[DeepSeaTortoise]

Trump didn't demand credit or thanks from Zelensky. Vance did.

And Vance was literally just dropping hints to back down in front of the media and to present himself as grateful, because he saw the important talks about to be derailed before they even began:

> Vance: Have you said thank you once?

> Zelenskyy: A lot of times.

> Vance: No, in this meeting, this entire meeting? Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.

(And the entire heated conversation in general)

IMO, the language barrier really screwed Zelensky over.

> [Zelensky not wearing a suit]

Trump's attitude is that how you dress to an event is a sign of respect for the people you meet. Many disagree with this attitude, but if that's how someone you're going to meet thinks, then you adjust to it. Like not showing up in gym clothes to a job interview.

[mewpmewp2]

The thing is... That even if Zelensky did have the perfect dress code, perfect niceties, the whole thing was a setup with trying to pressure Zelensky into a bad deal. And if Zelensky was not to accept it the goal was to humiliate and embarrass him publically. So Vance and Trump would have gone for any other possible targets they can find, or alternatively invent some. So they kept provoking Zelensky whole time and even before when Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done. Even through that, it's crazy the patience Zelensky had.

[DeepSeaTortoise]

> the whole thing was a setup with trying to pressure Zelensky into a bad deal.

The deal was quite good. It basically coupled the rebuilding of Ukraine (and ownership shares resulting from it) to a fund, rather than the government itself.

If Russia had then taken over Ukraine, they'd have to expropriate the fund to gain any benefits, but that'd also mean expropriating the minority ownership of the US.

> Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done.

Sure, but he is, and that's a huge issue for any negotiations going forward. Ukrainian martial law only delays parliamentary elections, not presidential ones.

If Zelensky doesn't either get a democratic mandate or recognized as an official negotiator by the Verkhovna Rada, any agreements made with him can later just be rejected by Ukraine.

[johnnyanmac]

The deal was awful and Ukraine would get nothing but delayed destruction. he isn't a fool. Rebuilding is useless with security to not have it torn down in 5 years when Russia recovers.

>Sure, but he is

Oh, so we're not going to have a productive conversation, then.

>"PACE President Tiny Kox: It is up to the Government, Parliament and the people of Ukraine to decide when and how to conduct elections"

https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pace-president-tiny-kox-it...

Pretty much every country has martial law rules. So disagree or not, to call someone a dictator while defending against a war is outright malicious in my mind.

[DeepSeaTortoise]

Not sure how to delete my previous comment but the claim that martial law extends only the power of the parliament is wrong. I've clearly relied on a bad source of information.

There is a strong argument that the Ukrainian President looses a lot of powers when his term ends under martial law, but negotiating international treaties is not one of them.

The Ukrainian constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the President to remain in office under martial law, but it does not allow for pretty much any elections and doesn't provide for a transfer of power as it does under other circumstances.

It also requires the office of the President to not be vacated.

.

So, the transfer of power that would occur under an irregular vacancy from the President to the Prime Minister likely occurs to the President himself if his term ends under martial law?

[bjoli]

Without security guarantees against Putin, it is not a good deal. That was what Zelensky was there to secure.

[DeepSeaTortoise]

Kinda, but the US made clear that at this point they will only back Zelensky in the negotiations.

Without Russia and Ukraine agreeing on how to end this war, split the spoils and salvage the little that's left, outside parties will hardly be willing to commit to enforcing the peace.

Ideally a solution can be found that wont make Ukraine (or Russia) dependent on the mood of an outside party, but if that's realistic is questionable at best.

I think the phases of negotiations could look about like this:

1. Cease and freeze the conflict

1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia

2. A third party establishes with both sides the format of the upcoming negotiations.

3. Both sides find partners backing them, establish their minimum positions and ways to compromise on them without giving up on them (e.g. if territory can't be regained, shared management and dual citizenship for the people living there might be possible)

(4.) The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.

5. Very messy negotiations on the outcome of the war

6. Even messier negotiations on a security framework between the two countries

7. Mudslinging contest on security framework involving all relevant parties

8. Sign peace deal.

9. Try to toss aside Ukraine, get reminded what you agreed to in 1. a), regret ever having agreed to that extortion racket

[mewpmewp2]

> 1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia

What do you mean rebuilding Russia?

> The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.

Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.

The problem with negotiations is that Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.

Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.

The only peace deal Russia would accept is if:

a) It just allows them to invade again as soon as possible.

b) It tells them not to invade again, but the consequences are meaningless so they'll invade again and nothing happens, and the same thing repeats again.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Russia is. To simplify this, you need to think of it as a bot playing Civilization that is programmed to maximize its territory gains, while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading, and influence on other countries to have them approve of those invasions.

[DeepSeaTortoise]

> What do you mean rebuilding Russia?

