More on yesterday’s Zelensky/Trump/Vance blowup: what about Europe?
It’s been the news highlight ever since it happened, and although I’ve read tons of articles about it, there’s no way to read them all. In fact, as I write this, I haven’t even read all the comments here.
But naturally, I have some thoughts that I want to add to yesterday’s two posts on the subject. But first I want to point out what Victor Davis Hanson has written. That’s the link to his “X” comment, but just in case you can’t read it there easily, I’m copying and pasting it here in its entirety. Hanson is no hothead, and he’s an expert on the history of war:
Ten bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up
1. Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.
2. Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to “reset” with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.
3. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3-5 percent of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16 percent of NATO’s budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.
4. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-US-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions has now lost a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed.
5. What are Zelenskyy’s alternatives without much U.S. help—wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democratic House and a 3rd Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?
6. If there is a cease fire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went?
7. Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden Administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted, and berated a host and patron president in the White House.
8. If Ukraine has alienated the U.S. what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy’s cards he seems to think are a winning hand?
9. If one views carefully all the 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelenskyy started correcting Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader.
10. March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in Spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in Spring 2025.
Before I had read any of that, I had already come to many of the same conclusions. In particular, I’d been thinking about numbers 1 and 3, and that’s the angle I want to emphasize here, because I think it’s the most important one of all. It involves far more than Zelensky and his actions and perceptions; it involves America’s relation to Europe post-WWII, and current changes in that relationship as envisioned by Trump.
Trump has been talking for a long time about having other NATO nations pay their fair share – and by “a long time” I mean since long before he ran for president in 2015 (I recall hearing him say it in old interview clips from when he was a youngish man). We’ve been footing the bill for an increasingly ungrateful Europe since the end of WWII, and a lot of Americans are tired of it. Europe – especially Western European leaders and their globalist supporters – looks down on Trump and his unwashed Americans, not just the MAGA folks but Americans in general. These Europeans much preferred Obama (all the way through to “Obama’s third term”) for obvious reasons. It was shortsighted of Zelensky to campaign for Harris, but not really surprising in that he correctly assumed that Trump’s election would spell trouble for him and a Harris victory would keep the money and arms flowing. The same, in a way, for western Europe, which isn’t in a hot war with Russia but which has nevertheless become somewhat dependent on American military aid while at the same time often acting critical of and superior to the US.
And so one of the main things Zelensky was doing yesterday was attempting to pivot to Europe. I believe that he even said it explicitly (although I’m having trouble finding the quote right now; perhaps you can help) – that Europe has been of more help to Ukraine than the US has. As for Trump and Vance, one of the noteworthy things about this administration so far has been Vance’s Munich speech, in which he gave Europe a tongue-lashing for, among other things, being insufficiently protective of free speech and shutting down popular parties they don’t like. Those parties tend to be MAGA-like parties, more or less, which have been rising in popularity in Europe and which threaten the current leaders whether those leaders are on the left or the right. You might say they threaten the Western European uniparty.
So no wonder the Europeans are horrified at Trump and Vance; they were already horrified about them anyway, and sympathetic to Zelensky’s position. They also would like to continue to take America’s help and look down on that help, as well as giving America advice.
And what of Zelensky and Ukraine now? I can’t predict the future, although I’m quite worried about the fate of Ukraine. I will mention, however, that this is what Zelensky is saying today, as well as what some of Europe’s “elites” are saying, and that I don’t yet hear the fat lady singing:
A Europe already rattled by Trump’s overtures to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin quickly rallied around Zelensky, with the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, saying in a statement that it’s “clear that the free world needs a new leader.”
On Saturday, Zelensky appeared conciliatory when he posted on social media after arriving in London to meet UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
“It’s crucial for us to have President Trump’s support,” Zelensky said in a series of posts on X on Saturday morning. “He wants to end the war, but no one wants peace more than we do.” …
“We are very grateful to the United States for all the support. I’m thankful to President Trump, Congress for their bipartisan support, and American people. Ukrainians have always appreciated this support, especially during these three years of full-scale invasion,” Zelensky reiterated in his posts on social media.
But he reiterated his demands for security guarantees before he signs any minerals agreement.
As I said, this doesn’t seem to be over.
Fortunately, there is actual video evidence that disputes the opinions of right-wingers like Victor Davis Hanson’s opinions.
Anyway:
Hasn’t anyone actually watched the VIDEO Evidence of what happened?! That is one of the reasons I am saving a copy of 49:50 minutes since I am finding it being scrubbed and/or edited on some sites already.
Will try to start it @ 10:15 – like neo often does here:
Trump – Europe gave much less money. At 11:47 Zelensky said – that Trump said Europe gave less support, but the Euro’s gave a lot also. 11:58 Trump says they gave much less .. no .. much less .. no.
Video evidence…
I’ve been listening/reading VDH since before the election and everything he states resonates with me. I’ve read/skimmed all the comments here in all 3 of Neo’s posts on this subject. I appreciate what the commenters bring to the table. At the end of the day, I could not be more thankful for President Trump and Vice President Vance.
Let’s see. Karmi or Hanson? Whose opinion should I trust?
I think I’ve read most of the comments here, but not all. Some really wise and insightful stuff in neo’s posts on yesterday’s meeting, and the comments.
One thing I haven’t seen stated explicitly is; what if Zelensky is Churchill?
One can understand Trump’s reasoning; this is likely not existential to the U.S., Ukraine cannot win (Trump’s opinion) and they will likely have to cede some territory (the Donbas?) to Russia to get peace.
Ukraine mineral rights is a clever addition to negotiations. It gives the U.S. something tangible for all the money it has invested in the conflict and it gives Ukraine a U.S. presence in its nation, making it less likely Russia will attack and even making it possible the U.S. would give support in country to protect its land rights in Ukraine. Unlike NATO membership, it’s tacit, but it does give some real hope to Ukraine going forward. Trump is unlikely to give any “security guarantees” beyond this.
France and many other countries negotiated with the Germans in WWII to save their citizens and land. They calculated they were no match for the Nazi war machine and opted for “peace.” Churchill did not negotiate with Germany when Germany attacked England. Churchill said England would fight Germany to the last Englishman. Churchill was not interested in ceding any territory to the Nazis.
What if Zelensky has the same attitude towards Russia? And what if a majority of Ukrainians agree? Zelensky was adamant yesterday he wanted security guarantees from the U.S. Would Zelensky cede the Donbas if he had such guarantees? We are unlikely to know because this administration in the U.S. seems unlikely to provide any. However, it is possible Zelensky does not intend to cede any territory no matter what he is promised. He certainly doesn’t trust any promises Putin may make.
Imagine if, prior to December 6th, Franklin Roosevelt tried to get Churchill to agree to cede part of eastern England to Hitler and Germany in order to stop the fighting. It would have been a non-starter.
Seems like Zelensky is truly “European” ….quite willing to take from us and dissing us at the same time. Enough is enough.
I’ve only been to France. England, and Ireland. Except for Normandy, the French were palatably cold to any American. The English slightly less so, and the Irish the most friendly. Didn’t exactly endear me to sending billions of our money to them.
I only gave an opinion about using Video Evidence as a retort to Hanson’s mere opinion.
I’ll take Video Evidence over Karmi, Hanson, and Steve (retired/recovering lawyer) 😉
this is the same Western Europe, that bans free speech, that welcomes the Saracen invasion, (a term that fits historical trends) which also locked the people down, during Covid, in the quixotic exercise, admittedly Sweden was an exception on that front, but followed on most everything else,
then you have their weak contributions to NATO, mind you they would target their military on Orban’s Hungary, and on the previous regime in Poland, as they sought to deplatform Romania’s victor in the election,
“And what if a majority of Ukrainians agree?”
Then show us that. Right now, we have his corrupt election, supposedly orchestrated by the CIA (etc), the buying off the Bidens to kill the investigation it, and a refusal to have the next elections, when legally required. Winning a free and fair election would go a long way in convincing us that he wasn’t just a curruptocrat, waging a war that’s killed hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, for his personal profit and aggrandizement.
It was over before it started.
I can understand Zelensky’s desire to get all of Ukrainian territory back, or at least the latest loss of the Donbas, if not Crimea. But what is the strategy for doing so? What combination of money and armaments, given to Ukraine this year, would allow Ukraine to be victorious in 2025? 2026? When, and how?
European nations have made large pledges to Ukraine through something like 2029 but have not yet actually given as much as the US has.
