This was purely Zelensky’s failure at negotiation. Forget all the historical references.
All Zelensky had to do was show up and sign the rare earth mineral agreement. But instead he tried to renegotiate a security guarantee in front of the media. Bad decision.
The US security guarantee is for NATO and the Ukraine is not in NATO. Macron and Starmer had each visited Trump earlier in the week. I’m sure this topic came up, but failed to reach agreement, hence no announcement to that effect.
To make the rare earth mineral agreement contingent on an extraneous issue, where there is no agreement is Zelensky’s recipe for absolute disaster. That’s exactly what we saw play out.
Right, but are we in this merely to profit off their suffering? Put aside the fact that the minerals in question—yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, samarium—are mainly found in Zhytomyr, Kirovohrad, and the Donbas, where Russia has violently taken 75% of Donetsk and more than 99% of Luhansk. Because a cynical minerals deal, when so many lives are on the line, should not be the only reason for defending our ally here.
And that's also putting aside all the other pragmatic considerations of holding the line, some of which weigh even more heavily than all those minerals combined. Some other nations sneer at America as an imperial war machine that transactionally only cares about profiteering and talks "freedom and democracy" as a clever con. But many Americans, myself included, believe in the spirit of the Philadelphia Convention.
Indeed, I identify as a liberal realist, meaning I believe in the realism of recognizing power politics and national interests as well as the liberalism of international cooperation and moral obligations to our allies. Moral imperatives and pragmatic constraints are not mutually exclusive. And we should never abandon a friend to die in the field at the hands of genocidal psychopathic monsters simply because their leader failed to sign a deal that would profit our battery and magnet industries.
This is what I meant about being petty and having a penny president. Even if we agree that Zelenskyy screwed up by not signing the deal, which I am willing to grant you, that's not reason enough to burn him and leave all his people turning in the wind while never saying so much as a single word of criticism about Vladimir goddamn Putin.
The mineral deal had an implicit security guarantee as it aligned our interests. That is a favorable step, one obviously worth taking. Z deep sixed it.
When you say, “Zelenskyy screwed up by not signing the deal, which I am willing to grant you, that's not reason enough to burn him and leave all his people turning in the wind while never saying so much as a single word of criticism about Vladimir goddamn Putin.” what do you mean? Do we send another $100 billion in arms? $200?
Honestly, I don’t see much of a favorable outcome for Ukraine either way. What can we do to stop the bloodshed?
Again, I agree. But what I meant was not simply give him more money. As pro-Ukraine as I am, I'm also a realist. The American appetite for this war is winding down. On the other hand, if Ukraine loses bad enough and Putin is emboldened, he may take a shot at Poland, and then we're going to be spending a helluva lot more money.
And even if we do get a ceasefire signed and Putin honors it, we don't just let him steal the land and keep it without any consequences. And there are many non-military ways to do this: complete energy sanctions, seizing all Russian sovereign assets, a full trade embargo, blocking access to maritime trade, secondary sanctions on any nations that do business with Russia, UN expulsion, and so on.
This will need to be expertly measured. Just enough to make it really burn, hopefully shrinking Russia's economy further and making future such actions even less tenable, but not enough to trigger a military response.
Great Britain paid back every penny of Lend Lease, the final payment being in 2006. It's a false analogy anyway. Putin is not Hitler, Zelensky is not Churchill, in fact the Ukraine war resembles the runup to WWI more than WWII. Yes, Putin is a thug and an opportunist, yes the invasion was unjustified and brutal, no the Russians should not be rewarded for their aggression. But is this really a vital security interest of the United States? Or are we being used by our European allies as their wealthy but senile uncle once again, while they preen and preach?
The distinction is critical, though. Hitler was a madman who wanted to conquer the world, while Putin is an opportunist who will push on any open door if he thinks he can expand Russia's power. The first is an existential threat, the second is a manageable threat. The real moral issue should be whether Putin can be managed without the deaths of thousands of American troops, which means a ceasefire as a first step. The problem is both Zelensky and Putin depend on the war to justify their rule - without it they are both finished.
What happened in the Oval Office was an American President showing that he will demand accountability from other world leaders. That's what honor looks like. Is it dishonorable to ask Zelensky where did billion$ of American dollars go? No audits, no reports. Just a black hole where billion$ have been disappearing. Aren't you interested in the answer to that question comrade Volodzko? Accountability is only an insult to a thief. Obama and Hitlary worked with the CIA back in 2014 to get rid of Putin's Ukrainian puppet Yanukovych and install America's puppet Zelensky. Zelensky is a punk thug. Zelensky has demonstrated that he is an untrustworthy leader of a perpetually corrupt country on the other side of the world who keeps asking for more money America doesn’t have to fight a war Americans don't care about. A war with no definition of win. The Democrats rolled out that tired old Domino Theory and still cling to it like it came right out of the bible. The truth is that Ukraine is another “forever war” like Iraq and Afghanistan, and nothing can be more dishonorable than to fight a war with no end. President Trump gave Zelensky an honorable way out with the rare earth mineral deal that would have greatly enriched his country and helped to rebuild it while giving America an ROI on those missing billions, but he disrespects our president - IN OUR HOUSE, and President Trump showed him the door. BRAVO!
