It's not even about that. Under Yanukovych, Ukraine abandoned NATO ambitions and this was never the issue before Russia bombed the Association Agreement with EU. NATO accession was neither popular nor politically viable there before and the only reason pivot happened was because of destroying that deal and a subsequent invasion.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Indeed. The world would be a better place.
I don’t think so. It’s become a popular opinion on here but trump spent more than half an hour talking generally positively about Zelenskyy and Ukraine and trying to find a deal. Would be a strange thing to do if the intention was to set him up.
Cast a bigger spotlight to who? The people who need to know already know the trump position?
I think it’s a mistake to assume that Zelenskyy could have shown up in a suit, kissed their ass and everything would have been fine. Trump wants to end the war for his credibility, and this would be on Russian terms. Ukraine is an obstacle to this, so they were always going to bully him. The sarcastic comments from Trump started at the car.
Zelenskyy may have antagonized Trump, but Trumps support would be extremely doubtful in any case. On the other hand, Europe seems galvanized - at least at surface level.
This really is the only thing that matters, and leaves any NATO expansion argument in tatters. Nobody wants russian territory in the east, ironically there is some areas China would quite fancy elsewhere however. This was an expansionist land grab pure and simple, and should be denounced by litterally everyone outside of Russia.
There are arguments you can have now about the reality of the situation on the ground and where to go now. That unfortuntely Ukraine did not have a nuclear umbrella, did not have security garuntees at the time, Russia did invade, does have control of a chunk of it and will be completely unlikely that Ukraine can take any of it back now without support they arent going to get. But there are 0 legitimate arguments that this was anyones fault than Putins.
I always wonder how people like that can just go on without feeling ashamed. It’s so intellectually dishonest and lacking in character.
But what I find most shocking about it, is the idea, that they honestly seem to think this works and people might actually believe them.
I didn’t say everything would be fine. The baseline assumption has to be here that the USA is going to be an unreliable ally for the next 4 years.
It is also a fact that the single biggest contributor of weapons to Ukraine is the USA.
Zelenskyy obviously wants to keep this going. Otherwise he wouldn’t have bothered going to the USA at all. He has a vested interest, as Ukrainian president, to do what he can to further his country’s interests. Currently, part of that is continuing American support. Lambasting some countries/ leaders may work but lambasting Trump has clearly never been the way.
did you watch the full interview? It’s about 45 minutes. I’d initially thought it all started when Vance made his thankful comment, because that’s where all of the short videos started.
Instead, Trump gives an answer to a question about diplomacy and why it should be tried. Vance then chimes in and says that diplomacy has to be tried because the current approach hasn’t. Then Zelenskyy asks Vance directly a long question about diplomacy and ends it with ‘what kind of diplomacy are you talking about JD?’
It seems like the kind of conversation that very clearly should be happening behind closed doors, as opposed to starting an argument in front of the press.
I did not watch the first 35 minutes of that thinking Trump has set io a trap for Zelenskyy at all.
If European countries are able to replace all of the American weapons and/ or Ukraine can fight alone anyway, then he should antagonise away.
This is not in any way a defence of Trump or Vance, who are scumbags of the highest order.
I don’t know, calling Zelenskyy a dictator, suggesting they started the war, praising Putin and changing the deal before the televised meeting suggests otherwise. The intention was to bully and exploit Ukraine from the beginning, and if it wasn’t, Vance certainly intended to derail the meeting.
There is a lot of noise about how the US govt conducted themselves
Again, did you watch the entire meeting? Vance made one comment before Zelenskyy asked him the question about what kind of diplomacy he’s talking about and the situation exploded from there.
He did all that stuff well before he even arrived in the USA. They do want to bully and exploit Ukraine, there’s no doubt about that.
That doesn’t mean that Zelenskyy’s diplomacy in this case wasn’t shit.
If the conclusion is that the USA is a lost cause and therefore it’s ok to chastise them in the Oval Office, then there’s no point in even going in the first place at all.
Even in terms of the success, the economical retaliations from the West would’ve been massive.
