An additional piece from the Kyiv Post, to add to the one MoreCash… has reposted from the Ukrain thread that I’d posted earlier;
The big problem is that without the US all f-35, Apache, trident and god knows what else doesn't fly. So embedded is the US military industrial complex in much of the western defence system. Tellng them to do one is not an option unless you consider us effectively defenceless for at least a few years an option. That's why diplomacy, however distasteful is required.
Yup, sums it up nicely imo. The next US president in four years time will quite possibly be JD Vance. I think it is not just a case of now seeing the US as perhaps not a reliable ally but also maybe seeing it as a possible potential enemy.
But it isn't just about how embedded militarily the UK and many others countries are with the US, it's also a case of the huge economic stranglehold the US has over much of the world. The world cannot isolate the United States no matter how it behaves.
It is obviously not an acceptable situation but it will take a very long time before this unhealthy dependency on what is now clearly an unpredictable and unreliable superpower changes. It should be work in progress though imo.
I think it's reasonable to think that zelensky should have just let them blow themselves out a bit in the oval but in the heat of that moment, in a second language as well, it must have been hard. Add in loaded questions from primed journalists.
The more I've seen the clips, I just can't see where Zelensky went wrong. He barely managed to get a sentence out without being talked over.
So Zelenskyy shoukd have just rolled over and sold out his country?
Yes losing his temper will not have helped but nothing he could have done would have. Trump wants a deal on Russian terms. There is no way Zelenskyy coukd have signed up and it was obviously a classic DARVO from Vance. Classic bully tactics.
In one way Zelenskyy has done the rest of the world a favour by making it plain that Trump Vance and the US cannot be relied upon and are indeed allied now with Russia. Its now out in the open
The more I've seen the clips, I just can't see where Zelensky went wrong.
The article covers it. Rolling eyes, the dismissive waving away 'Yes, yes, Putin already told me'.... is only part. He crossed (preagreed?) redlines, and then when it flared up didn't back down.
I know people see it as kowtowing to the orange shitgibbon, as holdy-nosey as that is that's the deal right now.
Don't watch clips, watch the whole thing and look from the view of what he did to NOT antagonise or to de-escalate.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/01/zelenskyy-trump-oval-office-column-00205584
Thanks for that jonv, an interesting analysis. Worth a read 👍
So Zelenskyy shoukd have just rolled over and sold out his country?
Where has anything I have said suggested that? He needs a deal as we all do, and we all have something to offer, from potential mineral rights to state visits. It's not rolling over, it's negotiating when your opponent has the stronger hand.
Are you suggesting he got it absolutely right? His response was perfect? In which case why is every sensible, heavyweight politician spending the weekend trying to work out how to salvage something from this mess?
Why do trump and vance get a free pass from you? Their behaviour was atrocious . They were just looking for a fight.
Zelensky is a human being under huge pressure and he was subjected to bullying gaslighting and classic DARVO. He lost his temper yes but it made no difference to the outcome. Only complete capitulation would have done which would allow russia to take over his country
Why do trump and vance get a free pass from you? Their behaviour was atrocious . They were just looking for a fight.
If you are really interested in the thinking behind jonv's comments why don't you read the link which he posted and goes into some details?
You obviously haven't because if you had you wouldn't be asking that question.
Are you suggesting he got it absolutely right? His response was perfect?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Do you understand why it perhaps wasn't "perfect"? Fatigued, war weary, dealing with tag team abuse from Trump and Vance, being steam rollered into giving up his country's resources for practically nothing, answering staged questions from the right wing press. All in a foreign language, without an interpreter in front of a hostile media circus? It's a wonder he didn't walk out in disgust at the shameful humiliation. The fact that he didn't is to his huge credit, that his performance wasn't "perfect" is understandable to just about everyone outside MAGA and the Kremlin surely?
Yes I've read the article above. It seems to be suggesting Zelensky should have blown feathers up Trump's arse, and excuses the actions of Vance and Trump.
