I worked for many years for a fascinating man, a brilliant negotiation specialist and consultant, Richard Halpern. My first thought yesterday after watching the astounding argument that broke out among the President, Vice-President Vance and Ukrainian president Zelenskyy was, “Boy, I wish Rich was still here to analyze what went wrong.” Rich died in 2009, but I learned enough about the art of negotiation from working with and observing him to be confident in how he would have reacted to what occurred on live television yesterday. My thoughts also reached back across the decades to the seminar I took on negotiation in law school with Adrian Fisher, then Dean of Georgetown Law Center after a career as a top arms control negotiator for the United States.
Both Richard Halpern and Adrian Fisher would have agreed that Zelenskyy was incompetent. I would add that he behaved like a deluded fool who had come to believe his fawning press notices.
First, Zelenskyy did not sufficiently research his negotiation partners, their preferences, their character, and their “hot buttons” that should never be pressed without sound reasons. Second, he did not properly prepare to insulate his own hot buttons from making him behave against his country’s best interests. Third, he did not comprehend why he was in the Oval office and what was expected of him.
Finally, he did not understand that as a supplicant nation seeking critical aid from the United States, he was not on a level playing field, particularly since he was in the U.S., on the President’s home turf. His job was to be respectful, compliant and non-confrontational no matter what occurred or was said.
The previous press conference with a foreign leader that President Trump had completed just the day before should have served as a guide. Keir Starmer was content to stay in the background and barely speak while the President rambled on in his inimitable fashion, and Great Britain has accumulated far more credits and greater good will with the U.S. than Ukraine. One commenter said that yesterday Zelenskyy failed to “read the room.” It was far worse than that: he failed to read the room, whom he was talking to, why he was there, and what he had to accomplish.
The question that begins the video above is significant: Zelenskyy was asked why he didn’t wear a suit for a meeting with the President of the United States. Wearing a suit for a male head of a European state visiting the White House is traditional decorum, and Zelenskyy’s excuse was nonsense. His attire was disrespectful: a threshold negotiation blunder, particularly with this President. He could have gotten away with it if he had been meeting with a President Carter.
Reports are that Zelenskyy’s attitude had already annoyed both President Trump and VP Vance before the cameras started rolling. He appeared defiant and disrespectful, rolling his eyes and signaling displeasure in his body language before the three sat down before the news media. Dean Fisher would have been disgusted at that. He emphasized that in any meeting with the Russians, he had to be part actor, making sure that his every glance, tone of voice, choice of words and gestures would have the desired effect on those across the table. You can see in the video above that the Ukrainian leader is constantly fording his arms across his chest. Both Richard and Dean Fisher emphasized that this gesture is taboo in negotiations. It signals a closed mind and antagonism. Such body language in Zelenskyy’s position is rank amateurism and ineptitude.
The predictable rush by Democrats, the Axis news media and the Trump-Deranged to attack Trump and Vance for what occurred arises from the usual bias and ignorance. These people don’t respect the President, so a foreign dignitary behaving disrespectfully doesn’t register with them, or they enjoy it. The Trump-haters I have talked to have been hilariously wrong-headed about what occurred. Zelenskyy was “set up,” they say. Trump and Vance wanted to get the economic deal that was the ostensible reason for Zelenskyy’s visit done: why would they want to sabotage an arrangement that benefited the U.S.? All Zelenskyy had to do was say he was grateful for America’s support, and shut up.
They say Zelenskyy was warning Trump and Vance about Putin, because he can’t be trusted. It is not Zelenskyy’s place to presume to tell the American President how to handle the nation’s foreign policy, nor to warn about future dangers from Russia or any nation. Again, he was at the White House seeking aid. Ukraine is the supplicant, Zelenskyy was the guest and subject to the ethical obligation of guests. Don’t defy, challenge or try to embarrass the host from whom you seek hospitality.
One desperately spinning Trump-hater even stooped to arguing that Zelenskyy shouldn’t be blamed because English isn’t his native language. This one is easy: don’t get into rhetorical spats in languages you haven’t mastered. All you need to do is shut up.
What follows is the transcript of the meeting when it spun out of control. My comments will be in brackets, bold, and in italics.
Vance: “For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.”
Zelenskyy: “Can I ask you?”
Vance: “Sure. Yeah.”
Zelenskyy: “OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the –“
[Comment: Moron. This is not the place or time to criticize past U.S. actions regarding Ukraine, particularly during the Trump administration.]
Trump: “2015?”
Zelenskyy: “2014.”
Trump: “Oh, 2014? I was not here.”
Vance: “That’s exactly right.”
Zelenskyy: “Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
[Comment: Again, Moron. Why challenge the VP in Trump’s presence and before the media?]
Vance: “I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”
[Comment: And Zelensky could have salvaged the meeting by doing just that. Instead, he chose to challenge Vance again…]
Zelenskyy: “Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?”
[Comment: Translation: “What do you know about it?” That’s challenging his hosts, and he should have known that Trump would be obligated to support his VP, which he did.]
Vance: “I have been to –”
Zelenskyy: “Come once.”
Vance: “I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you’ve had problems, bringing people into your military?”
Zelenskyy: “We have problems –”
Vance: “And do you think that is respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?”
Zelenskyy: “A lot of questions. Let’s start from the beginning.”
[Comment: This was another chance for Zelenskyy to back off, apologize, and stick with the matter at hand, which was to complete the economic deal with the U.S. and cement a future relationship. He wasn’t there to win an argument or to show up J.D. Vance. Apparently he forgot that. ]
Vance: “Sure.”
Zelenskyy: “First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –”
Trump: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”
[Comment: If Zelenskyy couldn’t tell that this was the time to retreat, and he couldn’t, then it proves that, as the saying goes, he mouth was cashing checks that his resources couldn’t cover. The President of the United States, whose support Ukraine needs, has told him “Don’t talk like that here: you’re pissing me off. Remember where you are.” It couldn’t be clearer. When that’s the message, only a fool ignores it. Zelenskyy ignored it.]
Zelenskyy: “I’m not telling you. I am answering on these questions.”
[Comment: Now he’s bickering! When I was a kid, my father called this “insolence” or “back-talk.”He did not tolerate it, because he was in charge. In the White House, Trump is in charge.]
Trump: “Because you’re in no position to dictate that.”
Vance: “That’s exactly what you’re doing.”
Trump: “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good.”
Zelenskyy: “You will feel influenced.”
[Comment: Shut up!]
Trump: “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”
Zelenskyy: “I am telling you. You will feel influenced.”
[Comment: Shut the hell up!]
Trump: “You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position –”
Zelenskyy: “From the very beginning of the war —”
Trump: “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.”
Zelenskyy: “I’m not playing cards. I’m very serious, Mr. President. I’m very serious.”
[Comment: SHUT THE HELL UP!!!]
Trump: “You’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”
Zelenskyy: “What are you speaking about?”
Comment: From here until Trump ends the meeting, Zelenskyy has completely forgotten who he is speaking to and why he is there. Trump hasn’t. His objectives now are to show an arrogant supplicant that he can’t make any demands on the U.S., that he expects the proper respect and deference due to his office and the nation, that he will not tolerate disrespect to his second in command, and that his negotiation principles dictate that a potential party to a desired peace deal will not be denigrated and attacked by another party in his presence and with his assent. Again, Trump’s negotiation techniques are sound.
Trump: “You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”
Vance: “Have you said thank you once?”
Zelenskyy: “A lot of times. Even today.”
Vance: “No, in this entire meeting. You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October.”
Zelenskyy: “No.”
Vance: “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.”
Zelenskyy: “Please. You think that if you will speak very loudly about the war, you can –”
[Comment: Translation of Vance’s last comment: “Do this right now or you’re toast.” And still Zelenskyy can’t do it. From here until the end, Zelenskyy has allowed the ceremonial press conference to deteriorate into a disastrous argument. President Trump, correctly, was committed to asserting his position, power, and ultimate supremacy in the relationship. On television, there was no other course open to him.]
Trump: “He’s not speaking loudly. He’s not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble.”
Zelenskyy: “Can I answer —”
Trump: “No, no. You’ve done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.”
Zelenskyy: “I know. I know.”
Trump: “You’re not winning. You’re not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out OK because of us.”
Zelenskyy: “Mr. President, we are staying in our country, staying strong. From the very beginning of the war, we’ve been alone. And we are thankful. I said thanks.”
Trump: “If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.”
Zelenskyy: “In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days.”
Trump: “Maybe less. It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this, I tell you.
Vance: “Just say thank you.”
Zelenskyy: “I said a lot of times, thank you, to American people.”
Vance: “Accept that there are disagreements, and let’s go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you’re wrong. We know that you’re wrong.”
Trump: “But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful.”
Zelenskyy: “I’m thankful.”
Trump: “You don’t have the cards. You’re buried there. People are dying. You’re running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing, and then you tell us, ‘I don’t want a ceasefire. I don’t want a ceasefire, I want to go, and I want this.’ Look, if you can get a ceasefire right now, I tell you, you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed.”
Zelenskyy: “Of course we want to stop the war. But I said to you, with guarantees.”
Trump: “Are you saying you don’t want a ceasefire? I want a ceasefire. Because you’ll get a ceasefire faster than an agreement.”
Zelenskyy: “Ask our people about a ceasefire, what they think.”
Trump: “That wasn’t with me. That was with a guy named Biden, who is not a smart person.”
Zelenskyy: “This is your president. It was your president.”
Trump: “Excuse me. That was with Obama, who gave you sheets, and I gave you Javelins. I gave you the Javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is Obama gave sheets, and Trump gave Javelins. You’ve got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”
Vance, restating a reporter’s question: “She is asking what if Russia breaks the ceasefire.”
