Cristo71 9:
thenone is more likely to view Zelenskyy as being overconfident in his position.
Greyparrot10:
Worse than that. Trump and JD Vance came into the meeting expecting Zelensky to be open to the possibility of a cease fire. Zelensky was the one who ambushed JD Vance by questioning the "kind of diplomacy" that would lead to a cease fire...[5]
As Devil's advocate, it could be that Trump already knew Zelensky was not interested in a cease fire under any circumstance, and made sure that was captured on TV for all Americans to see for themselves.[6]
[5] How does asking a question about Vance’s diplomacy nonsense qualify as an ambush?
[6] You are cherrypicking. Although I suspect your intention was to show fault with Zelenskyy, it illustrates, if you are right, the disingenuous intentions of the hosts: humiliate Zelenskyy. I am sure there are people who think that is appropriate, but are there brave enough to admit that is what they think?
Now, I agree it is not clear why Zelenskyy refuses a cease-fire, but he clearly doesn’t trust Putin and a cease-fire would allow Russia to rearm.
Itis unlikely the hosts thought as you suggest that Zelenskyy would notaccapt a cease-fire under any circumstance, for that would be stupid of them.
Amoranemix11:
You are confusing two things: Whether Trump is right to pressure Ukraine into an unfavourable and unfair deal or whether he has treatedZelensky inapropriately. To the latter the answer is clearly yes. The former is debatable.
I’mnot confusing those two things; I’m actually accounting for both,and how both are interconnected. Your response actually seems to exemplify precisely what I describe.
How does does me disputing that the perception of who is responsible forthe inglorious press conference depends on one’s viewpoint of Ukraine’s rights and the USA’s obligations (disputing that theyare intereconnected) exemplify what you wrote?
Iam sure there are people believing most of the blame lies with Zelenskyy, but anything can be believed. Pick some preposterous nonsense and there are people believing it. I believe there is anobjective truth and that these people are wrong.
Amoranemix11:
Itis clearly bad for the free world (something The USA used to careabout), but Trump doesn’t care about that (unless he is evenagainst the free world). He cares about himself and the USA and forthem his rampage may be good.
Cristo71 12:
Whenthe USA “cared about the free world,” it was also lambasted asoverly interventionist and perhaps even imperialist by the freeworld. Now that the US is trying to be less of the free world’spoliceman, and trying to incentivize free nations to have a biggerstake in protecting that freedom, it gets a reaction such as yours.“Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”
a) Who has damned the USA for trying to incentivize free nations to have a bigger stake in protecting that freedom?
b) The USA presented itself as the defender of the free world. However, most of the USA interventions had at least in part a different agenda, like the war in Vietnam and the Grenada invasion. Moreover, the interventions in civil wars usually proved ineffective. If the USA had limited its operations honourable causes (like USAID, the kind of thing Trump doesn’t want) and interstate wars, there would be much less ground for critic. I am sure the Ukrainians don’t mind the USA supporting them.
Amoranemix 11 to Greyparrot:
[4] That is incorrect. I don’t assume the USA owes Zelensky and yet that seemed like bullying to me.
[5] What a relief knowing that we are free to continue the war if we are against peace.I feel a lot better now.
Greyparrot:
[norespone]
So there is no dispute that Zelenskyy’s treatment was inappropriate. It’s just that some people prefer not the draw attention to that fact.
Amoranemix11 to Greyparrot :
Waris the continuation of diplomacy by other means. [ . . . ]
Greyparrot13 :
Yes, so we agree, this is the kind of "Diplomacy" Zelenskyy demands, and not the kind that Trump desires.[6]
So when Zelenskyy rudely interrupted Vice-President Vance and called him"JD" and asked him "What kind of diplomacy"... he was affirming that this is the kind of diplomacy that he wanted. A continuation of the war.[7]
Nice selective quoting, especially since the part you omitted is relevant.
[6] You are mistaken. Zelenskyy does not demand that kind of “diplomacy”. Zelenskyy asks for help defending his country against invasion. However, it is the kind of “diplomacy” Putin, Trump’s coveted role model, uses.
