What Rubio has to say about the meeting with Zelensky

The New Neo Posted on by

I just saw this post at Legal Insurrection which features an interview with Rubio and a transcript. Well worth watching or reading.

Here’s an excerpt from Rubio’s remarks:

… [Y]ou guys only saw the end. You saw what happened today. You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain. The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this. He thinks this war should have never started. He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened. Now here we are. He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict. We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table. We want to explore whether peace is possible. They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.

That was all explained. That was all understood. And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made. But they insisted on coming to D.C. This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding: Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work. President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result. It’s unfortunate. That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end. He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here. …

. But again, when you have comments that deliberately – appear to be deliberately – I mean, after having discussed this repeatedly, deliberately appear to be geared towards making the argument that peace is not possible. Again, I turn to the – he turns to the Vice President: What kind of diplomacy are you talking about? Almost as if to say, these people, you can’t deal with them; we can’t – you can’t have any negotiations with Putin because he can’t be trusted and you’re just wasting your time on negotiations. Well, he’s directly, basically, undermining everything the President has told him he’s trying to do.

Look, there’s no need for that. You start to suspect, does he really want an end to this war? Does he just think that we have to do whatever he says and give him anything he wants without any end game? That was the Biden strategy. That was the Biden strategy. We were funding a stalemate. We were funding a meatgrinder. And unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the Russians have more meat to grind, and they don’t care about human life. …

What I have doubts about is whether he’s willing to say and do the things that we need in order to get a negotiation. Again, you – this has been going on for 10 days, and to see things in the press saying we’re not coordinating with the Ukrainians, that’s absolutely false. Over the last 10 days the Ukrainians have met with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, the Vice President of the United States, had a phone call with President Trump, and he was in the Oval Office today. I’ve talked to the foreign minister of Ukraine three times in the last 10 days. The argument that we’re not engaging – but yet you keep reading these press accounts about, oh, well, they’re leaving us out, we’re not involved, we’re not engaged. None of these things are true and it continues.

So all that led up to today and a deep sense of frustration, and my hope is that this all can be reset and maturity can kick in and some pragmatism, because this war – tonight, people will die in Ukraine. Tonight, people will die in this conflict.

Of course, the usual coverage will skip all of this. It will just be clips of Trump and Vance being mean to poor Zelensky.

A reminder for those people who say they’ve never seen anything on the world stage like what happened yesterday with Zelensky, Trump and Vance

The New Neo Posted on by

I suggest they stroll down memory lane with me if they’re old enough – or take a look at a vignette from history if they’re not old enough. I bring you (drum roll please) that wily old showman, Nikita Khrushchev.

I was just a mere wisp of a girl, but well I remember this incident. Although there’s no footage of it and therefore I don’t remember “seeing” it, I certainly heard a great deal about it. The setting was the UN and the year was 1960:

The alleged shoe-banging incident occurred when Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, pounded his shoe on his delegate-desk in protest at a speech by Philippine delegate Lorenzo Sumulong during the 902nd Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York City on 12 October 1960.

Khrushchev at a meeting of the UN General Assembly on 22 September, three weeks before the incident
In 2003, American scholar William Taubman reported that he had interviewed some eyewitnesses who said that Khrushchev had brandished his shoe but not banged it. He also reported that no photographic or video records of the shoe-banging had been found. However, in his biography of Khrushchev, he wrote that he accepted that the shoe-banging had occurred. There is at least one fake photograph …

So we even have fake news photographs, way before AI.

More:

On 12 October 1960, head of the Filipino delegation Lorenzo Sumulong referred to “the peoples of Eastern Europe and elsewhere which have been deprived of the free exercise of their civil and political rights and which have been swallowed up, so to speak, by the Soviet Union”. Upon hearing this, Khrushchev quickly came to the rostrum, being recognized on a point of order. There he demonstratively, in a theatrical manner, brushed Sumulong aside, with an upward motion of his right arm—without physically touching him—and began a lengthy denunciation of Sumulong, branding him (among other things) as “a jerk, a stooge, and a lackey”, and a “toady of American imperialism” and demanded Assembly President Frederick Boland (Ireland) call Sumulong to order. Boland did caution Sumulong to “avoid wandering out into an argument which is certain to provoke further interventions”, but permitted him to continue speaking and sent Khrushchev back to his seat.

