Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c625ex282zzt

by yakkomajuri • 1 year ago

2936 4383 1 year ago

This is how NATO replaces the US with Ukraine. Kicking the US out of Five Eyes is likely next.

I don’t see this happening. Five Eyes is the US’s invite only security umbrella. Many in Australia would love to kick the Americans off our land (eg Pinegap) but as the US will “coup who they want” that ain’t happening.

toomuchtodo4• 1 year ago

The US is trying to kick Canada [1] and the UK [2] out. If the US is going rouge, the rest of the free world can go without them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200375

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43166670

rbanffy6• 1 year ago

I see US influence being drastically reduced in the coming years. But we need to do something about their disinformation networks.

I see people leaving their government and media positions in protest but I’d like to remind them that they are much more effective if they remain where they are. The CIA has an excellent manual just for situations like these.

neuronflux• 1 year ago

Regarding Pine Gap, they've allegedly done it before even without Elon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...

alabastervlog19• 1 year ago

Why kick out? Just start a new club (I'm sure they already have, probably years ago, or increased activity in one that already existed) and let this one wither.

toomuchtodo4• 1 year ago

Potato, potato.

empath75• 1 year ago

I actually think Europe has a lot of levers to pull in terms of manipulating American politics and public opinion that they have thus far refrained from engaging in, and I, as an American, think they should be much bolder about speaking directly to the American people.

I don't think that ordinary diplomacy is going to work here. The US is in the middle of a totalitarian coup, and that should be called out by our friends and allies more forcefully.

Stop trying to ingratiate yourself with Trump. He doesn't deserve it and you won't get anything out of it but humiliation.

mwelpa• 1 year ago

there is still to much corruption in the Ukraine, that Europe will never accept.

mamonster• 1 year ago

Has there ever been a meeting that went this bad in front of journalists?

Alifatisk2• 1 year ago

I don't think so

duxup13• 1 year ago

Nope, this is the first such "blow up" where folks at the white house berated a guest they invited there.

kelseydh5• 1 year ago

The only recent historical comparison I can think of -- and it's a weak one compared to today's meeting -- was when Obama firmly reiterated to Netanyahu his insistence on the 1967 lines as the basis for a two state solution, and Netanyahu in front of the cameras forcefully rejecting that to Obama's face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l28xJitnP78

rbanffy6• 1 year ago

They used to have professionals managing such meetings.

forum-soon-yuck2• 1 year ago

They still do, and the fact that most of you don't see that this farce was scripted just proves that

tgv2• 1 year ago

No, this was shocking on multiple levels. What motivates the nominally most powerful person on the planet to behave like this?

pjc5013• 1 year ago

Power. They're having the time of their lives.

afavour6• 1 year ago

He likes bullying people and it makes him feel good.

People often attribute 5D chess strategies to Trump when base instincts are a far clearer explanation.

racktash3• 1 year ago

It was content for a segment of his base.

On Twitter, it's common to find populist-right commentators say things like:

1. Supporting Ukraine against Russia is risking WW3

2. Zelensky is always asking for more, more more and is SO disrespectful to the generous United States. And he doesn't even show up in a suit when meeting the president. How disgraceful. etc. etc.

These points were both touched upon by the Trump/Vance tag team and that's no coincidence.

My respect for Zelensky, the only decent politician in that room. Ukraine is lucky to have him in a time like this.

llm_trw• 1 year ago

He nearly got assassinated by the incompetence of the same people telling him to help Ukraine.

GolfPopper8• 1 year ago

My guess: dementia and psychopathy.

hiccuphippo• 1 year ago

Good television, it seems.

hightrix2• 1 year ago

Weakness. Trump looked like the weakest negotiator I’ve ever seen in this exchange. He looks so powerless. He’s taking his frustration out on Zelenski since Musk has completely taken over his role in the US.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

He's an entertainer / reality TV star / game show host. That's the sum of him.

I'm not sure what anybody could really expect other than this.

arwhatever• 1 year ago

He wants to defund U.S. support for Ukraine, but isn't can't directly own his decision like an adult, and so has to stage this baloney conflict of a press conference.

tinco2• 1 year ago

You don't have to ask this sort of question. He literally says it in the discussion. He wanted to show the world Zelensky's attitude. And he was successful in doing so

Trump failed to make the deal, they tried to get resources for a minimum of involvement, and the deal didn't go through because Zelensky is adamant in wanting to protect Ukrainian integrity.

From Trump's perspective this puts him in a good light. He is attempting to negotiate rationally and Zelensky is irrationally spending Ukrainian lives to hold on to an ideal.

Of course Europe and many Americans believe in that ideal and would support Ukraine, but that's not Trump's political platform. His motivation is to end the war, and the easiest way to end the war is to yield to Putin's demands. Making Zelensky look unreasonable is a critical part of that.

pjc5013• 1 year ago

It went exactly the way the president wanted it to. Remember, this kind of bullying appeals to authoritarian parties.

randcraw5• 1 year ago

Maybe, but Trump's base is actually tiny, only about 22% of the US voters. This will strongly alienate the other 78% of Americans, not to mention 100% of America's allies. And America's enemies now see how grossly inept he actually is at negotiation, revealing that only physical threats will register with him. NOT a good development for America.

An insanely counterproductive ploy, but typical of Trump's 'gangsterism rules' philosophy of leadership.

jcutrell• 1 year ago

Sadly it will be praised as "tough" by many.

pupppet• 1 year ago

Look at the comments on FoxNews, it was America's finest hour.

libertine7• 1 year ago

Isn't Trump giving access only to just a select group of journalists?

timtimmy• 1 year ago

It's not beyond imagination that this will happen to the Canadian Prime Minister next.

fads_go• 1 year ago

I wonder what would happen if the Canadian Prime Minister then decided to file charges of treason against Musk, and issue an arrest warrant?

rpmisms6• 1 year ago

I don't think so. We just saw a closed-door meeting take place publicly. That's all.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

"That's all" is a major deal. There's a reason you never see that.

LightBug13• 1 year ago

Everything Trump touches ... dies.

TechBro8615• 1 year ago

No, usually this is done behind closed doors and away from the press.

archagon3• 1 year ago

Sadly, “Trump takes military action against Ukraine” was on my Bingo card for this administration. We’re getting there, aren’t we?

bigyabai• 1 year ago

Probably not. The worst thing America could do is unfreeze Russia's assets and give them back a few billion dollars to fund the war effort. Europe wouldn't permit America to join on the side of a Russian coalition, and America's Navy isn't capable of European operations without Europe's support. We could realistically offer limited air support and strategic nuclear threats, but Russia already has both of those.

Macha• 1 year ago

The good news is that the Biden administration put most of the frozen Russia assets under European control, anticipating this kind of risk, but of course that doesn't mean Trump can't attempt to pressure Europe here.

hkpack3• 1 year ago

US cannot unfreeze anything, because all the frozen funds are in the EU.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Not likely. But by withdrawing military aid they're basically giving Ukraine to the Russians.

bloopernova3• 1 year ago

Let's hope the EU countries fully support Ukraine.

Too angry to type more.

sleepyguy2• 1 year ago

It was as if they invited him to the Whitehouse to set him up for a lecture and scolding. They had no intention of anything other than humiliating him in front of the world. It's shameful what our administration has done.

tencentshill• 1 year ago

It makes sense from His worldview. Ukraine are the weaker ones, the natural losers. He doesn't help losers. There is no further thought or consideration. That territory was always Russia's to take when they were ready.

pantalaimon2• 1 year ago

I think it’s worse: Trump et al want to install a neofeudal system of society whereas Ukraine is fighting for the Westen Democracy kind of system. It’s clear that Trump wants to establish that as a futile endeavor

jfengel3• 1 year ago

"Weaker" is a function of not just your own strength, but that of your allies. Russia wants Ukraine as a way to hit at Europe.

Ukraine and its allies are a match for Russia and its. Perhaps more so, since Ukraine's allies have limited its use of force. With the US out, Ukraine may be able to exert much more force.

Which is to say Trump's judgment of who is weak is deeply compromised by his belief in single strongmen. This will not go well for him.

uberman• 1 year ago

I wish Zelensky had asked Trump if he wanted his feet kissed there and now because I feel like everyone could see that is what Trump wants at the very least.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Trump wants to be King.

nxm7• 1 year ago

Turns out Biden lost temper will Zelensky too

legitster10• 1 year ago

This is a good reminder why diplomacy is usually done behind closed doors. "Transparency" is being used as the refuge of a scoundrel.

matwood11• 1 year ago

I think they did, but they didn’t expect Zelensky to punch back. He’s more of a fighter than either of them will ever be. Trump is the classic bully where all you need to do is push back. Then he folds.

rbanffy6• 1 year ago

Zelensky has nothing to lose at this point. If he takes the deal Trump proposed Ukraine will be paying the US and Russia for having been invaded in 2014 and again in 2022. And let’s not ignore the fact it was the US was propping up the politicians suggesting joining NATO and not renewing the lease on Sevastopol in 2015.

Krasnol• 1 year ago

I, too, think that they did and underestimated Zelenskyy. Trump would love to sell his deal. Now he just embarrassed himself and his nation again.

s1artibartfast5• 1 year ago

Did trump fold?

grungydan• 1 year ago

So it was just like literally everything else this administration is doing. Shocking.

alabastervlog19• 1 year ago

It 100% looks like they were planning to force a confrontation. Notice how all the escalation is them, they start escalating over basically nothing, and they keep trying to crank up the temperature while Zelenskyy's keeping things nice and even. This didn't happen the last couple times world leaders made far more confrontational statements in a similar setting, but also Vance wasn't there to provide emotional support those times and, well, there are some common sayings about the actual nature of a bully.

I think Zelenskyy didn't give them the sound-bites or vibe they were looking for, but they're claiming some kind of victory (WTF) on social media anyway. Meanwhile all they managed to do was look some combination of stupid, childish, and traitorous, while he came out looking incredibly restrained, and overall more-articulate than them despite the handicap of speaking in English rather than his native tongue.

TheOtherHobbes2• 1 year ago

Zelensky used to be a stand-up comedian. He has plenty of experience thinking on his feet in front of a tough audience of drunks and fools.

I'm wondering what all the people in the US military and government who swore to protect the US from "all enemies, foreign and domestic" are thinking now.

shostack• 1 year ago

Sounds like when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and destroyed Tucker Carlson who had attempted to escalate and get angry. And Jon was like "this is theater."

BrickFingers3• 1 year ago

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.

fulladder4• 1 year ago

I disagree. If you watch the entire 50-minute video [1], everything was going very smoothly until the final question. If Trump and Vance had intended to provoke Zelenski, why would they have spent the first ~40 minutes chatting with him amicably and only become heated in response to one specific remark he made at the end?

[1] https://thehill.com/video-clips/5168859-watch-live-donald-tr...

morkalork• 1 year ago

Humiliating people does appear to be a common theme with the administration, one just has to look at the photo they put out after winning with RFK and the McDonald's takeout on airforce one. Also all the women jockeying for various positions getting plastic surgery, looking like an army of botox'd stepford wives. I'm no armchair psychoanalyst so I can't tell you what it means. Just that it's very.. apparent and intentional.

Rapzid3• 1 year ago

That felt really gross to watch. I don't know what else to say that's more high-level thinking and adds to the conversation. A straight up "mean girls" moment.

WinstonSmith842• 1 year ago

it was 100% the purpose, but it looks like it worked out badly. They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly prepared for this confrontation. I mean, I just can't imagine anybody staying that cool in front of such provocations.

afavour6• 1 year ago

He’s also a former stand up comedian. If you’re going to heckle the guy you’d better be good at it if you want to come out looking good.

slightwinder• 1 year ago

They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly prepared for this confrontation.

The Trump-gang seems to underestimate everyone and everything. I still don't know whether they mean all this excessive behavior for real, or if this is an elusive ploy to divert from something else. Trumps seems to operate by selling big to gain small, but I can't really understand yet what his real long-term goal seems.

But at this point it seems other politicians around the world have got an understanding of him and his behavior and started playing along. I'm curious if Zelenskiy did the same, he certainly gained more from this than if he had been avoided it from the beginning.

dist-epoch• 1 year ago

Trump did the exact same thing with the Polish president, made him wait for 1 and a half hours then had a 10 minute meeting with him.

https://www.dw.com/en/how-trumps-foreign-policy-is-impacting...

IsTom• 1 year ago

Which is the exact kind of play Putin likes to perform.

attentive10• 1 year ago

Even worse with Kaja Kallas, she flew into US and Rubio cancelled the meeting. Not sure if she was supposed to meet Trump or not but that's still a case of US bullying its allies all the while sucking up to Putin.

onlyrealcuzzo5• 1 year ago

The joke is on them.

The one's humiliated on the global scale are the ones who are lying through their teeth with less than zero class.

PartiallyTyped7• 1 year ago

I don't think the US is "too big to fall", and the US seems to have taken that road.

nickmp2• 1 year ago

But will the American people see what the rest of the world sees, or will they continue supporting Trump and Vance?

e403• 1 year ago

I think it was disgusting what Trump and Vance did, but I don't believe for a second that everyone will view it that way. The 40% that voted for them will view this as an ass whooping Trump/Vance gave Zelensky. They're all in on the grift, there's no reason this will turn them off.

Now, if SS or Medicaid is gutted... that will be the turning point for this admin.

B1FF_PSUVM3• 1 year ago

It's shameful what our administration has done.

The shameful part was ten years ago.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

Only American MAGA supporters saw Zelensky being humiliated.

Anybody else saw Vance and Trump humiliating themselves. Showing the intellectual and emotional capacity of a middle schooler to the world while a man whose people are suffering occupation and mass casualties and deals with death every day just looks stunned.

To anybody with critical thinking skills it feels like Trump & Vance are talking about a TV show or video game. Completely disconnected from reality. Horrifying and shocking level of narcissistic immaturity.

haberman6• 1 year ago

The spat started when Vance made a point addressed to the US media (not Zelensky), and Zelensky interjected to confront Vance for his statement.

Up until that point there had been 40 minutes of cordial discussion. I don't think it was intended that the talks would break down and the deal would fall through.

tdb78937• 1 year ago

What did Vance say addressed to the media that Zelensky shouldn't have responded to? I've watched the video a few times and I don't really get what you're talking about

https://youtu.be/O_BhxA1WDQY?si=7Ovl4-RpTCdi5ewZ

UncleMeat3• 1 year ago

Richard Hanania believes that we should repeal large portions of the Civil Rights Act and has previously posted extreme racial hatred on white supremacist websites.

m3kw94• 1 year ago

This guy is a probably a Russian bot. He talks like Ukraine was 2 minutes away from a victory and Zelenskyy just needed to stfu for 30 more seconds to get it.

dialup_sounds• 1 year ago

Vance seemed genuinely butthurt that Zelensky wasn't grovelling.

elihu3• 1 year ago

I initially saw just the latter part of the meeting where the conflict happens and it seemed like a premeditated thing, but after finding a video that shows the meeting from the beginning[1], I agree that it comes across differently.

It seems like they were having a pretty good meeting, right up until Vance decides to interject his stupid talking points, and then the exchange between Vance and Zelensky gets Trump to launch into his bizarre grievance tirade. It's like dementia was in full-self-driving mode and had no brakes.

Maybe Vance got what he wanted out of this meeting, but I could plausibly believe that Trump wasn't planning for it to blow up like this -- he just didn't have the level of self-control or self-awareness to stop himself. Which isn't exactly a good look either.

[1] https://youtu.be/Y7QxUHdvpk8?t=8693

mike-cardwell2• 1 year ago

I couldn't even watch the whole video. Horrendous. Depressing. How can you tolerate having those men running your country America. Nightmare fuel.

malfist• 1 year ago

Lots of us here feel the way you do and are in disbelief of our country

emmelaich3• 1 year ago

I'd rather this than a useless meeting in secret with prepared press releases full of pablum and platitudes.

palominoz2• 1 year ago

Yes this was my first thought. But then I understood that it's most probably the fact that the administration wasn't interested in the outcome of the conversation. My hypotesis is that Trump is living each day as unique, disconnected from the others, in a selfish way. So he didn't care about the consequences of this meeting for Zelenskyy and in general everything else.

EasyMark3• 1 year ago

They 100% set him up. A new block in the wall of proving that Trump is a Russian asset or dupe. I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn by anyone paying attention. He consistently kisses up to Putin with little love messages via Fox news and other outlets, while doing his best to alienate the rest of the world. It would be different if he just washed his hands of the whole situation, however he always looks up to Putin and refuses to call him a dictator, I reckon because he was told that he would regret it if he ever did from his Russian contacts.

doublerabbit5• 1 year ago

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630

wwalker2112• 1 year ago

It was a 40 minute long conversation and everything was fine until the last 5 minutes when Zelensky got mad about Vance talking about using diplomacy with Russia.

Hammershaft8• 1 year ago

What Zelensky got mad about is that all previous diplomatic agreements with Russia have been broken by Russia when convenient. Even the Budapest Memorandum, where the US pledged security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving their nukes to Russia, is no longer honored. How can Ukraine trust that any deal made by Trump is going to be honored once Russia rebuilds its military if the US won't offer any assurances of peace?

cbg020• 1 year ago

You can't have diplomacy with Russia, they don't respect any agreements, EU tried to partner up with them on trade as a "diplomatic" route, hoping that cash flowing both ways would be enough to keep Russia happy, but their ambitions go beyond a peaceful coexistence.

_bin_6• 1 year ago

this seems like a misread. we get something out of sending resources to Ukraine. it's a decently-leveraged way to keep Russia, a would-be superpower, down for the next decade or so, to keep bleeding her without bleeding our own young men.

we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die. to deploy boots-on-the-ground forces for what amounts to a minor territorial war in a country with limited strategic importance beyond being a buffer state. smells too strongly of vietnam and korea.

to those who disagree with this, alright that's a fair position to hold. what number of young Americans is it appropriate for us to sacrifice to hold the donetsk and luhansk oblasts? how many of our children should we send to die? which number is reasonable and which is too great? if you don't believe there's a limit, and we should risk any number of Americans and potential nuclear exchange, why?

the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out. then zelensky decided to, at the eleventh hour, push for a full security deal which isn't tenable from where we stand. this wasn't what had been discussed with Rubio; it was a bait-and-switch pressure tactic. zelensky was trying to either squeeze out that guarantee or humiliate the admin with failure coming from what otherwise would have been successful.

i think the constant lionization of zelensky has gone to his head. he feels confident in disrespecting nations who have invested significant resources in the war by refusing to so much as dress for the occasion, expecting the sort of standing ovation the prior administration and european leaders gave him. i can respect someone who's fighting for causes i generally support, as can most of my countrymen, but zelensky is no holy warrior and we have no moral duty to offer unlimited resources and manpower. we have aligned interests, but if not for that, there are more than enough domestic US issues that we otherwise would not (nor should we) send the sort of resources we have. similar thing with Israel: we have strongly overlapping interests but she needs to mind her place and toe the line if she wants our support.

marticode2• 1 year ago

we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die.

This is a straw man: nobody asked you to.

the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out

There was nothing fair in that mineral deal: the US would get resources and Ukraine was getting... nothing. No security guarantees, no military support, nothing. Trump said it himself: he wanted it to get back what the US spent helping Ukraine so far.

Getting something for nothing is fair to you?

as dress for the occasion

The is the King of Saudi Arabia at the white house: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/president-obama-meets-wit...

This is the pope at the white house: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/09/25/photos-...

This is Elon Musk giving an interview in the oval office: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/12/tech/elon-musk-x-oval-off...

Did they all disrespect the US?

Ukraine is sending its youngs to die to keep Russia (the west common enemy) at bay and your concern is... Zelinsky wearing a tie?

11thEarlOfMar2• 1 year ago

They invited him to the White House to finally sign the rare earth minerals agreement, which he had said he'd sign and then renegged two times prior[0]. This was the third attempt by the US to get it signed. During the meeting, he indicated that he would sign the agreement but then not agree to a cease fire, which was the whole point of putting it in place. Naturally, this was a deal breaker for the administration and the meeting ended.

[0] https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1895633109649134013

11thEarlOfMar2• 1 year ago

I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.

When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.

You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.

In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.

For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.

The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.

The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.

Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.

I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.

raziel2p4• 1 year ago

the way I read what you wrote, it seems like you think Zelensky's argument is bad and purely emotionally motivated, but the fact that Putin/Russia has broken agreements and ceasefires is a very valid concern, isn't it?

if the conference had ended without argument but behind the scenes Trump/Vance were setting up negotiations that go against Ukraine's interest, that would not have been a "win" for Zelensky other than in terms of a contest of popularity - but only the popularity among westerners who have no real personal stake in the conflict. it's Ukrainians and Russians who are dying on the front lines.

fulladder4• 1 year ago

Like you, I watched the full hour. I had the same analysis.

There are no winners from an exchange like this. Trump and Vance come across as bullies. Zelenskyy comes across as needlessly argumentative. Trump and Zelenskyy both come across as quick to anger. Not a good look for any of them.

calf• 1 year ago

Maybe Zelensky had a very thin path out after Vance's provocations, but even the language accents are partly to blame for miscommunication/crosstalk, so maybe for Zelensky it was a Kobayashi Maru situation.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Ukraine is in a bind, and the US has the power to do whatever it wants.

But boy, will the nations of the world remember this -- how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully. A really bad day for US foreign policy.

The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of NATO now.

archagon3• 1 year ago

Let’s be real: NATO is already a farce at the moment. If Article 5 is triggered by a European nation, would Trump respond? Of course not.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Yeah, I was wondering at what point Putin decides to roll the dice and put that to the test by rolling into Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia. He must be feeling his chances are pretty good right now.

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

Come one, we both know Trump would respond. With a contract for half the invaded nations resources.

drweevil• 1 year ago

What if the trigger was the US annexing a NATO nation's territory? He's already made noises about Canada and Greenland (Denmark). That would be the ultimate farce.

mrtksn2• 1 year ago

There was an opinion poll amongst British on this and apparently even Brits don’t trust America anymore.

Only %44 believe that US will come to their help if Russia attacks UK.

Yougov: https://x.com/yougov/status/1893967204846063823?s=46

scotty79• 1 year ago

What's more embarrasing is that the only time article 5 was activated was for US when they got attacked on 9/11

Hikikomori4• 1 year ago

The only farce would be the US.

baq2• 1 year ago

But boy, will the nations of the world remember this -- how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully.

Nothing new, smart people knew that for a long, looong time. May I remind you it took Pearl Harbor to get the US into WW2.

ksaj3• 1 year ago

It also took the White House being set on fire to understand the sovereignty of the land across its northern border. And now there's all this Trump talk of trying to invade once again.

rcpt5• 1 year ago

I don't think I understand this comment

bchasknga• 1 year ago

Can you please inform me how the US bullied UK into mineral rights in WW2? We exported arms and equipment to them even before Lend-lease acts.

It would be true if you were to mention about our special flavor of freedom exportation during the cold war. However, this time Ukraine is a democratic nation being invaded by our biggest political rival, Russia.

conradfr2• 1 year ago

Well most of the nations of the world didn't do anything for Ukraine, or supported Russia one way or the other.

Maybe a lot of them see the US and/or the Western countries as bullies anyway.

edit: not sure by which part of the world this is downvoted ;)

yetihehe• 1 year ago

edit: not sure by which part of the world this is downvoted ;)

It's downvoted because of this:

Well most of the nations of the world didn't do anything for Ukraine, or supported Russia one way or the other.

Most of the world supports Ukraine or at least is not pro Russia, as you can see in UN votes. In latest vote, USA voted like Russia, North Korea and Israel, China abstained.

rectang5• 1 year ago

Ukraine’s situation is better than many people realize, and the US, in siding with Russia, may be betting on the wrong horse.