The fact of the matter is (and it’s backed by everyone who has even worked with him), Putin doesn’t give a damn about economy. He outsources it and doesn’t think about it as long as those responsible make sure that he can do what he wants to without getting disturbed.
Economical reasons exist, of course. And sometimes Russia participates in wars/conflicts to ensure its own economical interests — Syria was very much economically motivated, for example. Yet everything that we know about Putin and his decision-making (there’s been enough people that worked closely with him and then turned to another side or simply opened up to the press over the past 25 years) screams — those natural gas reserves in Donbass or, god forbid, rare earth elements, are the last thing on his mind (which is, again, backed by how easily he conceded the potential rights to those minerals to Trump during their negotiations).
If he invaded for minerals, why would he encourage the Trump/Zelenskyy 500b deal?
Trying to explain or, even worse, predict Putin’s actions by using realpolitik/capitalist practical mindset is, again, a mistake that people keep making (and he keeps surprising them by performing unpredictable moves that break that system).
What would good diplomacy have been? The guy is leading his war-torn country and desperately asking for aid and support. The fact this meeting was televised in the first place tells you everything you need to need to know.
My take on this is simple: I get your point and I get the idea that Zelensky should have done whatever was possible to stay on good terms with Trump and Vance. However, that only works if we actually believe that there was ever a possibility that Zelensky had a real shot at accomplishing that. I think he didn’t. I think what’s happening right now, has been a foregone conclusion from the moment of Trump‘s election. Trump was always going to side with Russia, no matter what. He’s a Russian asset, behaves like one at basically every point and won’t stop doing so, just because Zelensky is nice to him.
Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine and the fate of its people. Not at all. Just like he doesn’t care about Gaza. The man only cares about people he depends on or who can help him. Everyone else could die right in front of him and he wouldn’t even blink. Trump is incapable of empathy of any kind. The concept is foreign to him. So the only shot Ukraine ever had at getting his help would have been if they made him a better offer than the country who obviously has something on him and is far more powerful. And that was never a possibility for Ukraine.
I applaud Zelensky for trying. He did what he had to. He failed, as was to be expected. He needs to depend on his other allies in Europe.
To not antagonise the vice president of the country he’s gone to visit asking for more weapons and security guarantees?
I’m not talking about the moral aspect here, where Trump and Vance are scum of the highest order. I’m talking about how to approach difficult diplomatic situations , especially ones where you’re not the stronger party.
The exact same thing happened with Macron and Starmer. I don’t think they were being led into a trap either.
Your mistake is that you believe that Zelensky had any shot at changing Trump‘s mind. He was invited there to be humiliated in front of the cameras. That’s it. There was never a chance of him accomplishing anything. Trump will not side with Ukraine. No matter what. He was helped into office by their biggest enemy. Why in the world would he side with them?
I agree, it wasn't wise by Zelensky. Needed to read the room better than that.
Unfortunately Vance and Trump then took it as an opportunity to air their grievances with him.
If Zelensky had done that, what do you think would have happened?
I'm not sure. I read that, between Zelensky's arrival and that media meeting, he was presented an adapted deal that still had all the stuff about minerals but nothing about security. Zelensky has said all this time that he wouldn't sign that sort of deal. Giving him that and planning a media appearance right after was always going to be difficult. Plus Vance has been Trump's attack dog on Europe for the past few weeks, so having him in the room with the media wasn't a good sign for Zelensky either.
In short, I don't think the US were looking for a scenario were Zelensky doesn't sign the altered deal and leaves with his head held high.
Yes.
But we disagree here then. Trump clearly isn’t going to side with Ukraine, at least not in the same way that European leaders or Biden did. He’s much more transactional and evil.
So there’s a few options:
-Trump and Vance have their mind set and nothing anyone can do or say will change their mind: Great. Then no point even bothering going to the USA, insult away love actually style and hope that Ukraine and other European countries can make up the shortfall.
-T/V have no particular ideological bent towards Ukraine but don’t see Russian aggression or European safety as their problem, are generally very transactional and will try to extract as much as they can from any situation. In that situation, any deal Z can cut will likely be much worse than what he wants but there is still a spectrum of deals within that range. Berating probably is not going to be helpful in cutting a deal on the better end of that.