The whole Oval Office thing felt like a setup by JD Vance, who has never supported Ukraine. I think he gambled that by accusing Zelensky of disrespecting Trump on live TV, that Trump’s ego would get the better of him, and he was right.
David, I appreciate you writing this. It is thoughtful and I feel you've made the effort to be balanced. I don't entirely agree with you because I saw three leaders acting not gracious, but all looking like petulant children in front of the world press and I was embarrassed for them all. Talking without listening, hearing without comprehending, talking past each other, it was disheartening. Zelensky was correct that there must be more than a cease fire. Trump was correct that the cease fire must come first. No one noted that America having business interests in Ukrainian mining would be an incentive for the US to seek the security of Ukraine.
The format was wrong. Trump enjoys open-ended press conferences, but this was not the time. Zelensky appeared to be attempting to negotiate in a press conference what should have been discussed behind closed doors (and done before this meeting was scheduled). And, once again my President's ego and verbal incontinence was an impediment to his success.
I was most disappointed with Vance, who I have been assured is sharp, intelligent, pragmatic, and at least moderately self-disciplined. I expected more of him. He could have been a calming influence or have seen what was happening and asked Trump to close this out and move behind closed doors. Instead he enflamed the situation.
Even if Zelensky was rude and obstreperous, abusing his hosts, the hosts should have been more gracious and avoided looking like entitled bullies. Will Trump ever cease rising to the bait? (He did in the debate with Biden, so we know he can. Why doesn't he?)
The person who asked about wearing a suit should be banned from all press events forever.
I'm actually not entirely sure where we part ways here because I can agree with virtually everything you said. I don't, however, think Zelenskyy was rude although he did understandably go on the defense. But the outcome was preordained and even perfect behavior on his part wouldn't have changed that, so I don't view this as a strategic error so much as a faux pas of diplomatic etiquette or common sense.
So Zelensky met with a group of Democrats first, before the meeting with Trump and Vance? Hmm, I hadn't heard this before, but Chris Murphy posted about the meeting. Evidently they successfully turned Zelensky's head. So who is playing politics with Ukrainians' lives? The mineral deal is a way for Ukraine to pay for its reconstruction, not some wily transaction that benefits America only. The behavior of the Euro leaders has been atrocious behind the scenes, and now after the fracas, in front of the cameras. After 80 years of American led and paid for security blanket, a little emotion and the Euros showed their real selves. I won't forget.
Support Ukraine against Putin's aggression, otherwise other non-democratic aggressors will see how Putin was rewarded and then follow in his footsteps.
However Zelensky misplayed his meeting with Trump.
He should not have allowed his emotions to get the best of him.
He should have waited until they were meeting in private and then expressed his misgivings.
Trump is doing some great things internally in the USA but he is not doing well externally, such as attacking his democratic allies.
It would be better to negotiate new trade agreements with democratic countries if he thinks the present trade arrangements are not fair.
But put high tariffs on goods from non-democratic countries such as China.
Reward your friends and allies, and punish your enemies.
So many serious mistakes have led up to this moment. Most of these mistakes were prior to and after Trump's first term. Obama really blew it and Biden really f--ked up over and over and over again. Trump has inherited this mess. The honorable thing is to work to clean it up because the US's and Europe's incompetence has created so much of the mess.
I do not want the US to abandon Ukraine. First and foremost I want Europe to step up its game. I want the US to apply great pressure on Russia. Not sure Europe or Trump will do either of these things.
But the reality is that as long as Putin is around, peace treaty or not, Ukraine will be in mortal danger. In five years, eight years, whatever...Putin won't give up.
The biggest difference between WWII support and now is NUCLEAR WEAPONS. When a single bomb can destroy entire cities, the stakes have changed. If the US gets involved in defending the corrupt government with boots on the ground in Ukraine, Russia will respond. If Putin decides he’s losing to the US, he has no compulsion to take nukes off the table. So, is there a plan for peace? Or do we just allow Z to fight to the last Ukrainian? Because that’s where this is headed. Putin has more bullets than Z has Ukrainians and he has the will to grind this meat until the task is complete. Z took bad advice from people more interested in pushing Trump and expanding their personal fortunes than ending the killing. It seems that you feel the same.
This was purely Zelensky’s failure at negotiation. Forget all the historical references.
