Video and the shaping of the propaganda narrative, on Trump and Ukraine and otherwise
What could be more real and more true than video as a record of what happened? And now that video is so ubiquitous, shouldn’t it mean that we get closer to the truth?
Well, yes and no. Obviously, if AI fakes get so prevalent and so good that we can’t tell the difference, the answer will be “no.” And there’s also Pallywood, which stages events with fake characters to push, often very successfully, the angle that Palestinians favor. The latter is all the more convincing because it has the appearance of being a truthful account of real events and is shown on cooperative news stations.
But even with real video of real events that happen to real people, the answer is often “no” because truncated video can be used to shape whatever narrative the press (or other dispenser of information) wishes to highlight. In fact, for the most part, truncated video must be used because the vast majority of people will not be willing to watch the whole thing, unedited. So what story gets out about an incident depends, for the majority of watchers or listeners, on what the media or the commentators decide to show and how they decide to describe it.
Needless to say, the recent meeting among Zelensky, Trump, and Vance is a case in point, and a rather powerful one. By the time the proceedings fell apart in anger and cross-talk – which they did – it was the last ten minutes or so of a much longer event. And that event was only the most recent episode in a much longer series of events. This was supposed to be a meeting around the signing of an agreement that had been a while in the ironing-out, with quite a few back-and-forth reversals by Zelensky along the way. Obviously, no such signing ended up happening around this meeting, and the press has run with the story ever since, in hopes of conveying and deepening two perceptions of both Trump and Vance: they are clumsy bullies, and they are pro-Putin.
Here’s a pretty good – and fairly short – discussion of some of the backstory about the meeting:
And you would also do well to watch or read what Rubio has to say on the subject; I already wrote a post about that. For example, he said the following:
[Y]ou guys only saw the end. You saw what happened today. You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain. The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this. He thinks this war should have never started. He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened. Now here we are. He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict. We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table. We want to explore whether peace is possible. They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.
That was all explained. That was all understood. And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made. But they insisted on coming to D.C. This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding: Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work. President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result. It’s unfortunate. That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end. He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here. …
. But again, when you have comments that deliberately – appear to be deliberately – I mean, after having discussed this repeatedly, deliberately appear to be geared towards making the argument that peace is not possible.
What percentage of people know any of that? Rubio has gone on several news programs to explain, but I very much doubt most people who will see the videos of the arguments at the meeting will hear Rubio’s background information. Those who already hate Trump and believe he’s been “Putin’s puppet” from the start will see the video as more evidence and Rubio’s efforts just an attempt at coverup and damage control. And even many people who are willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt may conclude something similar. This was also a golden opportunity for the press and the Democrats to tar Vance with the same brush.
How many people will watch the full video? Relatively few, I believe. Here’s an interesting take on the full video, by a guy who does body language analysis. However, here it’s not just body language being analyzed, although there’s that -but there’s also a lot more. I actually watched the whole thing even though it’s long. You can just watch just the parts that interest you, of course, but the whole thing is quite riveting IMHO:
I don’t think it’s clear what will come of this entire episode. It may end up being just a blip on the radar screen. Will Zelensky ultimately sign on the dotted line? Will Trump keep the offer open? What of Putin? Are Europe’s promises of backing empty, or meaningful? Just to take the example of Britain, two days ago Starmer warmly welcomed Zelensky and said he has “”full backing across the United Kingdom.” Today Starmer said:
In a statement to MPs, Sir Keir said ‘nobody wants to see’ the kind of clashes that happened between Volodymyr Zelensky and Mr Trump on Friday.
But he made clear that the US president’s desire for peace was ‘sincere’, saying it is now for Western allies to come up with a realistic plan and ‘win the peace’.
Asked about claims Mr Trump is discussing axing military aid for Ukraine, Sir Keir said: ‘As I understand that is not their position.’
What more, from Zelensky:
Mr Zelensky has … [moved] to cool the feud, heaping praise on the support the US has given up to now.
He also told reporters after the summit that Ukraine was still ‘ready to sign’ the minerals deal, and he is ready to return to the Oval Office for discussions.
But the original meeting occurred because he said, after much back-and-forth, that he was ready to sign. He obviously was not; he was ready to tell the world why he wouldn’t sign. One thing I assume is that, if such a deal were to be signed in the future, Trump would make sure to have it happen before any ceremonious celebration of the signing.
NOTE: I don’t believe Zelensky was especially influenced by some talk with people on the left shortly before the meeting that convinced him to do this. I think, if such talk did occur (and it might have), it was in line with what he had already wanted to do and planned to do.
Related, if a bit, um, inconveniently.
“Most People Don’t Know That the Europeans Are Helping Fund the Russian Side of the War.”
https://instapundit.com/705914/
Thanks for imbedding the interview with Keane. I’ve always thought him pretty reasonable.
Lindsey Graham said he told Zelenskyy not to take the bait, who was baiting him then if not the democrats…
I read that Zelensky had a meeting with the Democrats prior to his meeting with Trump and they promoted this confrontation.
Dave; Ray:
Whether or not the Democrats promoted his confrontation, I believe he had already resolved to do it. It’s in line with his own stances.
return to the Oval Office for discussions. – NO, discussions time is OVER. Z still thinks he can roll Trump.
Whether Zelensky planned his performance or not, the American people should learn definitively if the Democrats counseled him to do it. Who did he meet with before the meeting with Trump? Perhaps Congress should invite them to discuss what was said. And would it be a chargeable offense to provoke a confrontation between a foreign leader and the U.S. Presdent?
According to what I just saw on Fox News, Zelenskyy’s disruptive behavior was apparently a planned tactic he had decided to deliberately employ before the disastrous Oval Office events.