-T/V have invited him to be humiliated in front of the cameras. Again, I’d have to ask whether you’ve seen the full 45 minutes because that certainly wasn’t my impression of the first 35 minutes but again let’s go with it. Fine, he got his dig in at V. I assume then that he won’t be asking for a seat at the table, because he’ll rightly turn down any deal cut and continue fighting? And why did he then tweet thanking afterwards, if there’s literally no point at all engaging with either of them anymore on this topic?
I haven't watched this particular video, but overall, this sort of stuff tends to focus entirely on the US and what they did. It leaves out the direction the people are trying to push their country into, and also reduces Russia to a passive bystander.
But Russia, they're anything but. If they wanted countries to align with them and be in their corner, they could try being an attractive partner; but instead, their behaviour has pushed all of their former Cold War allies/compatriots/subjects away from them, to the point where most of those countries now outright fear Russia. That's not the US's doing, or NATO's; it's Russia's. It's a conscious choice Putin made around 2000, when there was a giant opening to be friends with Europe and the US and he went into the opposite direction.
Also, for any US interference in Ukrainian politics (cover and overt), you have to assume Russia was doing it's equivalent. It's not like Russia has had any reluctance with regards to meddling with other countries' affairs.
None of that is meant to make the US look nice. I'm just saying that blaming NATO and the US while ignoring Russia's international positions is bizarre. And for me, the sum of it is that Russia alienated its possible allies to the point where they wanted to join the EU and NATO - and then felt threatened and lashed out (by invading Georgia and then Ukraine). That's on them.
For the very reason you wanted him to appease Trump. He’s in charge of a country at war and won’t burn bridges. Even the least reliable ones. He doesn’t know what will happen in the future. Trump could die from heart attack tomorrow. So it is good for him to try to keep the best relationship with the US he somehow could. It was also a way to show the rest of the world how bad the situation is for Ukraine and that he’s done whatever he can to get help.
However, even in that situation he had to realise that this meeting was a farce from the beginning. It was an attempt at extortion. The message was simple: bring us an offer that is better than whatever Russia is giving us, or leave for your war torn and destroyed country empty handed.
The only shot Zelensky had at accomplishing anything was, if his offer would have been more beneficial to Trump than Russias. The second he realised this, things deteriorated.
Trump only cares about Trump. Whatever he does, he does to benefit himself. So the whole charade was an attempt at gaining even more from this situation than before. Zelensky was smart enough to deny those bullies their wish. They reacted like bullies do and threw a tantrum.
You say yourself that Trump is purely transactional. So what could Zelensky have offered to him, that Russia couldn’t? I can’t think of anything. He never had a chance. I admire him for trying. But it was always going to be a futile attempt. At least he showed Europe that he needs us even more than before. That’s not nothing.
Last edited:
He was definitely blind sided. They humiliated him in front of the world- about wearing a feckin suit. I think there is still a hangover from Trumps first term where there were accusations of Russian influence helping him get office. I think he’s still beholden to that and would rather throw Ukraine to the wolves than Risk exposure.
First of all, I absolutely hate this thing where everyone has to walk on eggshells because Trump is a thick-skinned idiot who has to be appeased all the time.
But with that being said, they agreed on this meeting and therefore Zelensky has to make the best of it.
- You have to understand that it was always gonna be a MAGA lovefest with praises for Trump and MAGA-affiliated people in the room. There was already some degree of hostility (asking about not wearing a suit).
- Both of them (Trump and Vance) already hate your guts.
- JD Vance, eyeing a 2028 run most likely, was never going to allow a viral moment of him potentially looking 'weak'.
JD Vance made a dig at Biden and some general forgettable remark about diplomacy and then praised Trump at the end of it, and then Zelensky asked him a question ending with "What do you mean JD, what are you speaking about?". I don't think that was wise from Zelensky, Vance was always going to take that personally.
What I mean is there was no need for Zelensky to pick up on that diplomacy comment by JD Vance.