I am terribly sorry for Ukraine. They remember the Holodomor, and they don’t wan’t to be ruled by Russians again. I do not see, however, why it would be in the interests of the US to spill American blood to recover Ukrainian territory. This is Trump’s position, I believe.
1) Good stuff, was going to note it myself.
• For me #9 is a key point.
2) As is the VDH commentary at the link below.
https://youtu.be/ZVG4YWw3Fqo
• For me a key point was that there had been Russian invasions during Bush’, Obama’ and Biden’ terms – but not Trump’ 1st term. Why? Because Trump established deterrence via action – see Soleimani, Bagdadi, ISIS, Wagnor Group [Syria- Feb 2018] ^^.
^^ = I’ll add MOAB: Afghanistan-Apr 2017, Taliban Leader’s Home Satellite Photo: Afghanistan, etc.
3) Useful breakdown of Feb 28 Oval office meeting – your mileage may vary.
• For me a key point is Trump was trying to follow the template other Presidents have followed, but Zelensky was not a compliant partner – so Trump & Vance adjusted accordingly.
https://x.com/thatsKAIZEN/status/1895619010982719659
Hi, Rufus. It seems to me that because of the strategic differences in situation between England and Ukraine, it’s reasonable to suggest the possibility of territorial cession by the latter when it would not have been for the former. Simply, it’s down to the English Channel – England has and had a geographical barrier that Ukraine does not. It served England well ever since 1066 and there would have been no way for the English to give that up by allowing a German beachhead in the East Midlands or something. And the Germans would have had no way to force it to happen due to the lack of naval/amphibious capacity vis-a-vis the Royal Navy, same thing as stymied Napoleon. I think that’s a major, major asset that no Ukrainian leader, no matter how inspirational or tough, has ever possessed – the Dnieper or that kind of thing are just not comparable.
As far as Europe goes, I’m pondering whether there’s a linkage here between Vance’s kinda-sorta indirectly putting in a word for the populist right parties in his Munich speech and the stance, or stances, of those parties on the Ukraine war. I’m pretty sure the AfD views the German government’s support of Ukraine with weapons and so on to be ended (I’ll check their program to make sure), but what about the FPÖ or Front National or Lega Nord, etc.?
I originally thought Zelensky, Trump and Vance were all to blame in equal parts. The more video I have seen since then convinces me otherwise. Zelensky was terrible at reading the room. The people he was talking to weren’t Mitch McConnell/Lindsey Graham clones who would be happy to give him the store. Also he doesn’t seem to realize that whoever was running Biden’s White House are of absolutely no use to him now. Trump and Vance were not going to be talked down to by someone as presumptuous as him. What a difference a day makes!
Karmi:
At C-SPAN I found the part where they discuss European aid. I have no idea whether it’s the only part, but here it is. It starts around 10:03:
Trump then talks about the agreement for a while, the press starts to ask more questions, and then Zelensky raises his hand and starts talking about things like Ukraine having the largest gas storage in Europe. Then at around 11:37 there’s this:
Zelensky is clearly not only going out of his way to highlight Europe’s help and how great they’ve been – something he needn’t have gone into on this particular occasion – but he also goes out of his way to contradict Trump and try to show him up, even after Trump gives him a mild warning: “don’t argue.” The loan versus gift issue is not even discussed by Zelensky, as far as I can see. At least in this portion of the meeting, he doesn’t thank the US at all or call them good partners. Perhaps he does in other sections, but this would have been an excellent time to reiterate it if he had said it earlier.
After the meeting with Trump, Zelensky went to Europe to appeal to them. This was planned ahead of time. And of course, his fracas with Trump earned him even more sympathy from Europe. Whether it will give him more money and weapons I really don’t know. That would be okay with Trump, by the way, who has long wanted Europe to do more.
By the way, Europe has more than twice the population of the US – 742 million to 340 million. If you take away the population of European Russia (about 109 million), Europe still has close to twice as many people as the US. You can find websites that try to calculate how much aid Europe has given versus how much the US has given, and the websites differ on how to calculate the figures and who has given more, but there is no question that the US has given a LOT more per capita.
See this, for example. That chart highlights that US military aid has dwarfed that which Europe has given.
No one has mentioned Sen. Lindsey Graham’s reaction to the press conference and Zelensky’s obstructionism suggesting that Zelensky be replaced.
This was quite a statement from possible Ukraine’s biggest supporter in the senate.
Most comments passed it off as Graham opportunism, but it raises the question was this orchestrated with the administration to start the conversation of encouraging Ukrainians to find a better partner to seek peace negotiations?
This week Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, in the presence of the leaders of the European Union, failed a bill in support of Vladimir Zelensky’s continuation of his powers with only 218 votes out of 226 needed. The resolution was passed in a subsequent vote, but was the Rada sending a message to Zelensky?
It will be informative as to how the Rada reacts to Zelensky’s insistence to additional changes to the mineral deal and leaving the US without signing it.
This might be an opportunity to see how much support in the Rada to continuing the war as it’s currently being conducted or whether Ukrainians are ready to accept a peace deal negotiated by the US/Trump administration, even if it means giving up land in the east.
Zelensky did make a stop in the UK after leaving the US, raising a suspicion that this was more coordinated than it appeared on the surface.
Where does Lindsey Graham’s reaction to the press conference calling out Zelensky’s obstructionism and suggesting that Zelensky be replaced?
This was quite a statement from possible Ukraine’s biggest supporter in the senate.
Most comments passed it off as Graham opportunism, but it raises the question was this orchestrated with the administration to start the conversation of encouraging Ukrainians to find a better partner to seek peace negotiations?
A few days ago, Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada failed to pass a bill in support of Zelensky’s continuation of his powers with only 218 votes out of 226 needed. The resolution was passed in a subsequent vote, but was the Rada sending a message to Zelensky?
It will be informative as to how the Rada reacts to Zelensky’s insistence to additional changes to the mineral deal and leaving the US without signing it.
This might be an opportunity to see how much support in the Rada to continuing the war as it’s currently being conducted or whether Ukrainians are ready to accept a peace deal negotiated by the US/Trump administration, even if it means giving up land in the east.
Zelensky did make a stop in the UK after leaving the US, raising a suspicion that this was more coordinated than it appeared on the surface.
Per my earlier comment, I would add/ amplify:
4) When it comes to Soleimani, a key point is that under previous Presidents, Soleimani had:
• Led a terrorist organization that engaged in terrorism throughout the world (i.e., Quds Force).
• Supported terrorist organizations throughout the world (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas).
• Supported attacks on Americans (e.g., 600+ killed in Iraq).
• Suffered no consequences.
5) During Trump’ time in office Soleimani once again led attacks on Americans & American Interest, and Trump acted.
• That is a key difference between Trump and recent Presidents (i.e., Obama, Bush).
6) During his 1st term, Trump used American power – both military & economic – to effectively eliminate threats and maintain the peace; while avoiding:
– endless wars,
– massive loss of American lives & treasury,
– diminishment of America’ capability to defend itself
– strengthening those that wish to harm America & Allies.
• Again, key differences between Trump and recent Presidents (i.e., Biden, Obama, Bush).
@Rufus:France and many other countries negotiated with the Germans in WWII to save their citizens and land. They calculated they were no match for the Nazi war machine and opted for “peace.” Churchill did not negotiate with Germany when Germany attacked England. Churchill said England would fight Germany to the last Englishman. Churchill was not interested in ceding any territory to the Nazis.
I don’t want to write something Turtler length–he can do that, it won’t be much different from what I’d say. Long story short this is just not what happened, and what really happened is not a good parallel for Russia and Ukraine today.
1) France was beaten, hard, on the battlefield. Germany didn’t take three years to do it, like Putin in Ukraine, but little over a month. When Churchill asked “Where are the reserves,” Gamelin answered “Gone.” France might have been able to fight on longer than they did, but the situations were not at all the same as Russia and Ukraine.
2) Churchill did not have the power to prevent the UK from negotiating a peace. You have the cart before the horse here. He was brought into power to fight the Germans, only made Prime Minister after it was going badly, and had the people of the UK ever tired and wanted a negotiated peace they would have removed Churchill that very day–they have a Parliamentary system and can change their leadership whenever they want, don’t even have to have elections to do this. Churchill in The Second World War discusses the possibility of the UK doing that, and what kind of government it would have been and what it might have agreed to–it was something they all had to think through at the time. Churchill led a coalition government that existed only to fight the war and as soon as Germany was defeated that government was dissolved in order to schedule elections, and he lost that election, hard. He was able to take such a hard line and breathe so much rhetorical fire because he had a coalition of all parties that agreed with what he was doing.