The EU has provided more aid to Ukraine than the US, Ukraine drone production is through the roof. Europe needs Ukraine and its army as a bulwark against Russia.

duxup13• 1 year ago

I worry that Russia is more than capable of throwing mass casualties into the fight for longer than Ukraine can.

tootie4• 1 year ago

Credit to Biden who set the tone. He was very fast and forceful in backing Ukraine even when the general assumption was that they had no chance. Europe was willing to step up since then and will have to carry them from now on.

xdennis• 1 year ago

Ukraine’s situation is better than many people realize

What makes you say that? I thought it was generally agreed that Ukraine has been on the back foot for a while now. People used to be quite optimistic about Ukraine recovering the occupied territories.

linuxftw2• 1 year ago

Europe is happy to let others do the fighting and dying for them. They want Ukraine to fight the Russians so they don't have to. Sounds like a continent of cowards.

gizmondo6• 1 year ago

Ukraine’s situation is worse than many people realize. Ukraine is losing the war right now with roughly equal support in monetary terms from both US and EU! They have huge manpower problems because of losses and apparent political inability to mobilize enough men. Even if EU suddenly doubled its aid to compensate (which I think is _very_ unlikely), there are gaps in weapons production in Europe, e.g. for SAMs.

jamiequint3• 1 year ago

There's a difference between "siding with Russia" and siding with negotiated peace.

Many people seem to think that the US, and to a lesser extent the EU, should fund this war indefinitely. However, the US clearly does not benefit from a direct war with Russia, and while we may gain from a proxy war, choosing not to fund it does not equate to “siding with Russia.”

VerminOctopus12• 1 year ago

This is not a popular analysis. Russia has ramped up their war machine significantly over the last 2 years and have been successfully grinding Ukraine down. They can and will continue to do this. They’ve reoriented their economy around sustained military production, and the tariffs issued against Russia by the US and EU have proven to be ineffective.

bloomingkales5• 1 year ago

The regions Russia is taking from Ukraine have some value in terms of GDP. It's interesting that the Freudian slip US offering involved an additional minerals deal (as in, this is the main interest of the taking parties). Russia is not going to give back GDP, and that's probably behind the break in negotiations. Russia is not relinquishing any gains, and the US wants more resources, and there is no guarantee given to Ukraine regarding its remaining territorial integrity. They are trying to make Ukraine eat shit.

nwatson6• 1 year ago

Ukraine knows the future of warfare and will prosper if they survive this. They will be the ones with the technology and experience in future warfare, and the USA is throwing away a chance to partner with Ukraine and guarantee such a victory.

In 20, 15, or 7 years from now when terrorists are sending drones into medium-sized cities in Alabama to kill indiscriminately, it would have been better for the USA to have been on Ukraine's side.

EDIT: better grammar, maybe

sph3• 1 year ago

Betting on the wrong horse while Xi just has to stand aside to see the crown of superpower being handed to him with no effort, Russia on the road to implode in a fire sale, while China looks to sign lucrative trade agreements with the EU.

Brexit was shooting yourself in the foot, today was a gruesome display of diplomatic suicide on live television.

PartiallyTyped7• 1 year ago

EU alone has provided more than the US, add UK and NO, and the difference is substantial.

jemmyw4• 1 year ago

Yes, plus Ukraine learnt a lesson when the GOP stalled aid and they ran low on supplies, so they have stockpiled and domestic production has increased. It's a war of attrition and so both sides are hoping to keep going until the other collapses. The US withdrawing support is a victory for Russian, but it won't end the war. What happens with sanctions might, but also without the US telling them what to do the gloves will be off Ukraine.

So much for stopping the war in 24hrs. Trump's plans were never going to work there, and both Russian and Ukraine were going to try and make it look like the failure was not their fault - guess Russian won that particular battle, maybe it was never even a contest.

gscott• 1 year ago

Most of the money the USA has spent went to arms manufacturers. I imagine there's still working on producing and sending the arms.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

I follow a lot of Ukrainian commentary, it's hard for me to conclude Ukraine is doing well. They're having to conscript younger and younger people every day. No business is insane enough to invest in Ukraine at the moment. Some companies are crazy enough to try to ship goods in and out of Odesa, but its significantly less than pre-war. Every time the Ukrainian army tries to take back territory in the Donbas, the Russian army repels their forward strikes, and usually takes a few more feet of the Donbas in the process. It's really hard to win a war of attrition against the largest country in the world. The Russian army occupies some of the largest energy sources of Ukraine. I haven't investigated recently but I suspect Russia is still Ukraine's largest LNG provider.

tinalumfoil• 1 year ago

“the US, in siding with Russia, may be betting on the wrong horse”

This is delusional. Russia would’ve bulldozed Ukraine without US support. What county is under US sanctions? What country is receiving US weapons? Which, to be sure, is the correct choice. And having public spars with Ukraine is not.

But the fact that someone just typed this out and posted it is just so delusional. The fact that people upvoted this is delusional.

On March 16, 2014, the President issued Executive Order 13661, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, and found that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.

…Therefore… I [Trump]… am continuing… Execute Order 13660.

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-03462.pdf

https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/trump-prolongs-sancti...

I don’t know why this pisses me off so much. Ostensibly we agree broadly. It’s just, HN really used to have such good nuanced and factual discussions, even outside tech. Now it’s all just raw anger.

pkaye• 1 year ago

The US military was concerned about this scenario long before and raised concerns back in 2011. They predicted why someone like Trump would would come in power and question the purpose of NATO. But it was not taken seriously by NATO allies at that time. Obama even wanted European allies to be able to launch their own military missions with just US as a support role. The Libya interventions was supposed to be a test of that.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-spe...

alephnerd16• 1 year ago

Yep. The warnings have existed for a long time, but most European states have continued to ignore the hallmarks.

Even Poland only started rearming after Kazynski's plane was shot down in Smolensk in 2010 (edit; not shot down), Romania only (started after Crimea and it's implications of a similar incident in neighboring Moldova in 2014, Turkiye began due interventions in Syria and Libya that lead to Turkish and Russian soldiers fighting against each other in 2012-15, and Netherlands after over a hundred of their citizens were shot down in an Air Malaysia Flight in 2015-16 (forgetting the exact date)

Trump is absolutely wrong in publicly abandoning our European allies, but this is something every administration since 2008 has been saying would eventually happen.

The failed UK-France intervention in Libya should have been the warning call (France and UK's air forces couldn't disable Libya's A2AD and ran out of precision muntions, forcing the Obama admin to intervene and spark the Benghazi crisis which helped bring Trump into the Oval Office in 2016). In fact, that incident probably further emboldened Russia as Libya's military apparatus was heavily Russian/Soviet in armament and strategy.

adrr• 1 year ago

World needs to help out Ukraine because if Ukraine falls it shows that you should never give up your nuclear weapons for any agreement or treaty. They are just pieces of paper that guarantee nothing. This will just lead to more countries getting nukes which means higher likelihood of a nuclear war.

poszlem3• 1 year ago

World needs to help out Ukraine because if Ukraine falls it shows that you should never give up your nuclear weapons for any agreement or treaty.

This is, unfortunately, already the case. No country will ever fully trust such treaties again, and we are closer than ever to a new era of nuclear proliferation.

usrusr• 1 year ago

True. Non-proliferation is dead, killed three years ago. Only when Ukraine gets Russia to the point of a Compiègne Forest railroad car end (remember how much of Germany had been occupied at that point?) there is hope for a future without widespread nuke availability.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

Germany is now outright advocating that France replace US nuclear weapons on Western European soil with its own.

Charles de Gaulle is somewhere under a tombstone grinning ear to ear saying "I told you so."

Very strange times.

https://kyivindependent.com/france-could-send-nuclear-armed-...

Izikiel432• 1 year ago

They are just pieces of paper that guarantee nothing.

You just noticed? Rules/treaties are useless unless you have the power to enforce them.

grandiego• 1 year ago

it shows that you should never give up your nuclear weapons for any agreement or treaty

This is something every related country already knows, think of Pakistan and North Korea. Are you expecting China and India to drop their nukes because of some nice treaty?

World needs to help out Ukraine...

... to achieve peace ASAP, because thousands of lives are being lost.

darksaints2• 1 year ago

I'm gonna get flak for this, but both Trump and Biden are heavily to blame for nuclear proliferation. Trump due to his actions against Iran in ripping up the nuclear deal just because he didn't like the person who negotiated it in combination with his decision to assassinate Soleimani. But Biden is just as much to blame due to his refusal to do anything of consequence when Russia broke the agreements of the Budapest Memorandum. We should have had boots on the ground when they invaded, but we waffled back and forth on selling them 50 year old weapons technology for months and now years. Unacceptable, and now the whole world knows that the major nuclear powers can't be trusted to come to anybody's aid.

HellDunkel3• 1 year ago

The EU is going to be thinking long and hard if the US really is so much more friendly than China.

ctrlp11• 1 year ago

Frankly, the EU is only able to "think long and hard" but never to actually do anything. They have no warfighters anymore and it will take years for the member states of the EU to rebuild anything resembling military capability, if the EU even allows it. Brussels is the equivalent to the Deep State in the US but with official status, instead of being a shadow government. The only leverage EU member states have vis a vis the US is as trading partners and as vassal states for Pax Americana. If the EU wants to move away from the US, good luck. The member states of the EU are soon going to realize they are "a peninsula at the tip of Eurasia" and their best interests lie in close ties to the US.

Ukraine is in a bind, and it is sad when a buffer state is put through the meat grinder in a proxy war between two great powers. But here we are. The upside is that the Ukrainians who weren't killed in the conflict will be, along with Poland and Lithuania, the only "European" states with anything resembling a capable military. I doubt the EU members want Ukraine as a full member of NATO. Too risky. There are some proposals on the table for a more complicated peace without conceding full neutrality of Ukraine to Russia.

I don't think many people understand the nature of this conflict. They merely see "Russian aggression" but have little comprehension of great power competition and the events leading up to the hot part of this war. I feel for the Ukrainians but I wonder if any of the Ukraine boosters would shed a drop of their own blood for Ukraine. If the US demands that the Europeans take a larger role in the security of Europe, we will see if the European NATO members are up to the task. The US needs to pivot its resources to China in the coming decade. The war with Russia has been very costly and strengthened the bonds between Russia and China (and Iran and North Korea). The Europeans should take a great role in policing their own neighborhood, but I don't believe the EU, as currently constructed, is the governance vehicle capable of leading a unified Europe. The member states are, quite understandably, not happy to give up their sovereignty and culture. Participation in a common market has been a disaster for the working class of Western Europe (unless you think cheaper products is the only measure of a country's vitality). The EU experiment might be at an inflection point. They can remain in this bureaucratic quagmire, or reassert the spirit of Wesphalian sovereignty, or await the arrival of a new Charlemagne to unite a strong Europe under sovereign leadership capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. My money is on the decline of the EU into irrelevance and a return to the Westphalian spirit. There is no political will centered in Brussels capable of leading this ragtag assemblage of diverse states and peoples. The border problems persist. The result will be more populist revolts and ascendant "right wing" parties advocating "blood and soil" nationalism. If that's the future, then the western european states will only be supported militarily via bilateral treaties with the US or under the umbrella of a NATO dominated by the US. The latter is just the norm for the post-WWII "New World Order" so it will feel familiar. With luck, the collapse of the EU will allow EU member states to reassert control over their own borders and laws. If that happens, they should abandon this resentment of the US and be grateful they were saved from the managed decline of their central government in Brussels.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Interesting take. I mostly disagree, but you do make a good point that Europe won't be willing to "shed blood" for Ukraine.

cbg020• 1 year ago

Frankly, the EU is only able to "think long and hard" but never to actually do anything. They have no warfighters anymore and it will take years for the member states of the EU to rebuild anything resembling military capability, if the EU even allows it.

What are you on about? EU countries + UK have over a million professional military personnel.

Brussels is the equivalent to the Deep State in the US but with official status, instead of being a shadow government.

The EU parliament has members elected from each country in the EU, there's no deep state conspiracy there.

The member states of the EU are soon going to realize they are "a peninsula at the tip of Eurasia" and their best interests lie in close ties to the US.

This is the complete opposite of what's actually going on, EU countries are realizing we need a stronger EU and we need to fend for ourselves and will be moving away from US ties.

mrcwinn2• 1 year ago

Must we endlessly fund a war that is in stalemate and will continue to savagely end the lives of military and civilian alike? Otherwise, we are a bully? Is it in our interest to continue to run up debt, send overseas ammunition and hardware? To what end? And for how long? I remember wondering the same during Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this really America's permanent responsibility, for any country in the world?

It's quite remarkable the change in America over a couple decades. In the 90s, the left was solidly pro-free-speech and anti-war. Anti-war sometimes to a fault, even. Maybe aside from some censorship effort of rap and Mortal Kombat, you could count on the left to defend free speech at nearly any cost.

Now, it is the left that seems interested in doubling down on wars, without any plan for escape, and of "reigning in" speech deemed by some as harmful.

I'm not here to say correct or incorrect. Pick your own ice cream flavor. My point is that it's striking how much the parties have flipped 180 degrees (on some issues).

i_love_retros4• 1 year ago

[flagged]

PaulDavisThe1st3• 1 year ago

and of "reigning in" speech deemed by some as harmful.

Can you cite any legislative efforts anywhere in the USA by any elected Democrat that limits, coerces or in anyway "reigns in" speech of any sort?

krelian2• 1 year ago

This is a defensive war. This is the lesson we learned when the world did nothing to stop Hitler's initial aggression. This is the moment of truth. Doing nothing is easy, it's the default. We now know the possible consequences and we've made our mind to not let that happen again. Have we learned nothing?

mcphage2• 1 year ago

Is it in our interest to continue to run up debt, send overseas ammunition and hardware?

Whose economy gets the money spent? If it's ours—and it is—then yes, it's obviously in our interest to continue to run up debt.

i_love_retros4• 1 year ago

I'm concerned the US is turning from ally to enemy of the EU.

nxm7• 1 year ago

They’re not though… it’s just that endless billions being sent for a war that Europe won’t proportionally help support has to end. How much more money and lives will be wasted in Ukraine?

nxm7• 1 year ago

Good - they can pay for their own defense instead of milking the American tax payer.

lenerdenator6• 1 year ago

The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of NATO now.

European defense spending has, for decades now, suggested that they don't particularly care about NATO. Well, the Western European members at least. Those who used to live in the Warsaw Pact take it more seriously - see Poland, for example.

They also should have been thinking about the implications of buying so much gas from the Russians for the last 15 years. The invasion of Georgia should have been a trigger to move off of Russian exports permanently. Instead it just brought further dependence and a major pipeline project.

I despise Trump as much as anyone but strategic security shouldn't rest on one country never being in a position to elect an isolationist demagogue.

JW_00000• 1 year ago

European defense spending has, for decades now, suggested that they don't particularly care about NATO.

I'd argue the opposite: Western European countries' low defense spending was exactly because they they believed NATO (in particular the US) would intervene if needed. They don't believe this anymore now, hence will increase defense spending, hence making NATO less relevant. They will now be able to rely on the EU alone.

Timber-65392• 1 year ago

I bet this is all a part of Trump's strategy into pushing Europe into geopolitical irrelevance. And if it counts for anything, the Europeans did this to themselves by relying on the goodwill of America for their own security.

mcswell• 1 year ago

Seems to me that the country Trump is pushing into geopolitical irrelevance is the United States of America. Thanks to him, we're making enemies of friends and allies, throwing away our influence on the world, throwing away any claim we had to being a model, and turning in on ourselves. Trump is MALA: Make America Little Again.

dh202213• 1 year ago

And purpose would that serve Trump? Make Europe weaker... for what? To build a casino in Paris?

OKRainbowKid6• 1 year ago

And what will happen instead is the US losing their status as hegemon/leader of the "free" world / West, with all the benefits that entailed.

jltsiren• 1 year ago

This will mostly just weaken America.

Europe can defend itself against Russia just fine. Maybe it will be a bit poorer, as it has to spend more money on defense, but it can do that. The bigger threat is that European countries start fighting each other again. That could happen in a few decades, if Eurosceptic parties become too popular.

On the other hand, Europe does not care about China. It has no interests in the Pacific. In the absence of mutually beneficial alliances with powers that oppose China, Europe would rather see China as a (somewhat unpleasant) trading partner than an adversary. If China is not a threat and the US is not an ally, it doesn't matter much which of them is the dominant power in the Pacific.

refurb6• 1 year ago

Europe hasn't been geopolitical relevant beyond it's own borders for a while now.

I mean think about it - it had to rely on US transportation just to participate in the Iraq War. How much of a threat can a country be if it can't even project force into that theatre?

gorbachev2• 1 year ago

This is exactly right. Current US allies should not trust the United States to stand with them at least for the next four years or so.

I would go further than that and say you can't trust the US for anything, ever. The United States will not keep long term commitments for more than four years at a time. If you're lucky, or unlucky depending on which side you're on, that cycle will last 8 years.

cowboylowrez2• 1 year ago

agree, trade gets screwed too. I guess sometimes democracy means we get what we deserve lol

Glyptodon7• 1 year ago

I don't know if I'd phrase it as the "power" to do whatever it wants.

Anyone can always do whatever they want. And the only way there aren't repercussions on some level are if you're some kind of god-like being sealed in the equivalent of closed terrarium.

Does the US have power? Sure. But the US could act disgracefully even if it didn't have power.

The framing I'd give this is that the US is trying to extort Ukraine without actually bringing anything to the table, and all it's going to accomplish is making the US itself less powerful, less reputable, the rest of the world more convinced that nuclear weapons need proliferate because otherwise invasions are on the table, and a litany of other things that will basically make the US weaker over time.

hashstring5• 1 year ago

This.

crznp• 1 year ago

I would go further: this is the end of the US. The pieces haven't hit the ground yet, but they are falling. NATO cannot last when Europe doesn't trust the US. Nations cannot trust that trade agreements will last beyond the whims of the moment. Federal workers are being sacked indiscriminately. The executive branch has openly stated that they will not obey the rule of law if it is against them, even after packing the courts. What is left?

There is something left: the land, the people. But not the country, that is something new.

mutatio• 1 year ago

Make no mistake, this display was a disgrace, but... after the annexation of Crimea the EU (Germany) moved ahead with Nord Stream 2, we are culpable too, massively. Ironically there's a famous video of none other than Trump lambasting the Germans about it.

g-b-r• 1 year ago

Let's hope that someone learned real politik is actually blind, short-term politik.

timewizard• 1 year ago

how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully

As if this lesson hasn't been conveyed for the past 30 years.

How anyone can sit here after the Iraq war and say any of this with a straight face is beyond me.

yes_really4• 1 year ago

I saw a lot of people justifying Trump's moves because "the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war."

I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees? Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we just trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing here?

twothreeone• 1 year ago

Trump can't provide that because any "security guarantee" from the US would essentially translate into "send armed troops", which is something that would run counter to his campaign stance.

Muromec8• 1 year ago

Security guaranties is too much of a step up from Security Assurances [0] I guess.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

nwatson6• 1 year ago

With Trump's fragile ego, there's a chance he will designate all humanitarian charitable organizations, and military-aid organizations, to whom USA citizens might want to donate, that have any ties to or otherwise benefit Ukraine, as terrorist organizations. I will be evaluating these ... if you have plans to assist, it may be better to do so sooner rather than later.

xbmcuser• 1 year ago

US was always a bully Trump is doing overtly what US has been doing covertly using CIA etc for decades. Actually Trump is more honest than previous US administrations as those would have killed Zelensky and then blamed it on China or Russia if he was not willing to do what they want.

jmyeet4• 1 year ago

The US has been a bully since at least WW2. The US has been betraying "allies" for just as long.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been a godsend for US influence. Finland and Sweden joined NATO. The Russian military was exposed as a paper tiger. A huge portion of the Russian military's capability was destroyed without a single US military serviceman or asset being deployed. Russian energy exports to Europe (and the influence that gives them) have dropped to a mere fraction of what they were in 2020. Europe is now dependant on US LNG exports.

The second largest military in NATO is Turkey and Turkey is America's puppet. Turkey has been in direct military conflict with other NATO members (ie Greece) with the blessing of the US.

Ceding territory to Russia, which seems all but inevitable now, doesn't change the the security picture for Europe. Russia still can't occupy Ukraine. That was true before the invasion. It's still true now. They certainly can't roll into Poland let alone Germany and Western Europe.

The EU really has no interest in paying for their own security. Politically it's a nonstarter too with the right of far-right parties like National Front in France and AfD, AfD in Germany and Reform in the UK.

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

Lots of this is correct however Turkey isn't anyone's puppet, they're a wildcard if there ever was one. Lately they've been quite insistent that Crimea should not be ceded to Russia, for example. They're also certainly not going to tolerate a Russia/Iran axis in their neighborhood and they've been quite aggressive vs Russian forces that encroached their interests.

taylodl• 1 year ago

The future of NATO is secure. It just won't include the US. Whether that exclusion is done implicitly or explicitly remains to be seen. The US has put itself in the position where it has no allies and no peaceful trading partners. That's not going to work out well for them, regardless of how much military might they believe they have.

tim33331• 1 year ago

NATO is an alliance of 32 democracies and from time to time some of those will vote in unfortunate leaders. I guess the remainder will have to carry on. I doubt the US will remain this way after the next election.

attentive10• 1 year ago

Not only that, now only insane nation won't try to get nukes.

Expect insane nukes proliferation.

DrNosferatu15• 1 year ago

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)

And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in NATO, it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of Law. So, to be part,

1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.

2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you want in.

3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.

Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.

Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!

Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.

US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.

Same applies for prospective new members.

Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base.

We just need the political will to execute - instead of just rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.

nomel11• 1 year ago

Why a separate alliance? In 2015, only 5 nations meet the 2% funding requirement for NATO, with all previous US administrations asking for increases. That's concrete evidence of disinterest in the concept or intentional reliance on the US. Only recently, with threats of the US pulling out of NATO, have the numbers improved.

If the US scaled back the 2%, and was less involved, I would think Europe would be in a better position than a brand new alliance.

DrNosferatu15• 1 year ago

Genuinely confused:

Why the downvotes?

In 2025, Trump dumped Ukraine, sided with Putin and made a number of bully threats (including invasion) to its formal National Security partners. Security which - at least still today - is bound by literal treaty.

Should Europe just roll over and wag its tail?

What kind of partnership is this that one side wants to boss around its only-good-if-wimp partner?

unclebucknasty4• 1 year ago

You're missing that many European nations are having their own problems with the rise of ultra-right nationalism.

We're in the verge of those countries being Trumped as well.

anon29113• 1 year ago

[flagged]

wesselbindt2• 1 year ago

the US can turn from ally to bully

This has been par for the course for decades. They used to be on good terms with Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran after they couped Mossadegh. Heck, they even armed and trained Osama Bin Laden to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. It has always been a deadly gambit to ally yourself with the United States.

I'm not saying it's universally the case of course. For every Saddam there's a Pinochet, for every Gaddafi there's a Suharto. But the fact that the US can drop an ally just like that should not be a surprise to anyone.

notahacker6• 1 year ago

Traditionally the US turned from ally to bully in a predictable manner though. Ally with the Soviet Union, expect hostility, even if your previous right-leaning government had been their best buddies. Invade another country the US also regarded as a regional ally and oil supplier and you might not last long.

The switch to verbally attacking Ukraine and the rest of Europe whilst fellating Putin is an altogether different one, and one much more damaging to US soft power than its past belligerence.

belter9• 1 year ago

These are verified charities list.

Help Ukraine: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/?share_id=xG...

Dont buy from Companies doing business with Russia: https://leave-russia.org/

nomel11• 1 year ago

They should have been thinking for a long time now, but weren't. For the 2% requirement:

2015: 5 countries

2021: 9 countries

2024: 23 countries

I don't think these levels would have improved so quickly without the US being a bully.

importantbrian• 1 year ago

They increased their defense spending because of Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. It didn't have anything to do with US bullying. The biden administration certainly wasn't going around bullying Europe between 2021 and 2024.

francasso3• 1 year ago

The EU needs to get armed to the teeth and to pile up on nukes. The US cannot be trusted, half of the country is compromised and that's not something that will change any time soon, even after Trump goes to meet his creator.

