More on the Trump/Zelensky/Vance blowup
This is such a big story at the moment that I thought I’d start another thread for it. I’m still basically angry at all three parties, and continue to think that once it got going the much better thing to do would have been to call an end to the photo-op and go behind closed doors to try to iron it out. That way, whatever angry words were said would not be irrevocable because they would not be public, and taking them back wouldn’t be as difficult because it wouldn’t be seen as a public sign of weakness.
I also think that this goes back a ways. The genesis for Trump’s recent previous blowup at Zelensky – that he “started” the war and is a “dictator,” was sparked by the following, according to Rubio. Please watch; it’s only two minutes long. This interview with Rubio occurred about a week ago, and in it Rubio correctly states what the issues were then and what they still are now. When you look back on it you can see how prescient Rubio was about what happened today:
UKRAINE: Zelensky lied to Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio. Trump is now clear he would be an unreliable partner and is insisting on free and democratic elections in Ukraine. Zelensky cannot be trusted. Even Biden admits that.
h/t @AutismCapital pic.twitter.com/QTFffJ5wOd
— @amuse (@amuse) February 21, 2025
Here’s one take on the “who started it” question:
If you watch the full Trump-Zelensky press conference, it is very clear that Zelensky, not Trump or Vance, became the antagonist. Both POTUS and VP were very respectful and cordial until Zelensky very publicly ignited a firestorm.
It all starts at 40:30
1) Zelensky essentially… pic.twitter.com/xrM4cWSPny
— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) February 28, 2025
For those who aren’t on X, here’s a transcript (minus the videos, though):
If you watch the full Trump-Zelensky press conference, it is very clear that Zelensky, not Trump or Vance, became the antagonist. Both POTUS and VP were very respectful and cordial until Zelensky very publicly ignited a firestorm.
It all starts at 40:30
1) Zelensky essentially rejects how VP described the mandate of POTUS to conduct foreign affairs, and he insinuates that Trump term one did nothing to stop Putin.
2) He then basically tells Vance that his ideas are faulty and that the administration’s diplomacy won’t work.
These two comments are *deliberately antagonistic.* Everything was all well and good, but Zelensky took two major shots in a public forum, and they had to respond. And respond they did.
Recall, this is the guy who interfered in our electoral politics and called VP “too radical,” and bashed Trump in an interview with New York Mag weeks before the election.
Zelensky is ENTIRELY at fault here. 100%.
Here’s a similar breakdown of the breakdown:
Here my observations on Z’s comments/mindsets:
1. Z says in the first 2 minutes, “No concessions to Putin, he is a killer, a terrorist.”
2. He does not shake his head “yes” when T is talking about getting a deal done as he does when T praises soldiers and UK people.
3. It starts to get dicey when Z says Europe gave as much as US at 12:18.
4. Z starts to be antagonistic at 24:00 when he says that Putin broke ceasefire while T was president.
5. Z says “this document…will not stop Putin” at 26:30 and that Putin, since he started the war, needs to pay for it. (Doesn’t this undermine the whole basis of the negotiation?)
6. “You have big nice ocean, yes…but Putin does not want to stop….your soldiers will fight” at about 32:00.
7. At 40:00 “Nobody stopped him (when T was president)…We signed a ceasefire and Putin still invaded. So, what kind of diplomacy are you talking about (to JD)…Z says “you have the ocean but you will feel it…you will influence.” And, then it all goes to hell and Z continues to interrupt and T loses it…all goes to shit. …Based on Z’s comments, tone of voice, and posture (crossed arms, etc.), I think Z had already decided not to accept the deal. His argument seems to be, it doesn’t matter our current (weak) negotiating position, Russia/Putin is a killer and we want enough money from EU and US affect “defeat” of Russia (which I guess means R out of Crimea and Donbas). I think this is why T thinks Z is not ready for peace. It’s sad.
Personally, I think Russia invading Ukraine at all was terrible, but T can’t rewrite history and end the killing. He can only work with the current situation and get a negotiated peace where, like in any negotiation, no one comes away with everything they want.
This may indeed be a correct interpretation. But it’s not the way half of America – and the MSM, and Europe – will see it. Whatever Zelensky said, Trump and Vance should have kept their anger under check and gone behind closed doors, as I already staated. Not everything has to be transparent and public. On the other hand, there’s plenty of reason to wonder about Zelensky and his motives. He can’t be trusted.
This agreement wasn’t ready to sign. Zelensky’s position today hasn’t changed from when he argued with the Treasury Secretary and demanded security guarantees earlier this week. I had just finished watching the 49 min video of this debacle as you posted this and had the same reaction as those above. Zelensky apparently came today only to keep the money and arms flowing in a war he feels morally obligated to fight to the end. Sad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_YtXWVfkJE&t=15s
“…Trump and Vance should have kept their anger under check…”
Just like the GOPe Republicans did, always caving, always giving in? No, Zelensky made a veiled threat when he said “you have the ocean but you will feel it”. That remark would have earned him a duel in the 1800s. Ukraine supposedly is responsible for the sabotage of the NordStream pipeline:
“The Nord Stream gas pipeline was blown up by a small Ukrainian sabotage team in an operation that was initially approved by Volodymyr Zelenskiy and then called off, but which went ahead anyway,” according to a story in the Wall Street Journal.
Of course Zelensky denied it, but the mere fact that he said “you will feel it” after the sabotage he has instigated inside Russia, makes it a threat.
I just listened to the entire exchange again, and I do not hear anything coming from either Trump or Vance which wasn’t warranted. In fact, Vance held back.
So Trump and Vance should have acquiesced to the bullying tactics of Zelensky? To avoid an uncomfortable conversation that Zelensky initiated? Or is it the optics of a publicly displayed disagreement with which you are most uncomfortable?