3) Others have mentioned the Channel and Royal Navy.
President Trump repeating that during his first term Russia did not invade Ukraine is true but tiresome. And by the way Putin isn’t Voldermort, one who cannot be named. So at this point, so what about Putin waiting to invade until President Putz had replaced President Trump?
An asshole would ask, “And yet you let FJB “run” this country by not preventing massive electoral fraud and the COVID catastrophy?”
Would haves, should haves, are worth as much as a Vice President.
Neither Zelinskii nor President Trump got anything great out of the Friday fiasco. Very sad that the outcome probably only pleases Vlad.
1,000,000 Russian casualties by May 9, 2025. Good thing Vlad has infinite manpower to expend.
So many in the West have so deeply embraced the media/Deep State demonization of Russia that any analysis that suggests otherwise is typically, violently opposed. In a last resort, Putin was forced by the West to invade Ukraine in order to stop Ukraine’s incorporation into NATO. That Putin has suggested that other factors, such as Western Ukrainian persecution of Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainians was a casus belli was clumsy and easily dismissed as insufficient justification.
An objective examination of the full historical record confirms that successive US administrations with full Western European assistance were determined to place NATO upon Russia’s border with Ukraine. That the Russians viewed this possibility as presenting a future intolerable vulnerability and thus an existential National Security threat is easily demonstrated by the fact that any country would view the reverse in the same light. Example; imagine China signing a mutual defense treaty with Canada and Mexico with the provision that, as part of an international force Chinese troops could be permanently stationed upon the US borders. Any claim that in such a case we would not view it with great alarm is wishful thinking at its worst.
““All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer
From what I’ve read, we’ve given Ukraine $350 billion in aid and $100 billion has simply disappeared, this to a country that was notorious for being the most corrupt in Europe, cf., Hunter Biden. It will be interesting to see what DOGE turns up if it gets to audit all that money.
Neo
Watch the actual video evidence. You can actually see how they are reacting with each other. You can actually hear the tone of their voices.
Your Baloney text script misses all that and leaves interpretation to you…
Watch the actual video evidence…for what actually happened
@Rufus:Churchill did not negotiate with Germany when Germany attacked England.
I forgot this one. The UK attacked Germany first, not the other way around–they had promised Poland, of course, to do so, an example of a security guarantee that did not work.
Germany invaded Poland September 1. France and the UK issued ultimatums to Germany. They expired, and France and the UK declared war September 3, and the RAF bombed Germany September 4. Germany did not first attack the UK nor did Germany first declare war against the UK or France. France invaded Germany on September 7, though didn’t make much progress. A lot of people have apparently forgotten that even happened.
I’m sure idiots will find it an excuse to accuse me of being pro-Nazi, but I am relating accurately the sequence of events, not justifying Germany.
Germany certainly brought the war on itself, certainly started the war by invading Poland, and certainly should have expected France and the UK to follow through on their commitments. But it was a war that the UK and France committed to being in, not because they wanted a war, but because they thought they could deter a war, and it didn’t work out that way. It worked out rather disastrously for France, far from alone in that regard, and ended up with half Europe hand over to Stalin–including Poland, whose independence had been the occasion of the war in the first place, and about a third of Poland was incorporated into Ukraine along with horrifying ethnic cleansing against the Poles living there; this territory was never returned to Poland.
Prime Minister Chamberlain broadcasted this on September 3:
President Edouard Deladier published this on September 3:
Since the invasion of Ukraine, I’ve been reluctant to say much of anything beyond the obvious: I don’t support the invasion; the invasion could spread to other areas like the Baltics; Putin is a war criminal; Ukrainians are both heroic and the most corrupt people in Europe. The rest is complicated, and I’m definitely not a scholar of the region’s history and politics.
Having said all that, I’d like to recommend a short, crisp, and perceptive analysis by David Sacks, recently appointed as Trump’s AI and crypto czar.
The title: Why Zelensky can not Make Peace
Here’s a link: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1895971755648233940
It’s on “X,” but no password is required.
Z just got a commitment from the UK for something like 1.2 Billion in aid. Wonder where UK will get that?
Karmi, a little respect for our Host.
Geoffrey sinks even lower than his “13 minute French cruise missile yarn.”
Bullshit on stilts, old man.
Karmi:
Once again, you have zero idea what you’re talking about when you slam me. You fail to pay attention and research what you’re talking about. I’ve been very patient with you, but my patience is not unlimited.
I watched the video and linked to it in my comment. The link is on the words “C-SPAN.” It you follow the link, you’ll see it’s to a video. As far as I can tell, there is no transcript on the linked page (they might add one later, of course). My “baloney” transcript was made by me, while I watched the video – and that’s why I was able to add things like who smiled and what tone of voice something was said in.
Time for you to apologize.
Wow! I feel like I’m in some sort of psychology experiment, the type in which the subject is placed in a room full of people saying “2+2=5.” The experiment is to see how long the subject can hold out before he too comes to believe that 2+2=5.
Nope! I’m not going to succumb. Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Russia set up concentration camps, torture centers, and mass graves in the occupied territories making them, not the Ukrainians, the Nazis. Ukraine was and is ineligible to join NATO, so the war is not about NATO. Ukraine’s constitution, not Zelensky, suspends elections in a time of war which makes Putin, not Zelensky, responsible for postponing them. The US did not give Ukraine anywhere near $350 billion in aid, and there is no evidence that Zelensky stole any of it we did give.
These are things documented time and time again on this blog, both on the front page and in the comments. They were all common knowledge among the vast majority of people here until a few short months ago. No real evidence has come out disproving them, but Trump says differently, so now nearly the entire room shouts “Five! Five! Five!!”
But these truths remain: Russia is committing a great evil; Ukraine is the victim; Trump could stop the war — by supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win (The US has sufficient quantities of these weapons in storage. It wouldn’t even need to send operational weapons.), but he won’t. Instead he prefers to humiliate the victim to the pleasure of the villain.
While I’m intellectually curious about what the pods under your desks are doing to your minds, I’m not curious enough to get one myself. So let the experiment continue.
@Cornflour:Since the invasion of Ukraine, I’ve been reluctant to say much of anything beyond the obvious
I think you are wise in this. Because Internet, every issue is tribal. Right now there’s two sets of tribal thinking going on:
Team Ukraine vs Team Russia: Most of the people I see on the Right thinking this way are for American involvement in Ukraine. If you’re not on one side you are on the other. So if you don’t support American involvement in Ukraine, you’re a Team Russian who thinks Russia is Good and Ukraine is Bad, either because you worship Putin or you worship Cheeto Jesus. Team Russians do exist, of course, and they do say things very like Russia is Good and Ukraine is Bad, but I rarely see them commenting here; Team Ukraine sees them everywhere.
Team Blue vs Team Red: Most of the people I see on the Right thinking this way are against American involvement in Ukraine. If you’re not one on side, you’re on the other. Since Team Blue supports Ukraine and Team Blue is Bad, Ukraine is also Bad. Ukraine also worked against Team Red in the Presidential election. American involvement in Ukraine is just 10% for Big Guys in Team Blue. Of course Team Blue does exist, and their hair is on fire about Ukraine as well as everything else that went wrong for them this year, and they think the only people against American involvement in Ukraine worship Putin and worship Cheeto Jesus, who also worships Putin. I rarely see Team Blue here; Team Red at a place like this generally thinks those for American involvement in Ukraine are underestimating diabolical Team Blue rather than being Team Blue themselves.
Most people, like our gracious hostess, are trying in good faith to navigate a complex issue where it’s not even clear what the facts are, not to mention how to weigh the different values involved. Those people tend to lurk more than comment, so it’s not obvious they are the majority.
While I’m intellectually curious about what the pods under your desks are doing to your minds, I’m not curious enough to get one myself.
How’s about ya fuck right off, dipstick?
@Niketas:
Well said.
neo,
The Video Evidence shows what happened. You interpretation of it is wrong, so it is you who have failed ‘to pay attention and research what you’re talking about.’
I posted the link to the video, so I know where it is. My video shows your transcription to be wrong at least twice:
Zelensky said no – not “No, no!”. Watch the Video Evidence – no exclamation in his voice.