According to some sources, Khrushchev pounded his fists on his desk in protest as Sumulong continued to speak, and at one point picked up his shoe and banged the desk with it. Some other sources report a different order of events: Khrushchev first banged the shoe then went to the rostrum to protest. Sumulong’s speech was again interrupted. Another point of order was raised by the highly agitated Romanian Foreign Vice-minister Eduard Mezincescu, a member of the Eastern Bloc. Mezincescu gave his own angry denunciation of Sumulong and then turned his anger on Boland, his provoking, insulting, and ignoring of the Assembly President leading to his microphone being eventually shut off. This prompted a chorus of shouts and jeers from the Eastern Bloc delegations. The chaotic scene finally ended when Boland abruptly declared the meeting adjourned and slammed his gavel, named Thor’s gavel, down so hard he broke it, sending the head flying.

Pretty impressive as a public brouhaha, IMHO.

It wasn’t Khrushchev’s only such performance at the UN, either:

This incident should not be confused with an earlier one at the General Assembly, on 29 September, when Khrushchev angrily interrupted Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, banging the desk and shouting in Russian, at which Macmillan drily said “I should like that to be translated, if I may.”

Oh, for a little bit of that old-fashioned British dry humor.

More on yesterday’s Zelensky/Trump/Vance blowup: what about Europe?

The New Neo Posted on by

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.

More on the Trump/Zelensky/Vance blowup

The New Neo Posted on by

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:

Here’s one take on the “who started it” question:

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.

The IDF issues its report on how and why Israel failed to prepare for 10/7

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a summary. An excerpt:

The investigations found that the State of Israel, including both political and defense echelons, believed or carried out the following, due to their perception of Gaza:

Over the past decades, Israel considered the threats from Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon to be the priority, while the Gaza Strip was secondary. …

Israel chose to “manage the conflict” with Hamas, to create long periods of quiet, under the false presumption that the terror group was uninterested in a large-scale war. There were no plans to conquer the Gaza Strip in a war, and there were no plans to reach a full diplomatic agreement with the terror group either, but rather return to normalcy after periodic escalation. Israel believed that leveraging improved civil conditions in Gaza would make Hamas less likely to launch a war. …

The threat of a surprise and wide-scale attack from Gaza was not perceived as realistic by the IDF, due to a major gap in Israel’s understanding of Hamas. The IDF believed Hamas to be a limited threat, in the event of it responding to incidents, rather than taking initiative. …

The most significant threat from the Gaza Strip, as seen by the IDF at the time, was rocket fire. At the same time, Hamas’s invasion capability was seen by the military as very limited, due to Israel’s advanced border fence and the false belief that the IDF had successfully destroyed significant elements of the terror group’s tunnel networks in the 2021 Gaza War. …

Israel’s fence on the border with the Gaza Strip was not intended to prevent a large-scale invasion, but to handle rioting on the border, and delay or disrupt limited infiltration attacks. …

Israel’s perceptions of Gaza were “rooted and deep.” Over the years there were no meaningful attempts to question the perceptions, and no proper investigation was held to think “Where are we [doing] wrong?”

I think a big part of the problem was also that Hamas was dissembling, and Israel was taken in due to wishful thinking.

Working on Gerard’s poetry book leads me to thinking about Emily Dickinson’s editors

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s step away from politics for a moment.

Lately I’ve been working hard on Gerard’s poetry book. I’ve discovered that editing poetry is different than editing essays – in some ways easier and in some ways more difficult. And of course I can’t ask Gerard for help, although it might be a novel idea to go to a medium with the question: “In this particular poem of yours, did you mean to leave out the period at the end? Poetic license and all that?”

So I just have to wing it. Emily Dickinson’s editors had the same questions, I’m sure, and the very first efforts at editing her work sparked has since sparked controversy:

The poems published then were usually edited significantly to fit conventional poetic rules. Her poems were unique for her era; they contain short lines, typically lack titles, and often use slant rhyme as well as unconventional capitalization and punctuation. Many of her poems deal with themes of death and immortality (two recurring topics in letters to her friends), aesthetics, society, nature, and spirituality.

Although Dickinson’s acquaintances were most likely aware of her writing, it was not until after she died in 1886 – when Lavinia, Dickinson’s younger sister, discovered her cache of poems — that her work became public. Her first published collection of poetry was made in 1890 by her personal acquaintances Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Mabel Loomis Todd, though they heavily edited the content.