Retired Gen. Keene was just on Fox News, and he pointed out out that there had been a 20 minute briefing of all the parties before they moved into the Oval, and that during the briefing Zelenskyy made no mention at all of any disagreements with the U.S. or about signing the mineral agreement.
Thus, his behavior in front of the press was a ploy, one deliberately designed to generate public pressure against President Trump and the American position.
For context, there is a whole chapter in Churchill’s The Second World War on the negotiations around the exchange of 50 obsolete (many in poor condition) American destroyers for 99-year leases on bases in British possessions in the Atlantic in 1940, while America was still “neutral”.
For both legal and political reasons FDR had to present this to the American public as an exchange, getting all these sweet bases in exchange for a bunch of crap ships. For obvious political reasons, Churchill had to present this to the British public as NOT an exchange, just two countries helping each other out with what the other one needed and not “we’re asking America for help and getting royally screwed”. There were a lot of communications back and forth on who was going to say what when. (Only 30 of the destroyers were in service by mid-1941; almost all of the bases have by now been closed.)
Churchill did not care for this deal, but he didn’t trash it in public, and he valued it primarily for its leading to the opening of greater cooperation with the United States.
We’re not really getting to see any of the back-end stuff in this last business with Ukraine. (Even Churchill really didn’t present all of it in his book.) Worth keeping in mind.
Niketas: Bill Whittle talked about the destroyer deal in his video comparing Churchill and Zelensky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JbvTDX_VY
Whittle says the destroyers actually wound up being more useful than expected. The rest of his video–the What Now? part–makes good sense to me. Especially his comments on the current state of the Russian military. YMMV.
” Those who already hate Trump and believe he’s been “Putin’s puppet” from the start will see the video as more evidence…”
Not just the video but almost anything that is negative about Zelensky said by the administration or anyone who supports it. Here on this blog I’ve been accused of essentially being “Putin’s puppet” for that. One commenter even questioned my 3 year absence as though it could have been spent doing what? Regrouping in Moscow?
I really get the hatred for a thug like Putin. But this conflict which HE started could lead to much, much worse, and very quickly. These people are incapable of stepping back and rationally assessing the situation. With them it’s either Putin and Russia are put in there place, or nothing. Bump up the war. Hell year!
@Hubert:Whittle says the destroyers actually wound up being more useful than expected.
That might be what Whittle says 80 years later… but the expectations were quite low so perhaps it can be argued.
Regardless, the destroyers themselves were not the ultimate point of the negotiation. By bringing the US – UK relationship to the point where “Germany First” was the American objective, the UK got way more out of it than some crap destroyers.
Whatever you think of this event and whoever is really to blame, it is very difficult to see Ronald Reagan behaving like that – or doing so much to help the Russians.
Conservatives in the UK long to see a return to a Reagan type figure. Trump, and the people around him, are simply not in the same class.
The Whittle video is very good by the way. Highly recommend.
Found one.
It’s hard to believe anything in the news these days, even if it’s a position one favors.
Re: the reports (and photo it seems) of Ds meeting with Z:
“I think, if such talk did occur (and it might have), it was in line with what he had already wanted to do and planned to do.”
It’s easy to be pushed in a direction you already want to go.
I don’t know enough other than news about this conflict to truly have a valid opinion … other than, the sooner Z goes, the sooner this mess will be over. And that the US should stay on the sidelines and quit sending “stuff” to either side.
If I were president:
I would tell Z that the deal is still on the table, but:
1. No White House ceremonies. Signed by cabinet people or ambassadors, as was the original plan.
2. Z has to spill the beans on who said what at that preliminary meeting, for attribution.
Only then would the aid resume.
it really is striking reading through at least three papers, how actual facts like data republicans itemized laundry list of corruption doesn’t break through, just whatever complaint comes from an aggrieved group, most publications on either side of the Atlantic, are just ‘full of blank pages’ now we know many were on the coin of this internews consortium, but that doesn’t quite explain the continued drumbeat,
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1896645782545285562
Orwell’s Newspeak is not supposed to be aspirational, but sadly it is,
Putin has played the escalation ladder quite successfully, as shown above by The Other Chuck.
All nations with territorial ambitions need nuclear weapons. That’s the message Putin is demonstrating. Not rocket surgery.
Should Germany trust the US nuclear umbrella, much less Poland or other NATO nations? There have been comments about Five Eyes intelligence sharing and unease regarding President Trump (probablly fomented by Deep State Democrats in the Intelligence Community) volatile “impulsive” behavior doesn’t tamp down that Democrat propaganda.
Oh well, could be much, much. How? Kamalla.
Don’t light your ….
Of course Zelensky planned to use this photo op to push for security guarantees. He brought along pictures of abused Ukrainian prisoners for show and tell. You don’t do that unless you want to put a spotlight on how evil Putin is and how he can’t be trusted. These may be valid points but you don’t make them at a ceremonial oval office photo op that was designed to celebrate the signing of a mineral rights deal.
Putin has played the escalation ladder quite successfully, as shown above by The Other Chuck.
All nations with territorial ambitions need nuclear weapons. That’s the message Putin is demonstrating. Not rocket surgery.
Should Germany trust the US nuclear umbrella, much less Poland or other NATO nations? There have been comments about Five Eyes intelligence sharing and unease regarding President Trump (probablly fomented by Deep State Democrats in the Intelligence Community). Volatile “impulsive” behavior by President Trump doesn’t tamp down that Democrat propaganda.
Oh well, could be much, much, much worse. How? Kamalla.
Don’t light your ….
David Clayton:
It’s interesting to speculate on how Reagan would have handled a situation where someone like Zelensky agreed to a photo-op and to sign an agreement, and then while the cameras were rolling began to sabotage the agreement. There’s no way he would have been pleased, and I think he would have ended up saying something like “Come back when you’re ready. You’re obviously not ready.” But he would have done it in a very different style than Trump’s.
