Can anyone explain to me what happened at the White House between Zelensky and President Trump/Vice President Vance?
I don’t want a summary of the exchange in the Oval Office. I have watched it at least a dozen times. It is not self-explanatory.
Did Zelensky refuse to sign the agreement he had come to America to sign?
Or what?
I’ve been similarly perplexed. I’ve heard the explanation that Zelensky was being disrespectful and demanding, but it didn’t seem bad enough to warrant that reaction from Trump and Vance.
I think there must have been previous goings on between them that already had Trump annoyed with him, such as his renigging twice on the mineral rights deal, and other demands he was making.
Trump mentioned to the press afterwards that Zelensky really doesn’t want to make a deal or have peace - he wants to continue fighting.
But for Trump to publicly humiliate him like that seemed to me to be taking it a bit too far.
Thank you, Liz. I have had the same thoughts.
The answer must lie, as you say, in previous goings on. I wonder if we will ever know what they were.
I hope so, because I’m sure there’s alot we don’t know, and whatever it is would explain this.
From the linked article, which - as I insist below - does not make sense:
"Zelenskyy wanted more out of the negotiations for this deal. He wanted a security agreement from the United States, but the Trump Administration was not going to accept any deal that would include an American military presence in Ukraine.
"The Trump Administration argued that an extensive economic partnership between the two countries would essentially be a security agreement that Putin and Russia would not dare challenge.
“Zelenskyy agreed right up until he decided to scuttle the deal at the last minute.”
The writer says “he decided”. But goes on to say that it was a set-up by “Rice, Blinken, Nuland, Vindman”.
It could not be both. So which was it?
And whichever it is, the question remains: why?
For Ukraine to antagonize the Trump administration could not possibly have been reckoned helpful. Only disastrous.
The self-betrayal of Ukraine’s leadership remains inexplicable.
Yes, the article has a couple of inaccuracies, such as saying of Zelensky that “he proposed” the mineral deal (I think Trump did that) and that “he decided” to scuttle the deal. Not carefully written.
But I think the overall premise - that Trump’s opposition, who want to continue the war, advised Zelensky to insist on a security guarantee - makes sense.
Zelensky has been - from the time he was selected by Nuland and the others as Ukraine’s president - a puppet for the US military/industrial complex who have perfected the art of “regime change”.
They have been running the show, beginning with the Maidan coup, using Ukraine as a proxy to force regime change in Russia, while profiting off of the war.
So it makes sense that, as the article states, these anti-Trumpers who sabotaged Trumps first term (and stole his second!) are still actively attempting to sabotage him now.
Quote:
There are 4 major players here: Ukraine, Europe, the US, and Russia.
Only two have many cards to play, and they are not Ukraine and the EU, who are acting as if they can dictate terms to the two who do have the real power. That is counterproductive, stupid, insulting, and a path to defeat.
[Right.]
They are choosing defeat out of a misplaced sense of pride.
[Are they? Is that their reason? Surely not! There can be no pride in defeat.]
Zelenskyy and all Ukrainians can want whatever they want, but that doesn’t give them the right to dictate US policy. US policy is dictated by our permanent vital interests, and who owns Ukraine doesn’t matter a whit to us except morally. It really doesn’t, once you get past the rhetoric and emotional appeals. The countries we need to defend have security guarantees, and as Zelenskyy himself well knows those guarantees deter Russia. Russia will not invade Poland, and if they would, that shows a US security guarantee wouldn’t help HIM anyway.
Either the guarantee deters Russia, as Zelenskyy claims, so the Baltics and Poland are secure right now, or the guarantee doesn’t mean anything so extending one to Ukraine is meaningless.
This whole tweetstorm amounts to a continuation of making demands and trying to school Donald Trump as if America is too stupid to see we owe him and Europe what we in fact do not. They need us, not the other way around.
[Yes they need us, not us them - but do the leaders of Ukraine and the European “powers” really imagine that America “owes” them? That would be “counterproductive, stupid, insulting, and a path to defeat”.]
Yes, this makes sense to me.
“Choosing defeat out of a misplaced sense of pride” - they are not deliberately “choosing” defeat, but daring the US to choose it for them - unless, instead, we step in to save them out of a misplaced sense of obligation - starting WW3 in the process.
I think that’s the motivation here.
As the author asserts, the reality is that defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine is not worth starting WW3 over.
An article by Miranda Divine at the New York Post brought out alot of points I missed on what transpired during the meeting.
“Miranda Devine: Zelensky was the true instigator of the Oval Office Fracas…”
I can see now what led up to Trump and Vance feeling the need to call him onto the carpet for what he was saying.
One thing I’m sure Trump is rightfully fed up with is repeatedly being accused of “colluding” with Russia, and Zelensky was basically insinuating that.
Many thanks for telling us about the Miranda Devine article, Liz.
She does explain much of what happened.
Here’s the link to it:
Mark Steyn writes:
Zelensky needs Trump far more than Trump needs Zelensky.
The war cannot be won. Ukraine is flush with western money and Nato weaponry, but, as JD Vance was obliged to point out, it has a massive lack of Ukrainians. If prolonging an unwinnable war will only accelerate your deathbed demography, then it’s time to negotiate. And having Trump on board for that would be helpful.
But as Rumsfeld said: “You go to war with the army that you have.” And now Zelensky will be going to war with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and Ursula von der Leyen.
The President of Ukraine was so oblivious to reality that, to be honest, I felt a bit sorry for him. It’s not 2022 anymore:
More laughs here:
Yes, he’s right - Zelensky does seem oblivious to reality. The best explanation for that is that he’s been encouraged by his backers in Congress to believe that they can force Trump to do their bidding, and continue to fund the war.
So they coached him to weasel out of the deal at the last minute, and make Trump look like the bad guy. Now they can posture some more as the defenders of the “rules based international order”, which, translated, means the international money laundering machine that enriches the elites.
Very well put! Right on the nail!
Thank you, Liz. You are a splendid political commentator.
I’m eager to see what will happen next with the Russia-Ukraine war, the internal politics of Ukraine, and President Trump’s peace-making.