Why do trump and vance get a free pass from you? Their behaviour was atrocious . They were just looking for a fight.
FFS TJ go back and read what I've said, recently and over the last two days. Admittedly some on the UK Gov thread, before coming over to here.
eg:
Trump and Vance were disgraceful, but sadly IMHO Zelensky got angry too and didn't play the limited hand he has well, which has only inflamed a situation (rather - given two ****s looking for a fight he got dragged in)
eg:
Be in no doubt he was ambushed by a pair of c**** and it was disgraceful; he did well to not punch one of them.
But - and this is the but - in doing so he got played and against all that *should* have, I'm very sad to say, found a way to suck it up. Shouldn't have needed to but that I'm afraid is the current POTUS who holds the cards.
eg:
If Z had deflated [the tension] and not given them the argument I agree they wanted, T&V would be looking even bigger ***** than they do today. He hasn't got his mineral deal is the only good part of the outcome, so there's a reason to come back to the table.
Where in any of that am I giving T&V a 'free pass'? It's a fair review of what happened - Z got attacked, but didn't handle it well (and as later reports have suggested *may* have actually contributed to the perceived reason for the attack) - and now everyone has to scramble to stitch it all back together, while Putin waits and watches.
That Politico piece reads like it was written by a Trump staffer, not an independent journo, so I'm not surprised that Red Ernie likes it so much.
giving up his country's resources for practically nothing,
Practically nothing?? The payback is being given sufficient military aid to help your country remain an independent nation.
Trump isn't completely wrong imo when he asks why American taxpayers should be expected to foot the bill, and I am sure that many Americans agree with him.
It would be different if Ukraine had no means at all to pay for the aid but it clearly has. It took the UK 61 years to pay back to the United States the aid it received during WW2. I don't recall anyone ever complaining about that.
Obviously it has to be a fair and reasonable deal but I am not in a position to say that it isn't. Trump has apparently already backtracked and said that it doesn't have to include the aid that Ukraine has already received from the US.
It is perfectly normal for countries to receive security and military assistance in return for their natural resources, look at the Middle East as an example for starters.
so I'm not surprised that Red Ernie likes it so much.
Wow, we're into full swing with our ad hominems now aren't we?
And apart from attacking the writer is anything in particular in the Politico piece which you feel doesn't sound feasible?
Edit : Btw I loved your suggestion that it is reasonable to assume that "Red Ernie" likes something written by a Trump staffer. I mean Trump staffers are clearly all commies! 😂
Sounds to me that Trump owes him big time and has no reason to hold a grudge against him
Yes, Trump is well known for his honest and honourable behaviour. Well clarified, that's certainly changed my point of view.
Trump and vance were more concerned with appealing to their maga base than any real concern with a lasting peace in Ukraine
Sometimes it's pretty bloody obvious who's the good guys and who's the bad guys .
@butr
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Do you understand why it perhaps wasn't "perfect"?
Totally. But it wasn't, and so here we are. I can be 100% sympathetic to the why while at the same time pointing out that the response was not great.
Yes I've read the article above. It seems to be suggesting Zelensky should have blown feathers up Trump's arse, and excuses the actions of Vance and Trump.
It's a different opinion to the one that suggests he should have punched Trump and walked out, but it is a valid take and not the only commentator that has said similar. The reality is that however unpalatable, he probably should have been closer to it than he was.
Trump and vance were more concerned with appealing to their maga base than any real concern with a lasting peace in Ukraine
Yes, I said similar a couple of pages back. Sadly they were then given (in their eyes) the justification to respond further by chucking him and his entourage out. I'm mildly encouraged that it hasn't landed that well, with the more moderate MAGA/Republicans.
For the final time.
T&V are assholes and I agree with their behaviour being characterised as bullying, gaslighting, whatever DARVO means, probably that too.
Z under terrible pressure didn't respond as well as he might.
In saying that I fail to see why I'm being attacked as if presenting both sides view of what happened as somehow siding with T&V.