In fact, he might not have even received Zelensky in the Oval Office if he wasn’t wearing a suit. After all, Reagan was of an older generation.
Reagan’s style was night and day from Trump’s. I prefer Reagan’s. But that didn’t stop the press from excoriating him at the time and calling him “an amiable dunce.” Note that word “amiable” didn’t stop him from being considered a dunce, and a dangerous one as well.
Neo, regarding your older generation comment…I remember reading a story about George H W Bush being summoned to the White House (Ford?) and making his driver take him home first to change from the penny loafers he was wearing into wing tips, because “you don’t go to meet the President in the White House in penny loafers.” Times have changed…
UK conservatives seem to appreciate Trump.
Comparing Reagan with Trump and the different issues they face is tricky. Reagan faced the USSR, but our domestic deep state is the biggest threat now.
The thing of it is, Zelensky has been wearing fatigues ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, out of respect and solidarity with Ukrainian fighters. Zelensky wears fatigues for ALL his meetings with heads of state, whether it’s Trump, Biden, Congress, etc. (And yes, Zelensky did wear a suit during his first meeting with Trump, but that was before the Russian invasion). It’s a little disingenuous to suddenly argue that Zelensky was being disrespectful by wearing fatigues, especially since Elon Musk regularly wears black pants and t shirts instead of suits, and Musk is supposed to be working for Trump, not the other way around.
Neo expresses doubt about any meeting of the corrupt Democrat Left with Zelensky before meeting Trump.
The Dims designated liar-in-chief Sen. Schiff nonetheless explains that this meeting with Z did take place prior to Trump and Vance on Friday.
VIDEO via Instagram
”I met with President Zelenskyy before his [Friday] meeting with Trump and Vance.”
Although a claim from a horse’s ass should be questioned, maybe not when iIt comes via a horses mouth?
LINK
https://www.instagram.com/chrisvanhollen/reel/DGoqt3Hy9J1/
So is the position of the isolationists on The Rare Earth Mineral Rights agreement between the US an Ukraine now aligned with Putin, e.g., there should be no deal?
Just curious, it was just brought up by Mark Levin.
When your hair is on fire it’s hard to think?
I don’t know, BJ, wearing a suit – or at least a jacket over the polo shirt (it’s not fatigues, I understand, just fatigues-adjacent) – could have signified that he was taking effective action to bring the war to a close. In the end, theater is theater, but when you’re the petitioner, you might want to get close to what your benefactor is asking for.
I think anyone looking at the press conference critically would come to the conclusion Zelensky was trying to re-negotiate the deal he came to DC to sign. He was not ready to accept that any peace negotiation would likely include some loss of territory.
I don’t see how President Trump can sign any mineral deal after it has become apparent there two conditions for a peace deal that Ukraine and it’s European partners are making: 1. Ukraine strong enough militarily that Ukraine enters peace negotiations from a position of strength and 2. that the a just and durable peace is reached (return of Ukrainian territory.)
And for that to occur, the United States must continue to supply military and economic aid to Ukraine for as long as it takes for Ukraine to be in that position of strength.
The problem is President Trump campaigned on ending the war on his first day. Now we can accept that was campaign hyperbole. President Trump had a plan that had a good chance of being successful and putting Ukraine in a position that Russia couldn’t re-invade Ukraine in any short to medium term (guaranteeing the future too far into the future is a fool’s errand.
Trump’s plan does include exchanging some (or all) of the territory Russia controls (about 20% of eastern Ukraine). Since most analysts don’t think Ukraine will have the military strength or manpower to recapture any of this territory in the near term, the other alternative is to continue fighting until Russia’s economy can no longer afford to continue the war.
The peace deal Ukraine and his European partners envision requires the United States to be a backstop, the inference being we would come to Ukraine and its European partners if Russia does at some future time meddle in Ukraine.
This plan is nothing like what President Trump campaigned on. The only assurance President Trump can give Ukraine is that it is unlikely Russia would again invade Ukraine as long as Americans were present. Period. If Ukraine and it’s European partners can’t accept that, than they will have to find another solution to ending the war.
If Ukraine and it’s European partners plan is to continue fighting for a year or two to put Ukraine in a position of strength, that would be a betrayal of the promises President Trump made during the campaign.
As just an economic deal, committing an additional $60-120 billion supporting Ukraine’s military and government may be too high a price to pay for licenses to mine for minerals.
According to oilprice.com, “Ukraine holds competitive positions in titanium, graphite, lithium, beryllium, and rare earth elements. There are currently 30 licenses issued for the development of this group of minerals. The Ukraine government holds over 30 unlicensed deposits and about 400 promising occurrences. It also manages several important industrial assets capable of fabricating titanium, aluminum, silicon, germanium and gallium.”
There are four potential lithium deposits, but two are in Russian controlled territory. Two others away from the fighting are already licensed by the Ukrainian government to mining concerns–Ukrainian Lithium Mining (ULM) and European Lithium (Australia) via Petro-Consulting. There is a fifth deposit but it is in the Donbas and may be inaccessible.
@Bj:Zelensky has been wearing fatigues ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, out of respect and solidarity with Ukrainian fighters
Erm, things are not quite as they seem. Shop Zelenskiy’s look here for just 215 euro (a euro is just about a dollar).
None of that is a reason to not support Ukraine. Just saying, he’s projecting an image, he’s not wearing the soldiers’ clothes, not that day. Those designer “fatigues” cost about double the median Ukraine monthly wage, a suit wouldn’t have cost more.
Not judging, after all our President literally craps in a gold toilet.
