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.