Trump is well known for his honest and honourable behaviour. Well clarified, that's certainly changed my point of view.
And this is why I tend to keep off the Ukraine thread. Me pointing out that if anything Trump probably owes Zelensky a big favour gets twisted into me saying that Trump is well known for his honest and honourable behaviour.
You really can't have a sensible discussion when people are using schoolyard tactics.
Practically nothing?? The payback is being given sufficient military aid to help your country remain an independent nation.
security guarantees from the US weren't on the other side of that deal AIUI? from what i understood that deal was more about (vastly inflated) reparations and having US civilian operations ongoing in ukraine which would offer some sort of security?
Me pointing out that if anything Trump probably owes Zelensky a big favour gets twisted into me saying that Trump is well known for his honest and honourable behaviour.
i think the whole point about the phone call is not that zelensky didn't drop trump in the shit, it's that he wouldn't play ball and implicate the bidens in wrongdoing.
A brief rundown of Diaper Don’s lies about Ukraine and Zelenskyy…
Practically nothing?? The payback is being given sufficient military aid to help your country remain an independent nation.
Trump's initial position was that Ukraine's resources would be surrendered for assistance already provided, with no security guarantees and no promise of any further deliveries. So in terms of future help, yes "nothing". Trump's figure of $350 billion is massively inflated and even the US DOD puts it far lower. Lower in fact than European countries have contributed and yet they are not trying to coerce its resources from it.
The "offer" to Ukraine was hardly in good faith, coming days after Trump cozied up to Putin and called Zelensky a dictator who started the war. Despite all of this, Ukraine has actually said they are willing to try to pay for the help they've received, maybe just not down the barrel of a gun in front of the world's media.
If you don't want to be accused of having farted, stop talking out of your arse.
Also FWIW, Politico is generally characterised as Centrist (ooh, controversial!) to left leaning. The writer has (so I have googled) a fair balance of critical pieces, so by no means a Trump staffer.
What do you think? Words of a Trump staffer?
Zelensky got angry too and didn't play the limited hand he has well,
For all the reasons given, Zelensky didnt handle the situation well. However the "limited hand" is the Trump/Putin narrative. Of course US Weapons have enabled Ukraine to survive. And we all need them to survive, so we need them as much, as they need us. Europe & Canada understand this. Suspect thats what Starmer & Macron are gently reminding Trump of.
The big problem is that without the US all f-35, Apache, trident and god knows what else doesn't fly. So embedded is the US military industrial complex in much of the western defence system. Tellng them to do one is not an option unless you consider us effectively defenceless for at least a few years an option. That's why diplomacy, however distasteful is required.
I bet Europe will start to gently pivot away from defence expenditure with the US and develop own solutions. The irony Trump has bullied euro partners into long overdue defence spend increases but that will be decreasingly with US suppliers. 70% of the $170b military aid to Ukraine went straight to US arms manufacturers. Quite often to backfill disposal of already expired kit.
Obvs would be nice to see that money put to better use, but will be amusing to follow the penny dropping in Washington.
Whilst I think Trump is trying to do something, rather than Bidens slow walking and policy of using Ukraine to slow bleed Russia, sadly he is as always going for the immediate grift and it will cost him, once US defence contracts dry up along with all the DOGE efficiency nonsense hitting his core voter base.
he'll be long gone with his money before any of that shit hits the fan.
“ You really can't have a sensible discussion when people are using schoolyard tactics.” Correct, as Zelenskyy found out on Friday .
“ You really can't have a sensible discussion when people are using schoolyard tactics.” Correct, as Zelenskyy found out on Friday .
I don't think they were in discussion on Friday (who does that in front of world media?) rather they were there for press release like welcoming foreign leaders etc. However, someone did not follow the scripts because the President was expecting tributes only.
-
Me pointing out that if anything Trump probably owes Zelensky a big favour g
Would be completely wrong. Trump hates Zelensky fir refusing to fabricate dirt on Biden.