Russia has taken quite a bit of damage, too (although it's tiny compared to Ukraine).

But most importantly: No matter who ends up responsible for the costs in each of the cases, both countries need a clear way to full recovery.

Otherwise you're just going to end up with an East-West Germany situation at best or an Mexico-US situation (cartels, crime, human trafficking, smuggling) at worst.

> Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.

Because the price the sanctions imposed were lower than the price not continuing would have.

If the price is simply staying at the table and keep talking, even minor sanctions would get the job done.

> Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.

I honestly dont understand why so many people hinge their entire position on this.

Russia has been warning about the situation we've got right now since at least 2002 and VERY explicitly since at least 2007.

Why do so many people keep ignoring everything Russia has talked about for decades (CFE treaty, NATO expansion, OSCE format failure, ongoing military escalation and lack of security guarantees) and just jump straight to:

Putin likes land and Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.

There isn't even the slightest sliver of evidence for this, infact quite the opposite:

- Putin could have easily kept Georgia in 2008

- The nations east of the Caspian Sea are infinitely easier to integrate into Russia, but no such efforts were undertaken

- Belarus could have been integrated into Russia much more easily, too

- There were plenty of very pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, Putin could have utilized to tie Ukraine politically much more closely to Russia with the intent of taking over in the future

> Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.

Just the bloody opposite. The Russian mindset puts the security of the nation first. If you attempt to overpower them, they will keep escalating until either side becomes incapable of fighting.

Which is an incredibly dangerous course to take against a nation that is sitting on the Soviet nuclear stockpile.

And yes, the nukes work. All (except NK and Israel?) nuclear nations keep regular inspecting each other's nuclear arsenals for proper maintenance and functionality. And nukes are VERY simple weapons. The by far most complicated component being the conventional explosive chain involved and nobody questions Russia's capabilities on that part.

> while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading

Agreed, except for the "uncensored" part. It's heavily censored, just in a very ... unconventional way.

It's hard to imagine who came up with these talking points:

- Satanist necromancers raising the Nazis from their graves

- Supersoldiers being bred in secret laboratories

- Caveman drawings having been found depicting Ukraine and Russia as one country with Moscow as its capital

.

On the other hand, everything said since the 2022 invasion is hardly to be taken seriously, since all official diplomatic dialog broke down.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Just to clarify, Zelensky thanked Trump for the invitation at the beginning of the meeting.

[llamaimperative]

[flagged]

[dang]

Please don't cross into breaking the site guidelines (e.g. "Get a grip.") no matter how right you are or feel you are.

Also, can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We've had to ask you that more than once before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[llamaimperative]

Apologies! Tbc I haven't seen any responses from you before, not sure if I missed them somehow.

[DeepSeaTortoise]

> Or showing up to a cabinet meeting in a graphic t shirt and ball cap?

Sure, not what Trump likes.

But what Zelensky was wearing did have very little influence on the outcome of the meeting at best.

People dislike Zelensky having been called out on not wearing a suit, I merely explained why Trump puts importance on this.

We don't know if Trump called out Musk on not wearing a suit and what Musk's response might have been.

Overall the importance of wearing a suit is quite low, not at all proportionate to the outrage of Zelensky being called out for not wearing one.

> Trump has no stable “attitude” toward anything whatsoever except whatever he thinks accrues him more power and wealth, full stop.

How would Zelensky wearing a suit help Trump to further this agenda of his?

> He’s a well known germaphobe who will let a child wipe snot on his work desk

Yes, he is. But he tries to hide his actions resulting from that. Like getting behind something like a chair and wiping his hand on his suit.

We don't know if he cleaned the desk afterwards.

What, in your opinion, would have been the correct action he should have taken against the child?

[llamaimperative]

… I don’t think anyone on “Ukraine’s side” here thinks it’s actually relevant whether Zelensky wore a suit or not. It is right-wing Twitter that’s acting like it’s such a huge disrespect and affront to America.

Your point is that Trump cares about decorum. My point is that Trump cares about power, and he would seize on whatever little thing he could to try to gain more power over our wartime ally. The suit is obviously a red herring.

You think when bullies make fun of a kid’s shoes they actually care about fashion? Duh: no.

When someone calls out a bully for making fun of someone’s shoes, is it because they give a fuck about their fashion choices? Duh: no.

That’s all that’s going on here.

[DeepSeaTortoise]

Yup, sums it up nicely, I think.

[jiggawatts]

Trump demanding that Zelenskyy dress the way Trump would prefer is what a narcissist does. "Oh, he must be wearing that just to upset me."

No you self-important tool, he's wearing that because his nation is at war with Russia. Zelenskyy wears military clothes to every meeting, with every leader, not just you.

[ttyprintk]

I found the matching suits curious:

https://apnews.com/article/republicans-trump-zelenskyy-meeti...

See second image.