They almost appeared as a Comedy Duo during this exchange. Anyway…
***************************
Opinion – this has the possible look of a Trump Setup Political Photo op – possibly in hopes that Zelensky would slip up…possibly even storm off mad. Why was this interview help prior to the Deal signing? A setup? Zelensky remained calm throughout – it was Vance & Trump who became aggressive, demanding, rude, angry, and totally undiplomatic. Watch the Video Evidence…
Trump was singing his own high praises to the High Heavens, bashing Biden, and bragging that America gave a lot/much more to Ukraine than Europe.
Note here that Trump has previously said Biden was a fool to give Ukraine so much money, and yet in this interview Trump is basically taking credit for America helping Ukraine. Hypocritical, IMHO.
Zelensky gets the chance to talk now – Thanks America again. Have read that Zelensky THANKED America some 33 times, but have not double-checked the Video Evidence to do the count myself.
Again…watch the Video Evidence. Zelensky was humble and thankful. At one point, he tells the TRUTH in a humbled way, and says that Trump is basically wrong about his Europe allies & friends giving a lot/much less. Trump was wrong to say that to begin with…
I have seen plenty of evidence on who gave what and how much. It all varies, but the totals in almost all cases are quite close and not much more vs much less.
Thank goodness for Video Evidence!
physicsguy
Based on my experience with the French in the US and Latin America as workmates and housemates, I will simply say that the French are not my favorite nationality. And yes, there is a French attitude towards Americans. I have read that rural French, in addition to those from Normandy, do not share the common French attitude towards Amis.
From working and living with English in Latin America, I would characterize English as rather reserved–the most reserved nationality I have known–but with a reserve towards the world in general.
In Latin America and the US, I found Germans the most compatible. (Disclosure–my late brother-in-law emigrated from Germany to the US as a child.)
I haven’t been to Europe.
It wasn’t a good idea for Zelensky to have taken sides in the presidential campaign.
NC@7:48 PM:
When Churchill asked “Where are the reserves,” Gamelin answered ‘Gone.’”
The term Churchill used, in halting French (he wasn’t fluent), was “masse de manœuvre,” i.e. strategic reserve (où est ta masse de manœuvre?). And Gamilin answered auchan: There are none.
Karmi:
Once again you fail to understand. And you also fail to apologize.
You told me to watch the video – without realizing I already had watched the video and that’s how I generated the transcript.
You said my transcript is “baloney.” However, you and I merely disagree on tone of voice, etc. Disagreement doesn’t make something “baloney.” Insults will get you nowhere.
Commenting here is a privilege. Rudeness gets a warning. Consider this a warning.
neo, it is your blog.
If you can’t keep up – feel free to ban me at any time.
It is you who should be apologizing to me, but I don’t need such…
P.S. to my preceding comment:
In other words, the French strategic reserve (or maneuver mass, if you prefer) was not just gone, it didn’t exist. It really never existed. The French went to war with no real strategic reserve. Churchill could hardly believe that this was the case. He was dumbfounded, appalled, dismayed. No one told him. He simply assumed, as well he might, that the French had assembled a strategic reserve in advance of the fighting and incorporated its deployment and possible use into their scheme of war. This was, is, always will be SOP. But not, evidently, for the French in May 1940.
The Fall of France intrigues me, endlessly. The Germans conducted one of the most astonishingly brilliant campaigns in the history of warfare. You couldn’t write fiction as compelling as the story of the Fall of France.
neo:
He’s begging for it. You may as well oblige him.
Matt Taibbi also transcribed the entire event, for those who are interested. FWIW Taibbi is no Trump lover—he might be characterized as a Trump disliker—and he faults Zelensky for the breakdown of the meeting. https://www.racket.news/p/mr-zelensky-comes-to-washington-transcript?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
mkent:
It’s always good to specifically mention the commenter or commenters you’re addressing. It seems to me, for example, that only one person in this thread mentions the figure $350 million. And yet you seem to be saying that “nearly the entire room” is claiming things that are false.
I confess I haven’t read all the comments on the blog about Ukraine in the past couple of days. But I certainly don’t think “nearly the entire room” is saying the equivalent of 2 plus 2 equals 5. That’s why I suggest that you actually address by name the people you are talking about.
I’ve tried to ascertain how much aid the US has been giving to Ukraine. It’s clear to me that sources differ and that it depends not just on the source, but on how the source defines aid. See this, for example. That chart highlights that US military aid has dwarfed that which Europe has given. That’s especially true when one realizes that Europe’s population (even minus the Russia/European portion) is about twice that of the US.
It’s possible Trump is making up his figures. It’s possible he’s basing it on some unusual way to measure the aid. It’s also the case – as I discovered – that he’s given different figures at different times. Apparently he used that 350 billion figure once. Now he just says “much more” than Europe, which seems to me to be true as best I can tell (depending of course on who’s doing the measuring). It’s a moving target.
He’s not being rude to me, so it’s not for me to say, but I’ll observe that I’ll be happy to see Karmi hit the road, not so much because of the (admittedly tiresome) rudeness but because he seems unable to make any point without adulterating it thoroughly with personal attacks and insistent repetitions. That makes his posts a waste of time to try to wade through, even beyond the problem that they’re not particularly cogent.
I’ll speak up for Karmi; at least he keeps it from being an echo chamber. As for his tone and tactics, he’s no worse than some who’ve been here a long time, though he has less judgment about who he spats with.
If neo can put up with him, the rest of us should just scroll past if they don’t like what he writes. Comments about commenters are tiresome for most of us I think. None of us is forced to read anything we don’t want to.
@IrishOtter:The term Churchill used, in halting French…
Excellent context, but my comment was already to long on what was really a peripheral issue. I agree the translation I quoted was inadequate, but it’s common. Churchill left both in French, as I recall, the people in his target demographic knew a lot more French (and a lot more other things) than people seem to today.
As fewer people remain who have adult memories of WWII, increasingly all that’s left is the comic-book retroactive narrative. It wasn’t like that. It was fought by very serious people who made the best of bad choices, and cold calculations about human lives, and made deals with the devil when they thought they needed to. There was also much more corruption and unjustified violence than we care to remember about people who were, after all, our parents and grandparents.
I note that the Europeans consistently use a figure of $119B for a US Aid figure. The lowest figure I have seen from U.S. sources is about $163B; and I believe Vance spoke of around $175B. I have also seen reference to $250B. Trump, of course, seems to have inflated the U.S. figure ridiculously.
It is really somewhat academic, but one wonders why the European figure is significantly lower than credible U.S. sources cite? I know who I believe.
What I don’t know is whether the dollar figure includes the cost of direct military equipment. We know that the U.S. has provided fairly sophisticated, and scarce, air defense equipment, the Patriot, for instance; and Abrams tanks. (CNN naturally reported that the Ukrainians found the Abram deficient. But, it appears they were the best that they had.) I believe the Poles provided, or sold, some F-16 fighters; but also believe that the U.S. replaced them for the Poles, if so that would be a round about gift to Ukraine.
So Zelensky has run to Europe, which greets him with open, if empty arms.
The Brit PM greeted him effusively, and assured him that Britain will always be there for Ukraine. I am sure that was a comfort. But maybe Zelensky does hope the Europeans will finance a continuation of the war; and that would be very unfortunate.
On the other hand I find it impossible to believe that the Europeans could broker a better peace deal for Ukraine with Putin.
It is possible that Zelensky realizes his grievous mistake as he is making some conciliatory noises on social media today.
It will be interesting theater.
Good thing someone has stepped up to speak for all of us. What would we do without him?
Well the Europeans are closer to the problem in an economic, conventional, and nuclear way than we are.
They also have more recent memories of what to expect under Russian domination, being the “decadent west” and all that.
Not that Russian demographic trends can be the hope of a renewed empire; you can’t pay generous benefits for Russians to have more children while spending nearly everything on a Special Military Operation and culling the adult males in Ukraine.
1,000,000 total Russian casualties by May 9, 2025. How a country is destroyed.
@ MrsX > “Matt Taibbi also transcribed the entire event, for those who are interested. FWIW Taibbi is no Trump lover—he might be characterized as a Trump disliker—and he faults Zelensky for the breakdown of the meeting”
Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen Matt’s response yet.
He apologized for the typos that resulted from his haste (one is raw earth for rare earth, several times).
I think his transcript at one location is very close Neo’s, but the slight discrepancies illustrate the difficulty of catching all the details if you are not a trained transcriber, and even then it’s hard (court reporters have special machines for this, IIRC).
