- cross-posted to:
- politics
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- politics
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Summary
Trump just presided over one of the greatest diplomatic disasters in modern history, with flared tempers, raised voices, and shredded protocol.
Never before has a U.S. president bullied and berated an adversary, never mind an ally, in such a public way.
During a tense Oval Office meeting, Trump and JD Vance attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, demanding he accept a peace deal with Russia or lose U.S. support.
The conversation devolved into shouting, with Trump accusing Zelenskyy of being ungrateful and “gambling with World War III.”
The meeting ended in chaos, with no agreement reached.
So what should’ve been the answer to Vance’s proposal of “diplomacy”, in your opinion? Do you think he shouldn’t have questioned the validity of it, in spite of the precedents? Wouldn’t that just mean accepting the deal without any guarantee of protection like it happened before?
If Zelenskyj really had the ambition of accepting a deal here, he should’ve just let it slide. Diplomacy is always a good thing if it’s fair and just. But we all know Vance is full of shit in this case. You have to have the right to defend your land, obviously. We know this.
But starting to question someone and putting someone in the spot on live TV that you’re trying to make a deal with, and making them lose face in front of their own people in their home court, that’s a deal breaker. You could tell because Vance had nothing to retort with other than say Zelenskyj was being disrespectful.
I mean, this is just facts. I don’t like it more than anyone else. This was a shit situation. He needs the deal, but had to swallow a lot of shit if he were to get it, but he chose not to. Respect to him for that, but now it is what it is.
If he felt he didn’t really need the deal, then he chose the right thing to do by not taking bullshit. So good on him.
I don’t think people in this thread realize I’m on Zelenskyj’s side in this. Everyone is just down voting every thing I post because Zelenskyj can do no wrong (❤️) and Trump is a monster (which he is), but negotiations are more nuanced than black and white sometimes lol. There’s psychology at play here. Oh well.
I mean, he was asking a question that had to be asked at one point or another. If Vance had an answer to that, he wouldn’t have lost face. If he didn’t, that means any kind of deal they could’ve made would’ve been useless (if not harmful) to Ukraine.
What would’ve he gained by not making that question? The chance to make a deal with no warranties? I feel like he’s a very good strategic thinker, and that wasn’t a choice dictated by pride or by the heat of the moment. There was nothing significant to gain by not asking that question, they would’ve just discussed the deal behind closed doors and he’d still have to refuse because Trump’s only warranty would still be “well so far he hasn’t broken promises with me, though”.
Seems to me like there was no point in being there at all except to argue in that case? That’s how I interpret what you are saying. If there were no guarantees in this deal, why is Zelenskyj there in the first place, but to shame them (rightfully)?
I think it’s because he hoped there were actual guarantees, considering Trump is definitely interested in Ukraine’s mineral industry. But as the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that keeping Putin his BFF was even more important and he just wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
I just don’t think it adds up, because Zelenskyj was thanking Trump and saying God bless Trump and being appreciative in demeanor all the way up until Vance’s horse shit. To me it just seems like he took so much offense to Vance’s remark about diplomacy that he couldn’t keep it in. Again, no blame here. But it just seemed like it wasn’t the way it was supposed to go.