Trump: “What, if anything? What if the bomb drops on your head right now? OK, what if they broke it? I don’t know, they broke it with Biden because Biden, they didn’t respect him. They didn’t respect Obama. They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt … All I can say is this. He might have broken deals with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden. He did, maybe. Maybe he did. I don’t know what happened, but he didn’t break them with me. He wants to make a deal. I don’t know if you can make a deal. The problem is I’ve empowered you (turning toward Zelenskyy) to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave. But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing. All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television. I will say that.”
***
A couple of final notes:
1. If the meeting was intended to be a substantive dialogue and negotiation session, Trump having Vance there would have been a mistake, because such meetings need one voice representing a position. That was not what the event was supposed to be, however.
2. I find it amazing that the Left today is taking the exact same position that the U.S. maintained in the Vietnam war: that if an aggressor country wasn’t stopped in a particular conflict, all the “dominoes” would fall. The difference is that in this case, the U.S. is only surrendering treasure using that logic, instead of lives. But the position of this administration is that it finally time for the nation to realize that being prudent with its financial resources is an existential matter. How did the same party that marched for peace in the Sixties come to be warmongers now?
3. Zelenskyy needs to dump that extra “y.” It drives me nuts.
“I listened very carefully to the entire (approx. 50 min.) public part of the exchange between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump and JD Vance. Sorry, I’ll be honest, Zelensky absolutely did not let himself be provoked, he was actively looking for a fight, or he knows nothing at all about American political culture. Trump, yes, nonchalantly approached the facts about European politics and history, like most Americans. However, he was relatively conciliatory for 80% of the time of the conversation, talking about himself as a businessman who had “reached an agreement” and wanted to take a middle position between the parties to the conflict. Zelensky kept correcting him, attacking him; he even countered neutral remarks about the destruction of Ukrainian cities, which could have been safely passed over in silence. Vance also initially attacked his predecessors, not Zelensky. It was Zelensky who first attacked Vance, as if he owed him something. Then everything spilled over. No, seriously, just compare it to how Macron, for example, spoke to Trump. I understand where the hearts of Polish commentators lie. Americans are, however, extremely sensitive to a certain political decorum during such meetings, even more so than the British, only this decorum is slightly different, less rigid in language, but very, very clearly emphasizing the status of the Republic. I lived and worked in the US for years and culturally, humanly, I literally have no words for what the president of Ukraine did, my teeth hurt from gnashing when I watched it in its entirety. As I wrote, I perceive Zelensky’s behavior as an attempt to play to the public in Kiev, then he will return to negotiations. However, if there is no such return, it will be his own fault.”
BINGO.
Ethics Alarms 
Excellent analysis.
That’s an outstanding evaluation of the meeting.
Here is how a Madison, WI area progressive blogger evaluates the meeting…
Trump’s Disgusting Display At White House As He Fluffers For Russian President Putin
After listening to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s abilities to communicate effectively as the leader of a nation in a diplomatic setting, I’m absolutely convinced that there is something more behind what actually started this war. Yes I know, I know, Russia is evil and invaded a sovereign nation, and Russia has to be held accountable for that; however, I’m becoming more certain as time goes on that there is relevant information leading up to the invasion that has been intentionally withheld from the propaganda delivered to the American people.
I’m becoming more certain as time goes on that there is relevant information leading up to the invasion that has been intentionally withheld from the propaganda delivered to the American people.
I think this is without question.
my only complaint about Trump is he should not have let that happen. Did Z. Not know his role? Now, of course, if Z. Went rogue, there is nothing that Trump could do, except what he did do. But it seemed like Trump and Z. We’re not on the same page, like Z. Had not been prepped.
second complaint: Trump should have intervened on the suit issue. Yes, Z. Should have worn a suit, but Trump should have pushed back on that question. If it was not an issue for Trump, it’s no one else’s business and he could have said so.
-Jut
Trump actually commented about Z’s attire when he greeted him saying “I see you got dressed up”. He just never pushed the issue again but he made himself very clear about what he thought of the informality of the dress.
There is a story about Governor Morris of PA taking a bet that he could slap President George Washington on his back as he greeted him to show how close he was with Washington but after George gave him an icy stare he said he would never do it again for a 1000 state dinners. Or, something to that effect.
JutGory wrote, “my only complaint about Trump is he should not have let that happen.”
Why shouldn’t he have let it happen, Zelenskyy made his own bed.
I think Zelenskyy had a huge chip on his shoulder and an agenda to “get Trump” when he walked in and he let it publicly show, what Zelenskyy did was truly moronic.
Like it or not; I think Trump is giving the American people true transparency and that includes the messy sausage making behind the political scenes. I’m not too sure that the American people are ready to be exposed to all the sausage making in the political sphere. It’s time for the American people to wake up, politics is a really messy game to play.
he did– he blamed it on bad blood between Zelenskyy and the reporter who asked the question. Very early on, 4:30.
I stopped reading after “Ethics Dunce: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy”
But it’s a typical opinion coming from someone who voted for Trump.
Ann78 wrote, “I stopped reading after “Ethics Dunce: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy” But it’s a typical opinion coming from someone who voted for Trump.”
That is pure ad hominem and not bothering to actually read the post and then comment as you did should automatically invoke the Ethics Alarms stupidity rule.
What a moron!
ALERT! Ann78 has been banned. If you reply to any future unauthorized comment she ties to enter here, that reply will go along with her post.
You’re banned from commenting here. That’s neither a fair not a permitted comment here. Bye! Anything you try yo post from now on will be spammed. Sometimes a banned commenter will have the chance to apologize and reform: that kind of comment gets no quarter. It’s pure bias.
I disagree with the assessments of the individual players here. The entire scenario was never going to be ethical. Having a “press conference” about a set of private talks that were about to happen is a recipe for disaster.
Anyone agreeing to it was an ethically blind.
The press conference, held before private negotiations, was de facto, the opening phases of the negotiation.
Only now it’s a negotiation conversation driven by left wing snd right wing journalists who all will ask questions driven by their own agendas, their own opinions and their own desire for ratings- which are best driven by asking questions meant to prompt fighting. Miscreant journalists have no interest in smoothing over relations if it can drive clicks and comments.
So now we have a negotiation by default happening with parties present who should not be there because they aren’t there to negotiate.
Behind closed doors all the arguing and back and forth and emotional outbursts are 100% acceptable.
The press conference should have happened *after* the talks.
It was entirely a fools errand and therefore an unethical context to begin with- meaning there would be exactly zero ethical outcomes regardless of how it played out. It would have only been moral luck if the conference had ended without any emotional comments.
The sentiments of the three main conversants are all generally correct even though contradictory and most of what each said was to some extent things I agree with and things I disagree with.
Which is what you would expect at a negotiation.
Michael, there wasn’t supposed to be anything of substance at the press conference. It was scheduled to announce the precious metals deal, and the other matters were not on the table. Zelenskyy started negotiating in response to Vance’s complaint, and what followed was inevitable until Z backed down and shut up, which he refused to do. Trump let it play out, which was gutsy but not wrong, to show who is in charge.
He started dropping his hopes before Vance dived in. In response to miscreant reporters trying to get them talk about the coming negotiations.
How professional. Even Trump wouldn’t do that.
Is this to the Ukrainian swear word comment?
Yes.
There was no way a pre-negotiation press conference wasn’t going to be talking about the negotiations. And talking about negotiations is part of negotiating.
The setting should never have occurred until after.
The negotiations regarding the economic deal were, presumably, done. The answer to questions about the peace negotiations is “We’re going to go over all that, but we’re not discussing it at this time.”
The proper answer the American contingent didn’t give either.
Off the substantive topic of the discussion. Trump is going to have to eventually get off of high center that Biden was the president and that Biden’s weakness caused the mess.
He’s the president now.
I agree completely. That was the worst part of Trump’s response in the Zelinskyyyyyy debacle. When he does this he reminds me of Obama, who was blaming Bush for things well into his second term.
How do you announce a deal that isn’t made yet?
“Having a “press conference” about a set of private talks that were about to happen is a recipe for disaster.”
“The press conference, held before private negotiations, was de facto, the opening phases of the negotiation.”
This is exactly right.
All the things Jack said about supplication in the oval office is undercut by the reality that this is how Trump chose to start a negotiation that was going to be fraught. If the thought process was to force Zelenskyy into pre-emptive concessions by relying on politeness and decorum, he doesn’t know who Zelenskyy is. And for the record: Every single point about Zelenskyy not knowing his audience is projection. From the fatigues that he has worn since the day his country was invaded, to a general standoffishness, to his name… What did you all expect?
The country he is coming to beg from should accept that his “general standoffishness” is just an acceptable part of the act?
Why would anyone’s thought process be “forcing someone to behave like normal leaders behave”? As opposed to simply expecting someone to behave politely and with decorum.
You’re twisting pretzels here because you think the presence of Trump in a room automatically confers righteousness on the other guy.
Not really. And I disagree with the way you’ve framed this.
Again… When Ukraine disarmed, America made promises about territorial defense, which America has since reaffirmed. While America was supporting Ukraine in their defense, you could make the argument that America was living up to the promises they made. Ukraine shouldn’t have to beg America to do what was agreed to.
And why should anyone believe anything you promise going forward?
Probably shouldn’t believe anything Democrats promise. But oddly enough you foreigners seem to think the Democrats are the adults in the room and lap up everything they say.
Why should anyone believe non-American analysis of American leaders going forward if y’all can’t get the difference between Democrats and Republicans right?
It’s not that Democrats are the adults, it’s that someone has to be, and it’s a Republican reneging on a deal this time around.