Taibbie’s version of Neo’s short excerpt:
Karmi disagrees with both transcriptions, claiming that Zelensky said no – not “No, no!”.
(Presumably both times.)
What I saw and heard was a single “no” the first time, and then on the final “No, no,” which Matt and Neo both have, Trump leaned toward Zelensky after the first “no” a bit like he was implying “oh c’mon now” and then Zelensky said the second no.
Neo puts that action before her second “no, no” — “[Trump smiles, leans in, gives Zelensky little pat]” — rather than in the middle of the two words.
So we now have FOUR “transcripts” that differ, over the space of about 4 seconds.
FWIW, IMO, neither of them really seems to take that exchange as an affront.
(BUT one of them has to be wrong about the relative size of the giving.)
NOTE: in a link, everything past the “?” can be sliced off, including the question mark.
Oldflyer: I just spent about an hour typing up an answer to your questions, but my iPad died between the time I finished the comment and re-read it and the time I could hit “Post.” Maybe I’ll retype it tomorrow, or maybe not.
I hate this friggen thing.
PS – this is an excellent illustration of why negotiation lawyers never let the principals talk to each other until AFTER the ink is on the paper.
The photo op before signing was a big mistake.
IF there had to be one, then letting reporters ask questions was the second mistake.
My interpretive gestalt of the whole thing is that Zelenskyy didn’t understand, at a very fundamental level, what Trump was trying to tell him, and Trump didn’t really know how to explain it to him, although he kept trying: FIRST they make the deal between the US and Ukraine, and THEN they have something in hand (some cards, as Trump puts it) when they bring Russia into the negotiations (IF Putin will come to the table at all).
That observation is worth every penny you paid for it.
PS: has anyone in the media posted the actual language of the deal document?
A picture is worth a thousand words (or 3,248 words after inflation).
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2025/59/350538c3-72e7-4f25-ac97-fca0727caf8d.jpg
AesopFan,
In Taibbi’s defense, I watched the whole event and Trump did say, “raw earth” rather than “rare earth” several times (perhaps every time). It was like nails on a chalkboard to me and I kept hoping he’d correct himself, or someone else would, as it reduced the impact of his point.
About Europe: Hudson Inst. Feb. 27th conversation with Kaja Kallas the “European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission” (48:50) — https://www.youtube.com/live/_cxENA9rYiw
Bells across the EU ringing out “security guarantees”. Gynocracy is a choice.
Regarding my Churchill analogy, I appreciate the history lessons, but my point was not that there is a direct correlation to Zelensky and Churchill or Ukraine vs. Russia in the current conflict and England vs. Germany in WWII. I was using Churchill as a stand in for a military leader who had no interest in any form of surrender.
Trump’s attitude is: let’s stop the killing and human suffering and make a deal.
If Zelensky’s attitude is to not surrender an inch of land and beat the Russians back there is no deal possible at present. Zelensky seems willing to deal with the U.S. for mineral rights, or other things, for financial and weapons support, but may not be interested in ceding territory to Russia to end the war.
The meeting makes sense if you watch it with that perspective. Trump wants the war to stop now and knows both sides need to make concessions for that to happen.
Zelensky wants money and/or weapons from whomever can help; U.S., England, France, Germany, Poland… and does not want to give any more Ukrainian territory to Russia.
Zelenskyy looks like the anti-Churchill when regarded in Churchill’s statesmanlike aspect. See Netanyahu, for an example of navigating an extremely complex (even hostile) relationship while still attaining his minimum needs.
AesopFan:
Cool Hand Luke (1967) – The Captain’s speech ” What we’ve got here is failure to communicate”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A
No,President Trump isn’t the Captain and Zelensky isn’t Luke.
Don’t y’ll light your hair on fire
Niketas Choniates on March 1, 2025 at 8:26 pm said:
@Rufus:Churchill did not negotiate with Germany when Germany attacked England.
I forgot this one. The UK attacked Germany first, not the other way around–they had promised Poland, of course, to do so, an example of a security guarantee that did not work.
Germany invaded Poland September 1. France and the UK issued ultimatums to Germany. They expired, and France and the UK declared war September 3, and the RAF bombed Germany September 4. Germany did not first attack the UK nor did Germany first declare war against the UK or France. France invaded Germany on September 7, though didn’t make much progress. A lot of people have apparently forgotten that even happened.
________
SS Athena was sunk by a U boat on Sept 3, 1939. That is an attack.
I know this will be unpopular, but VDH has an undeserved reputation as an expert on military history, full stop. He is expert on classical Greek and Roman warfare. But beyond that, he’s a dabbler. At sea, he’s a landsman. (I’m not saying he claims to be an expert, but he doesn’t try to stop others doing so.)
@ Geoffrey Britain
This is a new low in mendacity and incompetence, even for you.
For what it is worth my “demonic” view of the Russian dictatorship and its policies PREDATES that of the “media/Deep State” by several years. When Obama was mocking Romney and lining things up for the sellout of Georgia I was loudly complaining. When the Deep State was organizing and the media was swooning over Hillary Clinton’s Reset with Lavrov I was bitterly predicting this would fail much like Dubya’s outreach.
I was here for years before the MSM and Media and Deep State and EU at a time when Merkel and co were victim blaming the Georgians for the 2008 War and helping to push the shotgun wedding of Minsk I and Minsk II.
Ironic how you reiterate the idea that words are violence. How leftist for ya.
Utter Bullshit on so many levels.
Let’s count.
Firstly: Why in the FUCK would Putin need to “stop” Ukraine’s incorporation into NATO in the first place? And why would WAR UNDER FALSE FLAG be justified to do so?
Was it because NATO would somehow intervene to invade Russia? Is it because it would be triggered by Putin doing illegal bullshit to a NATO member that would activate Article 5?
You and people peddling this horseshit narrative have no coherent explanation for this. Because there is none that holds any legal scrutiny or ethical scrutiny.
Secondly: Ukraine WAS NOT on the verge of joining NATO. Indeed it still is not. There are a whole host of prerequisites that Ukraine would need to fulfill just in order to join the membership track, which it did not do. The process would have taken several years from start to finish.
And I KNOW the Russian Government and Vladimir Putin know this FACT because it was what they were confronted with when they floated RUSSIA’S OWN ATTEMPT TO JOIN NATO and were dismayed to find out that being Vladimir Putin and in charge of the Kremlin was not a magical waiver excusing them from the requirements for NATO members.
Which is why they unsurprisingly left said discussions, having figured out that the political reforms involved would undermine their own power. But it also means they knew what Ukraine would have to do in order to get NATO membership, starting with *applying for it.* Something that no Ukrainian government until 2014 wanted to do.
Thirdly: the genesis of this conflict and the spur for the Russian invasion in 2014 WAS NOT Ukrainian attempts to join NATO. It WAS NOT Ukrainian efforts to join the EU. It WAS Ukrainian attempts to *sign an Association Agreement* with the EU. Even if you want to argue (as I imagine you probably will given your prior track record and lies on this matter) that this would set Ukraine on the path to eventual NATO membership, that is still the most slippery of slippery slope claims and a “path” that could have been blocked at any time, including by simply not having a government interested in NATO membership.
That is what you mean to use to try and justify the Kremlin’s actions: a motherfucking trade deal. Or rather proposed trade deal (and one that even the post Euromaidan government facing war in the Donbas and Crimea with found problems with and have taken steps to walk away from, meaning that there was a good chance the deal would have fallen through had Putin literally done nothing, meaning all of this was not just a waste but counterproductive to his ends.)
Or more fittingly flat out bullshit and false.
But the reason he had to bang the gong about alleged ethnic and linguistic persecution is because “Ukraine can’t join NATO” is not a lawful casus belli. Indeed the Russian government admitted this many times over. Attempts to violently prevent Ukraine from exercising its freedom to choose any or no foreign alliance would be a criminal violation of agreements even the Kremlin signed, such as the Astana Accords and the Helsinki Final Act and the Russo-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty.
Which is why he first had to pretend the false flagged Guards Spetznaz in Crimea and the Donbas were not Guards Spetznaz and that he had nothing to do with them because apparently any milsurp store can just get its hands on top shelf RusFed exclusive EW equipment. And then he had to justify the idea that demanding Ukrainian language primacy in schools was akin to ethnic cleansing… of the kind being done on ethnic Russians by Putin’s Kazakh clients.
…. Is completely fucking beyond you, as I showed several times over. Including now, when I had to knock down the bullshit strawman that Ukraine was on the verge of joining NATO and this somehow “forced” Putin to intervene.