JPKab6• 1 year ago

Half the country isn't "compromised." We simply woke up to the fact that a continent of people that do nothing but mock and sneer at us refused to pay for their own defense, and we get nothing from it in return, other than having our exports tariffed at higher levels than EU exports to the US.

For the US, NATO is an obligation, of which the EU nations (with their lavish social spending and anemic defense spending) benefited from.

In 2014, the EU did NOTHING to help when Crimea was invaded. You continued to buy gas, and even bult new pipelines like Nordstream to continue to hand Putin money. I'm all for the EU to take on it's own protection and investing in militaries. World War II ended 80 years ago. Move on and grow up and pay for your own defense.

budududuroiu• 1 year ago

There’s probably going to be a decade long build up for that to happen. European military industrial production could barely surge to the promised 1 million shells to Ukraine

sebazzz5• 1 year ago

France has nukes. But for nukes it doesn’t matter in practice if you have 10 or 1000. If you use one, it is one too many. It only matters that you have them.

simonh• 1 year ago

I suspect The Trump camp realise a peace deal acceptable to Ukraine isn’t viable. Trump having promised one would be easy means he needs an excuse.

Manufacturing a split with Zelensky gives them that excuse. Now they can turn off the tap of support to Ukraine, forcing them to capitulate, and blame Zelensky.

Meanwhile they can make a deal with Putin to split Ukraine between them. Putin gets East Ukraine, the USA gets the mineral wealth of West Ukraine. It’s win-win.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

Most of the mineral wealth stuff is all in the Donbas, or a couple of kilometers from the front lines. I am unaware of much of anything like that in western Ukraine.

Historically most of the heavy industry, near the mineral deposits, has always been in eastern Ukraine. Agricultural stuff in western and central Ukraine. Putin would be perfectly happy w/ a Ukrainian only rump state centered around Lviv.

victorbjorklund2• 1 year ago

I saw on russian TV how they pretty much said "yea, trump may be an ally of ours now and do what we want but we must remember how they turned on ukraine and that they might turn on us"

actionfromafar25• 1 year ago

Sage advice.

unclebucknasty4• 1 year ago

Why are people acting as if there's nothing "different" going on here? Like this is all just driven by standard foreign policy choices, and the current US regime doesn't have some unique allegiance to Russia and its leader?

4ndrewl11• 1 year ago

You're making the assumption that US foreign policy isnt to parrot Russian foreign policy. There's no evidence to suggest this is not the case.

mistermann• 1 year ago

You are not aware of all evidence in existence, and what "is evidence for" something is a subjective matter, downstream from your conditioned biases.

These conversations are a train wreck, I don't understand how people expect to stop war if you can't be bothered to even try to speak truthfully.

BjoernKW• 1 year ago

The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of NATO now.

Thinking long and hard apparently is all the EU is capable of.

Trump's first term should have been more than enough to make the EU come to their senses. Now, we have tethered caps and the AI Act, but the EU still has no coherent vision or just even the slightest idea of how to move the continent forward instead of keeping it in the past.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

It is interesting how the US's influence in the rest of the world is declining every day, and that it appears the main entity trying to tear it down as fast as possible is the US.

I don't get it.

epistasis5• 1 year ago

This is what Russia does when it buys off politicians. Brexit for the UK, and Trump for the US.

Make no mistake that the Republican party is bought out, through and through, by foreign powers.

atypicaluser• 1 year ago

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression this is what most of the world wanted? And if not the world, then most elites in the US?

I speak both from public and personal history: when American leadership signed its various trade treaties with China back in the 90s and earlier, opening itself up to the swift transfer of manufacturing to its one-time enemy, was American leadership not signaling its strong desire to diminish American power for the sake of peace?

And on a personal level: my hippie parents had often railed against American imperialism and voted for candidates they thought could stop it. What did they (and other similarly-minded folks) think would happen once America withdrew from the world stage? Do people who think the same way today believe America will grow stronger by pulling back?

Having been around since the late 60s, I can only say this attitude has been in the making for a long time. I can't point to college sit-ins or Nixon going to China or Carter turning over the Panama Canal or the US-China Relations Act (2000) or anything specific stating 'this is the definitive moment', but this desire for a weaker, more isolationist America is neither surprising nor accidental for those of us who've been watching it grow. It's ultimately what my parents and their contemporaries wanted. It's... dream fulfillment.

yieldcrv2• 1 year ago

Its almost like they’ll start paying for their own defense

rdevsrex• 1 year ago

I'm sorry, I don't care who you are or what the history between your country and the US is, you don't come and be disrespectful like that and get away with it.

All he had to do was was smile and wave, but Zelensky made it into a dick measuring contest which he was always going to lose.

He is a terrible leader and this is just more proof of it.

kemiller2• 1 year ago

Trump doesn't understand soft power, nor how much he has destroyed in such a short span. I have hope that a some future point we can repair these relationships, but they will never be like they were. So stupid. Such a waste.

anon29113• 1 year ago

It is not bullying to say that American monetary support means basically doing what the United States want you to do. This is basic human social interaction.

unclebucknasty4• 1 year ago

how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully

This is not at all consistent with U.S. foreign policy. It is one regime, that clearly has different thoughts about our alliances. It's an anomaly or, more accurately, an aberration. And it's similar to what's happening here domestically as well.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

EU response not unexpected: ‘Free world needs a new leader’, says EU foreign chief after Trump Zelenskyy row

kardianos2• 1 year ago

Believe it or not, yes, the US wishes NATO paid for more of it's defense.

whateveracct• 1 year ago

Ukraine is in this war partially (largely? primarily?) due to United States foreign policy in the years since the "end" of the Cold War. No surprise Trump screws them over and doesn't honor our geopolitical debts tho.

redeeman2• 1 year ago

bully? the ukraine has been DEMANDING more money from pretty much everyone.

what kind of entitled mindset is that? he should be down on his knees BEGGING for money if he wants it.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF• 1 year ago

I wish our allies had interfered in our elections, in the interests of democracy

belter9• 1 year ago

History will record than once...An unsuspecting stand up comedian, who once recorded the voice of Paddington Bear in the Ukrainian dubbing of Paddington and Paddington 2...

Left his family, took on a uniform...And had to fight, at the same time, Putin and the President of the USA: https://youtu.be/4zwfukYhq-k?t=6

zeroq• 1 year ago

I wish more people would remember that Ukraine was once 3rd nuclear power in the world but agreed to give it all away in return for promise that US will defend it instead.

This is why Zelensky keep saying he doesn't want another paper.

dantheman• 1 year ago

I wish people would actually read the Budapest Memorandum and see what it actually promises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

gunian• 1 year ago

lol the world knows big guy DT did not invent this

evo_92• 1 year ago

Has anyone actually watched the entire conversation and not just the clip near the end?

I encourage everyone to do so:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxbGjvcdyY&pp=ygUbZnVsbCB6ZWx...

raziel2p4• 1 year ago

did it change your opinion somehow?

jakeogh2• 1 year ago

Trump update on Zelenskyy meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t21OERWmxUY

refurb6• 1 year ago

how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully.

Every country in the world knows this already.

I mean all you need to do is look at South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, many South American countries, the list goes on and on.

America is like a fickle woman. When she pays attentions to you it feels wonderful, but when she changes her mind it's like you never existed in the first place.

Zelensky had to know that going in. The writing was on the wall.

preisschild3• 1 year ago

Its time for EUrope to step up. If the US doesn't want to be the "arsenal of democracy" and the "leader of the free world" any more then only the EU (together with other countries like UK+AU+NZ+SK+JP & more) can do it.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Wouldn't be a bad time for the EU to announce that it's considering closing X number of US military bases in Europe, including the 6th Fleet HQ in Naples. That might get Trump back to the table.

hollerith5• 1 year ago

closing US military bases in Europe

I think Trump would welcome that, though.

guax11• 1 year ago

I think its easier for the US to threaten to withdraw and Europe calling the bluff. Either goes ahead or they force another distraction.

My Dutch news website right now: "EU foreign policy chief: Free world needs new leader"

Alifatisk2• 1 year ago

What sparked this heated discussion? Zelensky asked JD what if Putin breaks the agreed diplomacy as he had done previously?

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

Looks like it started with JD saying that Zelensky wasn't "thankful" and was instead trying to plead (JD said "litigate" IIRC) his case to the American public (which of course he was, that's what these meetings are for otherwise you have them in a private room).

bitshiftfaced5• 1 year ago

It was already under tension because it looked like they couldn't come to terms. When Zelenskyy accuses Trump of being aligned with Putin, things started getting heated.

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

When Zelenskyy accuses Trump of being aligned with Putin

When was that, I haven't seen the whole thing except where it got heated, but at no point did I catch Zelenskyy saying anything that could possibly be interpreted like that.

But mostly I couldn't hear what Zelenskyy was saying because he couldn't get a word in edgewise.

Happy to be proven wrong.

inverted_flag• 1 year ago

This was absolutely disgraceful. Another step on the road to becoming a pariah state.

a13n2• 1 year ago

I wish HN allowed threads like this to hit the front page...

The world is changing pretty quickly, and stuff like this does have implications on war, business, technology that's I think is worth discussing here.

pvg2• 1 year ago

Threads like this do make the front page sometimes, you can mail hn@ycombinator.com and make the case for user flags to be turned off for the post.

a13n2• 1 year ago

It's pretty rare. It was flagged dead when I came across it. My comment got over a dozen upvotes so it seems others feel similarly.

legitster10• 1 year ago

It doesn't help that the tech industry is slowly collapsing while all of the tech leaders are jumping into politics.

Sometimes I wonder what is actually left of hacker/startup culture?

techorange7• 1 year ago

This is a bit flippant, but maybe hacker/startup culture just moved from being applied to tech to being applied to politics? It seems like the technofeudalism promoted by some could apply a similar ethos.

bloopernova3• 1 year ago

Hacker culture is still around, not so sure about startups though.

We still have TCP. We still have Linux. We still have gcc, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and more. Now, that last mile connection is still looking dicey; if a lockdown is applied, it will be applied there.

ToucanLoucan• 1 year ago

How can you have hacker culture at any major tech companies when the entire management structure is nothing but business brains?

How many CEOs of prominent tech companies right now even use technology? Like REALLY use it.

SlightlyLeftPad3• 1 year ago

Aannd… it’s flagged. Yeah I agree, the discussion here has been pretty clean and reasonable so I don’t understand why this gets shot down. I do understand that politics doesn’t really belong here but changes like this absolutely have follow on effects on business and technology and deserve room for discussion.

elpocko• 1 year ago

Yes, please show me more political drama, especially of the US-based comedy show you guys call "politics." Can't get enough of it. Only 60% of my HN feed has "Trump", "DOGE" or "Musk" in the title, that's not nearly enough for my taste, I'm gagging to see more of it. There must be some conspiracy going on, I'm sure of it.

legitster10• 1 year ago

That video was hard to watch. Zelensky was being very dignified and they absolutely jumped down his throat. This public meeting was a complete setup, and it's ironic that JD Vance is accusing Zelensky of grandstanding.

ge96• 1 year ago

"have you been to Ukraine?" No but... lol

randcraw5• 1 year ago

Vance didn't believe for a second that Zelensky was grandstanding. He was trying to manipulate his video audience into believing that Vance wasn't grandstanding by accusing Zelensky of misbehaving as he was obviously doing himself.

It's an old propaganda trick that Vance probably learned from the Russians (who used it heavily for 70+ years). But it works only on an easily intimidatable audience that doesn't know any better. Nor care.

threecheese• 1 year ago

That could have gone worse; president trump put his hand on Zelinski to quiet him, this particular action has precipitated physical violence probably since the dawn of language.

duxup13• 1 year ago

In a fireworks-filled public confrontation unlike any seen between an American president and foreign leader in modern times, Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance castigated Mr. Zelensky for not being grateful enough for U.S. support in its war with Russia and sought to strong-arm him into making a peace deal on whatever terms the Americans dictate.

Jebus, how do you screw up a photo op?

Buch of children in the US executive branch.

I suppose they think they look “strong” but it looks more insecure and incompetent to me.

techorange7• 1 year ago

Unfortunately I think it plays well for their audience, makes Trump and Vance look strong, and makes Zelenksy look week.

drawkward8• 1 year ago

MMA-based diplomacy.

acdha7• 1 year ago

He made his priority pretty clear in that regard:

Shortly before the meeting ended, Trump offered, “This is going to be great television.”

https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-security-guarantees-tru...

ipython• 1 year ago

Trump & Vance didn't screw it up- this was on purpose. As the saying goes, "the cruelty is the point"

duxup13• 1 year ago

I'm going with the idea that it is screwed up, even if intentional.

pell• 1 year ago

Buch of children in the US executive branch.

The intended audience is eating this up. If you go to conservative spaces, NATO now is considered a rip off, the EU was apparently designed to hurt the US, Zelensky is a dictator, etc.

amarcheschi7• 1 year ago

/r/conservative is truly interesting. Not American, but i guess that most past us president would cream at the vague thought of making Russia loose soldiers and equipment with just helping a third country, without loosing soldiers

baq2• 1 year ago

FSB psyops directorate is celebrating so hard they won’t get sober until next Tuesday.

tmottabr• 1 year ago

Doublethink at its finest.. We were always at war with Estasia after all..

MilnerRoute• 1 year ago

Alternate feed for the video here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqLtIrRqDg

https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-latest-news-2-28-2025

Is it just me, or does it seem like the conversation swerves suddenly to "you're disrespecting..." It just seemed like a complete change of subject.

doublerabbit5• 1 year ago

Non-YT here: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-zelenskyy-leaves-after...

It's moronic, I am truly flabbergasted. They are both adults acting worse than children running a country. But of course you have the uneducated folk who will lap this up.

"I know you are but what am I"

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

quite an impactful and unusual event -- this post should _not_ be flagged

madspindel• 1 year ago

This is what JD Vance calls 'free speech'...

JKCalhoun7• 1 year ago

I've started going to the "new" section for HN instead of the front page to catch the news before it's flagged.

minimaxir3• 1 year ago

I read /new more often than the main page nowadays (not just due to flags on political stories, but it does give a better picture of what's relevant rather than the survivorship bias of the front page)

BJones12• 1 year ago

Maybe you should try reading a mainstream news site or news aggregator instead

jauntywundrkind2• 1 year ago

I have long loved https://hckrnews.com for the chronological timeline, but the trail of [dead] across the timeline has been jaw dropping & horrifying to see & so so visible here.

A top tier concern of our age is disinformation & propoganda. The lies are absurd & out of control. But denial of information is also a huge issue, and the ability of a couple few to suppress & deny here is remarkable.

I'm so glad there's this timeline based site, showing what's really happening & the many many things denied.

GeoAtreides2• 1 year ago

I recommend: https://hn.algolia.com/

set for top stories for the last 24 hours

it's the best homepage for HN, shows all stories, flagged and flamed stories too

archagon3• 1 year ago

I treat http://news.ycombinator.com/active as the real front page. Flagged discussions show up there.

Bondi_Blue• 1 year ago

Reuter's timeline: https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-russia-war/trump-zelen...

To state the obvious, the Trump administration is more interested in profiting from a minerals deal than supplying any actual security guarantees. The Russian Federation has proved time and time again that they will breach any peace agreements (as occurred with the current invasion which breached agreements bartered after the annexation of Crimea) made with Ukraine for piecewise annexation of their neighbors, at any price to their own soldiers and people.

True lasting peace, is avoiding further steps to another world war. It takes hardly a high school education in history to recognize those preliminary warning signs in Russia's behavior. A common talking point that the Trump administration seems to use, is that they are doing precisely that- preventing a world war- by refusing to further arm and protect Ukraine with weapons and security guarantees- however this refusal does just the opposite, and this minerals deal really has nothing to do with Ukraine's security or interests. The devil is in the details, and the Trump admin refuses to detail how the minerals deal would protect Ukraine or how they would respond to further territorial incursions if the deal were to be signed.

Aside from all this, of course there's a lot of topical nonsense in how Trump and Vance conducted themselves, with shouting and lecturing at Zelensky, but these are all distractions, and they have almost no substance or details to back their broad claims about how or why this conflict started and what would end it. Scapegoating and bullshitting seems to be their game, but luckily Zelensky both asserted himself where possible and kept a relatively calm, but brutally honest, demeanor.

Because the security threats to America would come a bit later, likely in the form of Russia marching into a NATO country, Americans will believe what they want about the conflict. Trump makes this especially easy with his false and misleading oversimplifications. It is sad to think that a proportionally small sacrifice by the American taxpayer to help a country like Ukraine has been sized up as unworthy collateral for saving lives and fighting fascism.

code_biologist3• 1 year ago

Alex Krainer, a tinfoil hat geopolitical analyst, has speculated that the pre-election meetings between Zelensky and Trump included talks of a mineral rights deal, but that the recent UK/Ukraine "100 Year Partnership" deal signed on 16 Jan includes secret mineral rights concessions to the UK in return for military assistance — exactly the rights Trump wanted and now can't get.

It would explain why Britain has recently (15 Feb and after) been so public with plans to send troops to Ukraine.

It also explains why Trump is so eager to undermine Zelensky's democratic legitimacy, as it would invalidate Zelensky's deal with the UK and allow the US a chance at the mineral rights again.

Krainer also speculates that Trump's political theater over mineral rights is raking Zelensky over the coals as retribution for doing a deal without the US, and trying to get Zelensky to spill the beans on the secret terms of the deal already done with the UK.

legitster10• 1 year ago

If you watch the video of the exchange, it was a complete setup. Zelensky was being very diplomatic when they started attacking him. Vance literally said he didn't need to visit Ukraine to see for himself because he "had seen videos".

Zelensky was brought here specifically to be publicly humiliated on live TV.

In 80 years, if we still have history books, this moment will be in them.

minimaxir3• 1 year ago

The theory is that the only reason Vance was present was to be able to double-team Zelenskyy.

duxup13• 1 year ago

That seems plausible as Trump in his speeches loses his train of thought now and then. Would not play well if he was alone in that situation.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

I think the VP is usually present at these types of meetings; but indeed there was double-teaming.

randcraw5• 1 year ago

That, and Trump is incoherent. He has been for a couple of years now, unable to put even two sentences together that make any sense. He speaks entirely in applause one-liners. I think his dementia is significant now. If he were left alone with any world leader they'd realize almost immediately he's incompetent.

This is especially evident when you compare interviews today with those he gave 30 years ago. He was bright then. He's nothing like that today. That's also why he now refuses to be interviewed by unfriendlies.

burntalmonds• 1 year ago

The only humiliation that I saw was that of the United States by Trump's conduct. I was amazed at how calm Zelensky remained during that meeting.

moogly2• 1 year ago

The Propaganda Minister is also decrying Zelenskyy on Twitter, on cue. Probably had the tweet written hours ago.

moogly2• 1 year ago

It's up to the reader to decide if I was referring to Musk or Medvedev here, or perhaps both.

goatlover10• 1 year ago

Utterly shameful. Do conservatives even remember when Russia was the enemy and Europe was our ally? Do you know what kind of leader Putin is? Is that what you want Trump to become? Do you no longer believe in NATO? What has become of the party of Reagan and Bush? Will you betray everything you used to claim you believed in?

matwood11• 1 year ago

Conservatives no longer exist. It’s MAGAs who replaced their made up god with Trump. Then there’s everyone else.

logicchains3• 1 year ago

Do conservatives even remember when Russia was the enemy and Europe was our ally?

America and Europe used to have shared values, now the average American conservative is so disgusted by the T in LGBT that they consider Russia more aligned with their values.

kubb18• 1 year ago

The transsexual people didn't come from Europe. But you're right that hating them is why people support Trump.

godsinhisheaven• 1 year ago

Why is Europe our ally? Why is Russia our enemy? Can the entire world be divvied up between allies/enemies of America? Perhaps so, but does it need to be that way? Can countries just be, other countries? This is what I don't understand, ever since the Soviet Union fell, there hasn't really been a big bad. Capitalism won. America won. How did Russia end up being our enemies again, and will they be our enemies forever? Europe isn't our enemy today, could they be America's "enemy" tomorrow? I don't think the world is as simplistic as "friends" and "enemies".

guerrilla5• 1 year ago

How did Russia end up being our enemies again, and will they be our enemies forever?

By attacking us.

mdp20212• 1 year ago

Why

Ideals alignment, or lack thereof - lack of values and presence of countervalues.

lijf2• 1 year ago

Sorry about the podcast link, the gist is that Ukraine now can build drones from cardboard, controlled from Kiev, London etc. that can destroy Russian tanks.

https://www.ft.com/content/8793e218-9dc4-43a8-8183-e2a092bbb...

jcgrillo4• 1 year ago

"We've seen that international law doesn't really work, but international engineering is very effective"

I would not bet against Ukraine.

digdugdirk• 1 year ago

More of the Ukraine conversation needs to be focused on this topic. The future of warfare is digital, automated, and utterly terrifying, and it's currently being shaped on the Ukrainian frontlines. Western militaries are going to be able to leapfrog their force structure based on the learnings in this war.

Ukraine is paying with their citizens lives for NATO to receive this education, while simultaneously weakening one of the western world's most dangerous geopolitical rivals. The fact that Americans can't see through the Fox News propaganda to understand this is unbelievable, embarrassing, and will set them back on the world stage for a generation or more.

jjulius4• 1 year ago

The fact that Americans can't see through the Fox News propaganda to understand this is unbelievable, embarrassing, and will set them back on the world stage for a generation or more.

Just a friendly reminder to not paint "Americans" with a broad brush. We may not have got our way this past election, but there are plenty of us who see through the fucking bullshit.

philomath_mn• 1 year ago

Let’s be honest though: there has been an immense amount of propaganda on both sides. How many times has Ukraine reportedly embarrassed Russia, knocked them back on their heels, been within weeks of winning? All with young beautiful people on the front lines singing patriotic songs?

Russia is certainly the aggressor, let’s make no mistake. But I honestly can’t make heads or tails of what is actually happening in Ukraine because of all the universal propaganda

poszlem3• 1 year ago

Yes, Zelensky just called Trump's bluff more or less.

rbanffy6• 1 year ago

And what will happen? Will the GOP do anything? Will the rest of NATO deal a devastating enough blow to Russia that it is forced to retreat? Will Russia not retaliate with a limited nuclear escalation?

Don’t forget that the whole “Iron Dome” thing Trump has been talking about, if viable, would necessarily prompt immediate attacks before it becomes operational.

graublau5• 1 year ago

A lot of promise about Ukraine "knockout blows" that turn out like woeful summer offensive or the dalliance in Kursk.

tim33331• 1 year ago

Trouble with drones is that Russia makes them too.

sublimefire6• 1 year ago

Yes but Russians are attacking which makes them more vulnerable, i.e. their armored vehicles. Also, sanctions prevent Russians from using high tech components. Drones are a panacea but a great tool in defence.

goatlover10• 1 year ago

And of course it gets flagged 28 minutes later.

minimaxir3• 1 year ago

This is in the messy HN gray area of "politics that doesn't have a tech angle" and "politics that are extremely indicitive of the times."

EDIT: Looks like dang turned off flags.

BoredPositron• 1 year ago

Nope, the brigading of every topic which only scrapes at doge/elon/trump is too obvious at that point. I would really like an anti brigading mode with a higher karma threshold. 31 karma is not enough in times were both parties want to silence the other.

JKCalhoun7• 1 year ago

I want to thank @dang for that.

It would be wonderful if we lived in time where we could put on blinders to what is happening around us. The times are getting a little too "interesting" though.

lun4r2• 1 year ago

If I were American, I’d be sick with shame. As a European, I’m disgusted—not just by your leadership, but by your silence.