Look, if you want to say that Republicans shouldn’t be tied to any deal made by a Democrat, or a Democrat to any deal made by a Republican, then own it: No one should ever sign a deal with an American leader, because it has a 4-8 year shelf life and after that, it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Humble Talent wrote, “While America was supporting Ukraine in their defense, you could make the argument that America was living up to the promises they made.”
The agreement in 1994 stated…
If I’m reading that correctly the United States has gone well beyond what was agreed to in the document, which was specifically to “to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”, but the USA certainly has living up to its promise in spirit. What was not agreed to in writing or in spirit was how long the assistance is provided and it doesn’t say the assistance is unlimited in its duration or that it’s free.
Without any information to contradict this, it appears to me that of the six items in the 1994 agreement document (thanks HT for providing that link in your comment in the guest post) it’s my opinion that Russia flagrantly violated number one and number two when it invaded Ukraine and violated number six in spirit prior to the invasion. Putin’s actions are morally bankrupt and Russia should pay dearly for their flagrant violation of that agreement.
Someone on a different blog wrote that the war was essentially at a draw. My reply was…
Personally I’d like the war to be over. I’d like the USA to stop sending billions of dollars of military equipment to other countries without being fully paid (in some way) for it. I’d like to see Putin and Russia pay politically on the World Stage for invading Ukraine and Russia as a nation pay huge sums of money for the reconstruction in Ukraine. I’d like to see 100% of Russian forces pulled out of all areas of Ukraine and the borders prior to this particular invasion reestablished. I’d like the Crimeia Peninsula to be used as negotiation leverage.
One more reason the U.N. has become useless. But after it’s recent performance and the degree to which it is dominated by the bad guys, who could take the appeal to “Security Council action” seriously? The document might as well have said that they’ll ask the Wizard of Oz to fix the problem.
“If the thought process was to force Zelenskyy into pre-emptive concessions by relying on politeness and decorum”
Trump surely knew this would somehow be pre-negotiation or touch on the coming negotiations – I don’t think he expected or even should have expected, Zelensky to show up trying to make a case for why the United States needed to feel bad for Ukraine.
That whole opening is insulting on its face.
But nonetheless, Zelensky started making a case that probably didn’t need to be made, and certainly not made in public, when the clear agenda for the press conference would have been glad handing about the Mineral deal followed by hyper generalities about the coming talks.
But everyone should have known the likely direction, especially with reporters looking for a fight, were going to take the press conference.
I haven’t done deep research into it but apparent Zelensky may have muttered the Ukrainian word for “bitch”, pardon the profanity, as Vance was responding.
Your post has me thinking a lot. I took a negotiation class once, and it was a really interesting experience. It was fairly structured, but it made a lot of sense.
I don’t know if Zelenskyy is trustworthy or not.
However, the mineral deal isn’t good for Ukraine long term. It would really hurt them, and they aren’t really a wealthy country to begin with.
I also think Zelenskyy is afraid that a ceasefire deal will only delay the inevitable and Russia will end up controlling Ukraine in another few years. From Ukraine’s perspective, Russia is a threat to their entire existence. For him, it’s kind of like someone taking half of your house by force, and the people you ask for help tell you to let them do it to avoid further violence.
Practically, it makes sense, but there are also potentially broader implications.
Whether the beautiful ocean will keep us safe or not, I don’t think Zelenskyy is wrong that there is a potential large conflict coming if Iran, China, or Russia feels emboldened. But you’re 100% right that it sounds like the domino theory that led to the Vietnam war.
On the other hand, European nations do need to take control of their own security and stop relying on the United States to do everything for everyone. These countries need to be strong, and they also need to rediscover the meaning of freedom.
In terms of the United States immediate security and financial stability, is helping Ukraine worth it? Probably not, but it’s hard to say. In terms of humanitarianism and the international order, maybe.
I agree Zelenskyy should’ve played nice, but if Russia is about to take a large portion of Ukraine, I can see his desperation.
Endless war and bloodshed is bad as well. A perpetual stalemate where thousands die just to maintain the unsustainable status quo is terrible as well.
I see no good outcomes, really.
Just my take.
Unfortunately President Trump was played by President Zelinskyy.
Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Bessent discussed the mineral deal with Zelinskyy 2 weeks prior on different occasions and Zelinskyy knew it did not include The Patriot System or more free money. It was Zelinskyy that insisted to come to the White House to sign it.
Zelinskyy showed bad faith. He overestimates his importance.
Personally, I was delighted to see what devolved into a negotiation from what was supposed to be a dog and pony show terminated by Trump. Thank God Jake Sullivan or John Kerry are no longer around. They give everything away in the hope bad actors will change their ways and be nice if we’re just nice to them. Idiots.
“You’ve got to when to hold ’em,
Know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away,
Know when to run.”
The AUC’s reaction to a negotiation session being terminated for cause is pathetic.
Both sides make some valid points about this whole thing and the way this meeting was handled.
The fact of the matter is that Zelensky really has no cards to play beyond the morality card. It is true that his nation was invaded by the Russians three years ago, and the Russians said openly they were going to do it. The Russians claim to have their reasons, but they’re no excuse for an invasion, in fact they smack of Hitler’s reasons for invading the Sudetenland.
This isn’t the first move Russia has made against independent or semi-independent states since the breakup of the Soviet Union, or even the first move against Ukraine. In 2014 Russia seized Crimea, and Obama did not a thing about it, just like he did almost nothing about most other crises. In 2008 Russia took a chunk of Georgia, and George W. Bush did nothing because he knew he was on his way out. In 2004 and 2005 it was all over the news that Russia was battling the breakaway Republic of Chechnya, composed mostly of Muslims. What most folks don’t know is that the Russian-Chechen conflict is centuries old, and what a lot of folks don’t know is that the last outbreak ended in 2017 as the Russians decisively defeated and ended the Chechen separatist movement, installing Russian-backed leadership. I myself didn’t know that until I looked it up a few minutes ago, because it disappeared from the news when the media had a better chance of diminishing George W. Bush by piling on about Hurricane Katrina, and after that they were too busy kissing Obama’s ass to notice.
Let me also remind everyone here that prior to WWII, the Soviets waged a VERY large-scale series of wars aimed at taking everything around them: Armenia, Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, etc. They were stopped the first time in Poland due to one man, Josef Pilsudski, and the first time in the Baltics, due to limited resources. However, they later swallowed the Baltic States without a peep from the West, and they waged a war against the Finns not unlike the one they are waging against the Ukraine now, where the outnumbered and outgunned Finns embarrassed them until they finally threw huge numbers against them and forced a surrender and a humiliating peace that created the term “Finlandization” for a kind of national castration. We could also talk about Russia helping wipe Poland off the map in the late 1800s and their mistreatment of subject ethnicities, but I think you get the point.
Russia under Putin and long before him, whoever was in power, has always been in the business of irredentism and gobbling up land when the opportunity presents itself. Most often that seems to coincide with weak leadership or weakened leadership elsewhere, and now mostly in the White House. In fact, the rest of the West was perfectly ok with Germany becoming a united and powerful state because it would keep Russia out of Europe, and perfectly ok with allying with Russia to keep Germany from getting too big for its britches.
Let’s not kid ourselves, but for the United States and Europe’s support, Ukraine in this last invasion would have become simply a speed bump. I am guessing Biden was hoping the Russians would fear an Afghanistan-like quagmire and withdraw to save face. However, that failed to materialize. It’s now 3 years later and this conflict is no closer to resolution than it was at the beginning. It’s disruptive to the rest of the world and it’s draining financial resources from a lot of places including here.
The fact is that without outside support, Ukraine can only lose this war. Russia has 100 million more people, their military is not appreciably smaller than it was at the beginning of this conflict, and the Russian people are still firmly behind their leadership, which is still firmly entrenched. The Russian economy is also too big to destroy with sanctions, which certainly won’t hurt Putin himself.
The only way to win this is to turn up the support a few notches, but to do that is to risk widening this into World War III. The Europeans may talk a good game, but they do not have the numbers to defeat the Russian army, nor do they have the courage or desire to put a large army on the ground in Ukraine. The US military is actually weaker than a lot of us think for a lot of reasons, including poorly directed research and development, leadership chosen for firsts rather than ability, and weakening by wokeness. That said, losing this is really also not an option because if we do, that only will embolden the Russians to attack something or someone else next.
The problem is that Zelensky has become entitled and thinks the US will continue to simply give him whatever he asks for. Unfortunately, there is a limit, and we have our own problems at this point. His idea that somehow he is in a position to demand a return to pre 2014 borders and NATO membership to boot, shows that he is simply out of touch with the reality of the situation. He isn’t exactly the greatest guy in the world, either. He’s an oligarch who has declared martial law and put political opposition in jail. It isn’t clear where all of the money he’s been given is going. Then again, the American left looked the other way on Hugo Chavez, on Daniel Ortega, on Ho Chi Minh and similar leaders as well.
I hate this idea myself, but if this is going to end, it has to end with a compromise. If Zelensky is not prepared to compromise, then there is no deal and there’s nothing to talk about. That said, a harsh statement like that belonged behind closed doors. Zelensky tried to bring everything out in the open and got slapped down for it. The fact of the matter is that Zelensky is eventually going to have to come back hat in hand. There’s really no alternative for him. I dislike the idea of this ending in a stalemate like Korea or fertile ground for more trouble like World War I, but I just don’t see another way. Putin is a bastard and a bully, there is no denying that. However, he is also the leader of the second or third most powerful nation in the world, he isn’t in any danger of being removed from power, and a war in which the West kicks him out of power like Hitler is a pipe dream. Anyone got any workable better ideas?
Nice work, Steve. You’ve pretty much covered it.
Sorry, through this entire thing, I have admired Putin’s restraint.