Trump, correctly in my view, does not concern himself with how “half of America, the MSM, and Europe” see these things. He is our leader concerned with American interests, political and financial, and peace. Zelensky’s choice of a public forum to complain and criticize Trump and America is deserving of an equally public rebuke.
And just like that MAGA comes down on the side of evil.
The Other Chuck; steve walsh:
Please don’t twist my words.
I never advocated fot capitulation. I said, and I repeat – quit the public rages. Cut the photo-op short once Zelensky starts carping, explain why you’re cutting it short, and then go back to yelling behind closed doors. Then kick him out if you want.
You don’t have to take Zelensky’s games. But you can play your own game on a better level that I also think would be more effective. It’s possible this will end up okay anyway; I certainly hope so. It doesn’t look that way to me at the moment, though.
neo: how would that have worked and been better? Once Zelensky initiated the public scolding and complaints I don’t see how Trump could have smoothly escaped without appearing to have capitulated. That is all on Zelensky.
mkent, what an odd thing to say. As President Trump said, he’s trying to mediate an end to the war, getting the best terms possible for Ukraine.
The mineral deal was actually a masterful idea to insert America into Ukraine in a non military way, but at the same time making it hard for Russia to meddle in Ukraine in a military way.
Zelensky is asking for the impossible and refusing to accept no for an answer.
The way this was supposed to work, Ukraine would still have the option of refusing the deal. Now, I’m not so sure there will be a negotiated settlement. So I guess you got your way, at the expense of more Ukrainian lives.
It will be interesting in the coming days and weeks what will be the reaction in Ukraine.
The entire Marco Rubio interview with Catherine Herridge is well worth listening to, I came away from it with a much higher opinion of Rubio.
Zelensky won’t win a war with the second front in the US media. I think he’s counting on the Progressives opening up an impeachment campaign, but has misread the public’s appetite for that, and for supporting his war.
You all are making too much of this. You need to chill.
A post of the entire meeting with timestamps:
https://x.com/thatsKAIZEN/status/1895619010982719659
@The Other Chuck
There’s a difference between caving or giving in (though on this subject I think Trump COULD do to give a little, given the baseless claim Zelenskyy is a dictator).
The logic of that as a threat is dubious, and was similar to a lot of Adams’s own staff (not a foreign actor) about French blackmail.
And god knows the Wall Street Journal has never, ever gotten anything wrong. Especially given the very weak sourcing on that article. Just look at their treatments of Trump. It’s not quite as scientifically illiterate as the much earlier story by Sy Hersh, but it seems to be a moderately source-laundered version of it.
Or a warning of a threat, that contrary to the idea of the Little Americans that something isn’t our problem just because it is an ocean away might not pan out. In any case that’s the benefit of intentional ambiguity and diplomatese. In any case I have far bigger issues with Zelenskyy’s conduct, such as the ingratitude towards the US in general and particularly towards Trump in particular for unfreezing lethal aid.
Also, from what you said on the previous thread that this makes Zelenskyy an “enemy” of the US, what are we supposed to interpret the Kremlin having mouthpieces on a censored media openly fantasizing about nuking the US and/or Europe?
neo: your approach is easy to say now, much more difficult to pull off in real time. This is why I can’t bring myself to fault Trump for how things played out today.
I wonder if there was some strategic reason to have all this televised? It certainly seems like a bad move now. To me anyway.
Another way to put it: Was this outcome one of a few outcomes anticipated by Trump and Vance?
I saw the Ukrainian Ambassadors face. I don’t think I have ever felt as sorry as I do right now for a diplomat in my life. She looked like she was in the middle of a nightmare the way she bowed her head and covered her face.
To me it looked like Zelenskiy was trying to create a new deal in front of the cameras and force the US to go along with it. Trump’s choice was to say nothing and be committed to something that wasn’t agreed to behind closed doors, or repudiate it. Saying “press conference over” and taking it back behind closed doors isn’t a repudiation. Letting Zelenskiy do what he did without immediate pushback is itself a message, one that Trump didn’t agree with and refused to send.
I don’t blame Zelenskiy for trying it, though he should have had a plan B, and I don’t blame Trump for not letting him get away with it.
It seems like even the GOPe doesn’t blame Trump for it either. We’ve heard it now from Rubio, Graham, and Crenshaw.
If it were two publicly-traded businesses who’d negotiated something, and one CEO in the press conference said “and they’re gonna do X Y and Z” which wasn’t agreed to, I’m sure it would have worked out the same way, because the market would react to the thing said publicly.
A post on TruthSocial:
mkent,
If your judgement of evil is not supplying an endless stream of weapons to Ukraine, then be fair and judge the oh so great Democrat Socialist Nations ( if they can still be called nations ) of Western Europe. In Trump’s first term he told them to start investing more in their militaries and to become less dependent on Russia for energy.
They largely failed in that regard.
We have been burned by the last administrations ‘diplomats’ (Blinken). Like “science” they have lost our trust. I am glad to see this played out in real time.
With all due respect Neo, who gives a damn what the Dems and Europe think? Certainly not Trump. They are going to blast him no matter what.
Trump could not sit there and let Zelensky publicly trash him. Once it started, Trump had to face up. Can you imagine what the critics would say about our ‘weak President’.
I sometimes cringe at Trump’s bombast; but I think he did what he had to do.
Zelensky fouled his mess gear as the saying went back in the day. As was noted; he holds no cards. If the U.S. picks up ours and walks away, the Ukrainians might end up giving him a Mussolini style sendoff. Or maybe Zelensky believes in Fairy God Mothers and the EU. Snicker, snicker.
Oldflyer (8:04 pm) writes, “I sometimes cringe at Trump’s bombast; but I think he did what he had to do.“
Exactly, and that applies to both halves of Oldflyer’s sentence.
”mkent, what an odd thing to say. As President Trump said, he’s trying to mediate an end to the war, getting the best terms possible for Ukraine.”