Your country is spiraling into disgrace, yet you sit there, watching, complaining online, doing nothing. Where is your outrage? Where are the millions in the streets forcing change? By staying silent, you are complicit. Just like the Russians who let Putin tighten his grip for decades, you are letting a clown dismantle your democracy in real time.

History won’t just judge you—it will condemn you. Stand up, or accept your place among the cowards who let their nations rot.

duxup13• 1 year ago

but by your silence

What qualifies as not that? I've said my peace, my ability to deploy millions is limited.

senordevnyc5• 1 year ago

As an American, I share your disgust.

The reality here is that a plurality of American voters chose Trump, and they still approve of the job he's doing (though that's dropping fast): https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-t...

I know this is exactly what Trump wants, but I don't know that I have the energy to continue to try and convince my fellow Americans that their demigod will destroy this country. They voted for this, they got it, now let's see how far they're willing to let this country fall before they change their tune.

jcgrillo4• 1 year ago

We don't have a good sense as a nation of the consequences of our actions. People don't believe things can get very bad here in the US. Zelensky said it himself, we feel safe because we have a big ocean separating us from the war. I'm afraid we won't learn without getting our ass kicked.

eagleislandsong10• 1 year ago

They voted for this, they got it

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken

legitster10• 1 year ago

Where are the millions in the streets forcing change?

Rioting in the US is viewed extremely unfavorably in the US. The country is so geographically dispersed that it's hard to significantly interrupt commerce. Also, because of the large rural/urban political divide in the US, the places these protests take place would largely be attacking their own voter bases.

There is lots of political mobilization in the US. Marches, protests, and most importantly there is a lot of citizen funded legal challenges. But at the end of the day, democracy does not have a lot of natural protections if the people of the country democratically choose to end democracy.

heresie-dabord2• 1 year ago

Rioting in the US is viewed extremely unfavorably in the US

Unless storming the Capitol to disrupt a democratic election.

trosi• 1 year ago

Well, I'm also European and I am disgusted by our leaders as well.

What have they been doing? Why are our soldiers not defending Ukraine already? Why do you assume that we are any better?

johnny22• 1 year ago

that's pretty simple.. nobody wants to provoke them into using their nukes. It's also still likely a hard sell to the populations of various countries.

selectodude• 1 year ago

This summer is going to be spicy. Just you wait.

temporallobe2• 1 year ago

I get what you’re saying, but Europe has its disgraces as well and I don’t see anyone rioting in the streets en masse. Don’t get me started on the UK, where core rights like freedom of speech/expression are a joke, yet I don’t see anyone rioting. I mean, maybe they ARE rioting, but any news about it being censored.

kvakva2• 1 year ago

There are protests in Germany against AFD, Slovakia against the pro-Russia prime minister.

lun4r2• 1 year ago

Should've seen Athens today.

eagleislandsong10• 1 year ago

Europe has its disgraces as well

The "whataboutism" game doesn't work here, because none of the pro-Ukraine Western countries is currently even remotely as chaotic, clownish, cruel, capricious, and conspicuously corrupt as the Trump administration and their broligarchs.

And other comments have already pointed out that Europeans are protesting.

jimbob452• 1 year ago

As a European, I’m disgusted—not just by your leadership, but by your silence.

I'm quite pleased with everything that's going on. The lesson from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviets), Afghanistan (US), and Iraq is that there is never going to be a good time to leave but you need to leave as soon as possible before things get worse.

There's the counterargument that Hitler could have been stopped early during/after Czechoslovakia but you can't waltz into every conflict just because it might turn into WW2 later.

kvakva2• 1 year ago

This is not about not going into the conflict. Trump is seemingly siding with Russia while undermining allies and calling Zelinsky dictator.

convolvatron• 1 year ago

the US was just enjoying its favorite hobby of funneling US and EU tax monies into arms production. idk what Putin promised that was more satisfying than that, but no one was being sent across the Atlantic to fight. you'd think the US would be happy enough watching Russia waste lives and money just like the they did in the Middle East.

jellicle• 1 year ago

The problem is both US political parties would strongly oppose any attempt to "get people in the streets", making it very challenging for any such protesters.

0_____0• 1 year ago

We have too much to lose to do anything. It's not until we've lost a great deal of our freedom, our wealth, the basic guarantee of order in our land, that the formerly comfortable will finally act up.

twixfel2• 1 year ago

Flagged again. It's really pathetic how the Americans here are burying their heads in the sand about what their country has done to the West and how it has betrayed Western civilisation.

sympil2• 1 year ago

What is most interesting is the presence of Vance and that he started the argument. Yesterday he was with Trump and the British PM and accused the UK of being against free speech. I don’t recall VPs being active in such meetings before now. It says a lot that Vance is taking such a prominent role in areas that VPs traditionally do not publicly venture in.

Jtsummers9• 1 year ago

He needs to establish himself as a leader (this behavior doesn't help beyond maybe their base) if he wants to be president after Trump. It's also ingratiating behavior towards Trump which will help ensure he remains on his good side and part of the in-crowd.

sympil2• 1 year ago

I get the sense that Vance and Musk are the ones really in control.

manmal4• 1 year ago

Isn’t Vance sponsored by Thiel and therefore here to stay?

duxup13• 1 year ago

IMO the issue is that if they want to stage an argument, Trump on the campaign trail has often lost his train of thought. That would not look very "strong" so Vance is there to do the job.

jakeogh2• 1 year ago

(context) Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the Munich Security Conference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg

tootie4• 1 year ago

Marco Rubio was there with an expression like his soul had left his body.

belter9• 1 year ago

'I don't really care what happens to Ukraine, one way or the other'

    - J. D. Vance - podcast interview 2022

castlefreak5• 1 year ago

Cheney comes to mind.

mopsi22• 1 year ago

Why aren't tech stocks in freefall? Chinese invasion of Taiwan now seems imminent.

legitster10• 1 year ago

Not immediately imminent. China themselves have said 2027-ish.

mopsi22• 1 year ago

Major amphibious operations take 4-6 months to plan and prepare if rushed. I cannot imagine the Chinese watching the feed from the White House without seeing it as a row of green lights blinking for them. The unholy alliance of tech companies and Russian astroturfing on their unregulated social media platforms has delivered a decapitation strike on Washington. The US government is rapidly severing long-standing alliances, and showing utter unwillingness to defend its strategic interests - all out of sheer incompetence, no less.

eagleislandsong10• 1 year ago

China themselves have said 2027-ish.

According to the CIA, which has never, ever fabricated anything in the entire history of its existence to justify starting or escalating wars.

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

Don't forget that Ukraine has a pretty good donation website setup if that happens to be a cause you are willing and have the financial resources to give to.

amarcheschi7• 1 year ago

https://u24.gov.ua/ You can choose the allocation of your donation, defence, or if you'd rather donate to other causes, humanitarian aid, demining, rebuilding (...)

A few months ago in my city, an ambulance shelled by Russians in kharkiv was shown. It was quite destroyed, and chock full of holes. It was quite moving

myko5• 1 year ago

Thanks for the link, glad to donate

simonswords822• 1 year ago

@dang perhaps you could pin https://u24.gov.ua/ to the top of the comments?

Either way, I've donated 50 bucks; seems like a great way to show support on a difficult day for Ukraine.

broadsidepicnic• 1 year ago

thanks, I once again donated a bit even though cannot much.

I just feel for the guy, and for the country, too. What a friggin mess we've left them

croisillon5• 1 year ago

just wired some bucks for defence, thanks

odshoifsdhfs• 1 year ago

fuck it, just donated 500 (there goes my drinking money for the rest month! probably helped I am drunk right now)

edit: just realized it is the 2nd. hard month ahead I guess!

Jordan-117• 1 year ago

Wonder how long until donating to UKR gets you put on some sort of government list.

bilbo0s11• 1 year ago

I'm sure it already does put you on a list. That's just the way any government works. That information is valuable.

hkpack3• 1 year ago

It already does, don’t go to russia in any case if you’ve donated even few bucks.

qweqwe14• 1 year ago

Are there actual, living people thinking that donating to Ukraine will influence anything? These donations might as well be a margin of error compared to government funding, aid packages and what not.

The Ukraine is simply too small of a country to actually win a war against Russia, all that these aid packages are doing is prolonging the war that Ukraine cannot win.

It's like saying "if only Germany had <insert Wunderwaffe> it would've won WWII". At some point they were going to run out of men anyway (they did). Sort of like how Ukraine will eventually run out of men if they continue.

Muromec8• 1 year ago

Ukraine just recently got at parity in artillery with russia, which is why they are pushing this ceasefire and this is why Zelenskyy is walking away from it just like that.

MindTooth2• 1 year ago

Thanks for the reminder. Donated some for defense.

IAmNotACellist• 1 year ago

Do you not know how many of your tax dollars were already given to Ukraine?

Muromec8• 1 year ago

It's an interesting exercise in basic math and knowing your tax code. My bet is under 5 bucks for the whole last 3 years.

Barrin922• 1 year ago

If you want the actual number, about 13 bucks per month per taxpayer[1]. So about what, three to four coffees a month to protect 40 million free people from defending themselves from autocracy?

[1]https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197958571

neonsunset• 1 year ago

As a Ukrainian, I'd like to caution that perhaps there are two funds you may want to consider over UA24 - one of which has full transparency and spotless track record (there have been concerns over UA24) where-as another used to be a political activist for a long time turned media personality turned biggest fund who directly sources thousands of FPV drones (more than 150k at this moment) and has the best proven quality of the "produce":

- "Come Back Alive" fund https://savelife.in.ua/en/ which have full transparency, checks and balances

- "Sternenko Community" which until recently was just a set of bank accounts, which directly funds strike drone production https://x.com/sternenko/status/1894360283595800643

I donate monthly to the latter (alongside donations towards my ex-colleagues and acquaintances serving at the front lines and supply, but those are usually private), but I think western audience may be more comfortable with the former. Either way we appreciate your support in this tragedy of a war. Thank you.

JumpinJack_Cash2• 1 year ago

> "You went to campaign with the opposition"

Zelensky is facing opposition, every day ever since 2022, Trump faced his best friend Schumer and a whole bunch of people he laughs with when the cameras are off (or even when they are on considering how he laughed amicably with Obama at Carter's funeral.)

Romney would have never done this, the end of religion and the rise of social media could very well be the thing that ends us for good.

duxup13• 1 year ago

Shameful day for America where the President and VP two on one berate a visiting leader (guest even) who is fighting for his countries freedom against a totalitarian regime.

belter9• 1 year ago

Reaction from Dmitry Medvedev a few minutes ago: "The insolent pig got a smack down in the White House"

Maybe the current administration can work more efficiently if Russia and the US have a single spokesman?

wave-function• 1 year ago

Pay no attention to him, he's being belligerent in an attempt to atone for his sins of promoting liberal policies 12-16 year ago. His rants really don't represent anyone or matter in any way.

stevenwoo2• 1 year ago

Peace for Our Time, the sequel, by Trump and Vance.

racktash3• 1 year ago

"Peace for Our Time"/Chamberlain was at least motivated by a genuine (albeit naive) desire for peace. This is much worse insofar as motivations are concerned.

thomassmith65• 1 year ago

It would be closer if there had been newsreel footage of Neville Chamberlain barking "Say Uncle! Say Uncle!' at Edvard Beneš.

kelseydh5• 1 year ago

Public humiliation of an ally in distress.

afavour6• 1 year ago

Not an ally any more. The US is now aligned with Russia against Europe. My brain struggles to truly accept that fact but my eyes see what are in front of them.

lostlogin7• 1 year ago

And an ally that was stripped of nuclear weapons with security guarantees made at that time including by the US.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...

adfm• 1 year ago

Ask yourself how many people will die as a result of this show of incompetence.

If you're interested in how a democracy should handle itself in such a situation, take a look at Justin Trudeau's recent speech pledging support for Ukraine.

Don't be a sucker. [^1]

[^1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4

redmajor123• 1 year ago

Ukraine is not a formal ally of the United States.

logicchains3• 1 year ago

fighting for his countries freedom against a totalitarian regime

He sent hundreds of thousands of his own people into a meat grinder to fight for the privilege of being ruled by his corrupt government (recognised as one of the most corrupt governments in Europe) instead of a different corrupt government, with his thugs literally going door-to-door dragging unwilling youths off to die. The average Ukrainian wasn't any better off under Ukrainian government than under Russian government, and they'd certainly be much better off alive than dead.

gnfargbl3• 1 year ago

In the short term, certainly. In the longer term? I'm pretty glad not to have been born into an occupied British puppet state. If not for a man with the obstinacy of Zelenskyy, I might have been.

It was always ironic that Trump kept a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office but after today, it's almost obscene.

streb-lo• 1 year ago

The vast majority of them volunteered. And that's just conscription -- every country would do the same in such a situation. The US pursued and prosecuted thousands of cases of draft dodging in WW2, forcing most of them to go and fight.

Trasmatta4• 1 year ago

Every day I feel more ashamed of my country. Especially because nothing that's happened since Trump returned to office is a surprise (including this): apparently the median US voter wanted this.

Horrible. I feel so badly for the Ukrainian people.

cpwright2• 1 year ago

I think that the median US voter likely did not want this.

With two candidates and a variety of issues, you are very likely going to have to compromise on something. You can support Trump's immigration policy, DOGE efforts, and more; without thinking that the US should help Putin restore the Soviet Union.

Personally, I could not bring myself to vote for either of the presidential candidates. I only voted on the down ballot races.

howmayiannoyyou• 1 year ago

Absolutely an unimaginative & incorrect take and here's why:

1. The entire affair provides cover for continued operations against Russia without great power escalation. Hopefully Putin doubles down and loses even more military assets. If you don't understand this point take a day or two to think it through.

2. Ukraine cannot win (its objectives) this war without Western troops at some point & that's been clear since the start. US objectives have been met, with Russia unable to mount a conventional threat to Europe; with its hardware now discredited against Western weapons - much to the dismay of the Sino-Russia-Iranian axis; and with European underspending on defense & overreliance on Russian energy now reversing.

3. Get used to the new USA. We are going to very publicly assert our power and by doing so hopefully deter war in Asia.

Anyone who doesn't understand 1-3 needs to meditate on this and grow a pair.

stirlo• 1 year ago

Going to deter war in Asia by simply telling China, go for it, take Taiwan and the whole 9 dash line?

That’s not deterring war, it’s appeasement. Ask the great European powers (and eventually the US) how that worked against Hitler…

TylerE6• 1 year ago

Horrible take. We’ve just told every supposed ally of ours that they can’t trust us. Trump just single handedly set back International relations by over a hundred years.

All that post WW2 good will and trust just went poof. You think Germany or France is going to support us after this?

khazhoux4• 1 year ago

It's what America wanted. I've decided to stop caring. It's all a joke now. We'll try again in 44 months.

kflgkans• 1 year ago

You're mistaken. This is no joke.

JohnFen6• 1 year ago

It's not what America wanted. It's what the felon-in-chief wants, but he doesn't represent most Americans.

UltraSane7• 1 year ago

I'm tempted to join a monastery.

duxup13• 1 year ago

I don't think the minority of Americans who voted for him really thought about this situation.

throw0101d2• 1 year ago

It's what America wanted.

Yeah…

    Egg shortages.  
    Fatal measles outbreaks.
    Airplane crashes.
    Crypto scams.
    Tariffs.
    Betrayal of allies. 
    Pardons and special favors for insurrectionists, crooked mayors, and online pimps.
    The American people voted for change!

* https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1895150416738033992

sitkack6• 1 year ago

• 77,302,580 voted for this administration (49.8%)

• 77,935,722 voted against this administration (50.2%)

With an estimated population of 341M, there were approximately 90M people who were eligible to vote (over 18, and not prevented from voting from a conviction) that did not vote.

The American people DO NOT support Trump. He only won due to voter suppression and a massive amount of ad money.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410

sys_647385• 1 year ago

I've decided to stop caring.

This is a problem because if you stop caring about Ukraine falling, you will start to care when Poland, baltic countries, etc., get overrun next. Zelenskyy wasn't joking when he mentioned American shores.

blastonico• 1 year ago

Exactly, Trump should have given him more $100 billion.

fuzzfactor• 1 year ago

I didn't know Vance was that low-class.

Has he always been like that or is it something repulsive he's picking up from Trump?

He needs serious exposure to mature, cultured, well-mannered gentlemen and to get some pointers from honest, respectable US presidents and vice-presidents like he's getting none of now. Or he'll never reagin his former integrity, if he actually had enough to make a difference, it makes me wonder.

UltraSane7• 1 year ago

It makes more sense when you understand he is an actor reading the script he is given. He cannot act independently and what he says has no relation to his actual opinions, if he even has any of his own. This is true for most of the GOP at this point. Exceptions include Romney.

LightBug13• 1 year ago

Everything Trump touches ... dies.

RIP Elon RIP Vance etc

jszymborski2• 1 year ago

All aspects of Vance's personality expand and contract to fill whatever cause or purpose serves his personal interest. This is evident throughout his career.

gambiting18• 1 year ago

When he went to visit Europe and gave his famous tirade, it was very telling he didn't meet with the German chancellor but met with the leader of AfD, you know, the guys with well proven neo nazi and fascist links. He's not interested in being a gentleman, we're playing a different kind of game now - game where they believe winner takes everything and goals justify the means.

zeroCalories5• 1 year ago

he's just a small hillbilly boy from ohio

sys_647385• 1 year ago

He's a muckraker is James Donald.

wilg5• 1 year ago

vance may be the most unlikeable person i have ever heard speak. he just has no charisma and is constantly crying crocodile tears about the dumbest thing you've ever heard of.

mellosouls• 1 year ago

I can't see this as Vance acting without prior consultation and authorisation from Trump - its too serious a breach of protocol and tradition.

For that reason, this smells of a pre-planned ambush.

Cornbilly• 1 year ago

Former integrity?

He got his start cosplaying as a former downtrodden redneck from the holler, when he’s from suburban Ohio.

dralley12• 1 year ago

> But as Romney surveyed the crop of Republicans running for Senate in 2022, it was clear that more Hawleys were on their way. Perhaps most disconcerting was J. D. Vance, the Republican candidate in Ohio. “I don’t know that I can disrespect someone more than J. D. Vance,” Romney told me. They’d first met years earlier, after he read Vance’s best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. Romney was so impressed with the book that he hosted the author at his annual Park City summit in 2018. Vance, who grew up in a poor, dysfunctional family in Appalachia and went on to graduate from Yale Law School, had seemed bright and thoughtful, with interesting ideas about how Republicans could court the white working class without indulging in toxic Trumpism. Then, in 2021, Vance decided he wanted to run for Senate, and reinvented his entire persona overnight. Suddenly, he was railing against the “childless left” and denouncing Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a “fake holiday” and accusing Joe Biden of manufacturing the opioid crisis “to punish people who didn’t vote for him.” The speed of the MAGA makeover was jarring.
> “I do wonder, how do you make that decision?” Romney mused to me as Vance was degrading himself on the campaign trail that summer. “How can you go over a line so stark as that—and for what?” Romney wished he could grab Vance by the shoulders and scream: This is not worth it! “It’s not like you’re going to be famous and powerful because you became a United States senator. It’s like, really? You sell yourself so cheap?” The prospect of having Vance in the caucus made Romney uncomfortable. “How do you sit next to him at lunch?”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-ro...

dboreham9• 1 year ago

Vance has always been an obsequious pillock.

redmajor123• 1 year ago

When did Zelensky's presidential term expired again?

mcv18• 1 year ago

When there is peace. Just as with Churchill. And most European leaders during WW2.

You can't hold free elections when you're not free.

sublimefire6• 1 year ago

They cannot have normal elections anyway, a bunch of people in occupied territories, not to mention soldiers in active duty who cannot leave their posts to vote. Whilst Putin is ruling since 2020 (except Medvedev term).

y0ssar1an4• 1 year ago

They literally can't have an election until the war ends:

* millions of Ukrainians in the occupied territories * 1000km frontline that is extremely thin in places. should they pull troops off the line to vote, or run ballot boxes to the trenches? * their Constitution forbids it * the Russians will attack polling places, possibly killing hundreds

Britian didn't have an election for 10 years because of WWII, so it's not like it's unprecedented for a democracy to put elections on hold during an existential crisis.

captainkrtek3• 1 year ago

Absolutely heartbreaking. How many of the people arguing have seen any footage of the atrocities committed by Russia.

It is sobering to see women and children shelled in their homes and hospitals. 20 Days in Mariupol is free to watch on Youtube (Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvAyykRvPBo

arcbyte• 1 year ago

Overall, Zelensky miscalculated when he challenged the VP like that. Nothing good was gonna come from that in that setting.

But I dont know why Vance even jumped in like that. It both undercut Trump and forced Zelensky to voice his disagreement.

But then they both attacked him for some perceived lack of gratitude which just spiraled out of control.

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

It looked planned to me, with canned talking points 'I clutch my pearls at you talking to us like that in OUR OVAL OFFICE!'.

jonathanstrange11• 1 year ago

Zelensky did nothing wrong.

terio• 1 year ago

It was a setup

sleepyguy2• 1 year ago

This entire administration is shameful, I hope that this haunts them, what they did to Zelensky is unbelievable.

munksbeer• 1 year ago

Christ that is awful. I'm not going to sugar coat it, I think Trump and Vance are disgusting people. Proper bullies, to someone in a much weaker position.

mdp20212• 1 year ago

I would have phrased that differently: "lack of morals proposed as a point of vanity".

Incidentally (and for example), the "preacher" quarreled with Niall Ferguson days ago: the latter noted different times, when former conservative administrations condemned invasions, and received a reply starting with «moralistic rubbish» (or very similar words).

duxup13• 1 year ago

I wish the EU was more ... united.

Most of the nations were woefully slow to act with Ukraine (hey let's send some token helmets). They've got a totalitarian regime invading democracies in their back yard but don't seem all that united about it ....

jahnu• 1 year ago

Yes me too. Europe needs to get its act together and do _more_ but let’s also not adopt Trump’s descriptions of what has been given.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukra...

teaearlgraycold• 1 year ago

The dark humor in me really wants Russia to be colored dark blue in that map.

fsckboy• 1 year ago

I wish the EU was more ... united.

it's not Europe United, it's Europe Unionized.

jfengel3• 1 year ago

Europe United would be an awesome football team.

overstay8930• 1 year ago

EU is united until it comes time to pay the bill

alephnerd16• 1 year ago

Within the EU, it's mostly Germany's fault because their political leadership is too chickenshit to remove the debt limit and the ban on expeditionary forces from their constitution. 30 years ago, West+East Germany had world class armed forces, yet the current German military posture is ridiculous.

The US should keep its commitments, but there is no reason Germany cannot step up to the plate - especially given that France has a similar defense budget as Germany yet has an outsized impact on global security.

German political leadership needs to either stop blocking France+UK and defer to their security policy or build it's own domestic capacity.

smw• 1 year ago

The EU has donated more to Ukraine's war effort than the US, despite coverage suggesting otherwise.

nickthegreek2• 1 year ago

This is false. The EU has put up more money than the US but they have not _donated_ more money than the US. A large form of the payment from the EU has been in low interest loans.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o

krona7• 1 year ago

war effort

"War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.

bsingerzero• 1 year ago

The EU has donated about the same amount of money (46.3B) as the US (46.6B), however total aid the US has donated 114B while the EU has dontaed 49B.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...

https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/

daedrdev3• 1 year ago

The EU has probably net helped Russia with all the gas they have bought

duxup13• 1 year ago

I'm not going to dis anything the EU has done so far. I'll give high fives for everything.

But the rollout was slow, they seemed reluctant, some countries didn't want to be involved at all, and they waited for the US for a long time...

bpodgursky2• 1 year ago

Why is parity the goal? The US is on a different continent, and also (theoretically) defending US allies in the Pacific, and middle east.