(1) We broke our promise to not enlist the former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO. That agreement is what allowed the Soviet Union to break up as peacefully as it did. The Soviet’s held up their end of the bargain pretty well and we ignored ours. We marched NATO almost to their doorstep, with just Ukraine as a buffer.
(2) Russia made it perfectly clear that Ukraine would remain as a buffer or it would be war. What would we do if China snatched up all of Central America, built military bases there, and started putting nuclear missiles aimed at US? What would we then do if they started building air bases in Mexico and could place missiles and airbases on the US border?
(3) We started talking about making Ukraine part of NATO. We upgraded their airbases to NATO standards and had bioweapons research labs working in Ukraine.
(4) The ethnically-Russian border regions were being shelled by Ukraine. Civilians were being targeted intentionally. These regions wanted to be part of Russia because the Ukrainians hate them. This was very politically convenient for Putin, as it gave him a moral cover for his strategic gripe with Ukraine and NATO.
(5) When Putin complained about 2,3, and 4, we ignored him.
(6) He put several hundred thousand troops on the border of Ukraine and they just sat there, visible to satellites for over a month. This is a very unsubtle “We need to talk!”. Again, we ignored him.
(7) He marched the troops, who seemed to be poorly supplied secondary troops through the Donbas and stopped. This wasn’t really an invasion, the Donbas probably looked at it as a liberation of sorts. They stopped before entering unfriendly territory on a Friday. This is really a “OK, can you hear me now”. I expected that we would meet with Putin, and reach an agreement by Monday. Instead, we again ignored him and prepared for war.
(8) I don’t think Putin ever imagined we would be so stupid as to not negotiate at this point. He didn’t even appear to have supplied the troops. He ‘invaded’ the Donbas with what basically boiled down to the National Guard doing their ‘2 weeks/year’ training. When some of the Russian troops thought they were on a training exercise, I think that is what it was basically intended to be. That is why they had no supply lines, I don’t think they were ever intended for a real invasion. Our incredibly stupid response mandated it, however.
I was just dumbfounded that our ineptitude led to such a major conflict with such a loss of life. Putin did invade, but I think that should have been expected. I don’t think you can look at Russia and think that they WOULDN’T invade Ukraine under those circumstances. I am not saying it is right, I am saying that world leaders need to deal with the world as it is, not as you think it should be.
“How did the same party that marched for peace in the Sixties come to be warmongers now?”
And therein lies the rub, as the Bard put it.
Why are the Democrats – who have treated every single conflict in which America has involved itself for the past 60 years as if we were inflicting our awful way of life upon the world – so invested in what happens to Ukraine? Is it just because there aren’t any boots on the ground, so to speak? Is it because there’s just entirely too much money in the U.S. Treasury? Is it because they are starting to believe their own Putin is Hitler and is the Mastermind Behind Trump propaganda?
Americans are traditionally sympathetic to the underdog in a fight like this. We don’t want innocent people to suffer while idealogues play fast and loose with their lives. So, yes, Americans as a whole are sorry for the people of Ukraine. Its government may not be a democracy in the cleanest sense of the word, but it’s trying. Many Americans remember the Cold War sufficiently to not be too terribly uncomfortable with the Russians being the bad guys.
However, this whole thing reminds me a lot of Chiang Kai-Shek and China during WWII.
General Chiang Kai-Shek and his wife Soon Mei-Ling (more commonly known as Madame Chiang) held court over Nationalist China of the thirties as it held out thinly against the Japanese. Naturally, American sympathies were with China, particularly after 1937 and the Rape of Nanking. We were horrified at the treatment of innocent civilians by the Japanese army.
Like the famed Lafayette Escadrille in WWI, American pilots were permitted to volunteer to fight for China in 1941 as the Flying Tigers. After Pearl Harbor, China became our ally officially. Though we prioritized the defeat of Germany, the U.S. invested heavily in China only to find that not much was being accomplished by the Chinese army. It could be argued that Mao Zedong and his resistance group was doing more to fight the Japanese than General Chiang’s troops.
General Joseph Stilwell was the head of U.S. forces in China and had a tense relationship with the Generalissimo. Calling Chiang “Peanut” behind his back, Stilwell was disgusted at the way in which Chiang and his wife’s relatives – the powerful Soong family – lived opulently while their people suffered. The Soongs may not have been oligarchs in the exact sense of the word, but Nationalist China was hardly a democracy anyway.
Still, the Chinese were our allies and we were fighting a war. Madame Chiang was American educated. Her excellent English charmed the media and the American public when she visited the U.S. She did not, however, charm the President.
Around DC, the Generalissimo soon became known as “Cash My Check” because it seemed that all the Chiangs wanted was more and more U.S. funding despite there being little outward evidence that what we were providing was being utilized effectively.
Madame Chiang’s demeanor was overbearing. For someone part of an alliance, she expressed no interest in meeting Winston Churchill who was also in DC at the time. It appeared that she was more intent on propagandizing to the American people and shopping than dealing with her allies. FDR couldn’t wait to get her out of the country.
The circumstances are a little different here. The Ukrainian army is trying to pull its own weight. The U.S. was involved in a war with China as an ally rather than just sitting on the sidelines. There are no American troops fighting in Ukraine…yet. While there was media critical of President Roosevelt, there weren’t wide swathes of it ready to undermine him at the expense of the country.
But we are continuing to give Ukraine billions of taxpayer dollars, some of which has gone missing. And President Zelenskyy is a former actor who should surely be able to read a room and adjust his performance accordingly. Imagine if he’d had the same conversation with President Obama and Vice-President Biden. But, then again, the Democrats weren’t using 80’s foreign policy at that time, either.
This is why I think that whole thing was a show. Zelenskyy wasn’t there to be a supplicant. He was propagandizing to the American people through a media hostile to President Trump. With some of my Facebook friends, it worked. One of them even stated that she was ashamed to be an American.
Of course, Madame Chiang was smart enough not to harangue President Roosevelt and Vice-President Wallace in front of news cameras. If she had, FDR would have been witty enough to deflect her.
But, at least, she didn’t wear a t-shirt to the White House
“ ‘How did the same party that marched for peace in the Sixties come to be warmongers now?’ ”
Same way they were all_of_a_sudden_and_at_once A.O.K. with mining rare earths…
The Gotch
It truly is a shame that Zelenskyy didn’t walk on his knees into the oval office, shuffle over to Trump, bow, and, there being no rings on Trump’s fingers, kiss him on the ass. Then things would have gone better for Ukraine.
He could have ignored the fact that Trump, his host (in name, at least), had publicly insulted him upon his arrival. He could have brushed aside the repeated belittlement of Ukraine and the increasing love affair between the MAGA gaggle and a vicious, murdering dictator. He could have paid no heed to the fact that the United States has repeatedly betrayed wartime allies since it wasn’t Trump himself who did all of that. He could have closed his ears to the political allies of Trump who clamor for an end to aid to Ukraine and even to Ukraine itself.
Then, prostrate and subservient, he would have been in a strong enough negotiating position to be able to negotiate away valuable mineral rights for the possibility that the American uncouth narcissist might deign to throw him a few crumbs.
It truly is a shame that Zelenskyy didn’t walk on his knees into the oval office, shuffle over to Trump, bow, and, there being no rings on Trump’s fingers, kiss him on the ass.
It sure is. When you are looking for a handout, that’s completely competent behavior.
Then things would have gone better for Ukraine.
And that’s what the leader of the country was there for.
He could have ignored the fact that Trump, his host (in name, at least), had publicly insulted him upon his arrival.
Not could have, should have. And the insult was completely justified.
He could have brushed aside the repeated belittlement of Ukraine and the increasing love affair between the MAGA gaggle and a vicious, murdering dictator.
Yup. Completely irrelevant to his purpose and goal.
He could have paid no heed to the fact that the United States has repeatedly betrayed wartime allies since it wasn’t Trump himself who did all of that.
Again, should have, because it had nothing to do with the purpose of his visit or his objective.
He could have closed his ears to the political allies of Trump who clamor for an end to aid to Ukraine and even to Ukraine itself.
Absolutely should have done that. But he’s apparently 12-years old, and has no self-control or sense of priorities whatsoever.
Then, prostrate and subservient, he would have been in a strong enough negotiating position to be able to negotiate away valuable mineral rights for the possibility that the American uncouth narcissist might deign to throw him a few crumbs.
If that was the best deal he was going to get, damn right.
You haven’t made a single cogent defense of Zelinskyy’s conduct, or rebutted any conclusions of the post, unless you really think that he and Ukraine are better off now that he indulged himself rather than practice diplomacy and professional statesmanship.
And nobody thinks that. Nobody.
Nobody, including me.
He and Ukraine both are worse off, and it appears that was the intent of the Trump administration all along. Otherwise, why humiliate a foreign leader, a guest, right from the beginning? (Trump did not similarly mock Modi for not wearing a suit.)
I don’t think strengthening Russia is in the US interest. But, European nations may get more energized in support of Ukraine, and that seems to be a part of Trump’s game plan as well.
Modi was in formal attire that reflected his culture. The suit is not the issue it was the informality. The same is true when Arab Sheiks come to the White House.
Stating the obvious, but for those determined to see Trump as wrong about everything regardless of his conduct, the obvious often has to be stated.
I mean, really… When billionaires come to the oval office, they wear t-shirts and toddlers, I don’t buy the performative outrage about attire. Trump picked a fight and got one.
It’s not performative, HT. It you want to slam Musk for casual wear in the Oval Office, that’s aces with me, but he works for Trump, and Trump can approve or allow it or ignore it as he pleases. Larry King, the slob, interviewed Clinton and Gore at teh WH in his usual jacketless attire, and it was noted and inappropriate. But heads of state have different and well-established standards of decorum, as do meetings between the branches: Sen. Fetterman would not (I hope) meet with Trump in his Lurch outfit. This is basic civility and respect. It troubles me that the point is even in dispute.
