• @rottingleaf
    link
    English
    -26 hours ago

    Technically he’s the first one to say something clearly out of protocol (of course Trump and Vance said a lot of irritating things), but countries don’t break alliances over such things, and they’ve had a lot of time to discuss something without cameras, so it’s simply a prepared scene.

    I just don’t know what’s this supposed to illustrate. If it’s a scene by Trump&Vance to “justify” drying out of military support, then why would Zelensky participate in it. If it’s a scene by Zelensky, then what in the world would he gain by it. If it’s a mutually agreed scene, then, again, see previous.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      116 minutes ago

      You have to remember that during Trump’s first administration, there was a terrible U.S. ambassador who committed a hit-and-run in the UK, killing a cyclist. The victim’s family traveled to the U.S. to seek justice, hoping the president would revoke her diplomatic immunity since she had fled the country.

      The moronic president, treating it like a reality TV stunt, had the ambassador unexpectedly pop into a meeting with the grieving family—on live TV—to say sorry. This is just how his broken brain operates.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      135 hours ago

      If it’s a scene by Trump&Vance to “justify” drying out of military support, then why would Zelensky participate in it.

      Zelensky is interested in public support.

      There doesn’t even have to be an agenda. It’s a press meeting as a conclusion to talks. As elected leaders and/or representatives it makes sense to participate.

      If he wouldn’t have participated, how would that be better? They could still justify it - in even more of a vacuum to define their own views and spins. It would be worse.