No, Trump is not trying to end the war. He’s trying to negotiate a ceasefire. Let me shout, because my normal voice isn’t getting through: A CEASEFIRE DOES NOT END THE WAR!!! It prolongs it and increases the number of deaths dramatically.
Russia invaded Ukraine in a genocidal war of conquest. Its stated objective is to destroy Ukraine as a nation, as a culture, and as a people. It has raped thousands of Ukrainian women as a matter of policy. It has kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to make them Russian. It has killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men. It has established torture centers and mass graves throughout the occupied territories. It has leveled whole cities to the ground.
It has established “filtration” camps where Ukrainians are taken to be “re-educated” (ie made Russian) and “liquidated” (the terms the Russians used, all) those that refuse. It has destroyed hundreds of Ukrainian power plants, transformers, and home heating plants with the stated objective of freezing millions of Ukrainian civilians to death. It has attacked thousands of Ukrainian medical facilities, grain silos, and grocery stores with the stated objective of creating a famine, both in Ukraine and in Africa. It has used the resulting instability to overthrow the governments of five African countries.
Russia does not dispute this. It discusses these things openly in media owned and operated by the Russian government. That is the side which you are supporting. You are supporting evil on a monstrous scale.
Russia’s stated objective in this war is to expand its western boundary to its natural borders. That means all of Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, eastern Romania, and eastern Poland. All but Ukraine and Moldova are NATO allies. The war and this objective have widespread support in Russia. So a ceasefire will not only allow Russia to continue its rape, kidnapping, torture, murder, and genocide in Ukraine, it will allow Russia to rebuild and modernize its military so it can conquer more territory.
So besides coming out in support of a monstrous evil, you are stacking the deck in support of World War III in Europe. All in support of your messiah.
@mkent:Russia’s stated objective in this war is to expand its western boundary to its natural borders. That means all of Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, eastern Romania
Lol, maybe Kim Jong Un can send ALL the North Koreans to accomplish this fever dream. North Korea has more soldiers than Russia.
eastern Poland
Ukraine already has eastern Poland, they didn’t give it back in 1945.
The back story seems to be that there was a minerals deal which was going to be signed. Then Zelensky went into that public meeting on camera and tried to continue negotiating, pushing for things the US leadership had not agreed to, and won’t agree to. Bad strategy, and it backfired.
Beige Welborn, at Hot Air: “Did no one on his [Zelensky’s] staff alert him that there were two different animals in the White House now? Two thoroughly American alpha males?”
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/02/28/sorry-yall-i-need-a-cigarette-and-a-cocktail-after-watching-that-oval-office-manfest-n3800297
“I think he’s counting on the Progressives opening up an impeachment campaign,…”
I’m seeing exactly that on the liberal social media. They are totally up in arms even more than they were a day ago. The spectacle has now added a lot of gasoline to the left’s fire. Whether they can translate that into broader public support is another question.
MKent, you surely know that the first necessary step in ending a war is a negotiated ceasefire–unlesa, of course, one belligerent is totally destroyed. Sure that is Trump’s immediate motive. What makes you think it is his end game?
You don’t have to read ancient history to find a larger scale parallel to Russia and Ukraine. It should have been obvious to both sides fairly early in WWI that neither would win. But neither would quit. Because. A general cease fire, giving each side a chance to assess their situation could have changed history. Nearly an entire generation of young men In England, France, Germany, et al paid with their lives for the arrogance. The world, certainly Europe, was radically changed for ever.
Sometimes reality bites; but it is still reality.
The other lesson from that tragedy was that alliances must be formed very cautiously. Most of the combatants in that war had no stake whatsoever in the original dispute except that they were committed by alliance to one or other of the original belligerents. Not to ignore that there were underlying factors to the casus belli, such as an Imperial competition between the Great Powers/
The final lesson, of course, is that when peace is negotiated both sides must feel that it was a reasonable accord–not necessarily fair, but reasonable given the circumstances.
Both the Ukrainians and Russians need to review some basic European history.
To the isolationists, please try to remember one fact:
Russia started a war against Ukraine just over 3 years ago
Ukraine did not attack Russia.
Vlad has a very poor history of abiding with agreements or treaties regarding Ukraine.
I’ve seen and heard very little from President Trump or Vice President Vance that shows recognition that Russia is and has been the aggressor.
Bemoaning the unnessary death and destruction caused by Russian aggression as somehow Ukraine’s fault (because they didn’t agree to be conquered and decimated (in the Roman sense)) is “problematic.”
The trope that Zelinskii was bullying the US is ludicrous.
It seems that J D Vance likes the role of attack dog a bit too much. Not sure if he is ready to be let off the leash.
> Russia started a war against Ukraine just over 3 years ago
No one questions that.
Russia is a problem.
Ukraine is someone we help solve the problem.
Doctors don’t expect cooperation from the disease.
They, however, routinely expect it from the patient.
“The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) reports over 50 countries experiencing some form of active conflict in 2024, a trend likely continuing into 2025. The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) 2024 Global Peace Index noted 56 conflicts worldwide—the highest since World War II—with 92 countries involved in some capacity, often across borders.”
What makes Ukraine special? Assuming a couple other of those conflicts listed are in the Middle East which has lots of commentary, take those out, and what about the other 40 some-odd conflicts with over 80 countries fighting?
I understand no one cares about these other conflicts, but you need to understand to the average American, Ukraine is just like those other 40 conflicts no one cares about. Let them settle it, leave us out. Europe is right there, they’re rich, let them deal with it.
I agree with OldFlyer, Steve, et al. Trump and Vance handled a bad situation about as well as could be expected.
At this point, Zelensky has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy and mendacious. Saying ‘Russia is the aggressor’ (true) and ‘Putin isn’t known to abide by treaties’ (also true) doesn’t change Zelensky completely disreputable character.