Sorry, but this feels definitionally performative.
No, I don’t care what Musk wears to the oval office, I thought that press briefing was probably off the cuff and I thought that it was impressive how he articulated his points while doubling as as a climbing structure.
My point is that not only do we have the obvious multiple standards for attire, but he wore the same fatigues when meeting with Biden, so this isn’t even the first time he’s worn those clothes in that room. Did anyone mention it the last time?
But now we care? Please.
I’ve always cared, and a responsible President has a duty to protect the image, dignity and “aura” of the office, which as designed is both king and PM combined, with a little bit of flag mixed in. (Admittedly, this is not one of Trump’s long suits, no pun intended.) Surely you’re not saying that future POTUS’s are bound by our previous demented Prez’s weenie-ism. Biden should have told Zelinskyy to go back to his room and stop dressing like a Jack Kirby super-villain.
I didn’t say that, I said “literally anyone”. And to be fair: I realize I’m being hyperbolic, I remember the tan suit scandal and I’m sure *someone* was bothered by the fatigues.
But do you know anyone that actually bothered to say it? Can you point me to the ideologically consistent clothing snob who commented that wearing fatigues to the oval office was inappropriate the last time he did it, *and* this time?
I’ll concede the point.
The point is, nobody should have to say it. The office demands respect, and has always automatically received it. It’s like standing up when a woman enters the room, or saluting a general. If someone had an audience with King Charles and farted loudly, the retort “Well, where is it written that you can’t fart in front of the King?” would be, I think, inadequate. Trump, in particular, because the “resistance” tried to remove all of the traditional and ceremonial aura’s of the office and his Presidency was crippled by it, has a reason to be especially vigilant on this matter. Foolish Jimmy Carter met with people dressed in flannel shirts: Reagan reversed that trend in a hurry.
So what you’re saying is “no”.
And I just want to highlight the absolute absurdity of saying that Trump is vigilant about the respect of the office and thinking that Zelenskyy’s fatigues demean that respect against the backdrop of Musk’s t-shirt and toddler apparel.
Again… I don’t care what people wear to the oval office, you might, but Trump? You think Trump does? No, I’m sorry, that’s insane.
Trump made it pretty clear that he didn’t care. Vance did. Vance is right.
I don’t know why the disparity in need and status is so hard to grasp. Sure, Trump wanted a “win,” but Ukraine’s fate would be about, oh, 437th on Trump’s (or the US’s) list of priorities, as well as on the priorities of those who voted for him. I presume his nation’s welfare is #1 on Z’s list, unless personally profiting from graft or being president for life is…at any rate, Trump was 100% correct that he holds “no cards.” When you hold no cards, calling the man at the table who does is incompetent and irresponsible. I wish him luck, but our President will make him pay if he wants to come crawling back. Good.
Not permitting Russian success in its territorial expansion is pretty high on *every* commercial republic’s priority list, if a fundamental component of the world order we have grown to enjoy and everyone has enjoyed in terms of expanded material comfort and convenience relies on respecting the territorial integrity of non-aggressive countries.
If Yes, then permitting Russian success undermines that component – emboldening other countries to play “let’s redraw the borders” and further degradation of world stability.
If No, it isn’t an component, I’d like to know why.
Following on the poker metaphor, Zelinskyy had a pair of twos; Trump had a royal flush. Zelinskyy bluffed and got his proverbial hat handed to him, head and all.
I find it fascinating that the DNC and the Left are simply apoplectic over Trump’s treatment of the Ukrainian president. The “you just don’t do that in foreign relations, especially to a vital ally” response is fun to watch. Chris Hayes over at MSNBC just couldn’t abide Trump’s disregard of diplomacy rules of etiquette and decorum, declaring it the worst foreign relations blunder in 80 years*or something.
I saw John Bolton and John Brennan (man, why does my first name have to associated with those two?) rending their garments over Trump’s diplomatic nightmare! Why those two are allowed to comment on anything is a mystery to me.
jvb
*Ed. Note: The author of this comment not sure what is important about the 80 year time frame, and seems to think the time frame kind of aligns with end of WWII and the foundings of the United Nations. Well, the commenter is delusional but his question is interesting because Hayes was not the only pundit kvetching about Trump, et al’s blunder.
I’m not sure what video you watched, but in the video linked at the top of this post, some off camera staffer complains about the attire, presumably under the assumption that cameras were not yet rolling and it was a last chance to fix some optics for broadcast.
At first opportunity, Trump compliments the clothing, says it looks very good, pats Zelenskyy’s back, and throws the staffer under the bus blaming some kind of prior animosity between the staffer and Z.
Not only did Trump ‘not similarly mock Modi’, he definitively did not mock Zelenskyy.
I get your point, and maybe I am misreading the situation. But, to me, when someone clearly is not all dressed up, to say that he is implies that’s the best he can do, a put-down. There is a better response, and that is to explain or let Zelenskyy explain why he wears a combat uniform as he has done for many meetings with world leaders.
Tell me you’ve never heard men carry on without telling me you’ve never heard men carrying on.
When I first heard the claims that Trump wildly insulted Zelenskyy’s dress, I almost rewatched the *entire* video because all I remembered was what was mentioned above, Trump jokingly defusing someone else’s comment about Zelenskyy’s clothes.
Zelenskyy’s lack of formality is probably creeping in the Julie Principle at this point.
Rightly or wrongly he’s displaying putting on the costume of war ravaged Ukraine. He’s constantly channeling the landscape in tatters in what he wears.
Which, also, to be clear, undermines his response that Ukraine isn’t destroyed when Vance mentioned that they were trying to save Ukraine from total destruction.
“and the increasing love affair between the MAGA gaggle and a vicious, murdering dictator”
You’ll need to explain this. I’ve seen this accusation tossed about pretty freely by progressives and the Trump deranged. I haven’t seen a lot of substance on the right to back it up. I’ve seen a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of some Americans that think Putin is swell – and half of them are only saying it to provoke leftists (who remarkably inexplicably don’t support Russia – one of their most favorite ideal nations for like a century).
No, I’ve seen alot of people who think things are so absolutely binary that the mere mention of “maybe we should talk to the Russians” is the same as an endorsement of their evil invasion.
I think that’s asinine.
Trump sort of responded to that when it was suggested that he treats Putin with respect. Trump said (and I am paraphrasing) that he absolutely treats Putin with respect because his role as a third-party mediator requires it if there is going to be a lasting cease fire and peace agreement, which seems fairly reasonable in my Dr. Pepper-deprived mind.
jvb
3. Ain’t nothing wrong with double consonants at the end of a name. Pretty common, on this site at least.
In THAT name, “y” is a vowel.
Indeed they are. My ignorance of Cyrillic is showing. Still, Зеленський with the double vowels Romanized to a single y changes the pronunciation. Common courtesy requires that we spell it and pronounce it as he prefers.
I see this tweet from Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut):
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.
So Zelenskyy got bad advice from the Democrats prior to the meeting in the Oval Office.
https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1895508100595204115?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1895508100595204115%7Ctwgr%5E802f179ee0833b2f4f9d7747789a6bef78663326%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fbonchie%2F2025%2F03%2F02%2Fdemocrats-encouraged-zelensky-to-scoff-at-a-peace-deal-setting-up-oval-office-blow-out-n2186178
Hard to be respectful when the so-called president called you a dictator and voted with the other dictators on the recent UN resolution.
1. Diplomacy is hard. If you can’t cut it let someone else do the job.
2. By any standard definition, Z is a dictator. He cancelled elections, imposed martial law, banned opposition parties and took over the media. Trump is being called a dictator for signing executive orders that affect the Executive Branch. We have concluded that Z is a better dictator than Putin, but the U.S. should know what it’s supporting.
3. Once reason the US doesn’t have a law permitting POTUS to skip elections in wartime is that it creates an incentive for leaders to keep wars going. Lincoln had to run for reelection in the middle of the Civil War!
Do we have any kind of contingency if an invasion puts a decent percentage of voters in occupied territory?
How do you solve a problem like the Europeans?
Before we talk about this topic, I have a problem I’m working through.
I live across the street from a guy who immediately behind his house is a large stock pond that is even higher than his house – the retaining berm is pretty high compared to the foundation of the house, if you can imagine. Well, across the street where we live, is lower.
He’s always been a little concerned about the water pressure against the berm possibly breaching and flooding his house – which, if bad enough could cross the street and affect my house. One day many years ago, when the weather threatened to have a very rainy season, he asked me, since we both have this mutual concern if I could come over and help clear out the relief spill way of the pond. So I brought my shovel, which I’d kept nice and clean, sharp and the wooden handle well oiled. He had his also – a little worse for wear, but whatever, it’s a shovel right?
Well, we cleared the spill way of debris – any serious rain raising the water level would then be free to pour clear of his yard and relieve pressure on the berm. We walked home exhausted from the work, he tossed his shovel in the shed. He’s always been a little brusque and arrogant (I think he thinks a little more of his lifestyle than mine), so I didn’t really think much of it when he only said “Thanks for that”.
When I got home, I spent about an hour cleaning my shovel, hammering out some dings from rocks and running the grinder on it to re-sharpen it. I then applied teak oil (a not inexpensive preservative and moisturizer) on the handle. I put my shovel away.
Later in the season my neighbor saw me doing some landscape work with my shovel to improve the neighborhood. He scoffed saying he didn’t agree with what I was doing and what business of mine was it.
