Trump and Vance were saying things like "you're being disrespectful", and "you haven't said 'thank you'"--this level of argument is completely unproductive; it's what you would expect to hear from parents of dysfunctional families, not from world leaders.
And it betrays a total lack of care for substance. Zelensky has delivered public speeches in the US, while wearing a suit if that matters saying thanks to the US for their support. He just said it to the whole country, and while Biden was president. Trump doesn't care if the US gets credit, he wants to steal that credit personally, despite literally having been impeached for trying to extort Zelensky.
It's amazing levels of personal pettiness and ego. That's before you get to them inviting a Russian state news person to watch and then claiming they "snuck in" as if someone can just bumble into a meeting of world leaders.
Trump didn't demand credit or thanks from Zelensky. Vance did.
And Vance was literally just dropping hints to back down in front of the media and to present himself as grateful, because he saw the important talks about to be derailed before they even began:
> Vance: Have you said thank you once?
> Zelenskyy: A lot of times.
> Vance: No, in this meeting, this entire meeting? Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.
(And the entire heated conversation in general)
IMO, the language barrier really screwed Zelensky over.
> [Zelensky not wearing a suit]
Trump's attitude is that how you dress to an event is a sign of respect for the people you meet. Many disagree with this attitude, but if that's how someone you're going to meet thinks, then you adjust to it. Like not showing up in gym clothes to a job interview.
The thing is... That even if Zelensky did have the perfect dress code, perfect niceties, the whole thing was a setup with trying to pressure Zelensky into a bad deal. And if Zelensky was not to accept it the goal was to humiliate and embarrass him publically. So Vance and Trump would have gone for any other possible targets they can find, or alternatively invent some. So they kept provoking Zelensky whole time and even before when Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done. Even through that, it's crazy the patience Zelensky had.
> the whole thing was a setup with trying to pressure Zelensky into a bad deal.
The deal was quite good. It basically coupled the rebuilding of Ukraine (and ownership shares resulting from it) to a fund, rather than the government itself.
If Russia had then taken over Ukraine, they'd have to expropriate the fund to gain any benefits, but that'd also mean expropriating the minority ownership of the US.
> Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done.
Sure, but he is, and that's a huge issue for any negotiations going forward. Ukrainian martial law only delays parliamentary elections, not presidential ones.
If Zelensky doesn't either get a democratic mandate or recognized as an official negotiator by the Verkhovna Rada, any agreements made with him can later just be rejected by Ukraine.
The deal was awful and Ukraine would get nothing but delayed destruction. he isn't a fool. Rebuilding is useless with security to not have it torn down in 5 years when Russia recovers.
>Sure, but he is
Oh, so we're not going to have a productive conversation, then.
>"PACE President Tiny Kox: It is up to the Government, Parliament and the people of Ukraine to decide when and how to conduct elections"
Pretty much every country has martial law rules. So disagree or not, to call someone a dictator while defending against a war is outright malicious in my mind.
Not sure how to delete my previous comment but the claim that martial law extends only the power of the parliament is wrong. I've clearly relied on a bad source of information.
There is a strong argument that the Ukrainian President looses a lot of powers when his term ends under martial law, but negotiating international treaties is not one of them.
The Ukrainian constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the President to remain in office under martial law, but it does not allow for pretty much any elections and doesn't provide for a transfer of power as it does under other circumstances.
It also requires the office of the President to not be vacated.
.
So, the transfer of power that would occur under an irregular vacancy from the President to the Prime Minister likely occurs to the President himself if his term ends under martial law?
Kinda, but the US made clear that at this point they will only back Zelensky in the negotiations.
Without Russia and Ukraine agreeing on how to end this war, split the spoils and salvage the little that's left, outside parties will hardly be willing to commit to enforcing the peace.
Ideally a solution can be found that wont make Ukraine (or Russia) dependent on the mood of an outside party, but if that's realistic is questionable at best.
I think the phases of negotiations could look about like this:
1. Cease and freeze the conflict
1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia
2. A third party establishes with both sides the format of the upcoming negotiations.
3. Both sides find partners backing them, establish their minimum positions and ways to compromise on them without giving up on them (e.g. if territory can't be regained, shared management and dual citizenship for the people living there might be possible)
(4.) The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.