Trump and Vance had to respond to this grandstanding and it was better to do it before the press than behind closed doors (where Z could lie himself silly to the media afterward).
No matter what Trump says or does, we know the MSM will portray him as a monster. While it is best not to give them fodder, if it can be avoided, this couldn’t be avoided. Despite his endless jabs and screeds against the MSM in his first term, Trump did seem to care (at least at times) what they wrote about him. This does not appear to be true in his second term. It’s very refreshing
@Oldflyer
Agreed on this much for this scene. My bigger issue with Trump on this subject is what I believe are the flaws and missteps he made leading up to this, such as calling Zelenskyy a dictator but saying he would be “careful” about saying it to Putin, and the lack of any security guarantees with the mineral deal. But it increasingly seems like Zelenskyy tried to pull a fast one on this and Trump and Vance had to step back.
Agreed, though for different reasons.
This I disagree with. For one, he still has one of the best equipped and battle hardened militaries in the world and would continue to do so even if all aid from the US stopped this instant. For two, he also has the domestic track record of at least vis a vis Russia having tried his hardest to come to a peace agreement during the sort of quasi-war from the time he came into power until 2022, including declaring Ukraine would not seek the return of Crimea by force of arms and even proposing a plebicite in which a demilitarized Donbas would vote for which nation the locals wanted to be a part of, at which point the region would be split based on who voted for what. Back in the day Zelenskyy got a LOT of flak for this domestically and from the more hawkish of Ukraine’s supporters abroad (I still like digging out this old English Language Ukraine-focused Soros mouthpiece’s editorial on the matter complaining about it), but the Russian government as far as I can tell never bothered giving a formal response to it.
This is what I think many don’t understand: Zelenskyy is far from the most hawkish camps in Ukraine, indeed there’s a decent chance he represents among the most dovish. I also think that even if Ukrainian conventional fighting strength folded up as some have argued would happen, that this would not mean the end of fighting but instead probably involve a lot of guerilla warfare. There’s been a lot of talk about Ukrainian Fascists or Neo-Fascists and Bandera or Banderaists, but it seems like very few people remember how the original “Banderaists” – namely the UPA-B and OUN-B – sustained a nasty 15 some year guerilla war with a fraction of Ukraine’s total resources and almost no outside support, a full ten years of that being after the Soviet reconquest of the region and the establishment of communist puppet governments that had national and ideological reasons to oppose the Banderaists (I have this one ethnically Polish friend with Dmowskite and Military Lizard Union sympathies who hates Communism who nevertheless grudgingly praised the – still hated – Polish Stalinist Urz?d Bezpiecze?stwa secret police for their success in crushing the Banderaists in Polish territory).
Honestly I think Zelenskyy would be more likely to get the Mussolini sendoff if he is seen as being TOO PLIANT or willing to concede too much to Trump etc. al.
I mean, why not? He has plenty of incentive to at least act like he does. And he certainly has reason to believe Putin is a terrorist and murderer (because he is) and that the Kremlin aims at the effective destruction of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign country (because it does). If you’re in a hole and the Saakashvilli sendoff is one of the BETTER outcomes you can hope for, you might as well start hoping for miracles.
I agree it’s not his end game, but it would be useful to know more.
As a history nerd, I have to say: be careful. Because I have read a lot of that history.
As someone who has studied, wargamed, and outright has credits on some WWI project, I disagree on pretty much every level.
Firstly: Whether or not it “should have been obvious to both sides fairly early in WWI’ that “neither would win”, the fact that becomes very clear if you study the primary sources it that it absolutely *wasn’t* obvious that neither would win. Indeed, they came to believe that the fight was increasingly total and existential, and that one side or the other would win and the other would at a minimum become dependent on the mercy of the other and at more extreme might lose its culture and/or system of government or even flat out cease to exist.
Secondly: To be quite frank I think those observers were absolutely correct that it was obvious “neither would win.” WWI was a much closer fought conflict than is often remembered, but also had far more room for decisive victory than many think, and it’s telling the war was to one degree or another undecided until the final year of the war.
Thirdly: The two sides in WWI didn’t just keep fighting “Because”, though some came there. At rock bottom a bunch of the combatants faced the very real prospect of being wiped off the face of the earth if they lost. This is most remembered with the likes of the Armenians in the Late Ottoman Genocide, but they weren’t the only ones hit by the Ottomans. It’s also forgotten that what might have STARTED as a limited “punitive” war by the Habsburgs and Germans to beat Serbia and Montenegro into a bloody pulpified client state like what Serbia had been under the last of the Obrenovics prior to 1903 quickly morphed into a campaign to try and abolish the very idea of an independent Serbia and partition the depopulated region among Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Albania in a campaign that saw entire villages hanged to death in the slow, suffocating fashion popular in Eastern Europe, and where the Habsburgs and Bulgarians began paying scalp and head prices to Albanian paramilitaries against the Serbs. Belgium and Luxembourg would probably have been “luckier” in “merely” being ended as sovereign countries and annexed in whole or in part into Germany. And I could go on.
For those combatants – minor as they generally were – there was literally no incentive to give up the fight because the alternative would have been permanent subjugation at best and more likely certain death, be it quick or torturous. And of course even their most powerful allies had to consider both for humanitarian concerns (which were a lot more powerful than we tend to consider) but also the realpolitik things that if – say – Russia or France abandoned Serbia or the Alsatian French in the name of “Peace” they probably wouldn’t be around in the future.