The next year, the as the rainy season approached my neighbor, again concerned about the pond, asked me over again to make sure the spillway was clear for flow, reminding me the pond could just as easily affect me, downhill across the street. My kids enjoyed playing in his backyard with his kids plus it would be neighborly. I brought my shovel and he kind of took some time rummaging through his mess of shed to find his shovel. Looked like it still had the mud from last year.
We went to work. At the end of the day, he tossed his shovel in the shed. I went home and sharpened, cleaned, reshaped and oiled mine – I had work to do over the coming months in other locations. My neighbor always had comments about the work I did and always thought I wasted time keeping my shovel in working condition. He laughed that with my work I didn’t have time for the fun things he could do.
One time, I asked my neighbor if he would be prepared to help my on the other side of my house cut a firebreak because I was concerned about the danger of a wildfire over there. His response was “I’ll see what I can do, but I’m pretty busy over here, so I wouldn’t expect to be able to soon.”
Another season went by, this time rain came on us with little warning and he called me up demanding I get over there and clean out the spillway before disaster befell both of us. On my way with the shovel, he asked me to try to get most of the work done as his shovel was too rusty and dinged up – the wooden handle was dry rotted a likely to snap. He said he’d always intended on taking care of his shovel but that he just didn’t have time for it with all the fun things he was doing.
As the rain poured down, I went to the top of the berm only to discover the pond was dry – bone dry – as in, it probably didn’t have any water in it for a year or two. There was zero chance this pond was going to breach and threaten our yards unless a true deluge happened.
I walked home with my shovel to the great anger of my neighbor who said he might lose all respect for me if I didn’t pitch in. He told me I would have no standing in the community if I didn’t help him and that all the respect I’d earned as a hard worker around the neighborhood would be for nothing. He told me we had an understanding and that I owed him and that if something happened to my yard, he would certainly be there for me.
Anyway – I’m not sure what I owe my neighbor.
Can y’all help me out with this situation?
Now, let’s talk about the problem of Europe.
From the start of the modern era, that is the late 1500s on Europeans engaged in continent-wide savage bloodlettings on multiple occasions.
1618-1648: The Thirty Years’ War consumed possibly 4.5 to 8 million people out of an estimated population of 75 million people (6-10% – though slightly less because it doesn’t count full amount of new births in that era).
The Franco-Spanish War occurred roughly contemporaneously, adding to the death count. These sucked in various German states, the Dutch, Spain, France, Sweden, the Hapsburg realms (Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, etc)
1672-1678: Franco-Dutch War; France, England, Sweden, the Dutch, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, several German states, etc, slogged it out to the tune of some 340,000 soldier deaths alone.
1688-1697: the Nine Years’ War; the Dutch, England, Scotland, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, etc duked it out chalking up another 680,000 soldiers KIA.
1683-1699: the Great Turkish War; (somehow along side the 9 years war); the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Venice, and the Spanish Empire against the Ottoman Empire. Europe sent another 384,000 soldiers to their doom.
1701-1714: the War of the Spanish Succession; consumed 700,000 to 1.3 million soldiers alone and saw Europeans stretch their legs to include combat abroad as their colonial empires grew. This sucked in France, various German states, England, the Dutch, Prussia, Portugal, and others.
1700-1721: the Great Northern War; Sweden, Poland, Ottoman Empire, a large variety of Slavic nationalities, Russia, various German states, Lithunia, England, Scotland, Ireland, the Dutch, Denmark, Norway, Prussia, Moldavia, et al, managed to run this war on the side of the War of the Spanish Succession at the cost of about 500,000 soldiers dead.
1740-1748: the War of Austrian Succession; France, Prussia, Spain, various German states, various Italian states, Sweden, some of Scotland, the Hapsburgs, Great Britain, and Russia laid each other out with 750,000 casualties. This war also saw widespread combat across the globe.
1756-1763: the Seven Years’ War; in another conflagration fought between Europeans across world wide locations; Great Britain, Prussia, Portugal, France, the Hapsburgs, Russia, Spain, Sweden, et al, slogged it out with some
630 to 850 thousand dead soldiers. This one saw widespread use of local colonial forces in the combat with Americans, Native Americans, Mughal Indians, Bengalese involvement.
1793-1802: the French Revolutionary reaction; France and some allies, Holy Roman Empire, Great Britain, Spain, the Dutch, Switzerland, some German and Italian States, the Ottomans, Portugal, Russia, the United States and various colonies – another 280,000 (at a minimum).
1802-1815: the French expansion and collapse – The Napoleonic Wars; here we get to see a prelude of what was really to come. The United Kingdom, the Hapsburgs, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Italian States, Iran, the Ottomans, Montenegro, German States, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, and the French get to learn what unhealthy nationalism can allow a dictator to lead to – an unlearned lesson to the tune of at least 6 million dead.
1853-1856: the Crimean War; the Ottomans, France, the United Kingdom, go after Russia, with a loss of anywhere from 600,000 to 1 million dead.
1870-1871: The Franco-Prussian War; finally, a remarkably “isolated” war, pits France against Germany, but just the two nations racked up some 200,000 dead soldiers and 250,000 dead civilians.
Alongside all of that 250 year war-fest there were dozens of sideshows on the European Continent that were spats involving more than just neighboring powers in addition to the fights between unhappy neighbors. This summary history begins with the modern age primarily because Europe’s wars prior to this – the drama of the middle ages, mostly resembled what we would see familiarly in modern era in places like Africa or the Middle East – that is, man’s perennial condition – limited local wars of varying intensity waged primarily between prima donna young men and their loyal constituencies trying to make a name for themselves or two ethnos that just flat out refuse to live together.
From the end of the Franco-Prussian War on, Europe seemed to content itself in various scraps cleaning up things around their respective colonies while apparently gaining an incredible level of openness in commerce and travel between the home countries on the continent. Apparently only to really be containing an increasing pressure of energy waiting to burst:
The cataclysm of 1914-1945 absolutely ruined European nations in a way the previous wars had not. The most unscathed of the Europeans were the British – and even they lost the entirety of their Empire and were reduced to the most dire of living conditions on the home Islands. The rest of Europe, lived in the hollowed-out rubble of vast combat zones with a bare thread of industry and a large percentage of their working population flat out gone.
The culminating point of old-world European culture was a suicide pact that saw something like more than 3% of the population killed. The first half the war brought all of Europe’s colonial energy to the continent while the second half brought all of Europe’s internal hatred to rest of the world. Europe broke itself, broke its self-confidence, and resulted in the only way Europe could be at peace: with stronger powers from outside Europe managing the peace. All of modern history was a competition for 1 single European power to dominate Europe and so ensure a peace in Europe under their own authority – but no single European nation could ever pull it off, and no coalition that attempted to do so could remain unified.
Enter the Americans. While the Russians for a time were also part of the European “Peace”, they engaged in a losing 40 year “balance of power” arrangement in Europe with the US dominated western coalition. But each passing decade saw Russia’s part in the peace diminish as country after country flipped towards the US arrangement. Make no mistake: Russia has only itself to blame for why any country administered by it under the post-war peace ran as fast as it could towards NATO.
Even while Russian power was perennially diminishing, since Socialism is an abject failure in sustainability, it’s primary appearance was that of an equal counterbalance to the US lead western coalition. And as long as that appearance held to be reality, then the drama of 1945 to 1990 was that of a world that had to pick between the United States or Russia.
That changed in 1991. Suddenly we had a Russia that might not be so tough, but we weren’t so sure – so it was best to keep our posture towards it and keep allowing into the western fold all takers. Here the West failed in not necessarily vetting and creating “tiers” based on republican similarity – we were just happy to accept anyone who opposed Russia.
But the US-Russia dynamic continued from 1990 until the present day, as we operated under the belief that while the USSR collapsed, Russia was still the world’s 2nd power and should be taken seriously – and why not? They were still strong players of many areas of conflict in the world.
But the Russians knew something we didn’t. They weren’t so great after all. They saw something in their future that they had better shore up before the reality manifest. They didn’t just lose Warsaw Pact – they didn’t just lose the USSR – they were going to lose all of Russia before long. Sure, they could rustle up trouble for Western powers here and there across the globe, because they knew they didn’t have to invest in cleaning up those messes. But they were (and still are) headed towards a demographic collapse.
Enter Vladimir Putin – a guy who promised the Russians a return to greatness and the possibility of reversing their not-too-far-in-the-future-decline-beyond-recovery. But he also knew what we didn’t know, he wasn’t going to successfully pick a fight with a NATO country, but he needed to do something to energize his people and expand the buffer zones around the Russian ethnic core. He only had 1 option: Ukraine.
Now we get to the actual end of the Cold War. The Cold War was premised on the idea that we believed Russia and it’s hegemony was too strong to defeat conventionally without completely wrecking our civilization and we made our civilization too strong for the Russian hegemony to defeat without completely wrecking themselves. This specter of something worse than World War 2 made sure nothing serious ever happened between the West and Russia. The Cold War was predicated on neither side knowing the real strength of the other and therefore being too scared to do anything about it.
But now we know. The cat is out of the bag on Russian ability. They could not even secure more than 20% of a 4th rate country on their own border. Putin’s gamble in Ukraine not only failed, it failed spectacularly. A minimum investment in Ukrainian resilience by Western Powers before Putin expanded the invasion in 2022 led to Russia crapping its pants on the offensive. Now, 3 years later and some 700,000 Russian casualties later, Russia is still sitting only maybe halfway towards what could be called minimal objectives.
We know Russia’s maximal objectives were 100% out of reach by day 3 of the war. By the end of the first month, it was already giving up on “next best thing” level objectives.
This is an interesting development in terms of European balance of power dynamics.