Ill also say that both Starmer and Macron publicly corrected Trumps lies on Ukraine and did not receive the same attacks from Trump and Vance. Trumps and Vances reaction were imo because the fantasy they had of securing a peace deal came crashing down when it hit reality and remember that to trump as a psychopath the truth is what he says it is.
He wants Zelenskyy to accept russias control of parts of Ukraine. Ukraine will not do that
And this is why I tend to keep off the Ukraine thread. Me pointing out that if anything Trump probably owes Zelensky a big favour gets twisted into me saying that Trump is well known for his honest and honourable behaviour.
Of course, that certainly wasn't what I said, but you do you.
You really can't have a sensible discussion when people are using schoolyard tactics.
The ironing is strong.
I would be interested in possible motives for the ambush in the White House”
This is always the question with Trump..... why is he doing this / anything? Unfortunately, there's so much nefarious shit going on, it could be any one of 100 things:
He desperately wants to take credit for a ceasefire/peace, so he can get a nobel peace prize - just to stick it to Obama.
He wants a ceasefire so he can lift sanctions on Russia (for reasons of personal enrichment) - he's just announced that he is selling US citizenships to oligarchs, which I'm sure is not unrelated.
We wants to strike "deal" to get paid back for the aid that biden has already given Ukraine. He will want to parade that big number in front of his fans, as well as heralding himself the master dealmaker.
He just wants the rare earth minerals for Musk et al, and is just trying to bully Ukraine in to accepting the deal.
He hates Zelinski because of the Hunter Biden affair
He thinks that being tough on Zelinski will play well to his base.
It could be just a wierd ego thing - that he wants Zelinski/Ukraine to aknowledge that he's king of the world and grovel.
He could be 100% working for Putin.
My money is on that last one. I watched a piece by MSNBC yesterday - they were asking "if he was "controlled by Russia" what would he be doing differently? Makes you think.
As for Starmer? I think he did well with Trump, and he's done well today. I don't subscribe to this "pick a side" sentiment - I think Starmer/the UK can step-up and take a more visible/active role, without slagging the Donald off. Everybody can see what's happening - there is no need to point out the obvious and antagonize him. If the UK can keep out of a US trade war, whilst supporting Ukraine, build closer ties to Europe, become less dependent on the US etc, then that's what Starmer should be trying to achieve. A "love actually" moment, would achieve nothing - other than perhaps boosting Starmer's popularity.
I bet Europe will start to gently pivot away from defence expenditure with the US and develop own solutions.
Observation here is that Europe already produces submarine launched ballistic missile courtesy of the Force de dissuasion. Not a clue what the route would be with that one, maybe a major life extension to existing UK fleet and an expensive redesign of the Dreadnought, seems extremely unlikely. Especially given the expected lifespan of the existing subs.
Two 6th Generation fighter projects underway, and an alternative to the Apache exist courtesy of France again, no idea if it's any good, or actually a genuine alternative.
I've zero clue if that that "strategic autonomy" would make the world a safer place.
@ernielynch I'm not sure anyone provided a link to the Burisma accusations. Read this https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851
As for Farage. Look towards what Trump is like with real power. Farage would be the same. That so many of the UK public either like or don’t believe that is depressing.
100% correct, but the key difference is, that in a global context, it doesn't really make an awful lot of difference.
The US being far-right/fascist/neo-nazi/whatever rogue state simply wasn't supposed to happen as far as 99% of political commentators understood 15 years ago. It was never considered a possibility because no one thought well-off western electorates could be so easily conned.
So Trump has achieved his main goal - the one he truly craves. He is the most important and relevant and listened to person in the world. The manner of his getting there and his conduct now are secondary as far as the chippy shouldered, narcissistic old crook is concerned.
Knowing all of this doesn't help, though.
Ill also say that both Starmer and Macron publicly corrected Trumps lies on Ukraine and did not receive the same attacks from Trump and Vance.
Is where I think the hypocrisy and personal beef with Zelensky is exposed. I'm sure Zelensky had a plan to be nice, but all plans go out the window after first contact with the enemy.