Gerard led a life so different from Dickinson’s as to be almost its polar opposite. And he certainly didn’t write 1800 poems, as she did; I don’t envy her editors that task. But his themes also are primarily (although not entirely) death and immortality, nature, and spirituality.

When he and I talked about poetry, Gerard often said he admired Dickinson. And I discover, as I delve more deeply into his work, that sometimes in his shorter poems I see distant echoes.

I also had to decide, as with the essay book, whether to include photos. Gerard loved the visuals and when he published poems or essays on his blog they always included beautiful photos. I can’t use the same photos for various reasons, so if I use photos in the book I must either use my own, or photos available without copyright. So it would be easier, and the book could be sold more cheaply, if I left out the photos. But I find that, without them, the work just doesn’t look like Gerard’s. The poems look like they’re missing something.

So now I’m working on the visuals to match the poems. My guess is that the book will be available for sale in a month or two. Whether there will be as many takers as there were for the essay book I really don’t know; what do you think?

Trump and Zelensky: tactics or tantrums, or both?

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’ve published a new post on the subject here]

I’ll start by saying that I really hate the sort of thing that happened today on the Trump/Zelensky front, and I’m tired of the roller coaster of clashing personalities and agendas. My feelings about it are of no special relevance to anyone but me, but they certainly get in the way of my writing about the topic. I’d rather turn away, but I won’t. However, it makes it hard to evaluate and understand – and I don’t think I’m alone in that. As is so often the case, people interpret this according to their previous positions: those who love Trump and hate Zelensky – and that seems to be a common combination on the right – say Yay Trump! Stick it to that little worm! And those who despise Trump and like Zelensky (or who merely despise Trump) say that Trump just showed that he has a temperament unfit for public office and that he’s been Putin’s puppet all along.

As for me, I’m not sure whether this is some sort of tactical jockeying for position that will end up being a tempest in a teapot, sort of like watching a WWE match, or whether it signals an irreparable breakdown in negotiations for peace. And I don’t feel I can trust anyone to say, unless I find an objective observer. I was thinking perhaps of Victor Davis Hanson, but I can’t find anything from him on the topic yet.

So I’ll just go with this commenter at Instapundit for now, who seems to come closest to my initial view of the blowup:

Whoever is advising Zelensky about the US, or Zelensky himself, just doesn’t understand Trump or US opinion. Mistake one was at the campaign event for Harris at the ammo factory. The other was today. He can push on Trump in private, but not in public.

Today Zelensky just needed to say this on camera: “Mr. President, thank you for inviting me here for talks. On behalf of the Ukrainian people, we are most thankful for all the help the US has provided over the years, and we look forward to discussing your ideas for peace.”

Save the rest for in private, and then deflect any reporter questions until the cameras are off.

Yes. Apparently the reason the cameras were rolling is that this was supposed to basically be a photo-op. What started the explosion? It’s hard to know from the coverage so far. Here’s Ace:

The summit got off to a bad start when Trump said of Zelenskyy, “Oh you got all dressed up today.”

Vance also pointed out that Zelenskyy went on a partisan political campaign in America, trying to get Biden and Democrats elected.

Things took a turn when Zelenskyy attempted to embarrass Trump and “re-litigate” his demands for unlimited US funding “in front of the media.” Then Trump and Vance began shutting him down.

Video here. Must watch. It starts out like a normal meeting, but then Zelenskyy starts doing what he always does, making demands on people like he’s Greta Fucking Thunberg.

Trump ultimately tells Zelenskyy that the US is out of Ukraine, one way or the other, so Zelenskyy can either begin negotiating or get ready to “fight it out” against Russia on his own.

How did this go wrong? Let me count the ways, and it’s by no means an exclusive count. Let’s just say that, IMHO, there’s plenty of blame to go around. I would much rather have had a bland photo-op from everyone, and leave the fireworks for backstage, because once huge egos are publicly involved it’s hard to repair the damage.

The following comment, which I also found at Instapundit, is way too optimistic in my opinion. But I really hope I’m wrong and this person is right:

Trump seems to be doing two things here:

1. Knocking down Zelensky’s sense that he can expect additional help from the US just for the asking. I’ve been sympathetic to Zelensky’s position of having to shamelessly ask for huge amounts of resources, just because the leader of a country in Ukraine’s position has to do that for their own defense. However, he has definitely come off as ungrateful. Trump has made it clear that he has no problem cutting Ukraine off if American interests aren’t being served. This will force Zelensky to take a more rational view of the situation than he has had to so far – and at the same time, any additional aid that Trump decides should go to them will be very clearly a gift rather than anything owed to them.