In spite of this not being what he did in Finland.
Utter bullshit. In particular a glancing examination of Germany and France well into the 2000s shows they consistently opposed NATO expansion, and in particular into Georgia and Ukraine.
And that’s leaving aside the late Cold War and early Post Cold War malaise and indecision among “Old NATO” where many of the alliance’s major members blatantly opposed NATO expansion and several even opposed the breakup of Yugoslavia and the USSR (Chicken Kiev speech anyone?):
So what you’re describing has fuck all to do with the actual disposition of several U.S. states and Western European members and how a majority but incomplete consensus came around to gradual NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia if the situation permitted. It has everything to do with peddling a heap of propaganda horseshit with even less reality to it than the Ghost of Kyiv.
In case there was any doubt you had fuck all knowledge or care for “the full historical record”, this should prove it.
Firstly: What “the Russians” view much of anything as is of secondary if not tertiary importance in a thoroughly authoritarian government with authoritarian cultures run by a Stalin fangirl. This is avidly shown by how the Russian government comports itself. It does not merely ban opposition rallies or supposedly politically neutral but suspicious events, it bans *unsanctioned pro-regime rallies.* Because the Kremlin does not want a politically aware or active public, *even if that public were supportive of them.* It wants obedient subjects and cares minimally about their preferences unless disgruntlement reaches a fever pitch like what happened when Putin talked about revising retirement benefits. Which is why Putin caved there but not on the still unpopular but far less universally hated things like Herod’s Law, the whitewashing of the Kursk Sub inquiry, Chinese infiltration and settlement of Siberia (more on that later), Kadyrov’s Chechen Lobby increasingly dominating politics, and a host of other things.
Secondly: for all the bullshit speechifying about how NATO presents an existential threat to Putin and Russians, I think most know enough to understand otherwise. Take a look at Sweden and Finland joining NATO and how it was met with muted responses and grudging acceptance in spite of how it fundamentally changed the balance of power in the Baltic and put NATO forces right up against St. Petersburg from yet another angle.
Moreover, even a cursory map out of Putin’s wars shows that the Kremlin takes pains to AVOID attacking NATO members. It does not take a genius to figure out why. On one hand, Russia would almost certainly lose the ensuing war and the Kremlin would face the choice of being trialed or going full MAD. Secondly, it does not need to attack NATO when the usual influence games and bribery can help. Herr Schroeder’s soul is much more affordable than a major war.
Thirdly: By absolutely any sane interpretation, creeping Islamicization of not just Chechnya and Dagestan but Russia as a whole and Chinese settler colonialism and irredentism are far more imminent and mortal threats to Russia’s existence than NATO. But Putin has accepted both. In large part because dealing with them would mean reorienting his doctrine and because he seems to be at the point where he Frankly does not seem to care much what comes after him.
You know, I want to find which one of your sociopathically dishonest motherfuckers came up with the pad “Imagine if Mexico or Canada made an alliance with China or Russia!!!” Bullshit projection, because I want to throttle their bank account for time and effort wasted.
This is a fundamentally stupid, utterly dishonest projection put forth by historical illiterates and moral pedophiles who are banking on a relatively innocent and naive or biased and short sighted group of “marks” who will know better. Which is why they always put forth this bullshit about Mexico today while implying the U.S. would act as depraved, criminal, and stupid as Russia has. While conveniently omitting all other possible examples that show no, no we don’t.
And we know that this is not the case because we can simply look and see how this was not some hypothetical in a thought experiment.
The only regime in history to have tried to cause nuclear apocalypse through defrauding its patron in order to destroy the United States still exists a few dozen miles off the coast of Florida. The Cuban government the Castro’s and Che built remains as anti-American, terrorist sponsoring, tyrannical, and aligned with Russia and the PRC as ever, and is indeed expanding its franchise by helping its Nicaraguan ally Ortega reclaim power and helping mastermind the rise of PSUV in Venezuela. Russian and PRC troops, warships, and bombers regularly stop over in all these locations, and yet the U.S. has not considered an invasion of Cuba since 1962 and at most has tried to assassinate Fidel an unknown number of times while sanctioning the rest.
By absolutely any metric the U.S. has displayed **FAAAR** more restraint and tolerance towards nations in its “near abroad” going anti American but saw than Putin has towards his neighbors thumbing their noses at him.
Moreover, the U.S. spent about a third of its existence viewing the British Empire as its greatest strategic enemy, and has spent all of it sharing a border with Canada knowing full well there were Canadian and/or British troops over the border. And yet most of that time has been peaceful.
The bullshit “whataboutism” or “what would you do?” Does not even work. Because we can see what we would do
through an objective look at the full historical record.
You might want to look closer at Schopenhauer’s hot takes on mangling religion and history. And I say this as someone who has to concede a lot to his activity and moral philosophy.
Pithy statements are a poor substitute for the actual study of tru to.
I remember the shoe banging event–he banged the damn shoe!
@Eeyore:SS Athena was sunk by a U boat on Sept 3, 1939. That is an attack.
Fine, but the UK and France had already declared war on Germany, and it’s not like the RAF bombing and the French ground invasion were responses to Athenia. On September 3, RAF bombers were already in the air looking for German ships to attack off Wilhelmshaven before Athenia was attacked.
Yesterday, I recommended David Sacks’s “X'” post on Zelensky’s motives for rejecting almost any kind of deal for peace. Sacks doesn’t say so explicitly, but I think he’d dismiss Zelensky’s claim that Trump’s unwillingnesss to commit American security guarantees is the roadblock to a ceasefire and peace talks. If Trump offered such guarantees, then Zelensky would find another reason to reject the deal. It looks as if Zelensky has trapped his country in a perma-war. Is a luxurious exile in London his only alternative?
Anyway, today Steve Hayward has copied Sacks’s entire post to Powerline. Throwing copyright caution to the winds, and prevailing upon Neo’s indulgence for too-long comments, I’ve also copied Sacks’s remarks here. As I said earlier, I think they’re worth a look.
_______________________________________________________________
author: David Sacks
title: Why Zelensky can not Make Peace
link: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1895971755648233940
Zelensky’s meltdown in the Oval Office began over his refusal to accept a negotiated settlement to the war. Even the Vice President’s use of the word “diplomacy” provoked a heated response. So why can’t Zelensky make a peace deal?
1) He will lose power. Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine and remains in power through martial law. Despite what USAID propaganda polls may claim, Zelensky is unpopular in Ukraine and would likely lose a fair election. That could leave him vulnerable to retaliation from political opponents he has imprisoned or seized assets from. In short, Zelensky needs the war to justify his continued rule.
2) The gravy train will end. Ukraine was widely acknowledged as the most corrupt country in Europe before the war, and there is abundant evidence that Ukrainian elites have been hugely profiting from the billions in Western aid. If the war ends, so does the gravy train. A post-war audit of where the money went would also be disastrous for Zelensky’s supporters.
3) He fears the ultra-nationalists. Most Ukrainians say they want the war to end, but the ultra-nationalist faction (a relative minority but well-armed and willing to use violence to achieve their ends) refuses to accept any territorial concessions to Russia. If Zelensky signs such a deal, he has reason to fear for his safety.
4) He’s psychologically committed. Zelensky’s belief in ultimate victory over Russia has “hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors,” according to a report by TIME Magazine, which described Zelensky’s faith as “immovable, verging on the messianic.” According to one of Zelensky’s aides, “He is delusional. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” Zelensky may be in too deep to see the situation objectively.
5) History will judge him harshly. Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality. A deal now will likely be modeled on Istanbul but require Ukraine to recognize realities on the ground (i.e., loss of territory). Acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died only to get a worse deal may be too bitter a pill for Zelensky to swallow, now or ever.
In summary, Zelensky has powerful motivations to reject a deal, no matter how bad the battlefield realities get. His incentive is to continue a doomed war even if it leads to the complete destruction of Ukraine. Instead of offering unconditional support, Zelensky’s supporters in the West should be urging him to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. Certainly they should stop catering to his unrealistic and maximalist demands. As Solzhenitsyn said, the yes-man is your enemy, but a friend will argue with you.
@Cornflour:Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality.
Not your fault, I know you’re just quoting, but this does not seem to be accurate. This never got close to agreement on basic terms like “neutrality” for both parties, and it’s not accurate that something was agreed to and Zelensky just refused to sign it.