5. Very messy negotiations on the outcome of the war
6. Even messier negotiations on a security framework between the two countries
7. Mudslinging contest on security framework involving all relevant parties
8. Sign peace deal.
9. Try to toss aside Ukraine, get reminded what you agreed to in 1. a), regret ever having agreed to that extortion racket
> 1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia
What do you mean rebuilding Russia?
> The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.
Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.
The problem with negotiations is that Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.
Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.
The only peace deal Russia would accept is if:
a) It just allows them to invade again as soon as possible.
b) It tells them not to invade again, but the consequences are meaningless so they'll invade again and nothing happens, and the same thing repeats again.
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Russia is. To simplify this, you need to think of it as a bot playing Civilization that is programmed to maximize its territory gains, while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading, and influence on other countries to have them approve of those invasions.
Russia has taken quite a bit of damage, too (although it's tiny compared to Ukraine).
But most importantly: No matter who ends up responsible for the costs in each of the cases, both countries need a clear way to full recovery.
Otherwise you're just going to end up with an East-West Germany situation at best or an Mexico-US situation (cartels, crime, human trafficking, smuggling) at worst.
> Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.
Because the price the sanctions imposed were lower than the price not continuing would have.
If the price is simply staying at the table and keep talking, even minor sanctions would get the job done.
> Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.
I honestly dont understand why so many people hinge their entire position on this.
Russia has been warning about the situation we've got right now since at least 2002 and VERY explicitly since at least 2007.
Why do so many people keep ignoring everything Russia has talked about for decades (CFE treaty, NATO expansion, OSCE format failure, ongoing military escalation and lack of security guarantees) and just jump straight to:
Putin likes land and Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.
There isn't even the slightest sliver of evidence for this, infact quite the opposite:
- Putin could have easily kept Georgia in 2008
- The nations east of the Caspian Sea are infinitely easier to integrate into Russia, but no such efforts were undertaken
- Belarus could have been integrated into Russia much more easily, too
- There were plenty of very pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, Putin could have utilized to tie Ukraine politically much more closely to Russia with the intent of taking over in the future
> Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.
Just the bloody opposite. The Russian mindset puts the security of the nation first. If you attempt to overpower them, they will keep escalating until either side becomes incapable of fighting.
Which is an incredibly dangerous course to take against a nation that is sitting on the Soviet nuclear stockpile.
And yes, the nukes work. All (except NK and Israel?) nuclear nations keep regular inspecting each other's nuclear arsenals for proper maintenance and functionality. And nukes are VERY simple weapons. The by far most complicated component being the conventional explosive chain involved and nobody questions Russia's capabilities on that part.
> while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading
Agreed, except for the "uncensored" part. It's heavily censored, just in a very ... unconventional way.
It's hard to imagine who came up with these talking points:
- Satanist necromancers raising the Nazis from their graves
- Supersoldiers being bred in secret laboratories
- Caveman drawings having been found depicting Ukraine and Russia as one country with Moscow as its capital
.
On the other hand, everything said since the 2022 invasion is hardly to be taken seriously, since all official diplomatic dialog broke down.
Nothing Putin is saying can be taken seriously or at face value. I am from a country neighboring Russia. In fact, if Ukraine was to fall, we would be one of the next targets. We all here understand who and what Putin is. We used to be under the USSR and thankully we were able to restore our independence. Putin's rhetoric constantly contradicts with itself. He wants to build a legacy. He wants to be the largest power in the World. He wants territory. Russia is the reason why our country has mandatory military service, which I attended as well. Year of my life. All we want is to be indendent and live our own peaceful life. Unfortunately we haven't been blessed geographically. The past for us is enough evidence of what Russia is. It is very hard to see Russian propaganda making its way to US in such strides, it is hard to see people believing this type of thing.
Dictators only understand strength. It won't go to nukes, this is also Russian propaganda and Putin threatens nukes weekly, everyone knows he is bsing.
It is clear, Putin has something over Trump or Trump just has some twisted strategy here that I can't make sense of. There was never going to be a deal that would work out well for Ukraine.
Now Europe must do without support of US. Democracy in US has unfortunatly been compromised and failed.
Or showing up to a cabinet meeting in a graphic t shirt and ball cap?