Last edited:
From BBC:
- The UK, France and others have agreed to work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting - this plan will be discussed with the US and together they will take the plan forward
- During the summit, four points were agreed: To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine, to have Kyiv at the table for any peace talks, for European leaders to to aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine and a "coalition of the willing" will be formed to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there
- Additionally, the UK will be giving Ukraine access to £1.6bn ($2.01bn) to buy new missiles
- Europe must do the heavy lifting in any peace deal, Starmer said, but the agreement would need US backing
This deal is doomed to fail, there is no way 'coalition of willing' troops will be able to stay in Ukraine for a sustained period, with right wing politics taking over the western world it will only be a matter of time before we 'need to bring the troops home' rhetoric happens, and it will probably allow the likes of reform to gain more ground campaigning on this.
Secondly and more importantly there is no way Russia will agree to a deal with European troops on their doorstep, even Trump understands this.
Secondly and more importantly there is no way Russia will agree to a deal with European troops on their doorstep, even Trump understands this.
Good to see the efforts by Starmer and Macron. Not everything should be in the hands of Trump/the U.S.
He’s already ranted about the collusion stuff, it’s very much fresh in his head and he holds a grudge. Trump was never going to help Ukraine.
Again, I think you may need to watch the full interview.
The suit question came about 20/25 minutes before Zelenskyy’s question to Vance. After which Trump had even made a comment about how he thought he looked good.
I’m really not sure most people have watched the full thing because all I’d seen initially was shorter clips where it seems like Vance started the whole thing by shouting.
He made some innocuous comment about diplomacy, sucking up to Trump and attacking Biden. Pretty standard fare. Then Zelenskyy starts asking him quite aggressively what kind of diplomacy he’s talking about.
It wasn’t smart.
Agreed. Let’s see if Europe can step up. Would be great to see greater European autonomy and a genuinely multi polar world with the EU as a peer power.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
Zelenskyy is not faultless. This conversation should have happened behind closed doors. Aggravating lines of questioning to countries you are trying to get something out of, even if they are adversarial, is generally not a good idea.
When I watched the summary videos, my thoughts were of absolute revulsion towards Trump and Vance.
When I watched the full 45 minutes, it was still revulsion towards Trump and Vance, as well as towards the interviewer who asked the ridiculous suit question. But also a feeling that this was a big diplomatic misstep from Zelenskyy.
That dig at Biden, wasn't just at Biden. It was essentially saying that helping Ukraine was a mistake. I was triggered by that exchange. I can not imagine how Zelensky felt. But he kept his cool, calmly explained history and how Putin broke numerous deal. But asking "What diplomacy", took it too far and now he obviously triggered Vance and Putin. Basically he told them to face in front of whole world that what they are doing is stupid and pointless. Unlike Zelensky, Vance and Trump didn't keep their cool at this dig. Plus he put Vance on the spot.
It's there you can see zelensky's lack of politic and diplomatic experience. He could have made a similar point by saying, we want peace and diplomacy, and we thank you for your effort *insert a bunch of platitudes, praise trump* But if Putin breaks this peace, do you have a plan? It's still the same question, but without the implied dig at the pointlessnes of it all.
He really should have been better prepared for this kind of comment from Vance. But he was probably tired and frustrated and already feeling betrayed by Trump administration so he went for direct and blunt. I'm sure english not being his first language also played a big part.
Now, I don't want say overtly criticize zelensky. I think he is right with his comment, but he triggered two thin-skinned republicans.
I mean a reasonable response from Vance would have been: "Mr zelensky, we have to try diplomacy, for the good of your country. I have faith that President Trump will bring a lasting peace to your country." Or something like that. But instead Vance reacted like a Jerry Springer guest.
I feel that would be a sharp improvement to the current and recent situation. Europe really needs to sort it self out. But first we have to deal with the likes of Orban and Fico, who are obstructing everything. Then we have to find a way to work towards the same goal despite some national interests.
But this conversation had taken place behind closed doors in the weeks preceding this meeting, with nothing to show for it in terms of security guarantees.
Macron and Starmer went and were as diplomatic as possible with Trump and walked away with nothing to show for it.
The mineral deal was being signed because Trump was threatening to cut off aid if it didn't happen. And he will continue to do that, deal or not, until Ukraine accept peace on Russias terms and without any security from the US.
