt. this is sort of a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know just made a good point" situation.
Given Ukraine has now been invaded multiple times by Russia it seems entirely right and reasonable for it to ask for guarantees, and not an imposition if the other nation was truly an Ally, in the formal definition of the word, no?
it seems like a huge imposition to ask someone to kick off a great power war that would likely leave millions of her children dead, yes. that's true in any case, but especially when one's entire geopolitical relevance is as a border state. not all alliances are or must be "we will do literally anything possible to protect your territorial integrity". it probably wouldn't make sense for us to make such an alliance since our territorial integrity hasn't been threatened in substance since the war of 1812. and because such an alliance would be a charity program where we give away young American lives to enable one political entity, rather than another, to govern scraps of low-value land an ocean and a continent away.
the whole "sending ukraine materiel is going to cause WWIII" thing is sort of bs russian propaganda. the idea that direct American military intervention isn't risking that is very much not.
again, how many Americans do you think it's appropriate for their own government to sign up to die for this cause? i think the number is zero. if you think it's higher, i'd very much like to understand why and how many you think is a reasonable number. i understand it'd be a ballpark figure, not a bright line, but i'd like at least an order of magnitude grasp of what people think is appropriate and why they think so.
By your own admission a defensive security guarantee will "kick off a great power war..." which is a way of saying Russia can't be trusted to keep the peace, no? Not that I disagree but I'm not sure it's as strong an argument against Ukraine's request as you think it is. It may have even been part of Neville Chamberlain's notes on the subject.
the chamberlain/weimar comparison is inaccurate for this case. germany was an ascendant power; russia is a crippled one. the war was actually a great investment because it's decimated russia's military population and stores of materiel and cut her off from the world enough to severely damage her economy. it will take substantial time for her to rebuild.
you can make a "what about czechoslovakia/poland/nazis" argument about heavy intervention in what would otherwise be any proxy war. you say czechoslovakia, i say vietnam, i say korea, i say the middle east.
the American interest in this war isn't so much "we love the ukraine" as "this is an effective way to cripple russia for the next decade by proxy". by doing so, we avoid that situation in a much smarter way than chamberlain. and because russia wasn't in that great of a spot to start with, a protracted war of attrition is really bad for her.
are you suggesting we should begin a war against russia, historically a massively losing proposition, over a couple oblasts of the ukraine? again, how many americans should we send off to die? how much should we weaken our resources for a much more concerning conflict with china?
> it's not a straw man. the security guarantees zelensky requested and used to hold up the deal extend to that.
It does not. Europe has been willing to send troops on the ground. The guarantee from the US could be in the form of equipment, air interdiction, etc. Note the the US already had guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty when it gave up its nukes. So no new treaty should even be necessary if the US only stuck to its words.
> it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent
No repayment was expected when the aid was given, otherwise it would have been given as loans.
Do you ask for repayment 2 years after giving people gifts? I would hate to be at your Christmas gathering.
> to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid
That's not how treaties work. You put, IN WRITING, something you agree to do and the other sides does too.
If Ukraine commits to give something while the US "feels good" about maybe doing something (or not, who knows?), that's not fair.
> what he did was simple disrespect
Musk holds conferences in the oval office in T-shirt and MAGA cap while his child scolds the president. Nobody stepped in to ask where was his suit, and certainly not the president.
a security guarantee necessitates a response adequate to maintain territorial integrity. i.e. in the current scenario we'd be obligated to send troops to stop the war of attrition and reverse the russian advance (which has continued since last year, if slowly.) that is precisely what zelensky wants. unfortunately for him, i don't value the ukraine enough to condemn my friends to go bleed out in an eastern european border state.
no repayment was demanded when the aid was given, true. however, the US changes leadership, and therefore policy, on a semi-regular basis. the condition of future aid is that past and future aid should be repaid to some extent, in some manner, at some point. rather than demanding cash or structuring a loan, the US proposed to find something else that would benefit both sides. implying that hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer dollars, at a time when boomer welfare is already bleeding the country dry, is equivalent to a Christmas gift is ridiculous. i think it was De Gaulle who said countries don't have friends, they have interests; foreign aid is a strategic tool and that alone, because the U.S. federal government is not a charitable organization.
you say "that's not how treaties work"; I say undeveloped nations have a long, long history of taking and later failing to repay loans from America or proxy organizations such as the IMF. if you're suggesting we restructure this as a loan, that seems like a monumentally poor investment, not to mention draining cash from a nation trying to rebuild is a similarly poor idea.
where did i say i approved of Musk's actions? i believe trump complemented zelensky's outfit today. i don't really care about what trump thinks of zelensky, musk, or anyone else's choice of presentation. i am not donald trump. i am saying i think it is disrespectful, doubly so given that he came calling with his hand out, again.
The point of the security guarantee is to ensure peace after a ceasefire. It doesn't make any sense to suggest US troops will be responsible for stopping the war or reversing territorial gains, because it will have already stopped. Some stasis of of the front lines, and possibly a DMZ would be a prerequisite.