Get a grip. Trump has no stable “attitude” toward anything whatsoever except whatever he thinks accrues him more power and wealth, full stop.
He’s a well known germaphobe who will let a child wipe snot on his work desk if it means getting a little closer to whatever God King status he’s dreamt about since his mother abandoned him and his father psychologically abused him.
… I don’t think anyone on “Ukraine’s side” here thinks it’s actually relevant whether Zelensky wore a suit or not. It is right-wing Twitter that’s acting like it’s such a huge disrespect and affront to America.
Your point is that Trump cares about decorum. My point is that Trump cares about power, and he would seize on whatever little thing he could to try to gain more power over our wartime ally. The suit is obviously a red herring.
You think when bullies make fun of a kid’s shoes they actually care about fashion? Duh: no.
When someone calls out a bully for making fun of someone’s shoes, is it because they give a fuck about their fashion choices? Duh: no.
Trump demanding that Zelenskyy dress the way Trump would prefer is what a narcissist does. "Oh, he must be wearing that just to upset me."
No you self-important tool, he's wearing that because his nation is at war with Russia. Zelenskyy wears military clothes to every meeting, with every leader, not just you.
This, coming from: the one who openly calls opponents insulting names and openly proposes annexing other countries like a drivelling, senile elder; and the other, who toured Europe like a witless yokel scolding EU leaders for not being democracies...
This is the US losing its credibility and the confidence of its allies at a time when the US depends on these alliances.
It's something the US patriotic wing cares about a lot.
It doesn't take much to satisfy their need (basically just nice words about the US), but they'll absolutely burn bridges if they come to the conclusion that you're unwilling to show the US this courtesy.
Trump very obviously being part of this wing, is one of the reasons that gave his campaign for the first term such a huge boost. People were convinced that he wouldn't betray the US, like they were betrayed by nearly every politician before (but maybe Bill Clinton, although, in hindsight, he absolutely screwed over Europe by continuing the Russian shock therapy and not supporting Russia in updating the CFE treaty).
Vance is somewhat part of this wing, too, but to a much lesser degree than Trump. E.g. he acknowledged in his speech at the MUC SecConf, that the US made what he considers to be past mistakes, but Trump pretty much never acknowledges what he blames on Biden and Obama to have ever been official US policy (even if he doesn't outright deny it).
.
Hence when Zelensky suggested the US will "feel it", too, in a slightly threatening way (due to the language barrier, I guess), Trump literally blew a fuse. You could see his head changing color in real time. I'm surprised he had the patience left to toss out the media semi-politely.
IMO, Zelensky should have picked up on Vance's hints to present himself grateful and stop trying to get commitments from the US infront of the media. Next time he should negotiate in his native language and bring a very capable translator, because picking up on such nuances is anything but easy if you're quite inexperienced in a language.
.
Trump is not really vindictive, despite his talking points (see him refusing to retaliate on Iran for shooting down that $150M drone, him not going after H. Clinton at all once in office, selecting Vance as his Vice, meeting with Scarborough and Brzezinski, ...).
So Zelensky got a good chance to set things straight, but Trump has also made clear that how the US progresses from here is up to Ukraine making the next move.
Knowing Trump a bit, he will push ahead with talks with Russia and keep increasing pressure on Ukraine until Zelensky agrees to a ceasefire and joins the table by making talks with Russia legal again.
.
Also Zelensky should take that "minerals deal". Despite being sold as such, it doesn't give any minerals to the US, but establishes an Ukrainian semi-sovereign fund with the focus of rebuilding Ukraine, financed through the Ukrainian government's revenue from natural resources and financial injections by the US.
Over time it'll also turn into a fully sovereign fund for Ukraine (unless the US keeps pumping absurd amounts of money into it) and Ukraine can withdraw money from it if they need it elsewhere.
> Also Zelensky should take that "minerals deal". Despite being sold as such, it doesn't give any minerals to the US, but establishes an Ukrainian semi-sovereign fund with the focus of rebuilding Ukraine, financed through the Ukrainian government's revenue from natural resources and financial injections by the US.