Brian E:
As a isolationist, which campaign promise of President Trump are you clinging to? The end the war in 24 hours promise?
Given the reality of the situation, two sovereign nations in an ongoing war, do you consider President Trump’s campaign promise realistic? Was he going to be able to end a Ukrainian covert war against the new Russian overlords in the new Putin lands (formerly known as Donbas, Luhansk, Zaporhizia, Kherson, etc.)?
Some campaign promises are just that, promises.
Yep, that Zelinskyy better dress better, or else. Fashion Police never sleep.
Is it pile, fleece, or piling on, Nick?
om, how much aid should the US continue to provide to Ukraine, and for how many more years?
We averaged around $60 billion each year in 2022, 2023, 2024. Not all of it was military hardware. We propped up the government and we provided funding to other European countries for the millions of Ukrainian refugees, and of course Biden’s woke/leftist friends siphoned of some/lots.
I think I know why Trump is using the $350 billion figure but that’s another discussion.
om:
Your disagreements with others on this blog comment board are taken with the belief that you are sincere, hate Putin and his Russian invaders, admire Zelensky and the brave Ukrainian fighters trying to save their country, and that you do not have any ulterior motives. Rather you have a conscience which guides your strong moral position.
However, you do yourself and your beliefs harm by constantly belittling those you disagree with. Do you really want to bring people to your side? Stooping to personal invective is something with which I’m all too familiar and it never works. It only makes the antagonist feel better. And yes, unfortunately I’ve fallen for the bait a few times.
I don’t think it is too complicated. Trump is set on peace, Zelenskyy can work with him to get the best deal, or he can fight it. That is the setup. I think Zelenskyy screwed up, and not for the first time. Campaigning with the Democrats I forgave him, it was stupid, but perhaps he was just naive. That excuse doesn’t work any longer. Does he think Trump is a weak kneed dummy? I suspect he has a wrong sense of the role the EU can play and little understanding of the US and how strong Trump’s position is. The shift in American sentiment will likely be sudden, large, and unfortunate.
The Other Chuck:
Ulterior motives? Seriously?
Walking and chewing gum is as far as I get. No wheels within wheels. I’m just an old working man poking holes in the ground looking for contamination.
Escalation, NATO, Saint Yunokovitch, the most corrupt country, how many falsehoods fervently believed can be accommodated in order to skate by the basic facts of the war on Ukraine.
Some folks don’t want to be convinced or brought over no matter how sweetly or constantly be the pleading.
Back at you Brian E; should the US/Ukraine Rare Earth Minerals deal be signed or killed? Put a dollar figure on it.
“Should the US/Ukraine Rare Earth Minerals deal be signed or killed? Put a dollar figure on it.” – om
The deal was killed by Zelensky. But I don’t think it can/should be resurrected, given that Ukraine has gone down a different path to a peace deal.
Trump was willing to sign such deal because it gave him cover for continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine. But continuing to support Ukraine to the tune of $60 billion/year without any guarantees that the deposits available would yield sufficient minerals to give a reasonable ROI and the high cost to the licensing (the mineral deal) likely makes it a bad investment.
I could be wrong, since there is so much unknown about the deal. Would we then have exclusive mineral rights to all deposits known and future deposits yet to be investigated? It appears the known lithium deposits are already licensed (or under Russian control).
As to a dollar value, I have no idea, but Grok thinks it could be worth $50-100 billion over a decade once the war ends. That is assuming Russia maintains control of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk.
I answered your question. It’s not a gotcha question. What do you think is the appropriate funding level for the war in Ukraine by the United States. And is there a point that Ukraine should settle even if it means giving up territory?
should the US/Ukraine Rare Earth Minerals deal be signed or killed?
It’s a red herring, intended to stand in place of having Ukraine in NATO. The benefit to the US isn’t great, we would do better to develop our domestic deposits or, assuming we want independence from Russia and China, trade with Vietnam, Brazil, or India. If Ukraine doesn’t sign, what are they going to do? They aren’t going to get into NATO and the EU is split into factions.
Have been discussing this with my friends.
Some of our key thoughts are:
• Trump surely has access to more information than the public, and that could range from “accounting valuations” to classified/ Black Budget dollars.
• Trump’ background as an executive and commercial builder is frequently “visible” in his approach; and a successful commercial builder learns very quickly the importance of understanding the “All In” cost ^^ – especially the “grey areas” – or they will soon be bankrupt builders.
^^ = for many of us TCO [CapEx & OpEx] is key
• Trump does use hyperbole to market his ideas, etc. – did you know he was long time commercial builder from NYC – however, our hunch is he is cluing us in on what the real/ “All In” cost has been – but we could be wrong.
What are your thoughts?
David Clayton, there is no question that Trump is not Reagan.
On the other hand if you want to talk about handling difficult international situations, you need to acknowledge that on Reagan’s watch over 200 U.S. Marines were killed in Beirut after being sent there with no other mission than to be sitting ducks. Oh, the U.S. Embassy was bombed as well. In retaliation, Reagan ordered one of the most ill conceived air strikes in history into Lebanon (how do I know? I had close friends who were involved, and one was shot down; and I knew the Admiral who tried to delay the hasty, ill conceived mission; but was overruled from Washington.) But Reagan changed the subject by ordering an invasion of Grenada.
Reagan did plenty of good things; but I would not go overboard in using his hypothetical actions to criticize Trump’s handling of a difficult situation.
During a trip to France, when I was a young boy, my family was in the queue for Versailles when my parents were approached by two female staff. Long-story-short, they offered to give my family a private tour. ^^
^^ = Of course my parents said yes, and we went off in a different direction than the crowds and saw things/ rooms that were normally not seen by tourist/ visitors – even as a young boy I was amazed by the opulence.
