[BrickFingers]

I disagree that it looked like a planned confrontation and that all the escalation is on Trump and Vance

Vance made a comment about the US' goal to be diplomatic.

Zelensky speaks up and says he wants to ask Vance something. He then goes on to talk about how Putin annexed Crimea and that between 2014 - 2022 Putin was murdering Ukrainian citizens and ignoring cease fires. He mentioned that nobody did anything to stop Putin, implying that Trump didn't do anything during his first term in office. Then Zelensky ends with something along the lines of "so what do you mean diplomacy" to Vance.

Even if Zelensky's statements were correct, that was not a wise course of action to attempt to call out the President and VP while you're in the Oval office. The meeting erupts from there.

Regardless of how you feel about the current administration, it is a fact that Ukraine has been dependent on the US' aid. I don't know what Zelensky expected to gain from those statements.

[TFYS]

What would Ukraine gain from a deal where they give up their natural resources in exchange for a pinky promise between an invading dictator and his 'wanna-be dictator' friend to allow Ukraine to remain an independent country?

[koolba]

What did the USA gain by giving billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine?

My understanding is that the mineral deal is back pay. And if the development is going to be done by American firms, then of course there’s a security alignment for the USA.

The dumb move of the day was on the part of Zelensky thinking he could somehow expand things at the last moment or on live TV.

[dangjc]

We destroyed half of Russia’s military without shedding American lives. We defended the principle that people should govern themselves and not be dominated by force.

[TFYS]

If other large powers stop being afraid of the US, and if allies can't trust the US, then the US will lose its status and the losses from that are probably a lot more than the billions given to Ukraine.

[mitthrowaway2]

His point, which he made very clearly, was not criticism of the US; it was distrust that Putin would honor a ceasefire. Zelensky explained that diplomacy is not enough, asking what diplomacy alone will accomplish with someone who doesn't honor their deals.

Vance took it in a really weird direction, first pushing "the kind of diplomacy that is going to save your country", then accusing Zelensky of not saying thank you (despite him having said thank you several times that very meeting?).

The reporters reiterated Zelensky's point, asking what Trump would do if Putin breaks the deal, and Trump just shoots down the possibility, saying he doesn't think it would happen and the possibility isn't worth considering. "What if a bomb drops on your head right now". His only justification being that Trump is president and Putin wouldn't do that to Trump.

Zelensky needs guarantees or the ceasefire isn't worth it to him, so it's fair for him to push back on the lack of guarantees even at the risk of annoying Vance. But they snapped back at him in a very unreasonable way.

[BrickFingers]

I agree that Zelensky's main point was definitely that Putin can't be trusted.

But, he also highlighted a couple of times that that no one did anything to stop Putin which implies that the US didn't do anything. Which could be taken as criticism. Also, ending his statements with "So what do you mean diplomacy" is clearly a snarky response.

The fact is Zelensky has no leverage. He was given aid from the US, apparently as a grant. The US has no obligation to help Ukraine. My understanding is that the aid was given to Ukraine in the hopes that it would weaken Russia. That gamble doesn't appear to be working.

If he didn't like the terms of the deal, it should have been discussed in private, before coming to the US. Instead, he chose to push back in a public forum. So I don't feel the response he got was unwarranted.

An analogy that comes to mind is helping out a friend that just lost their job. You give them money and a place to stay and over time the friend starts to feel entitled to your generosity. Eventually, you get tired of it and give them a deadline to find their own place. Then during dinner with a group of friends, they complain to the table that you only gave them 3 months left to stay instead of 6...

I got carried away with the analogy and of course it doesn't capture the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, but I feel like it captures the core sentiment.

[mitthrowaway2]

> The fact is Zelensky has no leverage

That's not really true. His leverage is that it's also in the interests of the US to maintain norms in which territorial conquest is not rewarded. "Crime doesn't pay". He also attempted to convince the US of this but was brushed off.

Looking at it as a one-off situation in which the US doesn't have any interest results in it not being a one-off situation, because if Ukraine loses then everyone starts itching to take land from their neighbours. And everyone else starts arming themselves with nukes, having seen what Ukraine got for giving them up. That's the path to World War 3. And the US might realize then, with regret, that it was easier to plug the dam when the crack was small.

Trump doesn't understand this. He made it clear that he doesn't see it as an iterated game, just a one-off. Or perhaps he's the one who wants to establish norms of taking over neighbours with force?

As for an analogy, a better example is that your friend's house is being broken into by a notorious gang of criminals threatening the neighborhood, and his children have been picked off one by one, and he's knocking at your door screaming "I'll hold them off if you can pass me some more ammo!", and you're haggling him down for his furniture.

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US was happy to send the Taliban weapons. That wasn't for love or charity. It was American self-interest. So is this.