Niketas Choniate:
Thanks for taking the time to read David Sacks’s remarks. I neglected to check his assertions about the Istanbul Accords. In fact, there may be other flaws in his argument. Even so, I’m still impressed by its clarity, and hope it’s not built on a foundation of sand.
Out of curiousity, I posed the question about the Istanbul Accords, to perplexity.ai. The resulting AI concoction was also critical of Sacks’s statement.
Below, I’ve copied their answer, along with citations to the sources that were used. It’s interesting to note that Perplexity didn’t use the “National Interest” article that you cited. Too conservative? AI political bias?
I seem to remember that you’ve expressed skepticism about the value of the current generation of AI. Not trying to poke the bear, but David Sacks is Trump’s czar for AI, so I couldn’t resist testing him with it.
______________________________________________________________
Here’s the response from perplexity.ai:
It is not entirely accurate to say that Ukraine’s President Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, known as the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality. Here’s why:
1. **Territorial Issues**: The Istanbul negotiations did not resolve the issue of territories seized by Russia after February 2022. The status of Crimea was to be negotiated over a 10- to 15-year period, and it was not clear if Ukraine would regain control of all its territories[1][2].
2. **Neutrality and Military Limitations**: Ukraine was to adopt a neutral status, renouncing NATO membership and hosting foreign forces. Additionally, there were proposed limits on Ukraine’s military forces, which could have compromised its ability to defend itself[2][7].
3. **Security Guarantees**: The deal included security guarantees from countries like Israel, Turkey, Canada, and the U.S., but these guarantees were not as robust as NATO membership[2][3].
4. **Breakdown of Talks**: The negotiations ultimately broke down in May 2022 due to various factors, including reports of Russian atrocities in Bucha[7][11].
In summary, while the Istanbul Accords proposed neutrality in exchange for certain concessions, they did not ensure Ukraine would retain all its territory or provide the same level of security as NATO membership.
Citations:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html
[2] https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4651112-a-peace-deal-between-russia-and-ukraine-was-possible-two-years-ago-and-still-is-today/
[3] https://kyivindependent.com/us-envoy-suggests-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-is-close/
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1an20x2/why_did_boris_johnson_tell_ukraine_not_to_take/
[5] https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/fact-sheet-istanbul-protocol-draft-document-april-15-2022
[6] https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/25/europe/us-ukraine-resources-reconstruction-deal-intl-latam/index.html
[7] https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-the-idea-that-kyiv-should-have-signed-a-peace-deal-in-2022-is-flawed-heres-why-250423
[8] https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-viability-us-ukraine-minerals-deal
[9] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-2669196351/
[10] https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2024/12/17/the-istanbul-communique-a-blueprint-for-ukraines-capitulation-1
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
“Putin was forced by the West to invade Ukraine” oh please Geoffrey. I am fully supportive of President Trump’s efforts to end the war. But I reject “we made them do it” arguments applied to criminals, terrorists, or other countries’ military invasions.
@Cornflour
Posting this here in response, since I figured Nik Chon’s analysis of the last point was worth adding and expanding to. Not totally sure if it is the very best place to put it for you to see, but here we go.
I can understand there. My sympathies Cornflour, it sucks and the divides go deep, even within the US and even on Neo’s blog. I admit I’ve been guilty of that too. Especially since I’m in the somewhat awkward position of being both MAGA and pro-Ukraine, broadly supporting both Trump and Zelenskyy or at least the Ukrainian defenders, and being a Pro-Trump Neocon.
That said, while I can’t claim to be a proper scholar of the region’s politics and history, I am significantly closer to it than most. I am a literal political, historical, and military autist who has gamed and researched a fair bit of Ukrainian, Russian, etc. history, and have worked with Russians in Russia and know Russians and Ukrainians, and I’ve been paying close-ish attention to the region since the early 2000s. I am still a monolingual English language scrub and outsider and my academic credentials are not related to the region, but I’m better than most.
So I figured I’d give my two cents.
I’ve read that, and unfortunately it only makes me even more doubtful of who Trump has surrounded himself with. It’s short and crisp, but I really, *really* don’t see it as being perceptive. And Sacks himself I take issues with given how he has had an exaggerated opinion of Putin and the Russian government for a long time, to the point where he outright bled over into carrying water for ISIS/Daesh over the Moscow Theater attack, claiming it was by Ukrainians and the CIA, in effect being more radical than even the Russian Government itself is willing to go.
He knows the region better than most, but he is not an expert (he probably knows it less well than I do), and I do think he is not above lying to get his way, and I was less impressed with his claims (which in addition to hewing pretty closely to the more radical pro-Kremlin propaganda outlets – usually unofficial channels like those by Wagner and Scott Ritter – are much less coherent than even those).
But don’t believe me just on scout’s honor. Let’s go through what he says.
———————
Ok, thesis so far. Though I note that Zelenskyy’s bigger issue was less making peace and more the terms involved.
But let’s get to the meat of it.
This is POSSIBLE but Iffy at best, and couched in omissions so gigantic I have to chalk them up to lises.
Firstly: It’s true that Zelenskyy cancelled elections, but he didn’t do it alone. The legislative body of Ukraine (the V. Rada) also passed the law there, and in part because of how the Constitution of Ukraine makes it very hard if not impossible to host elections during wartime. Elections were held in 2014 amidst the outbreak of the first (unofficial) Russian invasions and various rebellions, but that was because the balls were rolling before after the legislative removal of Yanukovych and the shift to a caretaker Rada to oversee new elections.
I view this as a structural weakness in the Ukrainian Constitution (one of several), and lamentable. But it isn’t Zelenskyy’s fault.
As for whether or not Zelenskyy would actually lose power in an election? I dunno. I would give this a coin flip or the like. It’s certainly true that even popular war leaders or parties are often not those trusted to make peace, and Zelenskyy might fall victim to that (much like Churchill). But I think that is a lot more dubious than the author is making it out to be; whether or not he’s straight up “unpopular” is harder to grasp but I think there’s a decent chance of a “Rally around the Flag” effect – especially after the White House visit.
I also think what Sacks is ignoring is the fact that Zelenskyy was among the *MORE DOVISH* of Ukrainian politicians and parties, having defeated his predecessor Poroshenko in elections by claiming he could bring an end to the wars and the territorial disputes and that he would negotiate a deal with Putin, and he burned a lot of political capital trying with things like proposing local votes to divide the Donbas, which were condemned by his countrymen and ignored by Moscow.
So it is likely whoever replaced him might or might not be more amicable with Trump, but at least as hawkish.
This alone I think disqualifies this post of Sacks’s from being “perceptive” in any way. I want to put up that modified picture of the Cat supposedly saying “Huh? Huh?” It’s like Sacks doesn’t even realize the implications of what he is saying.
But to break this down: If Ukraine were already among the most corrupt (Sacks says “most corrupt” but in reality the “crown” is contested between a few others like Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Moldova, and now Serbia) countries in Europe before the war, why on EARTH would we assume that an end to the war would see an end to the gravy train?!?
Hunter Biden’s no show job at Burisma was from before the 2014 invasion. Ditto Fauci and the unethical (but probably not WMD worthy) agreement with Ukrainian labs to run biological experiments that probably wouldn’t past US safety regs or legislative muster (and Putin and his client Yanukovych did not object to this at the time, since Yanukovych inherited the agreement from his pro-Western anti-Russian predecessor Yuschenko and raised no notable objections to it during his entire time in office, including during Euromaidan).
And as someone who did work in charity, you would not *BELIEVE* the kinds of corruption opportunities in civilian sector jobs.
So this is basically a contradiction bordering on double think. Sacks wants us to believe Ukraine is corrupt (and to be fair it is) and that Zelenskyy and/or his supporters are implicated (at least some of them are), and that post-war audits would expose many of them (more doubtful; Poroshenko the “Chocolate King” has evaded almost all legal trouble, but ok)……
… but that at the same time all the corruption flowing in from foreign aid would vanish with the war.
Because apparently the same companies, governments, financiers, and so on that were making bank on hydrocarbons, credit, building materials, agribusiness, and frauds of the aforementioned *before* 2014 would have nothing at all to do in a country that still has those things and is still suffering from corruption and now has to engage in peace time rearmament and reconstruction (aka, construction, the famously-devoid-of-organized-crime industry that Trump had to butt heads with)?
Yeah no. This is gibberish.
If I were being far more generous than Sacks deserves, I’d say there’s a good chance the gravy train wouldn’t END but would diminish as military support tapers off (though I have to stress the chances of it going away ENTIRELY are basically nil) and the overall form of aid comes more in things like construction work, food and medicine, farming, and both NGO and governmental “Foreign Aid.”