I know from my own travels as an adult that most folks try to help travelers with young children, and my parent’s family is large, I am the oldest child, I was in the 3rd grade then – and I think that played a part in their offer.
I also note that whenever we travelled – planes, restaurants, museums, etc. – my dad wore a suit & tie, my mother wore a dress & heels, the girls wore dresses, and the boys wore blazers & ties (clip-ons for the youngest) – no sneakers, tote bags/ backpacks, baseball caps, etc. We dressed like that for Versailles, and while the staff never said so I am sure that that played a part in their offer too – I do remember their warm smiles as they surveyed the gaggle of my parents’ children.
Being respectful matters, and dress is a key way to convey respect – see “Sunday Best”. And for most it is not about how expensive or fashionable your “Sunday Best” is, it is about the effort/ message. I have carried that lesson with me all my life.
Would be very surprised if how Zelensky was dressed in the Oval Office is considered an example of “Sunday Best” in Ukraine.
that guy, I don’t have any secret information, and I agree with your assessment.
Valuation of depreciated inventory can lead to huge differences whether you want the valuation to be low or high.
I was watching a roundtable on France 24 English
Can Europe go it alone? Future of NATO in doubt as Trump turns on Ukraine
Besides the agreement that Trump and JD Vance are Russian assets and stooges, most of the show was how to support themselves militarily. One thought was to tap into Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund (not sure how the Norwegians feel about that).
They all agree they should seize the Russian assets (not for Ukraine, but for European defense), but then they realized no one knows exactly how to do it.
As they were lamenting how difficult it is to get anything done in the EU with the likes of Hungary and Slovakia, the show ended with the pronouncement that it was time for the political elites to take control and not be bound by the voters.
How about they start by funding their military at 2%? Amazing how the Europeans love to talk.
@Jamie,
You make a good point, and under ordinary circumstances, I’d agree with you: it’s important to look your best, especially when you visit the most powerful office in the world. However, I’m afraid Zelenskyy is in a no win situation here: if he wore a modestly priced suit, he’d be criticized for not wearing a more expensive suit. If he wore an expensive suit, he’d be criticized for wasting money on clothes when his country is at war, etc. And, as I said, Zelenskyy has been foregoing suits for the past three years: he didn’t decide to dress that way just to diss Trump.
@Niketas: LOL! Thanks for the info! I learn so much from this blog. 🙂
Here is an interesting take on the cultural/worldview clash which the Oval office blowup represented–*
* See https://accordingtohoyt.com/2025/03/03/true-tragedy/
So Neo you are suggesting that Zelensky had a plan to incite Trump and Vance to get angry with him?
Trump seems to find it easy enough to get angry and lashes out with wild policies in every area. Watching him announce tariffs on Fox yesterday while the stock market ticker went down seemed the perfect symbol of where things are going.
The view from Europe is that Trump is doing whatever he can to help Russia. It is hard to see what else Trump could do to help…… well there is leaving NATO.
While Trump isn’t a Russian asset he is certainly an asset to Russia and they are delighted with him.
For the USA it is hard to see where you think your allies are. Or even if you want any.
For the UK we have built our economy, military, security and global position around our relationship with the US. It is astonishing how quickly the bulk of the population and politicians are realising this is changing.
Interestingly the only ones here who admire Trump are the same ones, such as Farage, with a long track record of admiring Putin and even working on Russia Today.
Watching the world change is scary but fascinating.
Brian E:
So your position is that peace in Ukraine was killed by Zelinskyy. But that is a good thing because peace in Ukraine must come with sufficient Return on Investment.
Peace in Ukraine is secondary, and President Trump’s plan was not a good path?
Turtler may want to fisk it.
Otay
Good to know what’s really important.
I challenge anyone to watch the entire forty or so minute video of Zelensky’s performance and then continue to believe that somehow Trump was the instigator, or that he “set up” Zelensky in some fashion. Not to mention what Trump’s motivation to do something like that might be. Trump has basically put his reputation on the line for “peace,” so how does a manipulated public meeting with Zelensky ending in failure benefit that? No, dear readers, Zelensky miscalculated because he has been used to dealing with a weak (and weak-minded) “president” who was being manipulated by the pro-war faction (which was facilitated by Biden’s personal and family involvement in Ukraine corruption) and further bouyed by the anti-Trump faction in the democrat cabal, some of whom he met with preceeding the televised event. And frankly, I suspect Reagan would have behaved in similar fashion if he did not actually punch Zelensky in the face.
Steve the recovering lawyer:
You place your emotions onto President Reagan? How interesting.
Mr. Z is rent free in thee. But not Mr. P.
Is hair on fire?
Even if team D didn’t put the notion in Z’s head, they certainly pushed him in that direction. I doubt the effect was zero. One obvious result is the anti Trump narrative is right back to Trump is for Russia Russia Russia.
Since a 2019 call between Trump and Z was the excuse for impeachment, Z would have to know the spat would be used this way. He probably was more than okay with that. IMO Z is on team D.
David Clayton: “For the UK we have built our economy, military, security and global position around our relationship with the US. It is astonishing how quickly the bulk of the population and politicians are realising this is changing.”
As VP Vance made clear in Munich and in the White House meeting with your execrable PM, your relationship with the U.S. has been damaged by what is happening in the UK.
You said you miss Reagan. Well, American conservatives miss Churchill, Macmillan, Enoch Powell, Thatcher, and even John Major. That is, we miss traditionally minded Englishmen and -women who were proud of being English and fiercely committed to preserving England. Not destroying it in name of “multiculturalism” or out of post-imperial guilt. Look to your own country before passing judgment on ours.
From the reaction of some to last Friday’s miscalculation, you might think Zelinskyy is Emmanuel Goldstein.