[7] Why do you selectively criticize Zelenskyy, given that Trump and Vance had much more to be criticized for?
Why are you not criticizing Russia for using that kind of “diplomacy”? Putin didn’t ask anyone’s permission for using the kind of“diplomacy” Vance and other Trump fans blame Zelenskyy for wanting to use, he just uses it without interruption since 2014.
Amoranemix11 to Greyparrot :
If Trump offers Putin everything he wants in exchange for peace and offers Zelensky nothing in exchange for peace, then obviously it is Putin who wants peace.
Suppose Trump had offered both sides that Russia withdraw its army from the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, and pays 300 billion dollar as reparations to Ukraine, who do you think would have wanted peace then?
Greyparrot:
[noresponse]
You forgot to answer my question.
Amoranemix 11 to Greyparrot :
So,lacking evidence to the contrary, Zelensky and Europe want peace, but that is of course not the only thing they want. According to the MAGA-fanatics, if an army invades your country and you resist, thatimplies you don’t want peace.
Greyparrot13 :
Idon't know where you are getting that from. We are Americans over here, not "MAGA-fanatics"[8]
74% of us want the war to end. You can want to have peace and still resist by other means. But you are just affirming what I said before.[9]
"Ukraine-fanatics"(to equate your oversimplification) only want the kind of diplomacythat continues the war.[10]
[8] I got that from Donald Trump. I didn’t hear Trump say that Putin doesn’t want peace. On the contrary, he said Putin wants peace. He could have said the opposite, that Zelenskyy wants peace and Putin doesn’t, but Trump clearly prefers the guy who is doing the invading over the guy is defending against an invasion.
There are also Trump-fans and MAGA-fanatics in America and I think there is a lot of overlap between these groups.
[9] I suppose there is something you said I have affirmed, but I have clearly done more than that.
[10] I don’t know what Ukraine-fanatics want, so I can’t speak for them and I don’t know why their opinion would be relevant. However, Ukrainians and most Europeans want other things too. They want the Russian army to leave Ukraine and I suspect many want Russia to pay war reparations.
Double_R16 :
So do the Ukrainians genius. Here's a crazy thought; if you want the war to end, then blame the guy trying to invade another country.
Greyparrot 17 :
Yes,blaming is the only path to a negotiated peace. Or is it?
It's far more likely blaming is the only path to continue the war.[11] And make no mistake, Zelenskyy demonstrated fully that he is determined to continue this war.[12]
When, not if Ukraine can no longer sustain its resistance to the liberationof the Donbas, then the war will likely end with Russia imposing its terms.[13] Without a negotiated settlement, the only outcome is determined by military capability and external support. When that support weakens and Ukraine's defenses break, the conflict will end through force rather than diplomacy.[14] For a president desperate to hold on to power, that is the sacrifice Zelenskyy is willing to makefor all of Ukraine.[15]
[11] Has it escaped you that Putin has blamed Zelenskyy and Ukrainian nationalists a lot? And NATO for expanding eastward? Indeed, he used it as an excuse to invade.
[12] Ok, so you and Trump not blaming Putin and you warning against blaming anyone would be consistent with not wanting to take the path to war, but why blame Zelenskyy then?
Of course, blaming does more than pave the path to war: it showswhich side you are on.
[13] That is what Trump is aiming for as even before the negotiations he made concessions to Putin and none to Zelenskyy.
[14] You are mistaken. Military conflicts almost almost end with diplomacy.
[15] Why are you criticizing Zelenskyy again? It appears very difficultfor you to hide your bias.
Greyparrot24 to Double_R :
Im very okay with admitting this isnt a war worth 150 billion in American dollars to continue.
That’s a red herring.
Aswas probably to be expected the discussion has veered off intowhether the USA’s new stance in relation to the Ukraine war isjustifiable. However, that that the oval office ambush wasinappropriate is undisputed. That Trump is a jerk also has not been disputed.