All Zelensky had to do was show up and sign the rare earth mineral agreement. But instead he tried to renegotiate a security guarantee in front of the media. Bad decision.
The US security guarantee is for NATO and the Ukraine is not in NATO. Macron and Starmer had each visited Trump earlier in the week. I’m sure this topic came up, but failed to reach agreement, hence no announcement to that effect.
To make the rare earth mineral agreement contingent on an extraneous issue, where there is no agreement is Zelensky’s recipe for absolute disaster. That’s exactly what we saw play out.
Right, but are we in this merely to profit off their suffering? Put aside the fact that the minerals in question—yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, samarium—are mainly found in Zhytomyr, Kirovohrad, and the Donbas, where Russia has violently taken 75% of Donetsk and more than 99% of Luhansk. Because a cynical minerals deal, when so many lives are on the line, should not be the only reason for defending our ally here.
And that's also putting aside all the other pragmatic considerations of holding the line, some of which weigh even more heavily than all those minerals combined. Some other nations sneer at America as an imperial war machine that transactionally only cares about profiteering and talks "freedom and democracy" as a clever con. But many Americans, myself included, believe in the spirit of the Philadelphia Convention.
Indeed, I identify as a liberal realist, meaning I believe in the realism of recognizing power politics and national interests as well as the liberalism of international cooperation and moral obligations to our allies. Moral imperatives and pragmatic constraints are not mutually exclusive. And we should never abandon a friend to die in the field at the hands of genocidal psychopathic monsters simply because their leader failed to sign a deal that would profit our battery and magnet industries.
This is what I meant about being petty and having a penny president. Even if we agree that Zelenskyy screwed up by not signing the deal, which I am willing to grant you, that's not reason enough to burn him and leave all his people turning in the wind while never saying so much as a single word of criticism about Vladimir goddamn Putin.
The mineral deal had an implicit security guarantee as it aligned our interests. That is a favorable step, one obviously worth taking. Z deep sixed it.
When you say, “Zelenskyy screwed up by not signing the deal, which I am willing to grant you, that's not reason enough to burn him and leave all his people turning in the wind while never saying so much as a single word of criticism about Vladimir goddamn Putin.” what do you mean? Do we send another $100 billion in arms? $200?
Honestly, I don’t see much of a favorable outcome for Ukraine either way. What can we do to stop the bloodshed?
Again, I agree. But what I meant was not simply give him more money. As pro-Ukraine as I am, I'm also a realist. The American appetite for this war is winding down. On the other hand, if Ukraine loses bad enough and Putin is emboldened, he may take a shot at Poland, and then we're going to be spending a helluva lot more money.
And even if we do get a ceasefire signed and Putin honors it, we don't just let him steal the land and keep it without any consequences. And there are many non-military ways to do this: complete energy sanctions, seizing all Russian sovereign assets, a full trade embargo, blocking access to maritime trade, secondary sanctions on any nations that do business with Russia, UN expulsion, and so on.
This will need to be expertly measured. Just enough to make it really burn, hopefully shrinking Russia's economy further and making future such actions even less tenable, but not enough to trigger a military response.
Great Britain paid back every penny of Lend Lease, the final payment being in 2006. It's a false analogy anyway. Putin is not Hitler, Zelensky is not Churchill, in fact the Ukraine war resembles the runup to WWI more than WWII. Yes, Putin is a thug and an opportunist, yes the invasion was unjustified and brutal, no the Russians should not be rewarded for their aggression. But is this really a vital security interest of the United States? Or are we being used by our European allies as their wealthy but senile uncle once again, while they preen and preach?
I get what you're saying but I don't think the analogy has to be a perfect fit in order for the underlying moral principle to hold.
The distinction is critical, though. Hitler was a madman who wanted to conquer the world, while Putin is an opportunist who will push on any open door if he thinks he can expand Russia's power. The first is an existential threat, the second is a manageable threat. The real moral issue should be whether Putin can be managed without the deaths of thousands of American troops, which means a ceasefire as a first step. The problem is both Zelensky and Putin depend on the war to justify their rule - without it they are both finished.
Well said.
What happened in the Oval Office was an American President showing that he will demand accountability from other world leaders. That's what honor looks like. Is it dishonorable to ask Zelensky where did billion$ of American dollars go? No audits, no reports. Just a black hole where billion$ have been disappearing. Aren't you interested in the answer to that question comrade Volodzko? Accountability is only an insult to a thief. Obama and Hitlary worked with the CIA back in 2014 to get rid of Putin's Ukrainian puppet Yanukovych and install America's puppet Zelensky. Zelensky is a punk thug. Zelensky has demonstrated that he is an untrustworthy leader of a perpetually corrupt country on the other side of the world who keeps asking for more money America doesn’t have to fight a war Americans don't care about. A war with no definition of win. The Democrats rolled out that tired old Domino Theory and still cling to it like it came right out of the bible. The truth is that Ukraine is another “forever war” like Iraq and Afghanistan, and nothing can be more dishonorable than to fight a war with no end. President Trump gave Zelensky an honorable way out with the rare earth mineral deal that would have greatly enriched his country and helped to rebuild it while giving America an ROI on those missing billions, but he disrespects our president - IN OUR HOUSE, and President Trump showed him the door. BRAVO!