Zelensky was right to push them on it in this meeting. The reaction of Trump and Vance just fully exposed how deeply they resent Zelensky and how obvious it is they are selling out to Russia.
Putin is motivated by money: he built himself palaces of which one is worth more than a billion $$.
It just so happens Putin grabbed control of the richest parts of Ukraine.
Besides that, I think another reason Putin attacked Ukraine is he cannot tolerate a successful democratic country on his doorstep, formerly part of the USSR, that wants close ties to the West. It would threaten his control over Russia.
He is doing his best to utterly destroy Ukraine.
Why would he ‚encourage’ the 500 billion deal? Because it would have allowed him to keep the land he grabbed from Ukraine.
Besides, this deal
was never going to happen.
I’ll respectfully disagree, only because we don’t have all the details and facts, we’re just speculating here and also because I’m desperately clinging to some sort of hope or optimism.
1) Even you take Trump and the U.S. out of the equation for a second it was always going to be a non-starter for:
1) Full NATO membership for Ukraine
2) There almost certainly won’t be any NATO/UN or Euro troops on the frontline. A ceasefire would have to happen and hold and any non-Ukrainian troops would be well away from the front lines. Also there would likely have to be demilitarized zone established between the front lines.
3) The reasonable security guarantees Ukraine could hope for would be a no-fly zone / missile defenses established (whether Ukrainian based or in Poland for example) and Euro troops around like Kyiv/Lviv - deterrent for launching missiles at major cities and or a backstop if Russia blitzed across the frontline and went for the jugular again.
2) We have no idea what Putin actually wants at this point. If you look at ISW projections it’s probably 2 more years of fighting to take Donetsk and the provinces they have significant footing in completely and at a high price at that.
3) We really have no idea what a post-Putin regime will look like as well, and very little indications of what, if any, pressure Putin is under to end the war. Russia, post-Putin may not be as invested in trying to take it over again.
4) Ukraine is almost certainly going to have to concede territory.
So a non-US backed ceasefire could potentially work. Even if you have a no fly zone based on deterrence from air defenses and jet fighters based in existing NATO - Poland and Hungary(I know, I know) for example and smaller deterrent ground forces away from the front. For these reasons:
1) intelligence would show a massive buildup for a second inavasion
2) skirmishes across the demilitarized zone would have to managed
3) incursions, especially a major incursion, across the demilitarized zone could involve UK/French and Euro air power directly engaging Russian air forces in combat. That’s about as good as you can get without being a member of NATO for Ukraine.
Russia, also gets some territory. Putin looks like a winner - and there’s nothing to stop them from hybrid warfare trying to influence elections, etc in Ukraine. It will probably take a generation of Ukrainians to forget animosity towards Russia, but they can try. Also, hybrid warfare is a 2-way street. The territory conceded has to be held, either through brute force or hearts and minds. Tough ask for the Russkies. They might have to invest in counter-insurgency for a generation.
It really boils down to, what does Putin want at this point? Is he satisfied with what he’s taken or does he want more? Even if Trump totally walks away, and Europe folds completely, it will be still be damn expensive and costly to take the rest of Ukraine in one piece, much less occupy it and hold it. It’ll make Afghanistan look like a cake-walk.
I was unhappy about Vance going skiing in Vermont, where I live. And so
were lots of others, who turned up supporting Ukraine and protesting Vance, who had to change his plans.
were lots of others, who turned up supporting Ukraine and protesting Vance, who had to change his plans.
Maybe, but he’s also a 70+ year old man and he ain’t gonna live forever. He won’t live to see the real benefits or fallacies of what he’s done. Maybe his family will and that what he’ll be concerned about. Or, you know, in Russia - you fall out of a window and your family can get executed in a basement like Romanovs. His end game is kind of limited really.