But more likely, US troops won't be directly on the front lines even after a peace. It adds too much risk of either (super)power escalating in the event of casualties.
i don't believe the ukraine has shown willingness to accept anything less than a status quo ante bellum resolution. i don't really blame her for this - in her position, i'd push for everything back plus the crimea to boot - but that puts us in a very precarious position were we to guarantee her security.
the way i see this, it's fine if ukraine loses a little territory. since putin is an evil dictator and all, he can't especially afford to look weak, and anything less would back him into a corner. however, doing so is a risky move so we should hold off on that for another year or two until russia is truly crippled. ensure an economic depression and depletion of materiel that takes a decade to dig out of. by doing so, we also give the ukraine stronger security in fact, rather than merely on paper.
might be worth bargaining with the crimea: renounce claims to it in exchange for russia returning territory from the current war. realistically russia has wanted that spot at various points for hundreds of years as warm-water ports are too important for her.
i get that the point is to ensure peace after a ceasefire, but, as zelinsky said, russia has broken ceasefires before. we should not sign something like that simply on the assumption that it will make war too costly for russia. we should do so if and only if we're willing to engage in a shooting war/great-power conflict with russia over a couple oblasts. i don't think we're really willing to do that.
Yes this was my first thought. But then I understood that it's most probably the fact that the administration wasn't interested in the outcome of the conversation. My hypotesis is that Trump is living each day as unique, disconnected from the others, in a selfish way. So he didn't care about the consequences of this meeting for Zelenskyy and in general everything else.
It makes sense from His worldview. Ukraine are the weaker ones, the natural losers. He doesn't help losers. There is no further thought or consideration. That territory was always Russia's to take when they were ready.
I think it’s worse: Trump et al want to install a neofeudal system of society whereas Ukraine is fighting for the Westen Democracy kind of system. It’s clear that Trump wants to establish that as a futile endeavor
Nah, they just care about money is all. They look at Ukraine and they don't see a profit to be made, so they demand payment or the withdrawal of aid. Greed plain and simple.
"Weaker" is a function of not just your own strength, but that of your allies. Russia wants Ukraine as a way to hit at Europe.
Ukraine and its allies are a match for Russia and its. Perhaps more so, since Ukraine's allies have limited its use of force. With the US out, Ukraine may be able to exert much more force.
Which is to say Trump's judgment of who is weak is deeply compromised by his belief in single strongmen. This will not go well for him.
Ukraine is limited in its use of American weapons. It can't strike well in Russian territory. The US wanted to keep the conflict from escalating beyond Ukraine's borders.
Europe has similar concerns, but if Ukraine loses American support, they may not be able to afford that. They might gamble on direct strikes on Moscow, or at least make it clear that they can.
Which might end life as we know it. Or it might force Russia to the bargaining table directly with Ukraine. Who knows? Let's find out!
It was a 40 minute long conversation and everything was fine until the last 5 minutes when Zelensky got mad about Vance talking about using diplomacy with Russia.
You can't have diplomacy with Russia, they don't respect any agreements, EU tried to partner up with them on trade as a "diplomatic" route, hoping that cash flowing both ways would be enough to keep Russia happy, but their ambitions go beyond a peaceful coexistence.
What Zelensky got mad about is that all previous diplomatic agreements with Russia have been broken by Russia when convenient. Even the Budapest Memorandum, where the US pledged security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving their nukes to Russia, is no longer honored. How can Ukraine trust that any deal made by Trump is going to be honored once Russia rebuilds its military if the US won't offer any assurances of peace?
I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.
the way I read what you wrote, it seems like you think Zelensky's argument is bad and purely emotionally motivated, but the fact that Putin/Russia has broken agreements and ceasefires is a very valid concern, isn't it?
if the conference had ended without argument but behind the scenes Trump/Vance were setting up negotiations that go against Ukraine's interest, that would not have been a "win" for Zelensky other than in terms of a contest of popularity - but only the popularity among westerners who have no real personal stake in the conflict. it's Ukrainians and Russians who are dying on the front lines.
Like you, I watched the full hour. I had the same analysis.
There are no winners from an exchange like this. Trump and Vance come across as bullies. Zelenskyy comes across as needlessly argumentative. Trump and Zelenskyy both come across as quick to anger. Not a good look for any of them.
Maybe Zelensky had a very thin path out after Vance's provocations, but even the language accents are partly to blame for miscommunication/crosstalk, so maybe for Zelensky it was a Kobayashi Maru situation.
I wish Zelensky had asked Trump if he wanted his feet kissed there and now because I feel like everyone could see that is what Trump wants at the very least.
They invited him to the White House to finally sign the rare earth minerals agreement, which he had said he'd sign and then renegged two times prior[0]. This was the third attempt by the US to get it signed. During the meeting, he indicated that he would sign the agreement but then not agree to a cease fire, which was the whole point of putting it in place. Naturally, this was a deal breaker for the administration and the meeting ended.