While the Great Powers themselves generally viewed themselves in a mortal struggle to survive. The Central Powers’ leadership believed they were trapped in a cauldron caused by the failure of Bismarck’s system (and also Wilhelm II’s failure with the League of the Three Emperors), with pan-Slavic powers to the East and underfoot, the Western Capitalist Democracies in the West and South, and a hodge podge of democratic, social dem, and “alien” elements underfoot jeopardizing the last Christian Monarchs truly worthy of the title. That their conceptions of Russian and Western economic and technological growth would render them unable to win in a war within a few short years and that ideological subversion would threaten them, and so that if there was to be any chance at all they would have to pick a chance and go in HARD. This is why the Central Powers escalated what had started as terrorist murders in Sarajevo by the equivalent of the JV Team into first a regional “pre-emptive” war and then a World War as the Habsburgs declared war on Serbia and then (contrary to popular conception) Germany responded to Russia mobilizing for war with Austria-Hungary by pre-empting them, lying about Russian troop dispositions, and then declaring war on first them and France first before planning invasions into France. It was also why the Central Powers consistently refused the many ideas of compromise peace up until almost the very end (by which point they had so clearly lost and the Allies bluntly told them it would no longer be acceptable) and why even the Kaiser-King Karl the Blessed of Austria-Hungary had to try and negotiate behind the backs of both his allies and his own military until he was found out and basically put under house arrest.
The Allies in turn could not see any particular reason to give in. After all, what would “peace” look like? How much territory would the Central Powers demand to occupy, and how would that benefit them in any way?
And what I think a great many people overlook is how these views were largely popular and had public support, especially among many of the most affected (who often were living directly under occupation or had been dispossessed because of it or suffered relatives that had it). I find it lamentable that the average school student in WWI is more likely to read All Quiet on the Western Front than they are to read a single inkling of any of the Kaisers’ words (be it Wilhelm II, Franz Josef, or Karl) or to see Storm of Steel.
It would have changed history all right, but probably not in the way many people think. To the Central Powers it would have meant a return to the existing status quo of gradual decay and encirclement that would ultimately se their power broken, and which was no option. For the Allies it would have meant consigning many of their own people into enemy occupation of indefinite and probably brutal nature without guarantees things could get better. In any case it was moot because neither side had any real reason to trust the other on that much, and the Central Powers spelled this out sharply by being the most adamant in rejecting a negotiated settlement or compromise peace.
This I think was one of the key flaws behind Wilson’s cockamanie attempts to broker a compromise peace and why he fundamentally did not achieve much at all. He did not really understand the mindset of either side, and especially the bit players that would be most likely to be sacrificed in some kind of grand bargain. And as our most Germanophillic President in history, he definitely did not understand the ideology in Potsdam, Vienna, or Budapest and the downright contempt he and Americans were held by them in spite of how slavishly and often sickeningly he had praised them and (especially in the Prussian case) tried to emulate them.
Arrogance sure, but not arrogance distributed equally. Also insecurity, sincere conviction (even if based on falsehoods), and the knowledge that many of them would die even if peace.
I also find there to be something remarkably arrogant about trying to act as if we know better in all things than those in the past and to talk about how “obviously” neither side could win WWI (in spite of how that isn’t what happened and how both sides nearly did at both times, until the Allies eventually did).
And it was going to be changed forever regardless of who won or lost WWI, and that was by design and intent on both sides. The issue is how.
I agree.
And the reality is that WWI started as some “damn fool thing in the Balkans” building off of previous near misses and tensions, but quickly exploded into a world war with downright apocalyptic stakes for those involved. In which for a great many nations and groups of people they had to fight and win or they would flatly cease to exist, and a great many *more* nations and groups of people were led to believe they faced the same fate even if that might not have been true (Erich Ludendorff – “the First Nazi” as one of the major works on him is lovingly subtitled – helped spread this around with a propaganda office in the German General Staff, where he argued Germany was in a life or death struggle against Judeo-Masonic Capitalist Democracy and Pan-Slavism, and Germany would either prevail or be enslaved. I imagine a great many people in Berlin during the doldrums of the Great Depression probably still believed he had been telling the truth even a decade later).
Forming alliances is one thing. It’s keeping alliances that are another, and how they are formed and enforced. A lot of people are surprised when I tell them that the main driver behind the outbreak of WWI and its wars wasn’t muh “entangling alliances” (which I would wager fewer than 1 in 100 have read the terms of) but one side or the other declaring war on them.
Yeah no. The Great Powers did indeed see themselves as having a stake in the “original dispute” and were quite candid about admitting it behind the scenes, even if a lot of it tied into “imperial competition” and so on, and in particular the greater ideological tensions in Central Europe and the chronic insecurities of the neo-absolutist Germanophone governments there.
And when they saw no stake in the matter, they were generally quite willing to admit as such. In particular the Italian declaration of neutrality at the onset of 1914 is quite useful because it lays out exactly why Italy would not join the war alongside Austria-Hungary and Germany in spite of the Triple Alliance, namely that A: The Triple Alliance was a *defensive* alliance, B: Austria-Hungary was waging a war of aggression, and C: Italy had no legal or practical obligation to follow Berlin and Vienna into the abyss of an aggressive war because of it.
At which point Italy spent the following year being neutral, arming up for war, and basically being the subject of “bidding” from both sides for possible terms to justify it entering the war on one side or the other (as it turned out the Allies won the bidding war – helped by a lot of grassroots anti-Habsburg and anti-German sentiment – but got only part of what they were promised after the war, which I suppose goes into the importance of making alliances cautiously, but for different reasons than what you argue).
To which I point to the rantings of Wilhelm II, Enver Pasha, and Konrad von Hoetzendorff and beg the question of what is “reasonable” given the “circumstances” of dealing with ideologically fanatical, genocidally zealous and often outright deluded nutjobs.
You know, I’ve shittalked Putin a bunch here and for very good reason, and I’m going to do so a lot again, but of all the many, many flaws and failings I can attribute to him, “failure to review some basic European history” is not one I can attribute to him. He brought up some pretty advanced and nerdy topics that many don’t even realize he was bullshitting on unless they carefully examined the subject. And frankly given how utterly “basic European history” “overviews” have butchered the memory and evidence of WWI, I think there’s problems to be had with that.