I'm hoping the international reaction will calm Trump down, but if he pivots to wanting the mineral wealth in Greenland or pushing to make Canada a US state, how long do we have to stay tied to the US militarily
. It was never considered a possibility because no one thought well-off western electorates could be so easily conned.
It was foretold in fiction many times but no one listened. Its always been an obvious possibilty for the US. Fundamentalist christianity nationalism and a poor education system gives the conditions for this coup to happen
This thread got busy suddenly...some of this may be old news now 🙂
No, right now the strongest statement that could be made is for Camp America kids to turn up and question the lack of European leaders this year and be told Europeans are staying away because they find your nation's culture and isolationist leanings distasteful and wrong.
I can see both sides of the discussion and I'd ask who is going to tell Camp America kids that?
Something like 1/3 of US voters voted for President Trump, which is much higher in some states. Maybe a more reliable message would come from Europeans, although I see your points about them acquiescing as well
I bet Europe will start to gently pivot away from defence expenditure with the US and develop own solutions.
There's an interesting series of films on youtube by a defence analyst who is ex Finish defence forces. He looks at the strengths and weaknesses of European made defence equipment compared to that supplied by the US and considers if we "could go it alone". The one linked below considers naval surface craft, but there are others on UAVs, armour, aircraft etc, with more in the pipeline.
The short answer is "yes we could". In many areas European equipment is superior, but there are some capabilities that only the US can currently provide. That will change. Defence production and cooperation is ramping up all across Europe as we have finally woken up to the fact the US is no longer a reliable ally.
There are also some disasters like the F35 which many European countries have ordered. It is horrendously costly, complex and difficult to maintain and has had numerous issues with reliability. It also relies on regular software updates supplied by US contractors which could be withheld by a truculent Trump in future.
There is also now a real security risk with F35 technology and others. The US is considering selling it to India, who have a close defence cooperation with Russia. Before long the AD and other technology on it will have been technically exploited by Russia. I can even see Trump dealing directly with Russia on defence before long. Not only are the US unreliable, they are now a security and intelligence risk.
The US will likely pull out of NATO. Europe needs to plan for that and get its shit together on defence manufacture and cooperation quickly over the next few years. There are very encouraging signs that it is happening.
Vance and Trump have a problem with Ukraine as it's in direct opposition to their America First Mandate. They (and many in the GOP) also have a problem with Zelensky personally in that he effectively campagned for Biden (...well, he would, wouldn't he? Trump had basically said he wanted to cutoff support on day 1 and has been a true disciple of Putin's power and lies approach and the man himself!). This coupled with Zelensky not kowtowing to the US way of thinking all builds a picture that they can paint for Trump of Zelensky being disrespectful. All they (the GOP) needed to do was make this personal for Trump and then Trump's ego would do the rest...and that's exactly how it played out, exactly as they hoped it would, from the continued comments about how Zelensky dressed, to the critique of his approach to the war, to berating him for not acceding to US demands - all of this was supposed to get an irritated response from Zelensky, and they got it. This was a lose: lose situation for Zelensky, he either capitulated to their aggression and lost a lot of his own country's respect, territory and future security AND the minerals or he pushed back and was made to look disrespectful. It was an ambush and a perfectly executed one.
Zelensky didn't help himself, either - his body language and responses fed perfectly the narrative that the GOP were looking for. He should have been better coached by his staff - they should've known (since inauguration, since Munich, since forever) exactly what these guys are going to be like and thus to try and laugh off their aggression rather than confront it head on. I'm not blaming Zelensky, not at all, but they should've prepared him better.
The f35 is an issue for other countries but afaik as we are a tier 1 partner we have the ability to generate the codes and also can do our own long term maintenance.
The apache is likely more of an issue although it looks like it is being covered by boeing uk
I've long thought NATO to be both a shibboleth and a relic of decades ago. Europe has long since needed a continent wide defense force and to let America go its own way