Issue is about not having any security guarantees. Problem with dictatorships is that they won't ever stop. The deal is beneficial for Russia. Russia will see it as a win which will encourage them to do the same thing every few years on repeat. Territory is one of the few limited resources in the World. Dictators desperately crave for it. Any economical damage they think is temporary and they see it as an investment. They certainly don't feel economy being bad. But they will feel powerful, but gaining territory. Only deal Zelensky should sign is one which will ensure that Russia doesn't invade Ukraine or any other countries again. Any other deal is a fake peace. Everyone around Russia and who has experience with Russia knows this. E.g. ex soviet countries.
I think the whole thing was a setup, and while Zelensky made mistakes, even with perfect behaviour, it was bound to go in this direction since the deal presented was not something Zelensky or a person with democratic values should accept, and Trump's goal was to humiliate him into submission from the get go.
Consider how much provocation Trump and Vance had done before that, calling Zelensky a dictator, the patience the man had is already amazing to last so long. But they would've kept provoking him until he says something which they can escalate on to humiliation.
> Any economical damage they think is temporary and they see it as an investment.
That's kinda what the deal is about, tho:
1. Ukraine gets rebuild, the US and Ukraine own huge portions of Ukraine's new industry through the fund
2. The fund gets richer and richer with Ukraine slowly taking over management, the US retaining a minority portion
3. Russia attacks Ukraine, captures all of it
4. Nearly all remaining industry and rights to natural ressources are retained by the fund, managed by Ukraine's exile government
5. Russia wants to expropriate the fund to cut off the funding available to the exile government
6. Russia realizes they'd have to expropriate the US government, starts sweating
7. Russia wakes up and decides not to proceed with step 3. to 6., because the downsides of taking over a country (insurgency, tons of explosives everywhere, new huge portions of population on expensive welfare and healthcare, ...) aren't worth it without any of the upsides.
> Issue is about not having any security guarantees.
Because they're not even negotiated yet. The "minerals deal" is something the US and Ukraine can negotiate right now, so it's on the table.
For all the other stuff Russia and Ukraine need to come to the same table, which Ukraine is very reluctant to do.
Trump only tried to get Ukraine to agree to a bare minimum ceasefire, to stop the killing.
> Russia realizes they'd have to expropriate the US government, starts sweating
Not sure what you mean by that? Russia would just nationalize the assets. What would US do about it, if they are not willing to do anything so far? The ownership in this fund would just be nice to have, not make it worth going for Russia then any more than now. And in any case Russia could just make an offer to share the minerals themselves, which they already did. It wouldn't make a difference to US.
> Russia wakes up and decides not to proceed with step 3. to 6., because the downsides of taking over a country (insurgency, tons of explosives everywhere, new huge portions of population on expensive welfare and healthcare, ...) aren't worth it without any of the upsides.
Historically Russia has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to harm their economy in return for gaining more territory.
This deal is worthless in terms of deterring Russia, if Russia is not deterred currently, this deal is not going to make a difference.
The most important thing to Ukraine is - how can we make sure that Russia doesn't invade us again. Everything else is worthless for Ukraine, for the West, and for Democracy.
> Russia would just nationalize the assets. What would US do about it, if they are not willing to do anything so far?
I do not know what keeps governments from doing this, tbh.
But up until now Russia has done so exclusively in a retaliatory manner.
Or them paying their debts to the clearing houses, despite US citizens having been forbidden from accepting their money.
Same with the EU not outright taking over Russia's currency reserves, but taxing them at 100%.
There's something that prevents governments from screwing around on this, even if I do not quite understand what it is.
And the US gov is probably quite high up on the list of entities not to mess with.
> And in any case Russia could just make an offer to share the minerals themselves, which they already did.
Sure, but it's not about the minerals at all. The relation between minerals and this deal is about the same like the relation of a pineapple tree to pizza.
> Historically Russia has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to harm their economy in return for gaining more territory.
Or for no reason whatsoever. But it's not really fair to compare the Communists or the Tsarist Empire to modern Russia.
> The most important thing to Ukraine is - how can we make sure that Russia doesn't invade us again. Everything else is worthless for Ukraine, for the West, and for Democracy.
Ukraine needs to work on this with Russia.
Russia has made clear that they want security guarantees themselves, so a universal solution might be viable. The problem being, that Russia doesn't feel threatened by Ukraine, but those backing it.