It's Europe's backyard. Europe should be contributing 5x what the US contributes. They can afford it. It's the richest (per-capita) continent on earth. They outproduce Russia 5-10x.

I have been a strong supporter of US support to Ukraine and I think this meeting was gross and unbecoming, but Europeans need to wake up and understand that this is a problem they can, and have to, solve, not just as a supporting player to the US.

"We did as much as the US" doesn't matter. Give enough support to solve the problem. You have the economy and can, if you make even minor commitment — 5% of GDP would vastly outproduce Russia, for a small cost to living standards. The alternative is giving up.

lenerdenator6• 1 year ago

Loans are not the same as heavy weaponry and intelligence.

Other American administrations have been spending decades begging NATO allies to keep their militaries up to a higher standard. Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order.

627467• 1 year ago

To suggest the EU/Europe has done anything close to the bare minimum for Ukraine is absurd and Europeans who think otherwise are as delusional on this as the long term usefulness of the actual EU

mcv18• 1 year ago

They have, but they need to double it. You can't count on the US anymore, and Ukraine needs a lot more than it's getting.

And let's face it, the EU can easily afford it. Sure it hurts a bit. But more war with Russia hurts a lot more. The cheapest way out is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not give him the opportunity to try again in a few years.

morphle3• 1 year ago

This is correct. Proof of this can be found in 37 places on government websites (I actually checked, took me three hours). If you add these up its obvious that the EU spent a lot more that the USA.

If you consider what EU countries pay besides arms and aid, for example on housing the millions of refugees from Ulraine or buying stockpiles of arms to be used on behalf of Ukraine in the future the numbers are much higher, between twice and triple the US budget. Even the sanctions against Russia and their weapon suppliers China, India, North Korea and Iran add to the costs of this Russian conflict. Also consider the EU pledges to rebuild Ukraine should be counted.

Today I estimate 1,234 trillion Euro's, part of which was spent as dollars, some as loans with the estimated 300 million of confiscated Russian bank accounts and assests from Russian oligarchs as collateral.

jimnotgym3• 1 year ago

I agree, but they have still sent more aid than the US

Nathanba2• 1 year ago

The EU was united, namely in not bothering to help Ukraine. The US decided to want to help Ukraine and send weapons and set the tone and (slow) pace of the weapons that they sent. Only for them to pull the rug away later anyway. This is really terrible leadership, leaders who don't care about the results that they cause are poison. You can argue all day that it's sad and terrible that the EU wouldn't have helped at all. But under Germany's leadership at least this farce wouldn't have played out. You can argue then that it might cause problems later because Russia would be emboldened by a quick win in Ukraine. Fine but this is better now?

PaulDavisThe1st3• 1 year ago

That's an interesting take on a recent history that I did not live through.

__d• 1 year ago

The US signed the treaty promising defence support to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine handing over their nukes.

Where is that now?

jiriknesl• 1 year ago

You assume EU united would act strongly in favour of Ukraine. But there's no guarantee of that. There are significant differences in how for example, Poland approaches Ukraine with how Germany does it.

I think, nations with bad historic experience with Russia support Ukraine significantly more.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

I think that is generally true. But Poland had an AWFUL experience with the residents of western Ukraine during the 1940s.

kevin_thibedeau• 1 year ago

They're running the same playbook they did with Yugoslavia. Sit around and do nothing until the US takes control. Not going to work out this time with the felon operating in chaos monkey mode.

selimthegrim7• 1 year ago

Exactly what I said to alephnerd above.

unethical_ban4• 1 year ago

https://youtu.be/IwYVKptqH_o?si=wkGH8i_gY-_AfaK2&t=54

(Edit, this is from late 90s and the NATO action in Yugoslavia)

I thought this was an interesting take. And it's sad that the US has a man giving away our leadership. The world is in a dangerous place.

LAC-Tech6• 1 year ago

A democracy has been invaded? I thought it was just Ukraine.

wkat4242• 1 year ago

Don't forget that Russia has been doing this for a long time. Chechnya, Georgia. Always the civilian population was brutely oppressed and murdered. He's always got some former USSR republic to exterminate. If anything it would be weird if he hadn't picked on the next one. The only difference is that Ukraine is a little bit closer to Europe than the others.

I'm not saying this means we shouldn't defend Ukraine. We should. But I am saying the outrage from the international community is a little hypocritical considering what Putin has been doing for decades. It's either because it's a little closer to our borders (and thus Europe is more worried about itself) or because they have valuable resources that our politicians suddenly care. I find that very sad. We should have cared before. Then we'd have saved many lives and this wouldn't have happened.

It's really got a very strong smell of "let's bring freedom to the middle east! Of course only where they've got lots of oil for us".

atlintots6• 1 year ago

But it has always been like this, and people from the global south and former USSR republics have always recognized this. It's only now starting to become apparent to naive and propagandized Americans/Westerners.

rasz3• 1 year ago

EU was plenty united when US cried NATO article 5.

goshx2• 1 year ago

Can we take the opportunity to discuss why Trump's administration is so desperately going after rare earth minerals? Greenland, Canada, Ukraine...

Is it only about chips and AI for economic reasons or is there more involved like, an army of robots or something to control everything?

bloopernova3• 1 year ago

It's coming from elon, who has courted russia for Ukraine's metals and minerals since at least the 2022 invasion.

goshx2• 1 year ago

That's what I suspect as well, especially with the tesla bots, but there is also Ellison's influence

sebazzz5• 1 year ago

SpaceX Flacon 9 nozzles contain nyobium which is mined in Ukraine. It has been a problem since that invasion, and one of the reasons SpaceX sometimes flies short stubby nozzles when possible.

TheAlchemist9• 1 year ago

I think it's the same reason Musk is promoting his Mars bullshit.

This appears as very long term thinking, while in reality is a way to siphon money in the short term and sell whatever idea they currently have under this long term plan.

Not to say that it would be bad for US to own Greenland - of course it would be great. Mars too BTW...

pjc5013• 1 year ago

Greenland is worthless, and having a long running territorial dispute with the entirety of Europe would be bad for all involved.

dboreham9• 1 year ago

US has for all practical purposes owned Greenland since WW2.

V__• 1 year ago

In the last Trump administration there were enough people handling him. This time there are only yes men, so anything we see, is him unstopped/unfiltered. Trump doesn't understand complexities just "winning", he understands that minerals are valuable so he wants them, that is it. He also wants the peace price, but he doesn't understand long term strategy or planning so this situation, this sudden shift and strong arming is him wanting to accomplish this goal now. He feels Putin is stronger so the goal is easier accomplished by forcing Ukraines hand.

If one views it trough the lens of: What a high school bully, who has no self control and can't delay gradification, would do... then nothing Trump does is surprising.

donmcronald3• 1 year ago

I would like to know this too.

I have no idea, so this is pure speculation, but as charge cycles for batteries keep increasing I'm guessing they'll become more valuable, especially if they're made from finite resources. Consider a scenario where you never own the battery and have to lease it forever.

The opposite side would be choking off the supply of the rare minerals needed to make batteries with the intent of making it more difficult to switch to renewable energy. You'd need all of them though and I just don't see them improving their position in Canada.

Or it could be as simple as "gold is shiny" and Trump wants them because he's heard they're valuable.

saturn86015• 1 year ago

Batteries can be nearly fully recycled. At least the critical materials can be (might lose plastics or epoxies). In fact the co-founder and former CTO of Tesla left to start a massive firm doing just that. That places a theoretical upper limit to demand for new materials.

philipkglass• 1 year ago

I don't think that it makes sense. Rare earth elements aren't actually very rare, they don't have a lot of market value compared to other minerals [1], and there are already abundant known deposits in North America (including the United States).

There are two main reasons that REE production is dominated by China. One is that Chinese production is low-cost. Two is that the total market demand is small, so that (absent some long term price guarantee) adding another big REE production center outside of China will probably tank the market value and lose the investors money. See the history of the Mountain Pass mine in California:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine

This one mine produced most of the world's REE between 1965 and 1995. It closed in 2002 because it had a toxic spill that would be too expensive to remediate given the arrival of Chinese competition. In 2012 it reopened as a reaction to Chinese export restrictions on REE instated 2 years earlier. In 2015 global REE prices went back down and the Mountain Pass mine went bankrupt again. It resumed operating in 2018 after it was brought back out of bankruptcy. It relies on frosty US-China trade relations and government support to remain a going concern. There's not enough global demand for REE to keep Mountain Pass independently profitable whenever Chinese export restrictions get relaxed.

[1] In terms of total market value, I mean. Dysprosium has a high value per kilogram but the current annual demand for all rare earth elements combined is under $8 billion, compared to e.g. $20 billion for zinc alone.

beefnugs• 1 year ago

He is simple power hungry monkey: russian can attack countries and get away with it, israel can kill anyone they want, why cant his country? He just heard from his richest powercunt that he uses "rare earth" to make batteries, so he wants

skippyboxedhero2• 1 year ago

There are almost no rare earth minerals in Ukraine. The "desperately going after rare earth minerals" line is something that has appeared in the media...but at no point did they actually check whether Ukraine has any (beyond comical maps that tell you nothing about the grade, recoverability, etc.).

The reason for the deal is: recover money for taxpayers, provide some security guarantee without an explicit commitment that will end up with US being deployed, and backstop significant private-sector investment into Ukraine to try to revive their economy (after the war destroyed and maimed a huge proportion of their working adult population).

There are (almost) no rare earth minerals though.

dboreham9• 1 year ago

My take was the mineral deal was invented by Z (more likely staffers) as a clever ploy designed to appeal to T who is a colossal idiot and can only conceive of geopolitics as consisting of zero sum "deals" that one country makes with another. So they invented a deal. I always assumed it would be a shit deal for T, since idiot and all. But it seems he wanted the shit sandwich for free. Basically negotiated himself into no deal.

freen5• 1 year ago

Realtalk: Would you entrust the nuclear arsenal to someone who honestly thinks "asylum seekers" came from an insane asylum?

https://thespectator.com/topic/spectator-interview-president...

freen5• 1 year ago

Can someone please make this make sense?

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions.”

https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-d...

tim33331• 1 year ago

Going back in history re Trump

"The top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB." https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-fir...

And then of his return he ran a full page ad in three papers asking to reduce the US's overseas defence spending https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/15/trumps-na...

etc. and repeat similar stuff again and again. Palling around with Russia, helping out Russia.

aaroninsf• 1 year ago

This timeline is so bad, it is increasingly hard to dismiss the possibility that that is not the product of change, but rather the product of being in an absolutely shitty simulation.

te0006• 1 year ago

or of a CERN experiment in ~2015 having had ...side effects

seydor2• 1 year ago

It looks like the US wants a regime change in Ukraine, it's possible that this became a pre condition from russia for talks to go forward.

OTOH, a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.

Lots of drama and optics involved for sure, but it seems the outcome or the talks was predetermined

JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?

preisschild3• 1 year ago

OTOH, a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.

Most of the minerals are in russian-occupied territory, so if they want that they would also need to further arm Ukraine now.

techterrier• 1 year ago

nope, they can do a deal with the Russians.

kadoban2• 1 year ago

It does not seem like Trump actually wants a deal. They are not offering anything. It appears to be simply a pretext to have some reason to berate Ukraine and Zelenskyy.

"Oh you won't take our [completely ridiculous] deal? I guess we'll just have to side with Russia then!" Like that's not what they were going to do anyway.

ksaj3• 1 year ago

Putin said he would gladly share with the US. So there is yet another, larger carrot dangling in front of Trump's eyes.

GuestFAUniverse• 1 year ago

Like Gaza for the development of Kushner's hotels on the seaside.

And I bet the right-wing-conservative scum helping him from Israel already got their shares.

Jtsummers9• 1 year ago

If the Vice Presidency is vacant, the President nominates and Congress (both houses) confirm.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

25th Amendment

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

The VP can be removed by Congress (impeachment), the President cannot direct the VP to vacate the office.

nikanj• 1 year ago

With the current string of SCOTUS decisions, Trump can have the VP shot at dawn, declare it an official act, and elect Musk as the new VP.

chgs4• 1 year ago

And of course the whole VP nomination happened with Ford, who replaced Agnew without election and then replaced Nixon without election.

mattmaroon2• 1 year ago

Would you like to wager against JD Vance lasting the entire term?

rco87862• 1 year ago

Seriously. He parroted his boss to the best of his ability. I'm sure trump is perfectly pleased with his "performance".

GolfPopper8• 1 year ago

I suspect Trump lasting the entire term is less likely.

If something happens to Trump after January 20th, 2027, Vance can serve out the remainder of this term, then run as the incumbent for two additional terms as a frontman for the Musk/Thiel axis, a role he has played well for some time.

If the country's rulers want to bother to keep the pretense of Constitutional government, that is.

GolfPopper8• 1 year ago

a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.

It will not. Trump will simply use the deal as an excuse to betray Ukraine (more than he already has). I can practically hear it playing out now.

"I had to force Ukraine to completely surrender to Russia. It was the only way to make sure Russia honored the mineral rights granted to my billionaire friends."

daedrdev3• 1 year ago

Vance has even better chances of lasting the entire term after his pro-Russia performance today.

jimmydoe6• 1 year ago

The outcome was predetermined. Z was not fully sold on this, and Trump/Vance just wanted to maximize the optics, hence the fall out. Just a small ripple, the deep states will rebalance this out.

bitshiftfaced5• 1 year ago

Vance is currently trading sideways to slightly up on Kalshi's market for who will be the Republican nominee in the next election.

duped• 1 year ago

JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?

fwiw, the President cannot fire the VP. The Vice Presidency is an independent political office.

tasuki4• 1 year ago

JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?

Why won't he last long?

seydor2• 1 year ago

Too controversial, tends to overshadow his notoriously insecure boss

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

I think Vance will stay; he’s playing Trump’s tune.

cryptonector12• 1 year ago

JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?

Why would he "not last long"? Who would remove him? Would they not also remove Trump if they could remove Vance?

sesm2• 1 year ago

It looks like the US wants a regime change in Ukraine, it's possible that this became a pre condition from russia for talks to go forward.

It's not just possible, it was stated openly multiple times by Russian diplomats. The official position is: anything signed by Zelensky has potential to be invalidated later, because according to constitution of Ukraine he is not a legitimate president anymore. So this legal loophole should be removed before signing any agreements.

TheAlchemist9• 1 year ago

Zelensky just proved once again what real leadership looks like.

He went to the White House knowing that they will try to do exactly that and yet he did it with his head held high and did not sign the deal. Amazing guy.

This is also a historic day for the world. US dominance over the West is over.

As a European, I will vote against any politician that keeps talking about EU-US special partnership and doesn't put 'EU First'. The special partnership is over, we are still doing business together but it's clear as a day that it's only business from now on.

fooker2• 1 year ago

You’re not wrong, but there’s a reason US was in this position for this long.

There’s no ‘EU first’, every European country has constantly tried to one up their rivals for the last several centuries.

surgical_fire5• 1 year ago

On the other hand, EU is a very recent experiment, given the length of European history.

In that sense, European countries were never as close as they are right now. I expect it to strengthen as time passes, especially now that the US should be seen as an hostile foreign nation to every European country.

Not to mention that after the shitshow that Brexit proved to be, even right-wing parties in Europe sort of abandoned their "leave EU" rhetoric.

romanhn• 1 year ago

Yeah, from my perspective this was just a dog and pony show. Trump and Vance got to look big and strong (their perception anyways) next to Zelensky, and he got to look like he's willing to continue the conversation. Doubt anyone actually expected progress out of this.

ajross• 1 year ago

As a European, I will vote against any politician that keeps talking about EU-US special partnership and doesn't put 'EU First'.

Isn't that exactly the logic behind Trumpism though? "Our partners suck, we need to put our own interests first" is how you get isolation and trade wars. And sometimes real wars.

I mean, maybe that's where things are going. But "as a European" you should at least recognize that's the policy you're arguing for.

TheAlchemist9• 1 year ago

bad choice of words from me indeed. What I wanted to say is that a lot of people, especially in the Eastern Europe look at the US as a rock solid partner - even more solid than EU. That dates back to WWII.

Its time to change that perception.

spinlock_2• 1 year ago

Imho still better than relying on a bully.

anigbrowl20• 1 year ago

Don't fall for this argument, it just keeps ratcheting things in the bully's favor. Game theory offers abundant demonstrations of the fact that cooperation is the best default, but cooperation with a serial defector is a losing strategy. At some point they need to experience suffering in response to aggression.

IncreasePosts2• 1 year ago

Was what happened today in the White House the best outcome for Ukraine? It is hard to see how that is the case.

dygd2• 1 year ago

Clearly not the best possible outcome. But what happened today cleared up any notion of the current US administration being an "ally". Seems like a defining moment and Europe will have to do a whole lot of think on how to move forward.

torlok2• 1 year ago

"Best outcome", no. "Best possible outcome", probably.

attentive10• 1 year ago

the correct question should be "was this avoidable"? - It doesn't look like it was with all the bad actors that arranged this spectacle.

whilenot-dev2• 1 year ago

This is also a historic day for the world. US dominance over the West is over.

Seeing the US part ways with "western allies" firsthand - a true paradigm shift, and one I'm not looking forward to.

headsman7712• 1 year ago

Zelensky went there under the pretext of signing the mineral deal, but changed his mind before arriving.

He's trying to pressure Trump and America in general into giving Ukraine NATO membership or security guarantees against Russia.

Sorry, but Ukraine, which is not in NATO and thus not entitled to unconditional defense, is not worth starting WW3 over.

Its sickening watching Zelensky and Europe act like my country is obligated to go into unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them.

tayo422• 1 year ago

Are you familiar with the Budapest memorandum?

vsean3• 1 year ago

Zelensky went there under the pretext of signing the mineral deal, but changed his mind before arriving.

That's not true. The agreement that both sides drafted was agreed upon and Zelensky planned on signing it.

Sorry, but Ukraine, which is not in NATO and thus not entitled to unconditional defense, is not worth starting WW3 over.

No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression.

Its sickening watching Zelensky and Europe act like my country is obligated to go into unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them.

To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO. And the only time it's been used so far was for 911 when all NATO countries came to the US's aid after it was attacked.

As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU. The number Trump keep pushing, $350BN is lies. Ukraine has seen about $70 Billion. Which Zelensky has thanked the US for on may occasions, notably in front of congress. The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who commited war crimes and abducted children, and continue to bomb civilian areas say after day. Instead of shaking down a country and people at their weakest hour for money that was given to it by the previous president?

headsman7712• 1 year ago

The linked article doesnt mention the agreement changing. Did it? If it did I can understand him not signing it.

However there was reporting prior to his arrival that he didnt intend to sign it, and considered it something that lower level officials could do. This was after the impression was given that he was coming to the US to sign it, as you admitted was his intention.

No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression

NATO membership for Ukraine is an attempt to call Russia's bluff that they wouldn't continue fighting, or escelate to nuclear weapons if Ukraine were admitted. That is a direct die roll on starting WW3 and Ukraine is not worth it.

To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO.

I think you understood that I meant for Ukraine. If not, well, it wasn't difficult to see that's what I meant.

Yes, the US should, and I and most Americans do support, upholding Article 5 obligations.

As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU.

I hope you're joking.

The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who...

The west collectively went hard on Russia. We gave Ukraine more of a fighting chance than anyone could possibly hope for. But Russia is winning. We will not escalate to risking WW3. Ukrainians are amazingly tough people and what happened to them is a tragedy, but its in their best interest to stop fighting and dying.

tehjoker• 1 year ago

Thank god that finally we're going to stop sending hundreds of thousands of men into a meat grinder for no purpose. Ofc, Trump is doing this in great part because he personally hates Zelensky and Biden. He's doing what he did to Obama and just unwinding everything his predecessor did. He also correctly ascertains that this is a huge waste of money that is counterproductive.

All the liberal cold warriors that wanted to bleed russia made Russia stronger by doing this. Not that I care either way, but it's funny to watch these war hawks have it blow up in their face, not that they really care since they are eating charcuterie at DC lawn parties with their Raytheon bucks.

tgv2• 1 year ago

The US has an effective way of ending that: more, heavier weapons, no restrictions, and a promise to place peace keepers. Instead, they chose to infuriate a key player. Cui bono?

kubb18• 1 year ago

Russia will just attack again. Ukrainans and their own poor and non-ethnic-Russian population are just subhumans to them and they literally don't care about any deaths.

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

The US was helping Ukraine because they were fighting against Russia. It was a proxy war in the US's interest.

Withdrawing from it, therefore, by prior US foreign policy, would be against US interests.

We'll find out eventually.

tonymet7• 1 year ago

Negotiations get heated. It's the only way to reach an honest agreement. Better to get those feelings out.

Trump was elected on negotiating a peace, and that's going to piss off Zelensky. Zelensky became entitled to a blank check with no strings attached. Now the terms have changed.

There are some people who expect dialog to proceed like an HR meeting, and those that find relief in direct and sometimes heated language.

To me the meeting felt like a tremendous relief. A resolution will develop, finally.

jorblumesea3• 1 year ago

what? you don't have negotiations in public at a press conference. what is trump negotiating here? terms that Ukraine won't accept? what resolution will come out of this outside of hardening Ukrainian resolve, bolstering Zelensky and getting Europe to fund the war?

Trump, the master negotiator /s

A shameful, tactless and pre-planned display. it's easy to blame trump and vance but the true losers here are the American people. American soft power is critical to America's economic power.

castlefreak5• 1 year ago

I actually agree that it was a planned dressing down for optics sakes but the attempt is to try to get Zelenskyy out of the way for Trump / Putin direct deal to settle Ukraine matter and the success of this strategy will depend on whether the MAGA media hype will drown out the soft power enjoyers in terms of messaging.

tonymet7• 1 year ago

What can europe fund the war with? Even if they can come up with the gold, who are they going to buy the weapons from?

apstls3• 1 year ago

Out of curiosity, what are the other similar public meetings/negotiations you’re aware of that were conducted in a similar way?

Or generally, since you say this did not deviate from your expectations, what are the past events that influenced your baseline expectation for conduct on the geopolitical stage?

tonymet7• 1 year ago

it sounds like you're preferring status quo. I'm saying that status quo has failed.

graublau5• 1 year ago

Civility is overrated. Maybe you felt like tired rhetoric from prior admin about Israel or Putin was more effective but I sure don't. People are awfully afraid to rock the boat in American political discourse. It's probably been too polite as a cover for a lot of ugly policy on both the left and right.

suzzer99• 1 year ago

Out of curiosity, what are the other similar public meetings/negotiations you’re aware of that were conducted in a similar way?

There have been a ton of them, at least according to historical accounts. But none in front of reporters like this.

demarq• 1 year ago

Agree with you, too much focus on optics over getting things done.

Trump doesn’t seem to care if people are unhappy or uncomfortable, it’s like he has his list of things he said he’d do and he’s sticking to it.

apstls3• 1 year ago

Consider the space of possible paths towards peace in UA that the current administration can choose from. Do you believe the paths with the highest likelihood of success for reaching a mutual peace agreement involve making one of the sides unhappy, uncomfortable, angry, or by publicly berating them?

It is true that he doesn’t care if people are unhappy or uncomfortable, it’s true he doesn’t care about optics, it is true that he has a set of things he wants to get done, and it’s true the first two points influence his approach to achieving the latter. However the question - the only question that matters - still remains: is this approach the most effective course of action to choose? Maybe it’s not reasonable to assert with complete confidence that it isn’t, but it is certainly unreasonable to assert that it is.

ckbishop• 1 year ago

It feels like Vance is playing the part of Edith Bolling Galt Wilson in protecting Trump from the 25th amendment (then Article II), but he absolutely sucks at it.

jorblumesea3• 1 year ago

whatever you think of Ukraine or Russia, inviting an elected official of a nation under war then spouting off Russian propaganda and berating him in public is shameful. I don't think we've ever seen such non-diplomatic language and grandstanding in the oval office before, in this century at least.