The whole Oval Office thing felt like a setup by JD Vance, who has never supported Ukraine. I think he gambled that by accusing Zelensky of disrespecting Trump on live TV, that Trump’s ego would get the better of him, and he was right.
David, I appreciate you writing this. It is thoughtful and I feel you've made the effort to be balanced. I don't entirely agree with you because I saw three leaders acting not gracious, but all looking like petulant children in front of the world press and I was embarrassed for them all. Talking without listening, hearing without comprehending, talking past each other, it was disheartening. Zelensky was correct that there must be more than a cease fire. Trump was correct that the cease fire must come first. No one noted that America having business interests in Ukrainian mining would be an incentive for the US to seek the security of Ukraine.
The format was wrong. Trump enjoys open-ended press conferences, but this was not the time. Zelensky appeared to be attempting to negotiate in a press conference what should have been discussed behind closed doors (and done before this meeting was scheduled). And, once again my President's ego and verbal incontinence was an impediment to his success.
I was most disappointed with Vance, who I have been assured is sharp, intelligent, pragmatic, and at least moderately self-disciplined. I expected more of him. He could have been a calming influence or have seen what was happening and asked Trump to close this out and move behind closed doors. Instead he enflamed the situation.
Even if Zelensky was rude and obstreperous, abusing his hosts, the hosts should have been more gracious and avoided looking like entitled bullies. Will Trump ever cease rising to the bait? (He did in the debate with Biden, so we know he can. Why doesn't he?)
The person who asked about wearing a suit should be banned from all press events forever.
I'm actually not entirely sure where we part ways here because I can agree with virtually everything you said. I don't, however, think Zelenskyy was rude although he did understandably go on the defense. But the outcome was preordained and even perfect behavior on his part wouldn't have changed that, so I don't view this as a strategic error so much as a faux pas of diplomatic etiquette or common sense.
So Zelensky met with a group of Democrats first, before the meeting with Trump and Vance? Hmm, I hadn't heard this before, but Chris Murphy posted about the meeting. Evidently they successfully turned Zelensky's head. So who is playing politics with Ukrainians' lives? The mineral deal is a way for Ukraine to pay for its reconstruction, not some wily transaction that benefits America only. The behavior of the Euro leaders has been atrocious behind the scenes, and now after the fracas, in front of the cameras. After 80 years of American led and paid for security blanket, a little emotion and the Euros showed their real selves. I won't forget.
Support Ukraine against Putin's aggression, otherwise other non-democratic aggressors will see how Putin was rewarded and then follow in his footsteps.
However Zelensky misplayed his meeting with Trump.
He should not have allowed his emotions to get the best of him.
He should have waited until they were meeting in private and then expressed his misgivings.
Trump is doing some great things internally in the USA but he is not doing well externally, such as attacking his democratic allies.
It would be better to negotiate new trade agreements with democratic countries if he thinks the present trade arrangements are not fair.
But put high tariffs on goods from non-democratic countries such as China.
Reward your friends and allies, and punish your enemies.
So many serious mistakes have led up to this moment. Most of these mistakes were prior to and after Trump's first term. Obama really blew it and Biden really f--ked up over and over and over again. Trump has inherited this mess. The honorable thing is to work to clean it up because the US's and Europe's incompetence has created so much of the mess.
I do not want the US to abandon Ukraine. First and foremost I want Europe to step up its game. I want the US to apply great pressure on Russia. Not sure Europe or Trump will do either of these things.
But the reality is that as long as Putin is around, peace treaty or not, Ukraine will be in mortal danger. In five years, eight years, whatever...Putin won't give up.
The biggest difference between WWII support and now is NUCLEAR WEAPONS. When a single bomb can destroy entire cities, the stakes have changed. If the US gets involved in defending the corrupt government with boots on the ground in Ukraine, Russia will respond. If Putin decides he’s losing to the US, he has no compulsion to take nukes off the table. So, is there a plan for peace? Or do we just allow Z to fight to the last Ukrainian? Because that’s where this is headed. Putin has more bullets than Z has Ukrainians and he has the will to grind this meat until the task is complete. Z took bad advice from people more interested in pushing Trump and expanding their personal fortunes than ending the killing. It seems that you feel the same.