I also think that both sides have far more relevant examples to look to besides WWI, such as Georgia and Moldova. Which would hardly inspire Ukrainian belief in the Kremlin keeping its word or some kind of honorable negotiated ceasefire.
Maybe I’m watching too many gangster YouTubes, but Mister Z, you don’t talk to the Don that way! 🙂
More seriously, I saw Zelensky as making a power move in front of the cameras. Trump and Vance had to respond.
Zelensky and Trump history…
– Russiagate had a Ukrainian connection
– second impeachment of Trump was over a call with Zelensky
– Zelensky basically campaigned with the democrats in 2024…
Oldflyer:
I mention Europe for one simple reason: in the context of Ukraine, their cooperation in Ukraine’s future security was supposedly part of Trump’s plan.
Although I suppose that publicly turning his back on Ukraine might also activate Europe’s protective instincts.
My impression is that mkent is some sort of troll.
The Evidence is in this 10:41 minute Video. It is the end of the story.
Sure, people can claim Zelensky made them do it – or that Zelensky caused it to happen, but the evidence on that video proves that Vance started it and Trump later stepped in by raising his voice, verbally bashing and insulting Zelensky. Trump and Vance lost their cool, got angry, Trump’s face turned red from how angry he was, got loud, rude, etcetera – all recorded on video. Zelensky stayed calm throughout.
Rubio’s video is hearsay evidence at best.
Next video from 40:30 shows Zelensky trying to explain how since 2014 thru Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump that Putin wanted more and started killing people—from 2014-2022 people kept dying from Putin’s killing them. Had lots of conversations with America, even signed something with Putin, but Putin broke what ever was signed.
Ukraine gave up nuclear missiles (1994?!) in deal with Russia, American and Ukraine, signed various paperwork including a ceasefire doc, during all this DIPLOMACY from 2014-2022, and Putin broke them all, and kept killing Ukrainians.
Zelensky then asks – my paraphrase: How do you conduct DIPLOMACY with someone like Putin? That is:
How was asking about how to conduct DIPLOMACY with someone like Putin, after going thru it in 1994 (?), and then with Putin from 2014-2022, being the “antagonist”?!?!?!?!?!?
Vance starts around 42:12 (paraphrase) – ‘Talking about the kind of diplomacy to end the destruction happening in your country.‘ Zelensky started to respond, and Vance started blowing up at that time. Why did Vance explode? Maybe he realized his answer to Zelensky’s simple question was ridiculous, especially after Ukraine has been dealing with Putin ‘wanting more of the Ukrainian Pie & killing Ukrainians’ from 2014-2022.
Zelensky was clearly not the “antagonist”…
Baloney! “essentially rejects” – meaning that it does not provide definitive evidence or conclusive proof of what happened. Zelensky asked a simple question…
Ditto on Baloney! “then basically tells” … geez.
Thank goodness there is video evidence of what actually transpired! This is gonna end horribly for Trump and Vance … from the very beginning of these negotiations it was obvious that Trump was outta his depth, and now he has given Putin an even better negotiating position.
I suspect that Trump will have to step away from Putin, and start backing Ukraine and Europe more. He has failed, and best start looking for someone to help him outta this mess he has created.
Niketas; MJR; OldFlyer; huxley; et al:
I certainly wouldn’t suggest that Trump or Vance should have said something noncommittal and then suggested going behind closed doors. What I am suggesting is something that checks Zelensky and makes it clear what he’s doing is not acceptable, and then going behind closed doors if that seems appropriate. And doing it without seeming out of control but seeming in control. For example, something on the order of – as soon as Zelensky started with the re-negotiation bombast – to call him on it by saying firmly that he needs to stop trying to renegotiate the deal. That this grandstanding for the cameras isn’t a good idea and won’t get him anywhere, and that if there is going to be further discussion it needs to happen without such a spectacle. I don’t see that as weakness or capitulation. It shows controlled strength rather than just reactive anger.
Zelensky is a punk. Trump is Trump. And it would have been nice not to have this altercation play out in public. Not cool.
That said–and I may well be wrong here; if so, please correct me–but Trump is being Trump in a context where first Barack Obama and then “Joe Biden” showed weakness and/or incompetence in the face of Putin’s aggression, and where Democratic politicians impeached Trump to cover up the Biden family’s crimes in Ukraine.
There’s no way to prove this, of course, but I believe that Putin would not have annexed Crimea or invaded Ukraine if Trump had been president at those times. And for what it’s worth, and not to say that today’s press conference should not have been better handled, I believe that earlier failures of Democratic administrations to stand up to Putin haunted the interactions today.
You just have to ask who, really are Putin’s b*tches.
@Turtler
> would continue to do so even if all aid from the US stopped this instant
I don’t think you want to test that assumption. Neither do I.
> there’s a decent chance he represents among the most dovish
He represents Ukraine. Democracy is a b**ch; once you are put forward by the polity, you speak for the polity, and your words and actions would be understood as representing the common attitude and point of view.
> quickly morphed into a campaign to try and abolish the very idea of an independent Serbia and partition the depopulated region among Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Albania in a campaign that saw entire villages hanged to death in the slow, suffocating fashion popular in Eastern Europe
If that were the case, Christopher Clarke would have mentioned it in “The Sleepwalkers”.
My understanding is that it was tit for tat. One trespass by the Habsburgs for one by the Serbians.
Can’t blame the former: the Serbians’ tactic was pretty much imitated by the Russians during the “hybrid war against Ukraine” in 2014-2022.
> To the Central Powers it would have meant a return to the existing status quo of gradual decay and encirclement that would ultimately se their power broken, and which was no option.
Romanian oil. Warm Mediterranean ports. A chance to define the Middle East (like the UK and France did IRL).