President Trump probablly expected the deal to be signed. It would have been another great win, great achievement to tout in tonight’s speech.
Things went agley for President Trump and Ukraine. Who is smiling most? The Democrats and Putin. Speechwriters for President Trump had to start over for tonight?
Hopefully just a bump in the road, although some see it as an opportunity to take bigger scalps.
Regarding President Reagan, I may have missed it, but is Zelinskyy now worse than Bonzo; an evil chimp?
Don’t light all your hair on fire.
Hubert, there is a lot of ruin in all nations.
For those in favor of keeping the war going, Francis Turner (“L’Ombre de l’Olivier”) thinks that Ukraine can win–that is, get back to the status quo ante February 2022 if not better–if it can destroy Russian ammo and fuel depots and interrupt Russian supply lines through daily/nightly mass drone attacks:
https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/can-ukraine-win-now
Similar to the Allies’ strategic bombing campaigns in WWII. Turner suggests converting EV factories in Germany to drone production and enlisting other countries (e.g. Poland) in that effort.
His conclusion: “Ukraine can win if the rest of Europe actually has its back and if it has a clear strategy to win. I think it has the strategy. I hope it has European support. I’m just not sure that it does.”
@Snow On Pine,
Well, that is a…perspective. Unfortunately, the real world is confusing and chaotic and full of noise and color, not a melodramatic black and white novel where one person is a free thinking Superman and the opposition are all double dyed villains happy to destroy the world out of sheer bloody mindedness. And that goes for both sides.
Watching Starmer destroy the UK is scary [and sickening] but fascinating.
There. Fixed it.
(Ditto regarding Trudeau and Canada, for that matter.)
+ Bonus (repost):
“Europeans are fueling Russia’s war effort through gas purchases while militaries wither;
“Europe’s tough talk on defending Ukraine contrasts with Russian oil purchases and faltering military forces.”–
https://justthenews.com/government/diplomacy/europeans-are-fueling-russias-war-effort-through-gas-purchases-while-their
(From the “…Ukraine can win if the rest of Europe actually has its back…. I’m just not sure that it does” File. H/T Hubert@10:57 am)
Hubert:
Thank you for the link. Ukraine has been attacking Russian petroleum targets for a few months now.
There have been posts about networked AI drone systems that Ukraine hopes to get into use, German technology IIRC. Supposedly would enable one operator to basically direct a swarm. Zelushni (General) wrote about the need for a tech solution to the Russian attritional strategy about a year ago.
TJ:
No, I did not express doubt about whether people on the left had met with Zelensky prior to his meeting with Vance and Trump. The doubt I expressed was about the content of the meeting and in particular whether it caused him to do what he did later with Trump and Vance. I think that even before he came to the US he had a plan to do what he did.
Used to be one heard a lot of nonsense about the US “fighting Putin to the last Ukrainian”, or something along those lines.
It seems now that Europe (with certain exceptions)—together with its stalwart allies in DPUSA and the Corrupt Global Media—may well have decided on “fighting Trump to the last Ukrainian”.
(But why Europe? Well…if The “Biden” Slush Fund, Ukraine Division, is any indication—IOW funding Ukraine but skimming a hefty percentage of that funding and redirecting it to “Biden”‘s favorite “causes” (cf. The “Biden” Slush Fund, USAID Division, et al.), then the EU for “reasons” similar to “Biden”‘s may well be VERY, VERY ALARMED, ANGRY and OUTRAGED at DJT… To be sure, we all know that the EU would NEVER STOOP to such levels of corruption…. Don’t we…?)
A plan?
“Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again!” (and again, and again, and again, a…)
https://instapundit.com/706169/
@BJ:However, I’m afraid Zelenskyy is in a no win situation here: if he wore a modestly priced suit, he’d be criticized for not wearing a more expensive suit.
I don’t speak for everyone, but I think it’s the posing, not the clothing. You better believe Trump knows perfectly well where Zelenskiy gets his designer faux “fatigues” and what they cost: certainly only took me a few minutes to find out and I don’t have a staff to do it for me. The hard part is thinking to ask the question instead of swallowing what’s served up… and I didn’t, I saw it at Althouse. Like everyone else I was just nodding along, oh he wears fatigues to honor the soldiers…
(Is it implausible that Trump at some point asked in a meeting “what’s with this guy’s clothes” and one of his young aides googled it a few minutes later?)
Actually wearing military-issue clothing, Castro-style, might or might not “honor” the Ukrainian soldiers, but wearing what costs a month’s pay for a Ukrainian soldier but kind of sort of looks like what they might wear if you never saw one? Probably they don’t mind too much when it helps Ukraine get what it needs, but that didn’t happen this time.
It’s just image projection, and there’s a lot of people who want to play along. To the extent it helps the legacy media sell European and American taxpayers on spending their money helping Ukraine, the ROI on Zelenskiy’s outfit is immense.
This sort of thing seems to be par for the course in Europe, for example Greta Thunberg’s scowl she turns on and off (look for video of her doing it, hilarious).
Trump wasn’t having any this time, but others might go for it.
Used to say politics is “show business for ugly people” but in the last twenty years it just became “show business full stop”. Both Trump and Zelenskiy have been professional entertainers, they know.
If reports are accurate the mineral deal was supposed to be signed by flunkies behind closed doors until Zelenskyy pushed for the White House photo op, I’m inclined to agree.
David Clayton,
Trump sanctioned nord stream 2 (Biden undid this) while trying to get Europe to use US NG. He restored the missile defense system in Eastern Europe (that Obama pulled out of without any Russian concessions). He provided Ukraine with Javelins (that Obama refused to send) that probably saved Ukraine in the early part of the invasion. He killed Russians in Syria, He approved F35 sales to Poland, I can go on and on, but it isn’t Trump that aids Russia. In fact Europeans send more money to Russia than they do to Ukraine, because they didn’t take Trump up on the offer of US NG.
