After watching the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting go sideways, I asked myself how Zelenskyy could blow a deal he and his country need so badly. The answer may be quite simple: he didn't.
With a little room between then and now, I can see this. I will forever be disappointed and disgusted by the Americans who would rather trash their own country and leadership than back anything to do with Trump and the majority of voters. People like that make me sick.
I only listened to the argument, and didn’t listen or watch to the entire episode. My assumption about Russian leaders, and leaders in general, is that saving face is of great importance. So this take makes the most sense. I pray it’s correct. It seemed so odd to me that Zelensky would charge in like he did. If he thought his demeanor would cow Trump he is either politically naive or intentionally obtuse.
I only watched the last ten minutes, but my impression was that Zelenskyy was saving face because he had to "stand up" to the powerful US president for this sake of his political career. But he didn't seem overcome with emotion or worried that the deal would actually fall apart. His "bad behavior" will even make Trump and Vance look good when the deal is signed because it shows how skillful they were at mediating between two such unreasonable opponents. The people who think that Zelenskyy was "ambushed" and treated badly don't really matter because the MAGA base is outraged that he was so rude to the people trying to help him. Typical political theater.
If the US State Department hadn't toppled Yanukovych, this war never happens. If Biden doesn't green light Ukraine into NATO immediately after his disastrous Afghanistan pullout, the February 2022 invasion doesn't happen. It's that simple. We can discuss all they ways Putin is bad/worse, but it doesn't change the realities above.
I would say , yes and no. The Putin take on Ukraine is it must be aligned or controlled by Russia, not in EU or NATO.Putin seems to believe that if Ukraine moves in a Western direction, that’s a threat. I think that’s irrational paranoia coupled with imperial arrogance.However, the US knew that mindset and there should never have been talk of Ukraine in NATO.Apparently the assumption was , Putin would accept expansion. I think he should have. It was not a real threat. But you’re dealing with a KGB agent with a fantasy of restoring a great Russian Empire.Everyone should have been much more careful. The great tragedy for Ukraine was the US talked them into giving up nuclear weapons.
I think your analysis, the only part I disagree with is this: "Apparently, the assumption was Putin would accept expansio...."
I think the State Department and co. lnew Putin would not accept it, no more than we'd accept Russia moving into Mexico or Canada. They didn't care, because they're stronger and were happy to use Ukraine to sap the strength of their geopolitical rival.
The analogy is not quite correct.At present, or maybe until recently, we’ve had relatively no interest in occupying Mexico or Canada. You’re probably coming off Mersheimers analysis, which is flawed. A key difference is , I firmly believe that Putin is an unreconstructed Russian imperialist. He thinks it’s Russian destiny to control what was once “ Soviet”(a really bad idea given Russian demographics where it will likely become predominantly Muslim).Yes , they didn’t like EU and NATO expansion. However, I think he really sought a pre text to reestablish empire and it’s gone poorly. Ukraine was not Chechnya.
The US could have kept its word and not moved NATO “one inch East”. Talk of Ukrainian NATO membership is insane, yes insane. “Reality be damned, we want access to their minerals, natural gas and money-laundering network,” is the kind of insane greed that drives comic-book super villains. Whose children have to fight and die to protect those mineral concessions? NOT the children of the political class.
With a little room between then and now, I can see this. I will forever be disappointed and disgusted by the Americans who would rather trash their own country and leadership than back anything to do with Trump and the majority of voters. People like that make me sick.
I only listened to the argument, and didn’t listen or watch to the entire episode. My assumption about Russian leaders, and leaders in general, is that saving face is of great importance. So this take makes the most sense. I pray it’s correct. It seemed so odd to me that Zelensky would charge in like he did. If he thought his demeanor would cow Trump he is either politically naive or intentionally obtuse.
I only watched the last ten minutes, but my impression was that Zelenskyy was saving face because he had to "stand up" to the powerful US president for this sake of his political career. But he didn't seem overcome with emotion or worried that the deal would actually fall apart. His "bad behavior" will even make Trump and Vance look good when the deal is signed because it shows how skillful they were at mediating between two such unreasonable opponents. The people who think that Zelenskyy was "ambushed" and treated badly don't really matter because the MAGA base is outraged that he was so rude to the people trying to help him. Typical political theater.
The whole dust up seemed like theatre since it did not flow naturally. I like the explanation above of why
I hope you are correct. But I think there are fewer places on the planet more corrupt than Ukraine. Which makes them untrustworthy allies.
The corruption runs high, yes.
I found the whole thing bizarre! In all events, how do you figure that the war was avoidable? ( I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just curious).
If the US State Department hadn't toppled Yanukovych, this war never happens. If Biden doesn't green light Ukraine into NATO immediately after his disastrous Afghanistan pullout, the February 2022 invasion doesn't happen. It's that simple. We can discuss all they ways Putin is bad/worse, but it doesn't change the realities above.
I would say , yes and no. The Putin take on Ukraine is it must be aligned or controlled by Russia, not in EU or NATO.Putin seems to believe that if Ukraine moves in a Western direction, that’s a threat. I think that’s irrational paranoia coupled with imperial arrogance.However, the US knew that mindset and there should never have been talk of Ukraine in NATO.Apparently the assumption was , Putin would accept expansion. I think he should have. It was not a real threat. But you’re dealing with a KGB agent with a fantasy of restoring a great Russian Empire.Everyone should have been much more careful. The great tragedy for Ukraine was the US talked them into giving up nuclear weapons.
I think your analysis, the only part I disagree with is this: "Apparently, the assumption was Putin would accept expansio...."
I think the State Department and co. lnew Putin would not accept it, no more than we'd accept Russia moving into Mexico or Canada. They didn't care, because they're stronger and were happy to use Ukraine to sap the strength of their geopolitical rival.
The analogy is not quite correct.At present, or maybe until recently, we’ve had relatively no interest in occupying Mexico or Canada. You’re probably coming off Mersheimers analysis, which is flawed. A key difference is , I firmly believe that Putin is an unreconstructed Russian imperialist. He thinks it’s Russian destiny to control what was once “ Soviet”(a really bad idea given Russian demographics where it will likely become predominantly Muslim).Yes , they didn’t like EU and NATO expansion. However, I think he really sought a pre text to reestablish empire and it’s gone poorly. Ukraine was not Chechnya.
We already took from Mexico what we wanted.
The US could have kept its word and not moved NATO “one inch East”. Talk of Ukrainian NATO membership is insane, yes insane. “Reality be damned, we want access to their minerals, natural gas and money-laundering network,” is the kind of insane greed that drives comic-book super villains. Whose children have to fight and die to protect those mineral concessions? NOT the children of the political class.
Of course the US might not have encouraged Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons.
Thoughtful! Great insight. I hope you're right.