But even THAT ignores that a diminishment from the wartime excess would still be a lot. And that even if Zelenskyy lost power he would still be in a superb position to capitalize on at least some of this, whether directly or through appreciative patrons at home or abroad. And former Ukrainian Presidents tend to have a good track record of high standards of living. Even Yanukovych is having a fairly affluent exile. And even if Zelenskyy were audited, found wanting, and convicted he’d probably receive significant clemency due to his role.
So Sacks is basically tying himself in knots and hoping nobody notices. And it’s understandable why; I didn’t notice the inherent contradiction here (“The corrupt globohomo that helped make Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe before the war will no longer do so in spite of the myriad opportunities for it after the war”). But I hope now that I have you can see why this was such a WTF for me.
This is half-true, and mostly half-true because of how Sacks is framing this.
Because the truth of the matter is that according to his definition, *Most polled Ukrainians and most Ukrainian parties would constitute “Ultra-Nationalists.”*
Now, let’s cut through the BS and posturing on both sides. Does Ukraine have an “ultra-nationalist” problem? Yeah, it does. Indeed it has an outright Neo-Fascist problem, in part due to the legacy of Stephan Bandera, the most successful Ukrainian guerilla fighter and nationalist leader in Ukraine’s modern history…. but also a mass murdering Fascist and terrorist who killed his political rivals within his own organization to consolidate power, engaged in ethnic cleansing and reprisal killings, and who wanted to be a Nazi collaborator and briefly was until they betrayed him for declaring an independent (if still pro-Nazi) Ukraine.
Most Ukrainians have at least SOME fond opinions of him, if only because he was the bastion of the Ukrainian resistance in the face of the Soviet Holodomor and other mass murders, the Nazi regime and their mass murders, and the lighter-but-still-ugly forced Polonization of both the pre-war authoritarian “Second Republic” and the post-war Stalinist “Peoples’ Republic.” And his legacy is claimed by a bunch of parties and movements like Svoboda, and after Euromaidan the Yatsunyek Caretaker Government invited some of these Neo-Fascists into Cabinet positions.
But then they fell out with “Yats” and his successor, Poroshenko, and made a gamble that they would be able to rally public support with a calculated mass resignation of all cabinet positions. This backfired *BADLY.* Their legislative representation had already peaked under Yanukovych before Euromaidan, but the followup 2019 Election that got Zelenskyy in (and created the Rada we see today) basically wiped them out.
All of the Neo-Fascist parties have a grand total of one Rada member. They are somewhat stronger in local elections but still a marginal force. Now, if Zelenskyy were seen to be making a “Bad Deal” I imagine they’d probably have a surge in popularity, but I doubt moreso than we saw before during Euromaidan’s leadup.
Which brings us to what Sacks is “conveniently” ignoring. When Zelenskyy ran against Poroshenko in 2019, Zelenskyy was the *MORE DOVISH* Candidate, and was willing to do things like broach the topic of territorial concessions in the Donbas to have a permanent peace. This was unpopular. Most Ukrainians may not like Zelenskyy and may want the war to end, but they generally are opposed to any territorial concessions to Moscow. Especially those as vast as Moscow is demanding (such as a return of Kherson).
This has slumped somewhat as the war went on but has remained pretty broadly consistent. And it’s not surprising when a lot of people know people still stuck behind Russian lines and who may or may not be operating as guerillas. One may not be a Neo-Fascist or a Svoboda voter but still be a guerilla who wouldn’t happily settle for the territorial concessions Putin is demanding, and this does I think fit with what I believe that Zelenskyy’s more at risk of being killed if he is seen as making a “Poor” Peace Deal than from not making one.
This is the same “Anonymous Source Says” shit with all the issues that applies, even if it is in TIME or the Daily Caller. But for what it is worth this is one I can see and believe (certainly a lot more than “the gravy train of corruption present in Ukraine throughout its post-independence and pre-war history will not show up again in post-war Ukraine”). And I can’t entirely disagree with Zelenskyy if he DOES feel this way for the reasons I’ve mentioned, given what a monumental position he is in.
Niketas Choniate handled this one quite well, and I’ll add in that I flatly believe that this is Sacks outright bullshitting and gaslighting again. This myth of what the Istanbul Deal would have been pops up a lot in pro-Kremlin or isolationist propaganda, but it doesn’t really have much to merit it since the negotiations didn’t go that far (in part because of the Kremlins’ demands). And moreover I’ll note how debilitating even the terms were.
This is true to a point, but what Sacks is “conveniently” forgetting to mention are
A: Zelenskyy *tried to cut a deal with Putin earlier.* Indeed, it was outright something he campaigned on for his dark horse electoral win in 2019. And he hit a brick wall and public humiliation culminating in the Kremlin refusing to come to the table for his proposal, countering with a different and more draconian series of ones including Istanbul, and then ultimately launching its three day Special Military Operation. All of these things have told him to have vastly less incentive to try and cut a deal with Russia. And I can’t blame him for a minute given how the Kremlin’s conduct has been in Moldova and Georgia, among other places.
B: He has reason to continue the fight even unto “the complete destruction of Ukraine” in large part because he has ample reason to believe that is the Kremlin’s goal anyway. Putin himself authored a work calling Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians part of the same people. Medvedev (his “formerly” neo-Nazi Vice President) outright has called for the erasure of the Ukrainian national identity. The Kremlin’s engaging in attempts to forcibly Russify the country as is.
“Unrealistic and maximalist demands.” That’s cool Sacks and all, will you apply any of that to Putin? No?
I actually agree with arguing with Zelenskyy and support a host of things like Trump’s mineral deal or at least some variation of it. But I think Sacks is not operating in good faith or even in coherent argumentation.
Turtler:
Thanks very much for writing such a comprehensive response to David Sacks’s remarks about Zelensky’s motives for rejecting Trump’s efforts to develop a peace deal.
At the risk of sounding like a weasel, I’m not going to comment any further on the topic. Unfortunately, I’ve reached the point where I have to accept that I’m out of my depth.
Eeyore:
I agree with you regarding VDH and recent military history (20 the century). A “popular” historian, his book “The Second World Wars” was underwhelming.
@Cornflour
Understandable, and thanks for the compliment. I admit I am out of my depth as well, just perhaps less so than many. In any case I hope to see you around again more, and that you can at least comment on other things. And if you have other questions I’d be willing to try and field them.
I noticed that Senator Lindsey Graham ran so fast to get in front of the cameras to denounce his former buddy Zelenskyy, that the hair on the back of his head was flying, almost left behind; he looked like a frantic Howdy Doody.
Honestly, over all, I don’t know what the hell these Europeans are doing.
Right now England is sliding into Fascism, and none of the countries of Europe–especially England–have particularly robust economies, or militaries.
Yet, England and France are talking about putting boots on the ground in the Ukraine, England just lent a couple more billion pounds to the Ukraine, plus is giving them a couple thousand anti-aircraft missiles.
You would think that these Europeans would want the fighting to stop, want peace, especially since, realistically speaking, it appears that the Russians have used up or had destroyed so many pieces of military equipment–tanks, APCs, artillery, radar units, aircraft, surface ships, munitions–lost so many soldiers, that their ability to wage a major war in Europe, attack any NATO countries–is very likely crippled for a couple of generations and, in view of the Russian’s rapid population decline, perhaps forever.
Moreover, the Ukraine is never going to get back all of the territory the Russians have captured, not get the hundreds of billions in reparations payments Zelenskyy wants from the Russians, nor American troops in the Ukraine.
Ain’t gonna happen.
The hard fact is that Russia, with it’s much higher population, simply has more men to feed into the meat grinder than the Ukrainians have, and with Putin’s apparent indifference to how many Russians are wounded and killed, if the war continues, he’ll just keep sending more men to the front.
Since the Ukraine just doesn’t have the population to do this, and superior soldiering or technology do not look like they are going to win the war for the Ukrainians, they need to settle this war on the best terms they can get in the present situation, not fight to the last man.
Trump’s ingenious plan looked like it might have had a chance to “get the two sides to the table,” and perhaps lead to some sort of settlement.
Zelenskyy wanted what he unrealistically wanted, and the Democrats he met with before the Oval office likely told him he could probably get it by playing the demanding tough guy with Trump, so they played an apparently naive and uninformed Zelenskyy to make Trump look bad.