Zelensky was invited to get fox news soundbites of Trump and Vance beating up on him. That's it. a sad state of affairs and a scathing indictment about how uneducated the maga base is around world affairs.

lifeisstillgood• 1 year ago

I got this weird dissonance - like this was a science from a TV show about the White House, because no-one, I mean no-one would ever do that inpublic. Apart from common courtesy, even basic management training says praise in public, criticise in private.

Just doing this in front of the world’s media … it’s hard to understand

pjc5013• 1 year ago

The public bullying is intentional.

dygd2• 1 year ago

Very much so. Trump even said it, "This is good TV". What an embarrassment.

hayst4ck3• 1 year ago

it’s hard to understand

It's not. If you're a remotely rational American right now you are experiencing large amounts of grief.

This is just the denial stage of grief.

Trasmatta4• 1 year ago

I've been going through a huge amount of grief since the election. I thought I had moved onto acceptance, but anger keeps resurfacing.

scoofy4• 1 year ago

Grief is a good way to put it. I know everyone is reinforcing their priors, and mine has been the "Housing Theory of Everything" for the last decade -- and longer than that if you count my mid-2000's (admittedly naive) urban-environmentalism advocacy. It's was a pretty niche area for advocacy until recently... I'm pretty sure I was the first official Strong Towns member in SF.

I'm just blown away that even after the first Trump presidency, and now during the second, that the left still has no serious intention of addressing any of the legitimate grievances that working class has. It's genuinely bananas to see so many people fleeing California for Texas and hearing "good riddance." I'm basically broken at this point, and I feel like fighting for basic, practical and sustainable policies, policies that just make sense, is pointless.

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

https://www.strongtowns.org/about

obelos• 1 year ago

It makes more sense when you interpret it as an attempt at humiliation, not diplomacy.

checker659• 1 year ago

And to fabricate consent, probably

tdb78937• 1 year ago

I'm less convinced this was planned because I've met people like this in real life. Criticizing someone for showing disrespect while being incredibly disrespectful yourself seems like abusive parent 101.

Also, the fact they talk down to him about the war in Ukraine of all things is pretty shocking, like he wouldn't be there if he didn't understand the situation in Ukraine (it's not like he was there being extorted for minerals because he thinks things are going amazingly). It seems weird from a global policy perspective but on brand if you're just an asshole. Either way, truly an embarrassing day to be an American.

adamredwoods• 1 year ago

It's Putin's plan to isolate Ukraine, and what a stroke of luck Trump and Vance are completely on board with Putin's rhetoric. Soon he can affect Ukraine elections and retake it. The war angle didn't work as he wanted.

yibg• 1 year ago

And a performance to the MAGA base. One thing we've learned about Trump is, he'll do and say whatever outlandish thing if it'll gain / keep his votes.

theothermelissa2• 1 year ago

I agree. I'd even go further; I suspect this show was about redefining the term "diplomacy" for the conservative base.

I think it's a step in a larger plan to start moving the Republican foreign policy platform into include a greater emphasis on diplomacy. Since diplomacy's been seen as the "weaker and less effective" path for so long it needs a rebrand in order to sell it to a strength-worshipping constituency.

hd4• 1 year ago

Yeah it's incredible when the mask drops this far.

Trump is a pathetic fuck, but this lines up with how he only ever plays to the domestic audience in advancing protectionist interests. We're feeling that dissonance because this kind of protectionist thinking is extremely rare, basically unheard of these days for world leaders.

jorblumesea3• 1 year ago

You're witnessing the collapse of American soft power, economic power, and our transition to an authoritarian isolationist state. Some of us accept it while others still have to grasp the situation.

The death of the post cold war neoliberal world order and the death of the American century. to be replaced by... ?

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

The thing that I find strange about it is that it's being pursued actively, from the inside, as opposed to it being forced on them by an stringer outside force (ie. China). The US has chosen to retract from it's global power and influence.

Mind-blowing, except, kinda-sorta, for the fact that the effort is helmed by a (short-term thinking) businessman rather than a seasoned politician with familiarity with, or even the ability to consider, long term consequences of actions and decisions and the interplay of other countries and their leaders.

Hikikomori4• 1 year ago

Based on trump's wants around Canada and Greenland it doesn't sound like you'll be very isolationist, more like a bully.

dangjc5• 1 year ago

China will benefit the most from this. Europe has zero interest in backing up the US in a fight for Pacific dominance. Good luck trying to form a trading block that excludes China now.

lyu072822• 1 year ago

I think this is exactly right, but very discordian. It shouldn't happen, it makes no sense. No country in the world has benefited more from the post cold war, neoliberal world order, than the US. It's the very foundation of all of America's wealth and power. It makes zero sense why the imperialist-core would willingly step down from it's bloody iron throne it has worked for 80 years to create for itself. What was the point of it all then? All the wars, all the coups, all the covert-action, all the forced liberalization, the neocolonialism and the establishment of the liberal world order?

If this is genuinely what is happening, this can only be some sort of hostile takeover enabled by the legitimate grievances in the domestic depoliticized populations. Neoliberalism made itself vulnerable to be destroyed from within, it's greed went too far, the inequities to much to be sustainable, the post-political ideology became so extreme that it forgot the old lessons of empire, bread and circuses.

Or as Merkel and Thatcher said, "There is no alternative". Wanna bet?

verisimi• 1 year ago

no-one, I mean no-one would ever do that inpublic

I agree. It seemed to me like Zelensky initiated the public display. Both trump and jd Vance we also commenting on his inappropriate public statements.

Sakos• 1 year ago

"Grab her by the pussy" Trump and "childless cat ladies" JD Vance aren't really people to listen to on what statements are inappropriate.

rich_sasha5• 1 year ago

I thought it looked like an episode of The Apprentice.

userbinator• 1 year ago

I think it's an act. They're putting on a show for Putin.

There's that old saying about best friends and worst enemies...

CraftingLinks• 1 year ago

Trump called Zelensky a dictator in public, did he not? Zelensky, democratically elected, president of a democratic country, invaded by a tyran, a non-democratic and extreme anti-western attitude, was called a dictator. That is hard to understand, until you realise Trump tries to man-handle an extortion deal out of Ukrain...and now because the man doesn't bend over backwards he's disrespectful? That man showed a lot of courage in my book.

kragen10• 1 year ago

Trump said toward the end of it, "This is gonna make great television." Remember he's a reality TV show star, not a diplomat or politician.

anonu• 1 year ago

Which is why Zelensky mishandled the event. He should have just kept his mouth shut in front of the media. Especially since he's not as articulate in English.

poszlem3• 1 year ago

I have never in my entire life seen a better example of the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" phenomenon than the recent US switch from anti- to pro-Russia stance.

wg03• 1 year ago

On a tangent - J.D Vance is lecturing Europe about freedom of speech while AFP is ousted for writing "Gulf of Mexico" as "Gulf of Mexico."

ein0p8• 1 year ago

FYI: you can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on Facebook in Europe and the UK. And the UK doesn't permit backup encryption. As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.

libertine7• 1 year ago

FYI like Nazi stuff, I believe in a lot of European countries doing Nazi salutes to an audience would mean jail time, and rightfully so.

thrance8• 1 year ago

American journalists are already getting silenced when talking up about the government. What EU county are you even talking about? Nowhere is it this bad in Europe.

jacobp100• 1 year ago

You can criticise the government in any way you like

You can't incite violence - and if you do that when there's a riot ongoing, the punishment has resulted in jail time. Anything nazi related is also a no-go

Xeamek8• 1 year ago

Post specific or shut up, because this is just spewing bullshit with some true bits sprinkled on top for the sake of deniability.

philipwhiuk• 1 year ago

You can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on Facebook in the US too.. It's just a slightly different line.

In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.

That's not true.

vsean3• 1 year ago

Try posting death threat about the US president on FB to see if you broke the law or not, and if it can land you in jail?

As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.

I'm going to bet that you've never been to Europe and understand that each country has very different laws. Cherry picking some random issues from several different countries and making it seem like it a policy of the entire of the EU is silly.

SCdF• 1 year ago

And the UK doesn't permit backup encryption

Apple disabled encrypted iCloud instead of giving the UK government a backdoor, or continuing to fight them on the idea in general. People in the UK can absolutely continue to encrypt my backups.

wg03• 1 year ago

Hate speech isn't free speech.

Any free speech isn't necessarily hate speech but any hate speech surely isn't free speech.

There's a huge difference and that restraint is ingrained in these societies based on their past experiences.

TheOtherHobbes2• 1 year ago

The only people being jailed in the UK are violent criminals who use racism as a pretext for violence, and peaceful protestors who threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies.

jillyboel• 1 year ago

Try posting your plans to assassinate the orange idiot on facebook and see what happens

1832• 1 year ago

FYI: you can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on Facebook in Europe and the UK.

What do you mean? What can you currently not say in Europe and the UK without getting put in jail for it?

kubb18• 1 year ago

You can go to jail for criticizing the government in Russia and Belarus... Not in any of the EU countries. It's sad that you believed whoever sold you this lie.

IncreasePosts2• 1 year ago

"freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences". Freedom of expression is about whether the government will use state powers to arrest or silence you. Being uninvited to a gathering is not that.

beart2• 1 year ago

It's not as simple as you state. Courts have, in the past, had something to say about The White House revoking press passes without due process.

The very first hit searching "supreme court decisions white house press passes" yields the following, and I leave it to you to search further if it pleases you.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...

null0pointer• 1 year ago

You are confusing the principle and western liberal value of freedom of speech with the first amendment, which is an implementation of the value.

MrJohz• 1 year ago

This was not a private gathering, though. This was a public conference held by the President of the United States. That is the government choosing who is allowed to speak and who isn't.

I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but there are certain things that are huge red flags for freedom of press and freedom of expression. The government moving against press that is critical of it is dangerous. We should always be wary when that happens.

spiderfarmer4• 1 year ago

It’s exactly that.

dekoruotas• 1 year ago

After this meeting I have no doubts that President Krasnov theory is real.

hayst4ck3• 1 year ago

The American government has been compromised by Russia. It no longer represents American interests, but Russian interests.

Whether the senior powers in America are compromised, complicit, or opportunist, it doesn't matter. America is being damaged. Russian interests are being prioritized over American interests.

Our military is too powerful for direct conflict, so alternative conflict against our political structure and economy is more logical. America is experiencing a decapitation strike, and our military is not defending us from these domestic enemies. https://archive.is/1xkxK (Decapitation Strike -- Timothy Snyder)

nico• 1 year ago

It no longer represents American interests, but Russian interests

And Israeli interests

And that’s across pretty much all branches of governments and administrations, for quite some time now

American people’s needs be damned

rayiner17• 1 year ago

How does it matter to the “needs” of the american people what happens to Ukraine one way or the other?

prof-dr-ir2• 1 year ago

Bibi's interests != Israeli interests

hector1262• 1 year ago

Correct. My understanding is that there's no individual lobby group in America with more influence on foreign policy than AIPAC.

The book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a great read which fairly and methodically outlines how this influence works and what effects it's had on American policy, spanning decades.

theoryofx3• 1 year ago

Your statement doesn't make sense.

Most Americans do support Israel and are very opposed to Putin and Russia.

Check the polls.

Which is why it's suspicious that JD Vance and Trump seem so afraid to upset Putin.

The idea that Russsia could have compromising information on one or both of them is entirely plausible. It's a way politicians have been controlled for literally thousands of years. J. Edgar Hoover controlled every US president for fifty years with this one simple trick.

mcv18• 1 year ago

The US siding unconditionally with Israel is nothing new. The US siding with Russia against democratic allies is absolutely new.

And even then, I don't think any US president ever treated any leader in such a disgraceful manner. Not only heads of state, even the Taliban got a ton more respect (probably too much) than this.

Of course we already knew that Trump liked dictators and tyrants, and disrespects any form of decency, but now that the masks are truly coming off, what's underneath them is a lot more ugly than I could possibly imagine.

akharris2• 1 year ago

The overall tenor of this thread, and this comment in particular, is diving right into deep conspiracy theory territory.

There’s a huge difference between supporting an ally with common interests and being somehow controlled by them.

The idea that Israel - or AIPAC - is somehow in control of the US government is straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

rllearneratwork2• 1 year ago

Israelis will be in for a very bad after backing and helping russia. They forgot too quickly how jews have been treated there.

macinjosh4• 1 year ago

How does footing the bill for a futile war in a country that the US has nothing to do with meet the needs of Americans?

outside23442• 1 year ago

Or whatever interests have compromised or bribed the administration

lostlogin7• 1 year ago

Surely that points towards Russia? What are you suggesting?

Chance-Device6• 1 year ago

Russia seems to own the far right mindspace to a large degree, and I’m sure they’ve spent a large amount of resources for many years shaping those perspectives and narratives to suit themselves.

I also suspect that Russia has been causing the very problems that the far right reacts against, most notably immigration. Remember wirecard? Germany’s fintech darling, which was run by Jan Marsalek, who turned out to be a Russian spy? What was one of the things they were doing? Funding people smuggling into Europe. To strengthen the right that Russia owns.

https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-wirecard-marsalek-spy/32844...

They’ve been directly disrupting the west while controlling those who offer the “solution”.

onlyrealcuzzo5• 1 year ago

Checks out - Russia is the country you end up with when you have the far right's ideology.

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

Trump represents a short term "win" for Russia, but Russia in the medium/long term is as screwed as you can be as a country.

nonameiguess• 1 year ago

Also the Muslim refugees flooding Europe crisis has largely been a result of the Syrian civil war, with Russia being the main and mostly only ally of Bashar al-Assad. Supposedly, motivation there was Putin not wanting to lose his only ally in the region left after Gaddafi was murdered, not so much an intentional effort to destabilize Europe, but hey, it worked out, I guess.

echelon3• 1 year ago

Does anyone have any information on the whole "Krasnov" claim, whereby Trump was supposedly recruited by the KGB in the 80's and given the designation "Krasnov"?

triyambakam2• 1 year ago

I'm skeptical that it is only the Right. Maybe predominantly, or more explicitly, but anyone wanting power and control on either side would want to sell themselves out, too.

agumonkey9• 1 year ago

I'm still dumbfounded how this era gave rise to the emergence of stable long-term bs narratives across all society. Russia leverages gullibility a lot but surely there's other factors at play.

pjc5013• 1 year ago

Remember Maria Butina, Russian spy in the NRA?

coliveira• 1 year ago

No one has made more to increase the number of refugees from the middle east than the country who has fought endless wars in the middle east for the last decades. If you're looking for a "culprit" there you have one, but Europe is not ready to accept this.

slt202112• 1 year ago

most of the European and US refugees are due to American forever wars in support for Israeli "clean break" strategy by Netanyahu.

Please don't try to put the blame on Russia, where it squarely belongs to the USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...

sReinwald2• 1 year ago

I also suspect that Russia has been causing the very problems that the far right reacts against, most notably immigration.

They absolutely are.

A large portion of immigrants into Europe originate from countries suffering from conflicts that Russia has a big hand in. The big one, of course, being Syria, but also many African nations where the Wagner group, now effectively re-branded as the Russian Africa Corps are providing military support and protection.

Another big aspect of Russia facilitating immigration into Europe, is the immigration route through Belarus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93European_Union...

LarsDu88• 1 year ago

I sometimes wonder whether the sudden rise of "gender politics"... is all part of some sort of conrolled oppopsition narrative.

"Gender politics" is used heavily within Russia to provide a contrast to "masculine traditional values" which in turn are used to convince 100,000s of men to (quite ironically) be turned into cannon fodder against Russia's real or perceived enemies. And even more ironically is used by security services and the military in the form of rape against (male) political dissidents and soldiers.

moritz642• 1 year ago

I know about Wirecard and the Marsalek story, but not about this:

Wirecard [...] Funding people smuggling into Europe

Can you elaborate?

Seanambers• 1 year ago

I find it hard to believe that the NSA/CIA don't have the capability to uncover, insert own players and stop this.

alephnerd16• 1 year ago

During Cold War 1.0, a lot of analysts and operatives were 1st and 2nd gen immigrants from Eastern Europe, and had ties and culture experience to help inform policy against the Warsaw Pact.

After the 2000s, the US began increasingly limiting those with ethnic or potential familial ties from working beats related to those countries. A Chinese American wouldn't pass the security clearance muster for the China role, nor a Jewish American for an Israel role.

There were attempts to potentially remediate this during the Biden admin, but it fell to the wayside [0][1]

Some white dude who went to high school in White Plains and college at Tufts just isn't going to have the domain or cultural experience or knowledge needed to really understand China or Iran, and it legitimately has caused a lot of IR Policy to become divorced from reality.

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/state-department-di...

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/18/asian-americans-sta...

UltraSane7• 1 year ago

I'm shocked at how impotent they seem against Russian cultural warfare.

zeroCalories5• 1 year ago

U.S intelligence agencies have never been particularly good at their job. Complaining about the deep state and such is cope from fascist and commies that have continually folded under no pressure.

bg243• 1 year ago

The amount of incompetence, incomprehensible ideology and red-tape slows everything down. NSA and CIA still look powerful because of huge amount of funds that flow in. Other countries happily hack into our infrastructure. You hardly hear NSA doing such accomplishments anymore (last was the Iranian nuclear hack). I doubt if America has any powerful spy network in places in Russia or China. But hey, I am just a dumb citizen.

rcpt5• 1 year ago

Well when the president hands over all the data they've been collecting it makes their job a lot harder

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/politics/missing-rus...

UncleOxidant8• 1 year ago

Which is why they put pro-Putin Gabbard in as DNI. She's been purging.

breadwinner4• 1 year ago

It no longer represents American interests, but Russian interests

Disagree. Trump is in this for himself. If he appears to represent Russian interests that's likely because he has made some kind of deal with Putin that benefits him personally. It has been reported that he has been talking to Putin before he was elected for the second term [1].

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-putin-ta...

bloomingkales5• 1 year ago

Everything he does is related to grift. A Ukraine-American minerals deal will probably have many layers of agencies and private contractors involved. All kinds of side dealings and under the table contracts will be exchanged where the Trump enterprise can skim off everything, like hedge fund fees.

Such a deal has no place in a peace deal where thousands of people have died. Stop the war first.

GolfPopper8• 1 year ago

Donald Trump - whose business "got all the funding we need out of Russia"[1] stood up in front of the press and requested the Russian government target his opponent's email... and the Russian government immediately did so.[2] There has been a great deal of circumstantial evidence since, with little to anything to rebut it. This may very well be a quid pro quo rather than naked pro-Russian partisanship, but the practical difference for the United States is negligible.

1. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-... 2.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-hacked-hillar...

b1128• 1 year ago

There is something going in for sure, but the man knows in his heart that he will be dead soon. Surviving his term at his great age will be impressive.

Old men often don't care about personal help, so look to his kin/family for benefits.

dragonwriter6• 1 year ago

Trump is in this for himself. If he appears to represent Russian interests that's likely because he has made some kind of deal with Putin that benefits him personally.

That's usually how one state usually acheives a compromise of another state’s government, by finding the right weak links and making deals with them (the chief of state and/or head of government, and especially the person holding an office which serves simultaneously as both, is pretty much the ideal case for this, though in practice it is often only people a few steps down.)

So, while that description is true, it supports and explains rather than contradicts the claim that Russia has compromised the US government.

tim33331• 1 year ago

Trump is probably in it for himself and also helping himself by representing Russian interests. He's no doubt had a lot of money and support from Russia and probably wouldn't even have become president without them.

I think he's hoping for some deal where he / the US / the minerals corporation control half of Ukraine and Putin controls the other half and Zelensky and Ukrainian democracy just get in the way of that.

jmyeet4• 1 year ago

    “It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.”
      -- Henry Kissinger

It's too simplistic (and IMHO not accurate) to say the American government has been commpromised by Russia. Go back a few years and you'll see American politicians from all parties saying how great it was that they've crippled the Russian military without a single American soldier being deployed and killed.

It's more accurate to say that foreign policy, which is bipartisan, is to loot the world. Domestic poicy is to divide up the spoils.

The US never took a moral stand for Ukraine. It was always through the lens of American imperial interests. This is no different.

fallinditch• 1 year ago

As I understand it, the evidence that the US government has been compromised by Russia comes from documented instances of Russian interference and influence attempts, including election meddling and disinformation campaigns.

rafram• 1 year ago

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56470/did-henry...

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

It's too simplistic (and IMHO not accurate) to say the American government has been commpromised by Russia

Not the American government. Trump. They compromised the guy on top who established complete control over a party.

Depressingly simple.

e12e• 1 year ago

Another Kissinger quote that sort of fits the current situation:

Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that.

https://thenewamerican.com/us/politics/kissinger-the-illegal...

Dig1t7• 1 year ago

So I know this is not a popular opinion on this site but the only solution being offered by the other side seems to be the meat grinder approach. Basically continue letting both sides throw their men and (and also US taxpayer) money into the conflict until one side gives up or runs out of men.

I am fundamentally anti-war. We can and should compromise on this. There’s a reason the neocons are aligned with the left on it. The military industrial complex is profiting massively, big banks are securing massive land grants to help “rebuild”, and meanwhile both countries are depopulating themselves.

What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?

4ndrewl11• 1 year ago

You mean like the International Brigades? They are defending their country from an aggressor - they're supposed to roll over?

theGnuMe2• 1 year ago

There’s a third solution: Russia could just stop its aggression and leave.

pizlonator• 1 year ago

[flagged]

AnotherGoodName• 1 year ago

We can and should compromise on this.

With an insane 50% mineral rights demand by the USA in particular which should not be on the table in a deal between Ukraine and Russia?

I'm not sure how you can post what you've posted with a straight face.

UltraSane7• 1 year ago

If your country was invaded by your neighbor would you want to fight them or just capitulate?

vultour• 1 year ago

Except there is no reason for a compromise. Russia invaded Ukraine, they're free to withdraw any time they like. I wonder how anti-war you'd be if another country decided half of yours suddenly belonged to them.

collinmcnulty• 1 year ago

You cannot compromise with an aggressor, it encourages them to be more aggressive. Being anti-war to the point of allowing allies to be overrun by totalitarians is just foolishness, and a great way to create more war.

amarcheschi7• 1 year ago

Left - at least the moderate left in italy, I don't know what kind of American left you're talking about - is anti war in an anti _offensive_ war sense, not against a defensive war or against defending another more or less allied country from being invaded by another country

I am not sure of course, but I guess the same would be true of other similar center left parties in europe

terribleperson3• 1 year ago

What compromise do you suggest? So far what trump has been offering is "give us a bunch of stuff and get nothing in return".

Compromise would be a peace deal that actually guarantees Ukraine's future safety (e.g. NATO membership or nuclear weapons) without further compromising their sovereignty (forcing them to give up more territory or recognize Russian territorial claims).

We don't have the ability to compel Ukraine to take a bad deal, and if we did it would be wrong to.

JohnFen6• 1 year ago

What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?

I am extremely anti-war, but capitulating to Russia and rewarding them for invading a neighbor would guarantee more war and killing, not less.

WD-422• 1 year ago

I think traditionally anti war meant being opposed to aggression, for example the United States invasion of Iraq to maintain oil interests.

Ukraine is a western country invaded by an enemy of the west. You can still be anti violence but it’s a different situation.

GeoAtreides2• 1 year ago

How can you compromise with an invader looking to occupy your country?

tbatchelli• 1 year ago

My understanding is that Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for an agreement Wirth Russia to not be invaded? If that is the case and Russia invaded anyway, then what kind of compromise can you have with a country that breaks any agreement they sign?

I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options left on the table.

hnuser9125• 1 year ago

Why is compromising the anti war stance? Ukraine is not Putin’s end goal, it’s his first step

BigParm• 1 year ago

If Russian soldiers leave then the war ends immediately.

sfifs2• 1 year ago

I don't think you should be down voted for opinions.

The question is how to organize incentives to make anti-war ideal a reality.