> consigning many of their own people into enemy occupation
For a British subject or a French citizen in 1914, calling Serbians “their own” would amount to calling Russians this very name in 2014.
> Austria-Hungary was waging a war of aggression
No it wasn’t. An assassination of a public figure and a politician, aided and abetted by a state sponsor, is an act of war.
P.S. You can tell the Serbians’ character by the rule of Miloševic eighty years later.
Mkent 822pm. Well said. Unfortunately, so many, even those who recognize what you said, give so little weight to it.
OK, I read a lot in both posts, and also skimmed a lot too. I did not watch the video, and only actually saw about a minute of the conference, about the last minute. Trump was angry, yes, and Z was pushing hard, but should not have done so in public. Trying to sway public opinion like that can and does bite you. It did Z. I will add that I only saw one reference in all the comments about Z’s arms folded across his chest. That is a tell – I will not listen, it is my way only.
”What makes Ukraine special?”
If Ukraine falls, World War III is on, and we WILL NOT be able to sit it out, especially once the nukes start flying.
It is now almost certain that Ukraine will pursue nuclear weapons, and likely that Poland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Netherlands will as well. Then probably Canada, Denmark, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and possibly Qatar.
The world became a far more dangerous place today, and many of you are cheering it on.
There have been times when I wished our Presidents had been more frank with Oval Office visitors; however, I understood why that did not happen. But, that does not mean that should never happen – and I am pleased with today’s events for several key reasons.
1) Talk
• Trump taking the lead is enabling the USA to reestablish communications with Russia – and for the USA President to reestablish a relationship with the RU President. And if you believe ‘France has no friends, only interests’, then Putin, not Zelensky, is the interest that needs to be nurtured.
• Zelensky may share some of the same governing characteristics as Putin – Elections, Opposition Groups, Press, etc. – but the Zelensky/ Ukraine relationship does not have the same benefits & impact as the Putin/ Russia relationship. There is significant value to USA Peace & Prosperity goals between the bookends of Enemy & Friend when it comes to Russia.
• I’ll add that Trump has a successful track record at this – see Kim Jong Un/ North Korea.
2) Transition
• Not only did Biden bungle – and “bungle” is me being polite – the runup to this war, he also involved the USA in a manner that was not to “America’s good” – unless you count USA corruption & USA arms depletion as benefits.
• Trump – if he wishes – now has the opportunity to right Biden’s mistakes/ de-facto commitments, and further align Next Steps with his long-term goals – see European Responsibilities.
3) Treasure
• Long before he was ever President, Trump has thought about the financial side of conflicts that the USA has spent blood & treasure on. And truthfully, I cannot imagine any other President even proposing the Ukraine mineral deal – Trump is not breaking the rules, he is just not accepting the boundaries/ limitations others accept.
• But if you think the mineral deal is only about recouping “treasury”, you do not understand how Trump adds value, and recognizes value beyond the literal minerals/ money.
4) Transparency
• I have often felt proud of our Presidents & Government, and viewed myself as an “owner” – stay informed, vote, etc. – but I cannot recall ever feeling so connected. We have a “seat” for the EO signings, DOGE disclosures, Cabinet Meetings, etc. that are conducted in a manner – sizzle AND steak – that is unprecedented in my lifetime.
• And our government – led by Trump’ example – has been willing to talk openly everyday about the 5Ws (Who, What, When, Where, Why) to both receptive & non-receptive (see Legacy Media) audiences – in front of us.
• Zelensky’s intransigency & agenda did not just start today – see earlier events & reports over past weeks – but as an owner I am 100% pleased that I had a chance to see it for myself – especially the part were Zelensky is trying to use USA blood & treasure to protect his country, and will not take No for an answer.
It’s odd this press conference was held before this preliminary agreement was signed.
If Zelensky really was not going to sign unless there was at least an agreement for “security guarantees” from the US, he shouldn’t have come to the US. He’s certainly not a trustworthy partner. We have to assume he wouldn’t live up to any agreement, even if it had been signed.
So Ukraine is already preparing for foreign investments in Ukraine once the war ends.
According to Grok:
It appears most of the lithium deposits are in territory controlled by Russia.
Just looking at this, it appears the US is taking the biggest risk in this deal.
– Zelensky was a little punk. Trump was a bully. I think they were both being honest about who they are. I agree with neo, Trump and Vance could and should have handled this much better, and that doesn’t mean sitting by silently while Zelensky harangued them in the oval office.
– I think Trump is right on the merits. Short of direct NATO involvement, Ukraine isn’t going to win this war. Other than a few moments, there has never been a time when Ukraine had a realistic chance to win this war.
– I think Zelensky is right that Putin can’t be trusted to honor a ceasefire. Although, Putin and Russia may be more likely to honor a ceasefire if Ukrainian NATO and EU membership are taken off the table and the Crimea and Donbas are recognized as part of Russia – because that eliminates Putin’s identified security concerns.
– I don’t think Zelensky is the man for the moment for Ukraine. I don’t see how Zelensky and Trump will have any working relationship going forward.
– I’ve never liked the idea of receiving mineral rights from Ukraine. I get that this is how Trump thinks about foreign aid, but it’s very shortsighted. Thinking of all of it in terms of quid pro quo gives your enemies a better opportunity to outbid you for allies.
– I think Zelensky has the worst case of “progressivitis” that I’ve ever seen, with a heavy dose of Aaron Sorkin envy thrown in for good measure. He’s right about a few things and very wrong about others. But, as is the style on the modern left, he seems to believe that reality itself will bend to his will if he only “speaks truth to power.” I think that is what he was doing.
I wonder if Zelensky had told President Trump prior to the press conference that he wasn’t signing the preliminary agreement without security guarantees.
That would explain why Trump made the comment that he let the presser go on and then shut it down.
It would explain a lot of what went on.