The European Union, an economy some $20 trillion strong and a population of 450 million people are looking at Russia’s $2 trillion economy and 140 million people, and they still don’t understand that Russia is not the 1945 Soviet Empire. That’s just the EU. If we expand this to all of Europe (minus the CIS countries) then Europe becomes a $24 trillion dollar economy with 590 million people.
The Europeans, since 1945, have counted on the presence of two massive entities refusing to go to war with each other to ensure European unity and peace. But now, one of those powers has turned out to not really be what we thought it was. And now, the other power is kind of wondering why it is being asked to come over to dig relief ditches with their well maintained and expensive shovel in their pond spillway since the pond is dry and the neighbor’s shovel is rusty and un-taken care of.
So we have a dynamic here. The US ant has been supplementing the EU grasshopper’s lifestyle for quite awhile. And some of the ants are beginning to not like that, especially when the grasshoppers mostly complain about the ant and hold the ant’s lifestyle in contempt.
But there is another dynamic here as well. The United States, largely as a result of Europe’s self-destruction, has inherited sole control over the world’s oceans. The US navy alone, if I remember correctly, outclasses something like the next 9 navies combined and of those 9, 7 of them are aligned with the United States. There is currently no ability for any miscreant nation or even team of miscreant nations to interrupt global commerce on the waves.
That is entirely why the current global situation is one of increasing lifespans, increasing widespread access to more than just essential goods, but iphones, luxuries, internet, exotic foods, vacations, etc, increasing cultural exchange – all of your modern happiness is thanks due to one thing: the United States Navy supplemented by our periodic military interventions.
But that doesn’t mean miscreant nations can’t disrupt global commerce in their way: the world’s cheapest labor force, China, could stop making things (it won’t of course because it would collapse). Various piratical or terrorist acts could make life expensive for trade at the world’s harder to police choke points.
But there’s another way miscreants can gum up the Pax Americana currently guaranteed by American Force: convince local warlords that the threat of American force is meaningless in places that matter to countries that matter. That is to say, do we believe that the arbitrary redrawing of maps by stronger countries undermine the essential trust we have in the US Global Order?
So, given this dynamic: does ignoring Ukraine threaten this trust?
The Europeans insist that it does. And here we wrap back around to the first dynamic we discussed: The Europeans cannot do one thing of their own accord. Every time they’ve tried in the past 300 years, they’ve killed of large swathes of their own people. They have the population and economy to balance Russia if they wanted to – but they can’t – they are cursed to perennial infighting and slaughter.
And they know this about themselves.
So they are panicking. The United States asked them politely to foot more of the bill and to a degree they ignored the request, though the powers closer to the danger ante’d up. Now, the United States is telling them in less uncertain terms that if they don’t start ponying up we may not be there.
(We will of course be there because we don’t want to have to repeat the last big one, but damn if the grasshopper doesn’t need a hard wake up call by the ant, because persuasion isn’t working.)
To top it all off, our European friends who insist we must be all in on solving their problems (because they know only we can do it), also love nothing more than the hobby of dragging their feet and hemming and hawing when we ask them to solve problems we’re interested in.
The only time Article V of NATO charter has been invoked was in response to 9/11. This was after the United States said they were not invoking it, but our most loyal friends, the British, led this effort. Belgium, Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands hesitantly joined, leading to article V’s invocation.
However, despite claims, this never led to any NATO action against the perpetrators of the attack. NATO’s collective action was largely symbolic – beefing up air patrols over the continental United States for about 8 months and some “anti WMD trafficking” patrols in the Mediterranean Sea.
Individual nations independent of the non-existent NATO mission contributed some personnel to the invasion of and continued occupation of Afghanistan to some degree or another. Excepting our loyal friends, the British, who have contributed greatly to our various efforts, most other countries that should ostensibly “have our back” because we have theirs, generally spent the 17 year Afghan mission sending a pittance of support or just criticizing American “adventurism”.
But, and let me be clear, this actually isn’t inherently a problem. But it does estop any criticism of times we may be hesitant in supporting them. Sorry, thems the realities. This isn’t a problem, because while we foot the bill of defending world stability – we have, for the most part, reaped the rewards as the world’s richest and most advanced country.
But, here enters yet one more dynamic, that ties back to the destruction of WW2. The United States, uniquely, exited WW2 pretty much unscathed. This had a two-fold benefit: our industry was booming making our lives comfortable – the rest of the world’s industry, was either not there in the case of the 3rd world or completely wrecked in the case of Europe, making our industry, their industry, so we also became wildly wealthy.
But times are a changin’. The 3rd world is industrializing. Europe, about midway between 2000 and 2010 could be said to have “caught back up” to where they probably would have been had WW2 not happened. While we are still the richest and most advanced country – the gap behind us is closing. And for the most part it is closing entirely because of US magnanimity and provided security.
So, let’s review the dynamics and decide how they measure up to our values:
1) Europe cannot be trusted to govern itself – every time it has tried it has killed of large swathes of it’s people AND managed to get the rest of the world involved killing large swathes of their people. It needs a heavy hand (even a benevolent heavy hand) to keep it from killing itself.
2) Europe has wildly benefited from the current benevolent heavy hand – so much so that it could be paying a lot more for what is being done on it’s behalf. But it doesn’t want to.
3) The primary threat to Europe is collapsing, dramatically so.
4) The United States secures the world’s oceans, and where it can it punishes miscreants on land who try to disrupt world commerce.
5) The United States, for the most part, foots the vast majority of the bill for this mission and has, for the most part, reaped the vast majority of the rewards for the effort.
6) But that’s diminishing.
We view ourselves as sort of Captain America – a man of pure altruistic virtue, willing to step into the gap and fight the bad man, even if there is no reward. We pride ourselves in the dignity and respect nations give us when we do step into the gap. We envision walking around with a prestige that we don’t want tarnished by “failing” to be the heroes.
But I wonder. Do they respect us? I think the soldiers of our allied nations respect us, because of all people they are level headed enough to know what defending a country means. But the average member of these allied societies? I’m skeptical about the respect and adoration they dole out when it isn’t related to us beating the snot out of their enemy for them.
I for one am not for abandoning our Western allies generally centered on the NATO alliance. But this is not motivated by “losing their love of us”. I’m motivated by the notion that I don’t want another generation of Americans having to slog across the European continent to save them from themselves and save others from being pulled in.
I don’t think we’re wrong to want a little more of our allies than just supposed “good feelings”.
What about Ukraine then? And what about the future?
Let’s talk about the future first: relevant to the dynamic discussed that the whole world is finally catching up to the United States (still distant however) – this means on average, non-Russian Europe is actually less important than it has even been. Even though it is still very important, that importance diminishes by the decade. Like, what if in 2050 they had another war, and nobody showed up because they didn’t need to?
China desperately wants to flex it’s muscles in the world, and to do so it has to dominate the western pacific. But China is bad. China should be contained. Is Europe going to help us do this? Doubtful. They hemmed and hawed the last time we brought up the topic. We might find allies in India. We will have allies in Australia and Japan and most of the Island Nations that would come under Chinese threat. The Chinese menace was enough to convert our erstwhile enemy Vietnam into close friends with us, not long after we had it out with them. But will Europe help us?
Probably not. But what would be nice to have confronting a war with China on it’s coast? Maybe a big fat military power sitting right behind China. Even a power in decline, behind China, would be extremely helpful in undermining their sense of security in any comping conflict. Unfortunately, that entity happens to be… Russia.
Enter another dynamic – in the coming conflict with China (if it cannot be avoided), it will be a US led war uniting Southeast Asian and Pacific Island nations. Very likely Europe will do very little to assist (though our British allies will probably pitch in). But if we somehow got Russia to align in an anti-China stance, would we alienate Europe enough for it to try to align with China?
I don’t know. That’s a great unknown. We can live without a lot of countries, but I don’t think we should try to live without those countries because it’s easier to live with them friendlier, even if they scoff at our culture.
In the future – if conflict with China cannot be avoided, what friendships do we risk in balancing useful powers against China and are those friendships too valuable to risk or quite possibly not that important after all? I don’t know and I hate having to be forced to think about it.
What about Ukraine and how does it play into this global dynamic?
To start, let’s gripe about the past.
If was President of the United States, I wouldn’t be a feckless wimp that encouraged Russia’s initial adventure into Ukraine: taking Crimea and leading an insurrection in the southeast of Ukraine. But if it happened, I would park a carrier group in the Black Sea ostensibly to “observe” and to conduct bilateral training with an allied nation: Turkey. After a time, when things settled, I’d “lead” my NATO friends (who insist they are serious), to send a half dozen or so battalions of “trainers” to the Ukrainian military. Look, Vlad, I know it concerns you, but we don’t want violence to spill over into the rest of Ukraine, while the “breakaway republics” figure themselves out. The realpolitik reason they’d be there to let Russia know it absolutely would have to kill NATO soldiers if it wanted to make a move on the rest of Ukraine. But we didn’t do anything strong. We are too sensitive to our “serious” NATO allies calling us “wild cowboys” or accusing us of “reckless escalation”. So now, we sit with Ukraine invaded in a full war as we’ve been piecemealing in support in what I like to characterize as a “die on the vine” level of assistance to the Ukrainian military.
So we’re stuck with 4 general options (two of which are unethical and the two sort of ethical options both have their incredible risks)
1) Keep doing what we’re doing. Which essentially is giving Ukraine enough to not lose quickly. But it is losing. Every day, the Russians are grinding horribly forward. There’s a hope that somehow Russians will get tired of dying – but we’re underestimating Russian nationalism and Russian ability to suffer here. The hope is that they give up before Ukraine has to give up. I doubt that will happen short of Putin’s death.
This course ensures that absolutely NO decisive action will occur that could see a Ukrainian victory.