As the last 70 odd years have demonstrated, Economic development as a carrot alone seems to have not worked. The stick of MAD unfortunately seems to required.

JohnBooty8• 1 year ago

If Russia was allowed to annex Ukraine with no military resistance... would this not certainly encourage more invasions/annexations in the future between various countries? Would this not result in more violence in the long run?

zeroCalories5• 1 year ago

No one wants peace, they want justice. But putting aside all that nonsense, this is a relatively cheap way to fuck with Russia, one of our main geopolitical adversaries. If Ukraine is willing to jump into the meat grinder, let's give Russia the push it needs to join them. Don't give up a winning position for no reason.

david4222• 1 year ago

Russia is not acting in good faith, so a compromise doesn't help. If both parties had legitimate grievances and acted in good faith, they could come to a peaceful lasting compromise. But instead, one nation aggressively invaded another with constantly shifting narratives for the reason why.

mcv18• 1 year ago

What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?

The left is still anti-war. But most people on the left have paid enough attention to Putin to know that surrendering to him is not going to bring peace.

This war didn't just start in 2022; Putin invaded Ukraine twice in 2014. He invaded Georgia in 2008. And very early on in his career, he completely demolished Chechnya. He's not a peace guy. And all those wars by Putin were rewarded, and so he continues. Now finally, people understand that giving Putin everything he wants is just going to make him want more and attack more.

In Russia, they're already talking about Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania and even Poland. The only way this will end is by stopping Putin.

The left didn't compromise with Hitler either. Surrendering to Hitler didn't bring anyone peace. Peace came only after defeating Hitler. And unfortunately, it's exactly the same with Putin. Except nobody is going to march on Moscow, because Putin has nukes. So the only way to stop him becomes letting him exhaust his country until it collapses. That sounds terrible, but Ukraine is actually willing and eager to be the anvil on which Russia destroys itself. All we need to do is continue to support Ukraine with everything they need and more.

I know it's terrible. You can blame Putin for that. But this may be the only way to put an end to Putin's bottomless aggression.

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

Those of us truly anti-war realize that allowing Ukraine to be punished/Ukrainians to be kidnapped for giving up their nuclear weapons will only lead to future wars and future nuclear proliferation, not less war..

Glyptodon7• 1 year ago

Unfortunately, if we do not want to have a direct conflict with Russia, the next best thing is giving Ukraine massive amounts of weapons, arms, etc., and enabling them to retake their country.

Any alternative that allows Russian gains will only further cement the idea that wars of aggression can be worthwhile in the modern world, and this is the most horrendous conclusion possible for anyone actually anti-war.

y0ssar1an4• 1 year ago

As if the Ukrainians had a choice about fighting. If Russia gives up, the war ends. If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ends.

ifyoubuildit• 1 year ago

It's nice to see a speck of sanity in this thread.

Oh but didn't you know that all that aid money is actually going to America(n weapons manufacturers, who will then lobby us into the next forever war after this one).

If you were wondering how american politicians managed to piss away trillions of dollars in the middle east instead of fixing healthcare or education, building trains, doing anything the least bit useful, this is how. You gin the people up into believing that there's a bad guy somewhere and its our job to make things right, and you're off to the races.

Works every time.

danny_taco• 1 year ago

Ok. Let's pretend this is what is done. Russia gets to keep all the land it took from Ukraine, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

Who's going to stop Russia from re-arming and building up its army only to launch another attack in 2-3 years? Who's going to prevent them from destabilizing Ukraine until it falls?

Russia won't stop until it has destroyed Ukraine, that much is certain. Russia only understands strength, and they won't stop until stopped by force.

But hey, peace is more important right? Maybe they should just take Ukraine, capture, torture, rape and murder all the people they deem as undesirables and convert it to another Russian oblast as it was once before. Then there will be peace.

I would imagine you would also lay down at your own home if someone breaks in and tries to rape and murder your family just for the sake of peace?

jemmyw4• 1 year ago

Ukraine offered an alternative approach. They are willing to compromise on territory - i.e. stop fighting over it, not give up the claim to it. What they want, and they've said it again and again, is a security guarantee for the future to prevent Russia invading again. Either membership of NATO or a specific treaty. This is their one goal beyond coming under the control of Russia during this specific war, not having to worry about being invaded again. If they don't get it then they're likely to start developing a nuclear deterrent (they've already indicated this and they probably have the capability).

anigbrowl20• 1 year ago

I mean Russia could leave, pull their troops back in Russia. It's not like the Ukrainians invaded Russia, or have annexed any Russian territory that they want to keep. The Russians were not in fact forced to invade.

Jare3• 1 year ago

The (moderate) left was anti-oppression and anti-dictatorship. Sometimes you need to fight for that, but the goal remains a stable, egalitarian and peaceful society.

If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.

adhamsalama• 1 year ago

I think you mean by Israel.

neoromantique3• 1 year ago

Russia is Israels adversary, despite the appearances.

danans5• 1 year ago

Seems like they were banking on the Ukrainian president bending the knee, and that didn't happen. The greatest damage done to the US by that meeting might be the public display of POTUS's histrionic decompensation, requiring the VP to jump to his defense. It's a bad look overall, regardless of the eventual outcome for Ukraine or the US.

lotsofpulp• 1 year ago

The US wouldn’t have put Trump back in power if it cared about “overall looks”.

Muromec8• 1 year ago

They wanted an excuse to drop support and they got it. They don't drop support because they are playing for team russia, they are peaceniks and it's Zelenskyy who rejected the shit deal. If they wanted to have those rare metals or whatever they would have just bought it and made a good faith effort to negotiate something instead of this.

modriano3• 1 year ago

Nah, Trump was never going to offer Ukraine the security guarantee needed to end this conflict. Trump is just extending this "give us $500B in mineral rights in exchange for nothing" deal to manufacture an excuse to cease all aid to Ukraine and exonerate his administration from the holocaust that Putin will execute against Ukrainians after Trump gives Putin all of the intel the US military has accumulated aiding Ukraine to this point.

alkyon• 1 year ago

Paid traitors are repaying their debts, hopefully they'll get what they deserve.

boudin• 1 year ago

Destroying USAid weakend US' soft power abroad. NATO's members turning against each others in a non-sense economic war.

Weakening all federal agencies meant to bring stability in society. Trump spreading bluntly the propaganda from the Kremlin.

Putin couldn't have written a better scenario to get rid of his main opposition.

It's quite clear that Trump is just a puppet, but there's nothing new here. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers...

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

If Trump was taking direct orders from Putin, what would he be doing differently?

dionian• 1 year ago

Congress can easily fund USAID if they have the votes.

Animats7• 1 year ago

That seemed plausible at one time. But what could Russia have on Trump at this point that would be more than mildly embarrassing? Certainly nothing sexual. Trump had an affair with a stripper while his wife was pregnant, and that didn't bother his base. It now comes out that Trump flew on Epstein's "Lollypop Express", and nobody cares. No leverage there.

On the financial conflict of interest side, Trump and his base treat that as a non-problem.

Somebody shot at Trump and hit his ear, and that didn't change Trump's behavior.

What could Putin do to apply pressure to Trump personally?

zimpenfish2• 1 year ago

But what could Russia have on Trump at this point that would be more than mildly embarrassing?

Perhaps it's more a case of "what did Russia offer Trump?" and the answer probably starts at "work to get you into power to let you loot the coffers".

rcpt5• 1 year ago

Maybe it has something to do with those mishandled classified documents about Russian interference in US elections that turned up at Mar a Lago in 2021.

__MatrixMan__2• 1 year ago

If I wanted to control Trump I'd silence key members of his domestic opposition, let him get drunk on power, and then threaten to stop doing so. His ego, now inflated, probably can't handle a return trip to the real world.

exceptione• 1 year ago

Trump is a distraction.

If all people here would study Trump, then nobody would have hired him for any job. He fails, and he does that spectacularly. His businesses have floundered time after time, and his ass has been saved many a times (with Russian money too, yeah, years back). Trump's image is completely fake, he is not a great deal maker. He is born rich, at best a con man. But he is valuable.

That begs the question:

  *a) what powers do select the likes of Trump, Greene, Kennedy?* 
  *b) For what?*

I have no horse in this race, but anybody with a clear mind can see those people are mentally impaired.

Re a. There is a small but powerful contingent in the USA elites that do NOT believe in democracy. The movements behind MAGA are part driven by extreme white-nationalist christians, notable Dominions, part driven by old-Nazi elites from the Interbellum and part driven by extreme crypto-/tech-dystopia crazies, that have access to enormous amounts of wealth, intelligence about people (Big tech) and "social" media. America falling into the hands of radical but powerful elites with extreme beliefs and tools was just a matter of time. Articles shared here on Hacker News have been flagged over the years.

Re b. Trump, Kennedy, Greene etc are able to suck up tons of media attention. They will generate a crisis every hour without needing instructions. They are not too smart and powerful, so they will have a room in which they can operate, but they will not be able to control the tools like media themselves. But what they will do is making sure the people will get distracted by the drama of these people, whereas people should be concerned with what is happening with the democratic state. Te state is being replaced according to Plan 2025, from which you have not seen everything.

Do not focus too much on Trump and Elon. They are there pursuing their own interests, they are tolerated for now, but they will be pushed from the board once their work is finished.

America siding with Putin is just a tip of the ice berg of what is to come for America and the world.

imgabe3• 1 year ago

No, it is for once representing American interests. Not Ukrainian interests. Not Lockheed Martin’s interest.

Americans don’t want to be embroiled in endless wars.

What is your alternative? Keep sending billions to Ukraine? Send American soldiers to die? What is it you would like to happen? Are you going to die for Ukraine? Are you going to send your kids to die there?

kelnos9• 1 year ago

Keep sending billions to Ukraine?

Yes, absolutely. Ukraine falling to Russia represents a huge threat to the security of Europe. After Ukraine, Putin would likely take Belarus, possibly invade Poland or Finland. A weak Europe, one that is dominated by Russia, would be disastrous to the US, both abroad and at home. It is sad to me that so many Trump supporters are too short-sighted to see this.

What we've spent (and could spend going forward) in Ukraine is a teeny tiny price to pay to help ensure this doesn't come to pass.

America isn't about freedom anymore, it seems. It's about cozying up to dictators and appeasing them. I was disappointed in my fellow citizens after the 2016 election, but I could kinda understand what was going on. Now I'm just disgusted.

Send American soldiers to die?

No, of course not, and this is such a bad-faith argument, as no one is seriously suggesting that.

duxup13• 1 year ago

Americans don’t want to be embroiled in endless wars.

We don't want our troops / people embroiled in them, so fighting for freedom by funding others is a good way to do that.

Waiting until it comes to your doorstep by nations who have made no qualms that they aren't friendly is a bad choice.

jiggawatts9• 1 year ago

You’re being downvoted, but sadly your opinion is representative of a huge percentage of the population. The part that has a… simple, transactional view of each and every international incident.

That’s the most polite way I could express that.

The more nuanced view is this:

America made a deal with Ukraine: Give up your nuclear weapons in exchange for our protection.

They made similar deals with Taiwan, South Korea, and others. Sometimes with signatures on paper, sometimes with threats of “don’t even think about it”.

Now they are “all thinking about it”. All of them: the countries with small populations, small armies, inconveniently located next to a larger bully like Russia or China.

Here in Australia, the right wing government is prepping us to build nuclear weapons. We’re acquiring nuclear-powered submarines that can launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles and the only thing they’re proposing in the next election is building dozens of nuclear power plants… that they admit will only fulfill maybe 4% of our energy needs… but 100% of our weapons-grade plutonium breeding needs.

South Korea and Japan already have the nuclear plants.

What do you think they’re planning, now that they all see how worthless American promises are?

Especially since yesterday’s(!) events, when Trump was asked about AUKUS, the most important and closest military alliance the US is a part of and he had no idea what it was!

This is why even close allies are tooling up for imminent global nuclear conflict.

Because America elected a president that famously violates the terms of every contract he’s ever signed.

Twice. To make sure everyone got the message.

Panoramix3• 1 year ago

You don't seem to understand. All Ukraine wants is a security promise. They could surrender to Putin at any time without giving up to the US all of their resources for generations.

They need some help to say, if I sign peace now, what's gonna stop Putin from invading again in 2-3 years with a bigger army? Currently, nothing - so there's no point in surrendering.

For background, the US promised to defend Ukraine against any invasion when Ukraine was pushed to get rid of its nukes. Turns out it's not willing to even send American made military equipment.

naravara• 1 year ago

They turned a country that is orders of magnitude more powerful and prosperous into a client state mostly through tweets and facebook slop.

It’s incredible, they’ll be studying it for decades.

soerxpso6• 1 year ago

In what way is it in my interest to give hundreds of billions of my nation's money toward fighting an unwinnable conflict on the other side of the world over which corrupt sex trafficking organization will control a small plot of land? The Cold War propaganda derangement that still exists in the minds of certain people is insane.

bongodongobob3• 1 year ago

Because you want the world to trust that the US won't turn their backs on agreements especially when it involves a country giving up their nukes. Which would have helped protect them.

jonathanstrange11• 1 year ago

The USSR never acted even half as hostile as Russia is acting towards the whole world, including the US and UK right now. Maybe you're not aware of that but Russian state TV routinely discusses the nuclear annihilation of the UK and the US, not just that of Europe. Current rhetoric from the Kremlin is way more hostile than it ever was during Cold War.

You better put a stop to that by showing strength. Unless you want ignore history, that is.

bartekpacia• 1 year ago

You don't understand anything.

_fs• 1 year ago

give hundreds of billions of my nation's money

30% of the US aid goes to ukraine for immediate local purposes, think humanitarian and and economic relief, the other 70% goes to us defense manufacturers, directly supporting american companies who then send their stock of weapons to ukraine. This 70% that goes directly to US companies is counted in the total aid provided

sjsdaiuasgdia11• 1 year ago

If you don't stand up to bullies like Putin, they continue to act as bullies.

You cannot appease a bully. They will take what you gave them and then return to bullying you.

krelian2• 1 year ago

Exhibit A for level one thinking.

titzer3• 1 year ago

"In what way is it in my interest to give millions of my nation's money away to this filthy and corrupt justice system in an unwinnable fight against crime? I mean whether some mostly harmless serial killer offs two or three more people in southern Nebraska is none of my business--I can't possibly see how anything of this is connected or how it could ever affect me."

Panoramix3• 1 year ago

Besides all the good responses you already got demolishing this point of view, there's the direct benefit of testing all sorts of military equipment and strategies in an actual armed conflict. Even if you somehow ignore the massive human losses and the morality of the war with Russia invading a peaceful ally, the telemetry the US obtains is insane and well worth the money invested.

TheAlchemist9• 1 year ago

It sure looks like it.

Let's ask the question - if Russia was able to compromise the US president, what action would he take ?

I don't have answers very different from about what's going on right now.

__MatrixMan__2• 1 year ago

That's what I keep coming back to. If I were trying to harm American interests, what would I do differently?

Nothing.

mountainmonk3• 1 year ago

Honestly I'm glad, for a bit there it seemed like there were some idiots that thought they could win in a direct conflict against Russia and China including going nuclear. Trump was the wost possible candidate in every aspect I can think of except one, he will put his self interest above everything else and is very flexible without any ideological beliefs that supercede his self interest.

worldsayshi2• 1 year ago

What is worse, risking nuclear annihilation or risking the end of democracy as a concept and fully inviting authoritarianism?

y0ssar1an4• 1 year ago

Appeasing nuclear bullies gets you more nuclear bullying, not less.

Because of Trump's betrayal of Ukraine, the whole world knows that US security guarantees don't mean anything. These security guarantees have prevented the spread of nuclear weapons. The US has treaties with dozens of countries promising a US nuclear response if the country is nuked. Therefore, those countries have not had to develop nuclear weapons.

They do now. Their trust has been completely shattered. I guarantee you that formerly non-nuclear countries like South Korea, Japan, and half of Europe are now full speed ahead on secret nuclear weapons programs. Trump has destroyed the US-led world order and we're now on a much scarier timeline. Nuclear war is more likely, not less.

worldsayshi2• 1 year ago

A somewhat adjacent interpretation is that he doesn't care about democracy. And so why would he care if Ukraine got invaded. He wants to be a king or emperor or whatever. If Putin takes Ukraine the idea of kings being back gets more normalized.

sigmarule6• 1 year ago

I'm always cautious about saying something like this for fear of sounding hyperbolic. But good lord, watching this video right after reading about the administration's change in stance on Russian cyber threats [1] really chips away at any remaining room for ambiguity.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia...

PathOfEclipse2• 1 year ago

You should continue to be cautious, as the Guardian article is pretty weak. It's first point is that Russia wasn't mentioned in a talk about cyber threats, which means very little by itself. It's second and final point comes from an "anonymous source". I'll believe it when the source becomes de-anonymized. Too many deep state "anonymous tips" have turned out to be lies. It should be noted that CISA has a history of strong leftwing activism:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-cybersecurity-defense-age...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-colluded...

Trump is not far right and never has been. He's actually moderate on most issues. The current far right position is the Tucker Carlson "isolation at all costs" and "Putin maybe isn't a bad guy" garbage. Trump holds neither of those views.

submeta2• 1 year ago

Actually it has been compromised by Israel, by AIPAC, acting against American interests, creating negative sentiments against Americans across the Middle East and even globally just to support a messianic far right government in Israel.

casperc• 1 year ago

I might also mention elections being compromised. It is another clear target for Russia with an extremely high payoff. Feel certain they have not managed to hack the election?

macinjosh4• 1 year ago

This concept is so disingenuous. The earth is is big enough for Russian, China, and the US to coexist in peace. My country's spending should be spent in my country. Not liberating a land that has nothing to do with us.

tootie4• 1 year ago

That's incredibly sanguine. Russia has been annexing territory and this was a gambit to take a huge chunk by force. If they had rolled over Ukraine in weeks as many predicted they'd have pointed their guns at Belarus and Georgia and all the former satellites. Acquiescing is what we did to Hitler when he wanted the Sudetenland and he was not appeased by it.

I'd also cite John Donne and say "no man is an island". Our "country" exists as an arbitrary artifact of history. If you are capable of caring about people you don't know then it shouldn't matter if they're from another state or another country.

anigbrowl20• 1 year ago

A plane can take you or your cargo to the other side of the world in a day, missiles can go much faster than that, and communications are instantaneous. The world is still a big place but it's naive to ignore the facts of technological interconnectedness.

munchler2• 1 year ago

I don’t think Trump has the sophistication to be a Russian agent. The sad truth is just that he’s wannabe dictator who admires Putin as a role model. Russia is as surprised at their luck as anyone else.

llamaimperative8• 1 year ago

"Russian agent" != trusted collaborator. It means they can use you. He's perfectly predictable/controllable using just flattery and greed, which petro terrorist states like Russia can utilize quite generously.

luxuryballs6• 1 year ago

Trump is an open book, he says he wants the killing to stop and to save money, but saving lives is more important. Many people also believe this, and that failed negotiations and bad relations between NATO and Russia lead to this.

It’s not pro-Russian to want a conflict to end, it’s terrible to think that not wanting people to continue to die is considered bad if it happens to include people of a specific nation who have little control over their leadership currently.

anigbrowl20• 1 year ago

It's useful to remember the distinction between an agent and an asset, which isn't under direct control but can be highly profitable to exploit.

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

That would explain some of his decisions, but why is he 100% pro Russia across the board?

rowanseymour• 1 year ago

Your government is certainly compromised but is it Russia? A lobby group for a certain settler colony in the Middle East spent money on 80% of the seats up for election last year, and boasts of its ability to interfere with US elections. Jeffrey Epstein was linked with the intelligence services of that colony and who knows what he had on Trump and other top US politicians.

yieldcrv2• 1 year ago

All Putin has to do is not try to recreate the soviet union and the spice will flow

Obviously he has a history of doing these prideful things just to remind people he has chips to play.

But if he literally just didnt, there is upside for unprecedented economic development

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

He's obsessed with the idea that Russia is vulnerable to invasion via Ukraine and eastern Europe, which is why imperial conquest of those areas is a non-negotiable. The question he can't answer is why the hell anyone would want to invade Russia in 2025 the way Napoleon or the Nazis did.

They have nothing of value.

UncleOxidant8• 1 year ago

As an American I've never been more ashamed of the leadership of my country. And really just ashamed of my country. Ashamed to be an American at this point in history.

Zelensky has shown more bravery than Trump or Vance are even capable of and they decided to ambush and lecture him like that. Absolutely disgusting.

marcusverus4• 1 year ago

You're more embarrassed by Trump tactlessly trying to end the war in Ukraine than you are about anything in living memory? Is this a serious comment?

crystal_revenge7• 1 year ago

Honestly I think this is a bad take and I'm not exactly what one would call a "supporter" of the current administration.

Americans get too wrapped up in the propaganda around Ukraine to even start to understand it. If your understanding of what's going on starts in 2022 and not, at least, back to 2014, then you're not really understanding what's going on.

The conflict in Ukraine has, since the 2010s, has been about fossil fuels and other mineral rights. Around that time oil and natural gas sources were found in all the regions currently being fought over.

Ukraine, sadly, will always just be a pawn for the other major players. What we're seeing here is not "Russian interests being prioritized over American interests". This war has never been about what's good for the American people nor the Ukrainian people, but the companies that stand to benefit from extraction rights (Democrats as well as Republicans get their directions from billionaires, despite the song and dance to convince you otherwise).

The prior administration had fairly strong support from and for European parties that wanted to partake of these resources. The change is really away from support for Europe in favor of two things: better relations with Russia, and more importantly, ending this thing. The "ending this thing" is not because of desires for peace, but because as long as there are bombs being dropped in this region nobody can extract anything from anywhere.

People upset about this situation are living in a world that doesn't exist anymore. We're in the end game of industrial civilization and the rules have changed. The future is no longer infinitely bright and very soon the global economy will start to contract. Additionally we'll be seeing climate catastrophe ramp up dramatically in coming years. As the Arctic melts, Canada and Russia will effectively share a border (making Trump's other "crazy" idea, less "crazy"). Europe, once our obvious ally, will have increasingly less to offer the US in the coming decades.

Europe, largely lacking in fossil resources, is going to increasingly find itself a minor player in global politics. The realpolitik of today is major oil producing nations realizing that conflict with each other will, at this phase of the game, do more harm then forming alliances.

dboreham9• 1 year ago

At least we know there's no deep state.

luxuryballs6• 1 year ago

The American government has been compromised by Russia. It no longer represents American interests, but Russian interests.

What kind of conspiracy theory is this? It makes no sense, at least have believable ones if you’re going to promote them.

marcusverus4• 1 year ago

Blueanon is so hot right now.

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

If Trump was taking direct orders from Putin, what would he be doing differently?

Just the fact that something is fantastical and hard to believe on the surface does not make it untrue.

bedhead• 1 year ago

This is so stupid.

colordrops• 1 year ago

Lots of words spilled in this thread about how the American government is now all of a sudden compromised but almost nothing as the US subserviently sent billions in weapons and aid to Israel to commit genocide for more than a year now. Most Americans are extreme hypocrites with blinders on. This country has been compromised by Israel for far longer, and in a much worse way.

fny• 1 year ago

What happened was incredibly bad diplomacy, but this take is frankly hysterical.

The Trump administration believes cozying up to Russia will draw them away from China. The Trump administration also believes relieving sanctions will cause commodity prices to drop.

And they are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus for those privileges along with some minerals.

This is undeniably good for the American economy, but at a moral price.

throwawayforare• 1 year ago

I'm seriously considering leaving the U.S. I can't justify paying taxes to a government that leaves me feeling disheartened. The EU should have visa programs for skilled professionals looking to leave the U.S.

SteveNuts• 1 year ago

Frustrating that the US will still apply income tax even if you're working abroad (I want to say over $130k/yr, but that could be wrong)

jemmyw4• 1 year ago

The following EU countries offer skilled worker visas: Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Portugal, Denmark. Also non-EU places such as Aus and NZ.