Emmanuel Goldstein, February March 2025.
Don – I agree with all those points as I have made them in the past. So what is going on since he returned as President? The Russians really are delighted with him. The suspension of cyber operations is naive and dangerous as is talk of lifting sanctions. Trump’s inability to make the most basic points about Putin is appalling. Putin is a deeply dangerous man. He kills opposition leaders and journalists, he started the war in Ukraine and he has completely corrupted what democracy there was in Russia.
“So your position is that peace in Ukraine was killed by Zelinskyy. But that is a good thing because peace in Ukraine must come with sufficient Return on Investment.
Peace in Ukraine is secondary, and President Trump’s plan was not a good path?
Turtler may want to fisk it.” – om
Quit being an idiot. I said the deal was killed by Zelensky in response to a question you posed: “Should the US/Ukraine Rare Earth Minerals deal be signed or killed?”
What Zelensky did was damage/kill Trump’s plan to use the mineral deal as leverage for Ukraine in negotiations between the United States and Russia.
You’re just misrepresenting what I said. Quit being an idiot.
Here’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Face the Nation. This is a transcript of the audio:
Treasury Secretary says Ukraine economic deal off after Zelenskyy “chose to blow that up”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNQWsXP82XU
om, why won’t you answer a simple question? As a supporter of Ukraine, how much aid should the United States provide to Ukraine this year and the coming years?
David Clayton, we maintain relationships with authoritarian regimes/dictatorships all across the world. China and Saudi Arabia come to mind. What would be the advantage to calling them murderous thugs?
Mr clayton dines out too much on the thin gruel of the Guardian which was Stalins favorite paper (old habits die hard)
Was fake news. Next.
From Streiff of ‘RedState’ (He went quit about Ukraine after the elections and I had bad thoughts about it but it seems I have misjudged him);
“Now we have the ignoble spectacle of Trump using Ukrainian territory and lives as bargaining chips to improve relations with Russia. Why do I say that? Russia has not yet agreed to meet with the Ukrainians to negotiate peace, and it has made it very clear that it will not deal with Zelensky’s government. Because the administration is already planning sanctions relief for Russia. Because Russia hasn’t been asked to do a single thing to move the process forward, but Trump has stopped arms supplies to Ukraine. Perhaps the clearest evidence was when Trump’s nominee for deputy defense secretary refused to answer a simple question: Did Russia invade Ukraine? Since then, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has refused to say Russia invaded Ukraine, and Trump’s top negotiator for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, said that Russia was provoked, presumably because Ukraine exerted sovereignty. That was only equaled by the U.S. joining Russia, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Belarus, and similar nations to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine. Forcing others to go along with a blatant lie to curry favor is not a negotiating tactic; it is a sign of desperation. If Russia is too fragile to hear the truth, it is too fragile to negotiate.”
My opinion on this is really not publishable but let me just say that from now on my name for Trump is ‘Vladimir’ Trump.
Ps. About Zelensky. One of the main staples of ruSSian propaganda is making it about Zelensky. The funniest one I read was end 2022 in a YouTube comment. It went something like this;
– Zelensky’s son is sipping cocktails in the US while Ukrainians are dying.
(for those who don’t get it or don’t want to, Zelensky’s son was born in 2013)
I mention this because it was funny but even more so it’s the perfect illustration of ruSSian propaganda, just make up lies, stupid or not, and now a perfect illustration of the present government of the USA.
Pps. About Ukraine
Since the invasion Ukraine has been fighting alone against a ruSSia with a +100 million larger population, the pretentions of a world power and of course all that stockpiled USSR era equipment. There are foreign volunteers fighting in its army and of course it has been given military material support but the fact remains it has been fighting alone, and I admit shamefully so for the rest of Europe (including my own country Belgium). Now that qualifies as truly ‘heroic’ unlike your completely tone-deaf (like bully boy Vance in Munich 2.0), hubris gathering present USA.
It has been noticed what’s missing here is basic morality. Whatever Putler has done, and plans to do, is held to be immaterial. And a Rubio will say, and some people pretend statesman like;
‘So all that led up to today and a deep sense of frustration, and my hope is that this all can be reset and maturity can kick in and some pragmatism, because this war – tonight, people will die in Ukraine. Tonight, people will die in this conflict.’
Without bothering to mention why and how Ukrainians will die, killed/murdered by ruSSia (and no doubt legitimately done so by ruSSia because of course ‘Zelensky’ refusing a ‘deal’ (/s))
lives as bargaining chips to improve relations with Russia
Pure mind reading.
Now it was on bidens watch, that our oil terminals were blackmailed similarly he sprung one of putins premier hackers whose father was a govt minister along with one of his lead hitmen
Hmmm.
Looks like we may have misspoke—misspooked?—too soon….
“Hours After Trump Paused All Arms To Ukraine, Zelensky Reportedly To Sign Minerals Deal Under ‘Trump’s Strong Leadership’”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/white-house-wants-recorded-apology-zelensky-mend-relations
And as for that grotesque faker currently leading the UK…to perdition…
“Britain’s information war on America Fact checkers have become political weapons”—
https://unherd.com/2025/03/britains-information-war-on-america/
H/T Powerline blog.
Brian E:
Because unlike you I am not a master of international finance, economics, political phillosophy, or international relations. Just a Licensed/Registered Professional Geologist working for my living.
I do know the amount is not infinite nor exceeding the capital assets of Freedonia.
I also know that Russian assets should be siezed for that purpose, not just the interest.