This course, the “Democrat course” is unethical. 200k Russians have died and 500k have been wounded – and you can assume 1/3 to 1/2 that number in Ukrainian casualties. So, something like over a million people in 3 years have been killed or wounded. Keep this grind going with absolutely NO decisive end in sight?
2a) We go wildly into material support for Ukraine. We really just pump equipment and ammo and materiel into their army while simultaneously pressuring the Ukrainian government into almost full conscription. (FULL DISCLOSURE, I’m a hawk on this, and this is my preferred course of action before anyone who has managed to read this far, and continues to the Trump part of this thinks I’m a Trumpian)
2b) We actually show up with our military and slog it out with the Russians once and for all, finalizing the 80 year long fist shaking we’ve engaged with them.
This course, the “traditional hawk Republican course” is ethical in principle. We do what we’ve always done: give the good guys a chance to humiliate the bad guys. Done properly, it restores Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Massively risky on the “escalation” threat of Russia (but I’m increasingly less concerned with Russian saber rattling).
However, this course will NEVER garner the political will in our country necessary to see it a reality. Democrats already showed their hand with barely supporting Ukraine. Europe, who ostensibly claims to be the most serious about this effort, also will not give much more than it currently is giving. And Republicans would be mostly split on this course of action.
3) Cut and Run. Cut all aid. Many non-serious European nations will do the same – certainly the ones dependent on Russian oil ——- SIDEBAR HERE ——– how are we supposed to take any European claim about their seriousness towards the Russians when they are still flat out doing business with them getting around the sanctions they claim to have wanted in place or openly drinking Russian gas to keep their economies going? SIDEBAR COMPLETE.
If we cut and run, only the remaining interested nations will continue to help Ukraine and likely would boil down into Eastern European nations plus Great Britain fueling a war that eventually grinds into a guerilla campaign. We will take a “prestige” hit in the eyes of our European friends (who, again, I strongly suspect, don’t really care much about us anyway beyond our ability to keep them safe from tyrants and themselves).
This I think is unethical also. Bless Europe’s panicking heart because they fundamentally believe this is the direction the United States is going. Even France put on a show to unite Europe on Ukraine’s behalf and the rest of them hemmed and hawed about commitment. Now the UK is saying “it is prepared to send troops to Ukraine” (I’d love to know what “prepared to send” means and what it’s mission in Ukraine would be)
4) Since we (the USA) can’t just quit Ukraine and we (the USA and Europe) won’t actually help Ukraine win we have one option left. A negotiated settlement. It sucks because Ukraine surrenders some territorial integrity. It sucks because we can’t chastise the Russians the way they deserve. But, sorry, if we aren’t going to help Ukraine actually win…thems the realities.
Before talking about the negotiations, I recognize there are some objections to the characterization of the options above:
Many will believe the current “trickle in” course of action (option 1) is actually fine and war winning. The Ukrainians don’t mind losing many hundred thousand of their people in a slow grind that eventually sees Russia give up and eventually be forced to leave. But I don’t think that’s how war works. Ukraine must eventually go on the offensive and that will require much more support.
Cynically speaking, option 1 is fine because it speeds up Russia’s inevitable demographic collapse. But that’s not good for our “prestige” for those who harp on that it literally feeds the meme narrative that we’ll “fight this war to the last Ukrainian.”
Many will believe the “cut and run” course of action (option 3) is actually fine. This attitude is associated with a certain isolationist strain in Americans. But I don’t want to go on a longer explanation, but isolationism went out the window in the 1600s. We’re either involved in the world or the world is involved in us.
So, if a negotiated settlement is what we’re left with (and that’s the only realistic option at this point unless the collective West manages to grow some chutzpah), then even the most Trump deranged, if behaving ethically, will recognize that Trump’s sense of direction here is correct. The Trump deranged believe that Trump will throw Ukraine under the bus and allow Russia to steam roll in. The Trump deranged believe there is no room in Trump’s initial negotiations for security guarantees.
And of course there is no point making a deal with Russia without security guarantees. Which I will now ask anyone who says they are “serious” about Ukrainian security guarantees.
Define them.
If you’re serious, then those guarantees are going to look alot like what I said I’d do if I was president, and that is putting your own soldiers into Ukraine as “trainers” but really as a “trip wire” that Russia would have to kill in order to reopen hostilities.
If your idea of guarantees does not include the willingness to take casualties on behalf of Ukraine then you are, by definition, NOT SERIOUS on this topic.
But, we’re at a point where almost every single interested party internally and European (minus the recent British comment) have made declarations about “no boots on the ground”. So please remember most of these comments when you take into consideration Trump’s move on making an economic deal with Ukraine. That is the next step that gets interested countries physically in Ukraine without “boots on the ground”. But it is step in the direction of eventually getting boots on the ground.
So, the Trump Deranged, because they don’t want to admit to the reality of the situation and reality of their lack of seriousness, poo poo Trump’s initial offer of an economic arrangement as what is actually “unserious”.
And now, here we sit, probably the most important relationship needing to be established, and a meeting that never should have happened, allowed a spat that never should have happened outside of closed doors to very likely ensure that the two unethical courses of action are the ones that will be taken:
Cut and run or continue the undecisive bloodletting of yet another European country, meanwhile we have Asian concerns growing.
All because the Trump Deranged hate him so much they won’t just let him get ***where he’s trying to go. Based on conversations I’ve had, many of the Trump Deranged are so addled in their analysis, that Trump’s mere presence in a room, by definition, makes the person he’s talking to, always in the right and never in the wrong. There is a refusal to accept that Zelensky said things, albeit calmly, that were pretty undiplomatic. But never mind that they were undiplomatic, Trump *deserves* to be treated undiplomatically because he is Trump, and so therefore, the conduct wasn’t undiplomatic at all. It’s frustrating to see people willingly blind because they hate Trump so viscerally.
But, course of action 4 does carry risk. What if the Trump deranged are right? What if Trump is a “Putin lover”. What if negotiations really are about selling Ukraine out to the benefit of the Russians. There’s some risk, but I don’t see it yet.
***I partially understand the frustration of people not knowing where Trump is trying to go. But unfortunately that’s how power competition and diplomatic negotiation works. I can’t give away my playbook to the opposing team and sometimes that means the people watching, even on my side, don’t get to see my playbook.
As a final sign off, I know a lot of people have exhausted themselves insisting that Donald Trump is risking the NATO alliance. No, the NATO alliance, a *good thing*, has always had a shaky existence threatened by lots differing European opinions. No, the European grasshopper, the neighbor that won’t clean his shovel he insists is necessary to clean the spillway is the threat to NATO stability, not the American ant, the neighbor who spends the time and resources keeping his shovel in working condition.
I think, for the most part, it still pays the United States dividends to foot the NATO bill with a pittance provided by Europeans – not just economically, but also in the fact that it prevents another pan-European catastrophe that millions of American boys would have to respond to. And so I don’t mind when a President doesn’t demand other countries pay their fair share.
I however will not pretend like it bothers me when a President does make the demand of our allies. And I am not beholden to what any particular European “feels” about my country either. I don’t think they think too highly of us anyway in any other aspect that how we beat up people on their behalf only to find out they spend part of their time criticizing how we beat the people up on their behalf. I really don’t care if they say they’ll lose respect for us. We don’t need their good feels if their good feels are only based on our willingness to fight. This isn’t a movie.
Tour de force MW; goes into my EA archives.
On a related note, I take pretty good care of my shovels, but intend to voluntarily up my game before they find out there’s a better life out there…
PWS
Thanks. And I haven’t ever put teak oil on my shovel handles. Because I’ve only had hand me down shovels that were already poorly maintained. But I will if I buy a new one.
Michael, this was epic! Thank you! I nominate for a COTD.
I feel compelled to add some little additional historical context. Prior to the modern age, and starting with height of the advance of Islam, which conquered across North Africa and into Iberia, and which ground the Byzantine Empire down until finally it capture Constantinople in 1453, Europe found itself isolated and bottled in. The threat of Islam was existential, and say what you will about the Crusades, the gathering of European might to confront such an existential threat helped focus Europeans away from slaughtering each other (at least to some extent). To the East was boundless Asia with its barbarian hordes. To the north was ice, and the west was endless oceans.
The late fifteenth century saw Europe finally start to emerge from its enforced isolation. Muslim control of Iberia was ended in 1492 and saw the Spanish emerge as a global power, a blade sharpened from 700 years of fighting. At the same time, the discovery of the New World opened an avenue that avoided dependency on Muslim countries for trade. Over the course of the next century, the greatest threat to Europe, the Ottoman Empire, waxed to its height, only to be checked at Vienna in 1529 and later at Lepanto in 1571. As the Ottoman hold waned, Europeans exploded onto the world scene, leading to the colonialism and the internecine large-scale conflicts detailed above.
There is something about needing to be unified against a common enemy, to truly be under the threat of an existential crisis, that keeps a people somewhat on the straight and narrow.
This is true.
By the way, the Crusades, while containing some shooting-in-the-foot foolish decisions and unethical conduct, by and large were the correct course of action.
Too bad they are now inviting the very culture that was a centuries long existential threat to come in by droves…
Another clue that they aren’t serious about self defense and will continue to demand American overwatch while berating our civilization.
Epic. I’ll post as a COTD as soon as I can take a break. Thanks, MW.
Thanks. It’s a conversation I hate having to have. And the actual policy decisions I hate having to have to think about because it requires accepting realities that too many people are emotionally unready to accept.
Nicely done, Michael. I was wondering where the parallel would be to the rusty shovel neighbor. You tied it together really well.
jvb
Has anyone found a full transcript of the entire exchange, beginning with Trump welcoming Zelenskyy to the press conference?
Because I’d really have to hate to type it myself.