2. He’s putting daylight between the US and Ukrainian governments. This sort of blow-up will be loved by Russian media, and will be widely broadcast to the Russian public. Even if Putin sees it as theater, it will make the average Russian more willing to trust Trump as mediator rather than as a co-belligerent against them.

I guess we’ll see.

ADDENDUM: This is very surprising to me. I didn’t expect Lindsey Graham to defend Trump.

The Epstein files

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve long been curious about the so-called Epstein files. Most people seem to think that the list of names will be a list of perpetrators in the sexual abuse of minors. But I’ve never understood why they believe that, although it’s certainly true that some of those names may be of guilty people. But in terms of criminal evidence, what would the list mean? I’ve never seen a definitive description, perhaps because most people don’t know and are merely imagining.

Epstein was, among other things, a man who liked to sexually abuse underage girls in their teens, as far as I can tell. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that. But did he procure such women for others? And if so, who were those others who were also guilty of the sexual abuse of minors? Epstein also was a very rich man who was a major Democratic donor and had an enormous number of contacts and acquaintances. Those people almost undoubtedly would make up the bulk of those on his contacts list, I’ve always assumed.

Now the list – or some portion of the list – has dropped:

A source who has reviewed the files said the release spans more than 100 pages, including a list of contacts without further context.

The person said the unveiling was likely to be a “disappointment” to sleuths eager for bombshell new evidence about the billionaire pedophile’s connection to prominent political and business leaders.

It’s called “Phase 1.” Will there be a Phase 2? And what will that reveal? More names without context?

Reactions:

The limited scope of the release drew criticism from transparency advocates including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who leads a House GOP task force on government transparency. …

“THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!”

Just what is that information? A list of guilty parties? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the government doesn’t have such a list, there’s only a list of contacts and flight logs and that sort of thing. Guilt by association, which isn’t guilt enough – although the public will infer guilt.

If the authorities do have better evidence than that, the proper way to deal with it is to prosecute.

You might believe that is naive of me and that obviously tons of smoking-gun evidence is being covered up. But I just don’t think so. Of course, I could be wrong. But until I see something that changes my mind, my best guess is that such a list says nothing about guilt and that the government lacks good enough evidence to prosecute. You might ask, what of the videos? As far as I can tell, Epstein made videos of himself having sex with minors. But I”ve never read anything about videos of others having sex with minors, other than speculation that such videos exist.

NOTE: Bondi seems to think the FBI is covering something up. But I think that perhaps Bondi just doesn’t want to look like Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone’s vaults.

ADDENDUM: In response to some comments in this thread –

I thought I made my point of view quite clear. But perhaps not clear enough. So I’ll try a clarification.

Epstein was a sexual abuser of many underage women. I am not disputing that at all. And I am also NOT saying there couldn’t once have existed evidence that implicated others in some sort of sex ring run by Epstein, one that exploited underage women, with the evidence having been destroyed at some point. In fact, if there was such evidence and especially if it implicated powerful people, it probably would have been destroyed.

However, I think it’s wrong to assume either that there were such other people for whom Epstein was procuring underage women, and/or that strong evidence of their guilt existed, and in particular that anyone on an Epstein contact list was guilty simply by virtue of being on that list.

Regarding Epstein and whether there were other men involved – I understand that many human beings are guilty of very dark doings. I don’t think I’m the least bit naive about that. But I also believe that many such people are quite secretive about their crimes and do not necessarily like to spread the word around, and I think Epstein may have been of the latter variety. There are plenty of other reasons all those people might have associated with him short of engaging in sex with underage girls. He may also have been a voyeur who liked to spy on people with hidden cameras when they were his guests. But again, that doesn’t mean he procured underage girls for them. Just that he himself was guilty of sex crimes.

The evidence that Epstein procured girls for other powerful men rests solely – so far at least, as far as I can tell – on the testimony of a couple of the women years later as part of civil lawsuits they filed for money. I am not a proponent of the idea that women don’t ever lie about such things, especially where there’s notoriety and money involved.