Also, he already is surrounded by countries that are more successful than Russia - put democracy, NATO membership or EU membership to the side (which, by the way is why those are non-sequitors and blaming NATO expansion is a red herring). Estonia, Lithuania and Bulgaria were somewhat thriving and Russians knew that. Then you had relatively struggling or failed states like Moldova and Belarus under Russian puppet governments. Ukraine was on the brink - which is why he stepped in. You have places like Armenia on the up. Russians see all this, then they’d go to Greece, or Qatar or Dubai on holiday. He’s been fecked - not because of NATO, or the EU, or the U.S. - he was fecked because the whole world moved on and his Kleptocracy-Oligarcy-Mafia state looks like crap so he started a war to divert attention.
Last edited:
Ehh... a truce but not on land (aside from infrastructure)?
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/...aders-to-rally-behind-ukraine-at-london-summit
You seem to project his willingness to enrich himself personally (which is undeniable) onto his geopolitical interests but those are not the same. Not to mention that he's already one of, if not the wealthiest individual on the planet — various people estimated his wealth to be north of 200 billion in 2022 (it's probably less now but figuring out Putin's net worth is, according to Forbes: “probably the most elusive riddle in wealth hunting”); he's not in a dire need of another influx of cash, especially since doing so will most likely influence his existing wealth — sanctions, the course of the ruble etc.
He's very interested in personal enrichment. But even the said palace represents a shift in his personal views on wealth. It's not about the money anymore (and it very much was in the 90's — in Sobchak's office or in KGB; in the 00's with the big reshuffle of an established wealth, the war on oligarchy and, well, the new oligarchy that grew out of it — Putin, "Ozero" co-op and the rest of his buddies). His Sochi's palace is not about the money, it's about the status (especially if you look into how it was built — not with his own money but by never-ending donations from his inner circle... it was a symbolic gift). Peter the Great built Peterhof and people still come there admiring it's beauty and, by extension, Peter's greatness. It's not a coincidence that the aesthetic of that palace references (without any real understanding or taste) those great baroque and neoclassical palaces of Russian emperors.
He couldn't care less about economy in political (and geopolitical) sphere at this point, he cares about how long the chapter on his rule will be in the future history books. Of course expanding of the empire comes with additional resources — the mistake would be to interpret that he took Crimea (actually not "the richest part" of Ukraine by any stretch of imagination... but a key strategic point of control over the Black Sea as well as an important emotional trigger for a lot of Russians including Putin himself). Russia technically had the control over a lot of Donbass area for about a decade now and for a while it wasn't an active war zone (the conflict was on-going but there wasn't a lot of fighting) — did they bother to repair Soviet mines or to excavate any of those incredibly precious resources that they supposedly came there for? Yeah, fat chance.
His reasons were, mainly, political and ideological.
From the practical point of view he couldn't have allowed an example of a democratic country next door that could, if need be, overthrow their government, especially if they thought that the election was fraudulent. Not just a democratic country — a country that's been so closely connected to Russia for centuries, with millions of Ukrainians living in Russia, probably hundreds of thousands of Russians living in Ukraine, and an uncountable amount of his own citizens having either a relative or a friend living over there. The biggest political threat from the inside to his regime happened in the first half of the 2010's with hundreds of thousands of Russians regularly coming out to the streets to showcase their disdain of him — very much in parallel (even if not too closely connected) to what was happening in Ukraine prior to the Euromaidan. After he had lost Ukraine he eventually regained full and unwavering control over Russia by imprisoning or murdering most of the opposition and imposing hundreds of new repressive laws... and after that he came back to Ukraine to get his revenge.
Ideologically — he has that weird mix of Soviet and Imperial mindset where he's the successor to both Stalin and Peter the Great. And if he is to be remembered as the great ruler by many generations to come, he has to expand his empire. The very real boost of popularity that happened after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 only strengthened his belief in that he's chosen, maybe even by God himself (he's a spiritual person and, publicly, a devoid Orthodox even though his version of Christianity doesn't concern itself about hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths), to regain Russia's greatness once again. We do know what he reads and what he bases his beliefs on (even though putinism is such a mishmash of an ideology that many argue that it's more of a simulation of an ideology rather than an actual one): Ilyin, Dugin, Lev Gumilev with a hint of Shchedrovitsky... "The dissipation of the Soviet Union is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XXth century", "Ukraine is not a real country" et cetera et cetera. And he does genuinely believe that stuff.