”I wonder if Zelensky had told President Trump prior to the press conference that he wasn’t signing the preliminary agreement without security guarantees.”
He didn’t have to. He’s been saying for days now that he would not sign an agreement without security guarantees.
”Short of direct NATO involvement, Ukraine isn’t going to win this war.”
Ukraine could easily win this war if it were given sufficient quantities of Western weapons — weapons that America has in abundance.
”Putin and Russia may be more likely to honor a ceasefire if Ukrainian NATO and EU membership are taken off the table…”
Ukraine was and is ineligible to join NATO. To prevent Ukraine from joining NATO all Russia had to do is…wait for it…absolutely nothing. Thus the war is not about NATO.
”Thinking of all of it in terms of quid pro quo gives your enemies a better opportunity to outbid you for allies.”
Or other allies stepping in to eat your cake, as Europe is now doing. In exchange for the mineral rights they are now offering Ukraine a deal *with* security guarantees. So we won’t even get the minerals. Not such a great dealmaker after all, this messiah.
” “…Trump and Vance should have kept their anger under check…” — Neo
Just like the GOPe Republicans did, always caving, always giving in? No, Zelensky made a veiled threat when he said “you have the ocean but you will feel it”. That remark would have earned him a duel in the 1800s.” — the Other Chuck
This isn’t the 1880s. This is a much more interconnected and ‘live TV’ world, and the rules are simply different now.
I agree with Neo, _nobody_ involved in this farce came off looking better for it.
Trump fielded the ball as well as could be expected, the ‘make great TV’ line is classic Trump. Domestically, it’ll probably boost him, at least in the short term. Long term, though, is another matter.
The whole farce should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.
There’s a _reason_ why most public statements at diplomatic encounters between heads of state/government almost always come across sounding boring and fake. That’s because they are, and for good reason. The traditional rule is that the heads of government don’t meet publicly until everything is all worked out and everybody is on board with the public version. Otherwise you risk embarrassing blowups like today’s.
Zelensky is a loose cannon, but Trump frankly needs to shut up about the idea that Ukraine should be ‘grateful’ for ‘peace’. Trump isn’t preparing to deliver peace, except in the sense of a negotiated _surrender_. That’s what we’re talking about, no matter what nice words are stuck on it, no amount of lipstick will make this pig anything other than a pig.
Now negotiating the best surrender possible might well be the best Ukraine can realistically hope for at this point. Both Ukraine and Russia have been horribly damaged by the war, but Russia is still bigger and can _probably_ keep up a war of attrition longer. It may be that the lands Russia had conquered are just lost, and cutting the losses is the least bad option.
But even if that is so, it’s no use expecting, or even asking, the Ukrainians to feel anything but disgust and hatred over it. If someone had conquered half the USA’s land by force, and we were in the position of cutting our losses, we’d have no patience for expectations of gratitude either. Forced surrender is what we’re talking about, and nobody is going to be grateful for that.
The Ukrainians are certainly partly at fault for this mess, in the sense that their government has historically been very corrupt, and instead of acting with sensible prudence as a buffer state, they tried to extract rents. But it’s also true that they gave up the nukes on their soil, foolishly, in return for ‘assurances’ from the Great Powers, including the USA and Russia, that proved to be predictably worthless.
I wouldn’t hold it against them if they end up reneging on any mineral deals or the like, either. From their POV, such deals are extracted under leonine compulsion.
Zelensky should have known better, but Trump and Vance are, intentionally or not, ‘rubbing it in’ when they talk about forced surrender as some great peace deal.
Vance’s attitude plays _very_ well at home. I think he was a fantastic choice as veep, and I agree with 85-90% of what he says. But at the same time, international affairs is a different ball game with different rules. For ex, I agree with just about everything he said a few weeks ago about values and free speech in Europe…but it was probably the wrong venue, and probably best said privately.
Trump _needs_ the diplomats, whether he likes it or not. But he _can’t trust_ the current crop of State Department functionaries. But that doesn’t mean he can dispense with diplomacy and not have it eventually blow up in his face, it means he needs new diplomats who can be trusted to put America first while doing a necessary job.
“No one questions that.
Russia is a problem.
Ukraine is someone we help solve the problem.
Doctors don’t expect cooperation from the disease.
They, however, routinely expect it from the patient.” — LXE
Disease is a poor analogy to the mess we’re in.
Ukraine doesn’t consider themselves a patient, they consider themselves an assault and attempted murder victim. They don’t want to ‘help us deal with Putin’, they want their land back. They probably won’t ever get it, but they’re likely to emerge from this thing hating Russa and bitter at the West.
Trump likes to say that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he had been President instead of Biden. That might well be true…but one of the key turning point that led to Ukraine was America’s surrender in Afghanistan. The whole world saw it. Biden (or rather Biden’s handlers, Biden just signed what they put in front of him) did it, and the Biden Adminstration never recovered its credibility either domestically or internationally.
But there’s a germ of truth to the Democratic defense that Biden was following Trump’s plan there. Only a germ, it’s mostly false, but Trump wanted out of Afghanistan badly, and had he been able to pull out, the same subsequent bad effects would have followed.
(I have no doubt Trump would have handled the retreat more competently, it wouldn’t have been a charlie foxtrot at the detail level the way it was with Biden, but the major results would have been the same.)
I support Trump/Vance, esp. in comparison to the GOPe and the Dems, but one thing that’s worried me about them both since they came on the scene is that I’m not sure they fully realize how much everything interconnects globally. America’s surrenders in Iraq and Afghanistan encouraged Putin, and caused China to look hard at Taiwan. They very likely contributed to October 7. Forcing Ukraine to surrender to Russia might actually be the least bad option, morally and practically, but there’s no way to keep it from looking like an American/Western retreat in the face of Russia and China.
You simply can’t treat all these different fronts and conflicts in isolation, not in today’s world. It won’t work.