It gets rather complicated, but one of the main people on whom this perception of Epstein shopping young women around for other rich and/or famous men rests is a woman named Virginia Giuffre. You can read about her here and in particular about her accusations against Alan Dershowitz here. Read about her here also. Note that in the latter article she says, “When you are abused, you know your abuser. I might not have my dates right, I might not have my times right… but I know their faces and I know what they’ve done to me.” And yet later, regarding her allegations that she had sex with Dershowitz six times, she said maybe her accusations against him were a case of mistaken identity. Oopsies!

I have come to my own conclusions about her veracity, and you can come to yours.

Actor Gene Hackman dies at 95

The New Neo Posted on by

Usually when a 95-year-old dies, it’s obviously of natural causes. In Hackman’s case the cause is unknown and is being investigated, because his 63-year old wife and one of his dogs were also found dead. Foul play? Some sort of accident, like carbon monoxide? Suicide?

We don’t know.

Hackman was an actor of great talent and believability in the roles he took on. I first saw him in Bonnie and Clyde, the film that made him famous – I use the word “famous” because I’m not sure he was ever a “star,” certainly not in the usual leading-man sense.

This was the scene when Hackman was found:

“Foul play is not suspected as a factor in those deaths,” the spokesperson said, though an exact cause has not been determined, and the sheriff’s office is investigating. …

Deputies did not see signs of forced entry into the Sante Fe, New Mexico, residence, and the front door was open upon their arrival, according to a search warrant. The Santa Fe City Fire Department, working with the New Mexico Gas Co., did not find evidence of a carbon monoxide leak or poisoning.

Hackman and [his wife] Arakawa were found in separate rooms. The actor was found in a mudroom near his cane, appearing to have fallen, while his wife was found in an open bathroom near a space heater, with an open prescription bottle and pills scattered on the nearby countertop, according to the warrant. …

One of the couple’s German shepherds was also found dead less than 15 feet from Arakawa in a closet, while their other two dogs were found alive in the bathroom near Arakawa and outside.

I can think of several scenarios – including, for example, an accidental death for Hackman and suicide for the wife after sequestering the dogs. But I certainly don’t know, and testing will take many many weeks.

I don’t want the sad ending to eclipse the life of achievement Hackman had. So I’ll let him have the last word on that:

RIP.

The art of the Ukraine minerals deal

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, well, well:

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are set to sign a landmark mineral deal Friday that represents a breakthrough in their relationship, but leaves the work of hashing out the financial details for a later date.

“This is in some ways an agreement to make an agreement,” said Doug Klain, policy analyst at Razom for Ukraine. …

Unlike an earlier iteration of the deal, the newest version, approved by the Ukrainian Cabinet on Wednesday, establishes a fund with joint U.S.-Ukraine ownership instead of 100% U.S. ownership.

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Wednesday Ukraine would be funneling half of its revenues from future oil, gas and mineral projects into the fund, with some of that money being reinvested for more development. The deal would exclude existing natural resources projects. …

The U.S. initially demanded Ukraine offer $500 billion worth of its rare earths and other minerals as back payment for about $185 billion in aid. The latest versions of the deal do not include a concrete figure for how much of the mineral revenues the U.S. would receive or the size of the stake the U.S. would hold in the fund.

At a Wednesday news conference, Zelenskyy still said his country would not be repaying the U.S. for any of the aid that has already been allocated. …

“Perhaps U.S. companies will be contracted to do all the work of extraction, and could make big profits that way; perhaps the U.S. government would award itself an annual sum from the fund; or perhaps there would be a stipulation that U.S. companies could purchase the minerals at discounted rates,” explained Peter Harris, a political science professor at Colorado State and fellow at restraint-minded group Defense Priorities.

But rare earth mining is a long and arduous process.

Unspecified so far is just what security the US will put up to defend its interests, but Trump says it won’t be troops. He keeps saying it’s mostly Europe’s responsibility and that European nations – Ukraine’s much closer neightbors – must step up to the plate.

One thing that concerns me – and no doubt it concerns Zelensky and many others – is the lability of US foreign policy ever since Obama and perhaps ever since George W. Bush. Back and forth, back and forth we’ve gone – with a pendulum that seems to swing more widely than before, for the most part.

Will this deal really go through? I think it will. Can I say what the ultimate terms will be? Absolutely not. But I do think – as I’ve indicated before – that Trump has something in mind for Ukraine that represents a middle ground: the giving up of some territory, a promise (and not an empty one, I hope) of future security, and some economic benefit for the US and ultimately, Ukraine. If he could accomplish all that it would be deal-making wizardry – far from perfection but better than any other result I could realistically foresee in this war.