I also do not have much patience or respect for Putin apologetics. Is that clear enough for you?
Don’t light your hair on fire.
Key graf (in the second link, above):
Should one wonder whether Trump, in offering Putin a deal he can’t refuse, KNOWS that Putin will not be able to agree to it…(internal Russian politics—and realities—being what they are…)?
Meanwhile, the Yanks are in Ukraine (and, no, NOT in illegitimately-funded, illegal, surreptitious labs), essentially guaranteeing the country’s existence….
File under: 51st State?
Of course how can the deal be promised to two different countries the uk and the us eventually the truth comes out
Is prince salman a good broker he managed to free quite a number of ukrainian prisoners through his intercessions
Do i entirely trust him well more than erdogan about as much as king abdullah less than the hezbollah puppet aoun
“Lives as bargaining chips to improve relations with Russia
Pure mind reading.”
Oh, you must have ‘missed’ the ‘Why do I say that?’ part.
Not understanding what drove Reagan or Thatcher is a pivotal category error
That would be international communism now why are most progressives opposed
I would imagine the siloviki are much of the same mindset slthough one cant be sure shoigu as i have mentioned is immune to learning anything
Quite possibly, with this extraordinary sequence of moves, DJT (with Zelenskyy’s unwitting, if masterful, assistance) has manipulated the pathetic Yurps (and their equally pathetic DPUSA punks AND the Mediots) into showing their true, pathetic hands. (AND their perverted strategy AND double- AND triple-dealing).
The curtain has been peeled back (for the umpteenth time, and counting) and those sophisticated pricks are nakeder’n AOC’S Nudd Green Deal. They really should stick to Go Fish…
File under: 4-D poker?
Hybrid information war = their media doesn’t like non-progresive/non-socialist Americans and say really mean things.
Could be worse, spy balloons, dragging anchors across sea bottom fiber optic and electrical cables. Who would do that to the US and Western Europe? Or sabotage of cargo jets, attempted assassination of the CEO of Rhinemettal, or nerve gas poisioning of people in Salisbury. That’s actual hybrid warfare. A mystery indeed. Who dun it, I dun no?
But, Emmanuel Goldstein!
Now have the policies of the last three years likely to deterr or escalate those measures thats the 100 billion dollar question
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/in-which-the-united-states-suspends
Don to David Clayton, re: Trump’s behavior to foreign dictators:
“… What would be the advantage to calling them murderous thugs?”
Yes, what?
It has always annoyed me when people act as if Trump — or any national leader — should attack our enemy leaders in public.
As if insults will make them cower and cave!!
I recall Biden insulted Xi, early in his pathetic WH term, and what did Xi do?
Xi cut off all communications! Even the military phones, that apparently never* go unanswered. Until Joe got loose.
* “never” being relative to reasonable diplomatic relations history.
Actually, Trump knows how to handle foreign leaders that have some unique position of power.
@Niketas,
Again, thanks for the information. What, pray tell, does Althouse think Zelenskyy should have worn? There is literally no outfit he could have had on that would have headed off all criticism. (Unless he went naked under a barrel to show his country’s poverty, and it’s a little cold to do that. 😉
Me, I think this whole row over Zelenskyy’s fashion choices is a fragile hook to kill a deal that Trump never wanted anyway. It reminds me of the scene in “The Godfather”, where the studio head swears that he will NEVER cast Johnny Fontaine in another movie, because “(Johnny) disrespected me, and a man in my position can’t afford to be disrespected!”
Spoiler: things don’t end well for the studio head. Or his favorite horse.
BJ:
DId you actually watch the entire video of the meeting? Trump clearly wanted this deal.
You might also read this.
In addition, Trump was very gracious for the first part of the meeting, really until the last 10 minutes or so. As for the remarks on Zelensky’s attire, I have read that Trump’s initial comment was a joke although the media is making much of it. It was also a reporter who asked a hostile question of Zelensky during the meeting about his outfit, whereas Trump responded in the meeting by defending what Zelensky had on:
@Bj:What, pray tell, does Althouse think Zelenskyy should have worn?
She didn’t say, but expressed surprise that he had a designer for his wardrobe. I felt silly never asking myself the question; I mean we knew from AOC’s designer suits that her “up from bartending” narrative was bogus.
There is literally no outfit he could have had on that would have headed off all criticism.
That’s true of everyone everywhere at all times, so it’s a bit of a straw man. (Certainly what Trump wears draws criticism.)
In Zelenskiy’s case there was ONE person whose opinion really mattered, who explicitly asked him to wear a suit for the occasion.
I think this whole row over Zelenskyy’s fashion choices is a fragile hook to kill a deal that Trump never wanted anyway.
You may be right, but the fashion choice is an explicit (and expensive, to the average Ukranian or indeed American) public message. As was all the stuff Zelenskiy was saying for the cameras.
Spoiler: things don’t end well for the studio head. Or his favorite horse.
I doubt Trump is sitting up nights. Zelenskiy will need to get in line.
NIketas:
Please take a look at my comment to BJ, right above yours.
A Russian designer as I was informed about,
the Rhine Metall plot was a little sketchy, I guess it could have happened, could not based on the dubious outlets that published it,
Trump has faced two different assasins, one with ties to the country that has demanded so much,
@miguel:A Russian designer as I was informed about
You’re not using a lot of words, so I’m not sure what you refer to, but Zelenskiy’s designer is a Ukrainian living in Ukraine.
David Clayton,
Bad talking Putin doesn’t make sense if you want to engage in diplomacy with him, which Trump does. In fact it seems the only thing that can bring an end to the fighting in Ukraine is diplomacy, so Trump is right on that. Lifting sanctions is another potential tool in that diplomacy.
Also, did you by chance grow up in the 70s in rural SoCal?