[hoten]

For context, since most clips I've found online start just after JD's comment you're alluding to here-

JD's statement about "diplomacy" which precedes Zelensky's comments about how Russia diplomacy plays out starts here: https://youtu.be/CIEZEvx1HfU?si=IdGw2g74643yEQrE&t=45

I suppose its arguable that it wasn't the most diplomatic thing to say in the moment. But I can't fault the guy for pointing out the undiplomatic behavior while his country is being squeezed by Russia and US (wrt mineral rights). How frustrating it must be to hear "have you tried diplomacy?" in the context of an invading force.

[BrickFingers]

Oh wow, makes sense that the video was clipped. The first video I clicked had the entire segment so I guess I got lucky.

I can understand his frustration as well. But, he's a leader at war and lives of his men depend on his actions. The moment is much much bigger than him.

[freetonik]

It was an absolutely fair question. Trump and Vance are saying let’s solve it with diplomacy. Zelenskyy provides facts confirming the impossibility of doing diplomacy in good faith. Agreements don’t have any value when history shows the other party not respecting the agreements. So, “what kind of diplomacy you mean?” is a fair question.

Vance’s answer “I mean the kind of diplomacy that would save your country” is a meaningless bullshit sentence.

[alabastervlog]

He's trying to make the point that they can't talk peace without material guarantees of security from their allies as part of the deal, which guarantees are absent from the White House's agreement, because they just had an agreement without such guarantees shit all over by Putin, so it's, you know, kinda pointless to do that again. It's making concessions on paper for no guarantee of peace, with an adversary that's already broken a similar agreement, leading to this very conflict. Why make concessions with no guarantee of security in return, when there's zero reason to believe Russia will keep their word? He actually manages to get most of that explanation out, in between interruptions and non sequitur digs from the other two.

The difference between this and the more confrontational corrections of Trump's bullshit in similar situations recently, by Macron and Trudeau, is stark. Trump and Vance were primed to pounce.

[megous]

> implying that Trump didn't do anything during his first term

To me the implication was that "diplomacy and deals didn't work" and they ended up with the current war, anyway. It's a common talking point.

[insane_dreamer]

Remember that Z has to answer to the people of Ukraine. People who have been dying in defense of their borders -- and a volunteer army, not conscripts, mind you.

He wanted/needed American aid, but there was no way he could just go in there and kiss the ring, while being slandered as the aggressor and letting Putin off the hook. There's no way that would fly for his people back home -- remember that they are as much of an audience as the Americans.

[FireBeyond]

> There's no way that would fly for his people back home -- remember that they are as much of an audience as the Americans.

Well, them and the Russians. "Ooopsy, we let Russian state media in, however did that accidentally happen?!?"

[alabastervlog]

His best outcome was peace with security guarantees (not on offer from the White House—who knows what might have happened if anyone else had been invited to these patently absurd two-party talks, to maybe sweeten the deal for Ukraine? Christ, how ridiculous).

Failing that, this is a pretty good outcome, in the scheme of things. He outed Trump as a committed Russian ally, not behind closed doors, but on international television so nobody (who matters in this context, I mean world leaders, not Trump voters) can ignore it. He may have just kicked over the final leg holding up the American-centered security apparatus, in such a shocking and spectacular fashion that others will be compelled to form a new one without us, which is something they absolutely need if they're going to keep fighting and the US is withdrawing support. They need other countries not to follow America's lead.

[insane_dreamer]

Yeah it might actually get Europe to take matters into their own hands (which Trump would see as a win for the US but which is long term very much a loss for the US). It also might push the EU more towards China. In fact if I were China right now I’d start making overtures to Europe.

[dev_daftly]

He canceled elections and is serving past his term. He clearly doesn't have to answer to the people of Ukraine anymore.

[fernandopj]

Google is your friend:

> did the us held elections while world war 2 was happening?

> Elections were held on November 7, 1944, during the final stages of World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was easily re-elected to an unprecedented fourth term, and the Democratic Party retained their majorities in both chambers of Congress.

[joyeuse6701]

This is a lie.

[m3kw9]

There was a choice Zelenskyy could have made there, but he seems to know the deal so he didn’t hold back asking

[wombatpm]

At that point he knew things were done. There is no more US aide and he decided to call them on their bullshit.

[FireBeyond]

Their course of action was bullshit. "Sure, diplomacy has failed you the last four times, and we've interfered plenty. So why not try it a fifth time?"

They expected Zelensky to be Charlie Brown kicking the football.

We have no fucking right to the "mineral rights" in Ukraine.

[jimmydoe]

My guess is he's being pushed out as president and is forced to sign the deal, by internal political forces who are likely pro-Trump or pro-Putin.

This news press is his only chance to potentially flip the script with his public opinion advantage. We will see how that goes.