FirmwareBurner5• 1 year ago

The EU should have visa programs for skilled professionals looking to leave the U.S.

We don't have a skilled worker shortage in EU right now, we have a skilled jobs shortage. All white collar skilled job ads are flooded with local applicants, we don't need more immigrants to water down wages and push up rents. My (f500 company) company just laid off 70 SW & HW engineers at one office while I've been part of the layoffs before.

The real shortages are in healthcare, and tough jobs people don't like to do for little money, like construction or elderly care, but there's enough Europeans willing to work cushy office jobs there's no need to import foreign competition other than to appease the corporate pushed propaganda.

horns4lyfe5• 1 year ago

I’m sure you can find a country willing to send part of your paycheck to fight a war on the other side of the globe, go for it

thuridas2• 1 year ago

I am starting to believe the theory that Trump was a Russian agent

yaksha6• 1 year ago

How is it not in American interest to stop wasting money on a proxy war? Yes, Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, but they did and they have basically won.

If news reports are at all accurate, our military isn't as great as we think (our of resources to send to Ukraine, poor ability to resupply quickly) it is and the theater of war has changed to be more drone focused than ever before.

Why have there been next to no peace talks since the beginning of the war? How much more money will we spend on another quagmire of intervention? There are plenty of issues here at home that need more attention and money than this proxy war. Like our unsustainable debt.

elcritch• 1 year ago

America is experiencing a decapitation strike, and our military is not defending us from these domestic enemies.

There we go, democracy is fine until it goes against the "liberal" zeitgeist. It's not really liberalism just like "far right" now seems to be regularly slapped onto viewpoints which were considered normal or even centrist a decade or two ago. It dilutes any chance of actual conversation between right and left.

Though yes the US military, rather state department, does openly fund political manipulation abroad via USAID. It's not humanitarian aid, or rather, the humanitarian aid is a side effect at best, as even liberal publications recognize [2, 3]. However like the OP here, there's increasing trends toward using USAID programs to "protect" America from stupid Americans who begin to "wrong-think" about things. The UK has a similar problem where public funding is used to influence politics where it's easy to see the absurdity [1].

I'm sorry but a few bots on X don't compromise Americans and make them some sort of far right extremists any more than me reading Lord of the Rings or 1984 does. We do need to protect ourselves from actual sabotage, bribery, etc but not use it as an excuse for blanket manipulation.

Yeah, that should be an absolute no on even considering it. The US military and state department apparatus does not have a role in deciding what Americans should believe.

1: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/right-w... 2: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/usaid-trump-musk-... 3: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/foreign-aid-is-unpopular

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

Though yes the US military, rather state department, does openly fund political manipulation abroad via USAID. It's not humanitarian aid, or rather, the humanitarian aid is a side effect at best.

You betray how much you hate democracy when you refer to efforts to strengthen the ability to conduct free and fair elections at home and aboard as "liberal activism".

develop72• 1 year ago

Sure, but what are you going to do about that? (edit: formatting)

jameslk4• 1 year ago

The former reality tv star is good at reality tv. What’s usually kept behind closed doors is now out in open, because it makes for great viewership. People gobble this up, which has given the reality tv star endless attention

Hacker News has fallen victim to the reality tv star’s antics

a_ba2• 1 year ago

HN didn't fall victim to the reality tv star's antics. The audience he's trying to impress has fallen victim to the believe that the antics of a reality tv star make for a good president.

jameslk4• 1 year ago

Hacker News has most definitely fallen victim to the antics, given how many times said antics have popped up on HN recently and have been flagged. I'm flagging these posts and I will keep flagging them too

e.g.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43198759

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121467

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110333

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43033493

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43033275

bongodongobob3• 1 year ago

This isn't just trolling or good TV. It's doing severe and permanent damage to US foreign policy.

jameslk4• 1 year ago

Both can be simultaneously true

surfpel2• 1 year ago

Are you talking about Trump or Zelensky here?

jameslk4• 1 year ago

Haha, every politician is learning that they win by manipulating the press and algorithms these days. Is there an option C for both?

arp2425• 1 year ago

So what are you saying? We should just ignore what the president of the country does? Even when he is spreading vindictive malicious lies? Or advocating for policies that are in direct opposition to the values of the country (and in some cases, also the law and/or constitution)?

Trump is not given special treatment here. What he does gets reported just as any other President: Biden, Bush, Clinton, etc. In the 80s Reagan's leaked "we will begin bombing in five minutes" soundcheck joke attracted quite a bit of criticism "because the president should be more careful with his words".

racktash3• 1 year ago

Trump pardoned the January 6th rioters for the benefit of a certain segment of his supporter base. I have a feeling his childish humiliation of Zelensky is more of the same.

It's no coincidence he dropped a "World War 3" reference, a common talking point of a certain segment of the online populist right (to be clear, this isn't to say some fear about such a scenario is unjustified; only to point out that it is cynically used to steer the discussion about the Ukrainian in a certain direction).

Shame on everyone who continues to be an apologist for this administration. People can make mistakes – I've supported my fair share of dodgy people in the past – but anyone who doesn't see things clearly at this point isn't looking.

atemerev• 1 year ago

The "certain segment of his supporter base" is now completely managed by Russians in their information / cognitive domain.

picafrost• 1 year ago

I find it utterly bizarre that some Americans seem to be under the delusion that the US ceasing its military support for Ukraine will somehow save lives. It is the same kind of delusion that causes President Trump to list off the US presidents under which Putin has disregarded its negotiated deals with, but obviously that would never happen under his watch.

I suspect that this exchange will become an infamous moment in history. Utterly shameful.

nverno• 1 year ago

If the US stops support would the war end? I don't really think so, but maybe. If it did, though, I would guess lives would be saved. That doesn't seem like a delusion.

guax11• 1 year ago

How? If all support for Ukraine crumbles and russia just plows ahead, do you think the ukranian population would be safer?

The only "less lives" approach would be if russia retreats in an agreement to keep the previous separatist regions they annexed while accepting some sort of buffer inside Ukraine from them on, which Zelensky would agree in the form of bases or nato membership. Which Russia will never go for.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I mean a deal where the fighting stops could save lives.

labrador• 1 year ago

I try to look at actions and not words. Trump/Musk have not shut off Starlink yet, but maybe this manufactured confrontation is a prelude to that? It also seems to me that Europe could adequately support Ukraine in defending itself, so maybe it matters less what America thinks and more what Europe thinks.

inemesitaffia• 1 year ago

There's people who want all SpaceX contracts terminated.

Guess what this does?https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_HC101324F0143_970...

jbverschoor• 1 year ago

We'll see in what way Putin will respect Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if they both want nothing to do with the US anymore.

adamnemecek• 1 year ago

Please donate drones to Ukraine https://www.dronesforukraine.fund/

at0mic222• 1 year ago

Great idea!

Though we learned the hard way what "dontate to ukraine" means

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/estonia-biggest-charity-helping-u...

thrance8• 1 year ago

Shame on republicans who voted for Trump. Why are none of you confronting him when he claims insane shit like "Ukraine started the war"? Have you gone full doublethink? Or are you actually just fine with allying with fascist Putin against Ukraine and Europe?

gs173• 1 year ago

Why are none of you confronting him when he claims insane shit like "Ukraine started the war"?

Unfortunately, many of them have eaten enough propaganda that they agree. I have an uncle who genuinely believes that, even if he can't fully explain how it could make sense.

matthest3• 1 year ago

I don't agree with the execution, but here's what I think this is what Trump is really trying to do:

Right now, it's basically the US vs Russia and China.

But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.

In order for this to happen though, the EU must build their own military.

The EU could and should be a superpower, but they're not. Instead they're living off the US military.

The US has been gently trying to get EU to boost its own spending. This goes as far back as Obama, and maybe even further back.

The difference is that Obama was somewhat passive aggressive with his approach. Whereas Trump is tearing off the band aid.

The public belligerence and positioning against the EU is an effort to kick them out of the parents' basement and get their act together.

Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I have 0 clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.

tootie4• 1 year ago

Handy rule of thumb: Nobody plays 4d chess. Especially with Trump, what you see is what you get. He does not have a complex ulterior motive. He is capitulating to Russia because he thinks it will be better for himself personally.

Jtsummers9• 1 year ago

But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.

This makes no sense when put up against reality. The US is alienating the EU, throwing Ukraine under the bus, alienating NATO (major military alliance) and Five Eyes (major intelligence alliance) just so they can bring Russia in to the fold with the US and EU? How, the US won't be partnered with the EU at this rate.

matthest3• 1 year ago

The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU would still be more likely to ally with the US then China.

The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

In the EU, right-wing parties continue to grow. AfD, National Front, and others have all recently scored their highest levels of support. It is not impossible to imagine that they will eventually cross the threshold to actually governing, and at that point, the EU and Trump will be much more aligned.

That's what Trump is betting on, and I'm not sure he will lose (as much as I would like him to lose).

walls• 1 year ago

Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I have 0 clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.

I'm sure if you keep fantasizing you'll be able to make up an excuse for that, too.

surgical_fire5• 1 year ago

But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.

And his plan to achieve that is by pissing off EU? If anything Trump has done a great job to make EU look at China more favorably.

matthest3• 1 year ago

Copy/pasting from below:

The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU would still be more likely to ally with the US than China.

The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.

pjc5013• 1 year ago

Poisoning the relationship with the EU is not going to achieve this. Oh, and I'd put money on a rapprochement with China of some sort happening.

temporallobe2• 1 year ago

I am an independent and Trump supporter. I generally like his shows of strength, but I didn’t like the confrontational nature of this exchange. It lacked diplomacy and respect. Trump yelling things like “you’re gambling with World War 3” was inappropriate and aggressive, especially considering he was a guest. This caused an unprecedented tension between wrokd leaders on live TV and in my opinion has the potential to spiral out of control.

To quote Dean Acheson from Thirteen Days, “Hopefully cooler heads will prevail before we reach the next step.”

pcj-github5• 1 year ago

I just honestly cannot fathom how you voted for this person and somehow surprised by this. Were you just not paying attention since 2016?

JumpinJack_Cash2• 1 year ago

> I generally like his shows of strength

The US has the nuclear trident, the Ohio ICBMs nuclear submarines, the Gerald Ford Class Carriers, the thousands of Minutemen delivering warheads in 20 minutes or less, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Air Force in the World...

All of that, not to mention the soft power precisely in order to avoid having to pull this sort of BS in the oval office

The US strenght is the system , not the dude in the expensive house on Penn Avenue with the nice plane. He very rarely adds something but can absolutely throw lots of the systemic effort down the sink

NickC253• 1 year ago

Donald Trump doesn't show stregnth, if anything, he's cosplaying as an effeminate she-male with the lifts, the makeup, and the wig.

Donald Trump is not a strong man. He is a weak baby with no self-control and very little knowledge about anything useful.

He also sucks at golf.

mhh__2• 1 year ago

Today was probably the end of the post- cold-war liberal consensus.

GolfPopper8• 1 year ago

Yeah. I keep thinking that this is going to be analogous to Chamberlain's "Peace with honor" moment in terms of how it sits in the historical narrative in 50 years.

StefanBatory5• 1 year ago

Chamberlain had a reason - UK army wasn't really ready for a fight. He tried to buy some time to rearm. Misguided or not, you could say there was a reason for that.

anonfordays• 1 year ago

IMO that ended during the last European migrant crisis. Europe will never be the same. The culture of emasculation brought us to where we are now.

mhh__2• 1 year ago

Europe will never be the same but that was the end of something else

Ancalagon2• 1 year ago

Wow this is just so sad and shameful. Zelensky obviously understands the position he and his country are in and even with all that disrespect from the US leadership he’s obviously trying so hard to maintain composure and do what’s best :(

FrustratedMonky6• 1 year ago

Saw it live, and was legit feeling a panic like, this is the end.

Timely. Netflix has series "Turning Point: the Bomb and the Cold War" that is a good watch while the world burns.

graublau5• 1 year ago

Watching Netflix shows is a horrible way of learning about nuances of international conflicts.

FrustratedMonky6• 1 year ago

I think 'nuance' has left the building.

HellDunkel3• 1 year ago

It should be crystal clear now who the leader of the free world really is.

rad_gruchalski4• 1 year ago

That’ll be water for the Russian propaganda. America, what have you chosen. It’s clear you have a Russian insurgent in the White House.

They have already started dismantling the government. Next they’ll shake up the military. Every totalitarian regime shakes up the military.

jjulius4• 1 year ago

Next they’ll shake up the military.

"Next?"

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pushes-out-top-us-gen...

rad_gruchalski4• 1 year ago

I was being sarcastic. I’m sorry, I am trying not to be passive aggressive, exactly in that order.

rco87862• 1 year ago

Next they’ll shake up the military.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-brown-joint-chiefs-of-staff...

rkagerer2• 1 year ago

Full video of the entire meeting https://youtu.be/um19Mf4dYes

rkagerer2• 1 year ago

At 11m40s in it still seemed to be going well... an almost adorable exchange between the two leaders about who gave more EU or US.

bdcp• 1 year ago

DT: "This is good TV"

Wow!

fullshark6• 1 year ago

That stuck out to me too, that's where his head was at...just astonishing.

gorbachev2• 1 year ago

It's all about appearances with him, all the time.

The best way to get him to do something you want, is to stroke his ego, make him look good publicly.

losvedir2• 1 year ago

This is very interesting, thanks for posting. It starts out very positively anyway.

angrytechie3• 1 year ago

What's really infuriating to me is the way in which members of the startup world -- people who claim to wear the mantle of creators and builders -- have actively supported this nonsense. A16Z, Founders Fund, Sequoia all talk a big game about America being the greatest nation on the planet, and then turn around and back this regime in a naked grab for power and money. The hypocrisy is astounding.

pcj-github5• 1 year ago

Yes, it's completely spineless.

For all the intelligence they seem to purport, being complicit in supporting the takedown of democracy and the once good name of the US... Catastrophe for business, the startup world, and innovation.

Don't s** where you sleep.

And all those crypto bros thinking this would be a good thing... They seemed to forget that blockchain participation is essentially a luxury item. A dead economy is awful for crypto.

kibwen• 1 year ago

By definition it's not possible for fascists to be hypocrites, because fascists do not use language to describe the world or pursue the truth, they only use language to gain power. If you accuse them of hypocrisy you've already lost, because you've failed to realize that they're not even playing the same game as you are. It's like accusing a Markov chain of being a hypocrite; you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature your opponent.

brcmthrowaway• 1 year ago

How does one fight a fascist?

UncleOxidant8• 1 year ago

History will hopefully record how quickly they bowed to fascism when it benefited them.

grg0• 1 year ago

I think your misunderstanding is in the "turning around" part. If you read any of the unhinged manifestos A16Z et al have written, you'll understand it's all very consistent with what you are witnessing now. Some people have been calling on this for at least a decade, but they are largely ignored.

angrytechie3• 1 year ago

True of Thiel. Andreessen though should be ashamed. He's become everything his techno optimist manifesto calls out as the enemy

tlogan• 1 year ago

Zelensky needs to step down for the sake of Ukraine and its people. He fails to grasp a critical reality: criticizing Trump is a mistake. Instead, he should focus on praising him—highlighting his intelligence, leadership, and appeal. More importantly, he must recognize that Ukraine’s survival depends on continued US support. Without the US, the country risks ceasing to exist.

pcj-github5• 1 year ago

Zelensky is not responsible for this exchange. Are you honestly suggesting cower to a false autocrat? That is not leadership.

beanjuiceII3• 1 year ago

you can't beg someone to come save you, then shit on them in the same conversation ...in what world would anyone expect a warm reception to that?

guax11• 1 year ago

Thinking like this is what will take the US further into isolation. Everyone wants to engage and help a nice big brother. No one likes a bully, they will nod and agree when required but in the end America last is the main thing going on everyones mind right now.

The mere unreliability of the government in keeping a narrative and position from one week to the next much less from one administration to the other is enough to alienate the allies. Count in annexation talks, tariff war as a negotiation gun.

If having US help requires kissing the president ass instead of being an ally and sharing of the American ideals, the US as it pretended to be, does not exist anymore.

sirolimus5• 1 year ago

Zelensky has said he will step down if US provides security guarantees. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-resig...

sirolimus5• 1 year ago

…security guarantees which the US does not want to give. So who’s at fault here?

analognoise• 1 year ago

That was the most shameful thing I’ve ever seen as an American.

Where is Congress? This needs to stop; impeach Trump already!

fullshark6• 1 year ago

Not gonna happen, the only hope is his approval ratings tank and he decides to chill out, stop trying to be king, play golf for 4 years, and step away beloved by his cult.

mempko2• 1 year ago

This is what a falling empire looks like. America First is a project to dismantle the U.S. empire and reduce it to just another country.

tim33331• 1 year ago

It looks to me more like a start or an empire. The US has never been imperial but maybe it can get together with Russia and make a start with American West Ukraine, followed by Greenland and Canada?

mempko2• 1 year ago

You don't build an empire by cutting the federal government and reducing the deficit.

lovegrenoble• 1 year ago

Like a misbehaving child called into the principal’s office

sgalbincea• 1 year ago

Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.

ben_w22• 1 year ago

Regime change in Russia.

Putin is the one who started it, and he can stop it any time.

Anyone else can only get the peace of surrendering to a violent dictator willing to conquor.

bilbo0s11• 1 year ago

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but humor me for a second.

Let's say that Putin is not the only person in Russian leadership who supports war with Ukraine. What then? I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse.

I know. I know. That would never happen in a million years. But humor me. What then? Do we have a plan for "we took out Putin and it didn't change anything"?

Or is this whole thing just a fly by the seat of the pants kind of thing?

cbg020• 1 year ago

If the history books are any good indicator, Putin going away tomorrow won't really change anything, the problem has always been with Russia as a whole, not just its leader - ask most of the EU countries that have some historical beef with them.

Xeamek8• 1 year ago

So when your country will be attacked you will give up your lands and your freedoms just for sake of "less people dying"?

faebi• 1 year ago

Absolutely yes

castlefreak5• 1 year ago

My country had a coup in 2014 in order to install a leader friendly to US intel agencies. "Freedoms" were already flimsy.

johnisgood23• 1 year ago

Do boundaries matter more than people dying? Genuine question.

russocan4• 1 year ago

In a heartbeat. If two criminal organizations want to fight over some land, that’s none of my business. Also worth noting that in a war, the greatest danger comes from your own government, not the enemy because the enemy will accept your surrender and your own government won’t.

827a6• 1 year ago

Yeah, at the end of the day its hard to agree with the language and demeanor of the administration, but I struggle to disagree with the outcome. What are Zelensky's aims? To secure additional funding for their war machine? If so: I don't see how that benefits anyone; certainly not the Ukrainian people. If the goal is to secure more favorable peace terms, which I do believe is a laudable goal, then I fail to understand why he approached this conversation the way he did. Insinuating that the Trump administration had aligned with Russia, regardless of its validity, is not the way to accomplish this.

nikaspran• 1 year ago

A ceasefire without security guarantees is just a temporary pause for russia to rearm and continue on. None of the justifications for russia's invasion have changed, and this would mean the US will roll over for anything.

avianlyric3• 1 year ago

What exactly do you think the outcome is? Just because Trump is selling out Ukraine to Putin, doesn’t mean the Ukraines are just going to lie down and take it.

What are Zelensky’s aims, they’re pretty damn obvious, do everything in his power to remove a foreign aggressor from Ukrainian land. Why would expect people who have been invaded to not defend their country and their land?

oezi9• 1 year ago

You assume that Putin wants a cease fire or peace. But he doesn't.

Zelenskies aim is for his country not to be conquered. There are no open demands from Russia to satisfy.

vsean3• 1 year ago

Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.

There's a logical flaw in what you are saying. Forcing Ukraine to accept a truce right now, without any security guarantees will result in a LOT MORE deaths. Russia will re-arm, using their oil and gas money, and in a year finish the job. Right now, Ukraine can hang on, but if Russia gets its shit together during a truce it's game over.

What could happen is that they negotiates a truce with security guarantees from the US or at the very least a no-fly zone. But Trump doesn't want that, Trump doesn't want to do anything, he want mineral rights to offset the cost of the last president gave Ukraine (Not $350 bn, that number is lies, its ~$70bn), asking for $400bn rare earths and other metals. I can only assume he will only give new weapons under the same terms. A shameful shakedown. And even if Ukraine agrees to this, Trump has said he won't enforce a no-fly zone or give a security guarantee.

The best thing Trump and the US can do from now on is just to not get involved in teh war. I can see Trump supporting Putin out of spite.

avianlyric3• 1 year ago

Hahaha, do you honestly believe that Putin has any interest in stopping?

This isn’t the first time Putin has invaded another country, had the west capitulate for “peace”, then two years later Putin invades somewhere else.

Hell, Putin originally invade Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Every one made “pease” with Putin, and few years later he invades the rest of Ukraine. If Trump sell out Ukraine now, it might end the “official” war, but there will be endless civil/insurgency warfare in Ukraine for decades. The Ukraine’s have zero interest in allowing a foreign country simply take their land without a fight.

lawn10• 1 year ago

Russia must be made to kneel, just as Germany and Japan had to in WW2.

Any other "peace treaty" will only lead to Russia rebuilding and attacking again, leading to yet another war, having learned the important lesson that aggression works.

We want it to stop NOW, but that's wishful thinking just as world peace is. The sooner you internalize that, the better.

a_ba2• 1 year ago

Deterrence works. That's why the cold war is remembered as the cold war and not the hot war. Zelensky knows this while Trump is publicly taking all leverage (NATO membership, security guaranties) off the table while the Russians have not even started negotiating - and why would they? Trump is doing all their work for them

NickC253• 1 year ago

Sure - moving a few dozen nuclear warheads to Kiev and telling Russia "Kiev has nukes now, make one step further into Ukraine and we'll make sure they'll hit the Kremlin by end of day today".

And then tell Putin "hey Putain, feel free to call our bluff".

YetAnotherNick• 1 year ago

Putin: "Thanks for heads up as I left Kremlin. Also don't mind the ICBM to Washington and NYC"

Nuclear war couldn't be won.

valine• 1 year ago

There is no alternative. Europe tried to peacefully coexist with Germany in the 1930s. Standing up to imperialist dictators is the least bloody option.

StefanBatory5• 1 year ago

And you stop it now - no security guarantees for Ukraine - and more people will die in few years when Russia strikes back, having rearmed herself.

oezi9• 1 year ago

Europe needs to deploy troops to Ukraine to secure the current border.

No other way from stoping Putin.

bilbo0s11• 1 year ago

Right. Just when America pulls back, Europe should escalate. Awesome!

Right now Europe needs time to build. The calculus has radically changed. They need to build out in a fashion that is massive, but also both quick and quiet. This situation is too serious for rash action. Especially where victory is not guaranteed.

pcj-github5• 1 year ago

As an American, I'm disgusted.

In my view the only way to solve this is through a complete and utter rejection of all things USA. People of Europe and the world, you can help by immediately stop buying American products, halt any travel plans you might have had here, have your goverments embargo us. Do everything in your power to crush our economy.

We need something extreme to make these MAGA folk and the Republicans in power break out of this authoritarian fever dream they are in.

I'd rather see this country get sick and vomit what needs to be expelled rather than have it die a slow death from this cancerous group-think that has overtaken half our population.

beebaween• 1 year ago

We don't want WW3. I voted for Kamala and I still DO NOT WANT WW3.

ben_w22• 1 year ago

You can choose to not start it, you can't force others not to — peace needs all parties, war only needs one.

etwigg• 1 year ago

I am sincerely curious what Andreesen and Horowitz believe at the moment.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

This is their government. Vance is their puppet. This is what they wanted.

Andreesen's little pseudo-manifesto a couple years back was fairly explicitly taking anti-liberal positions, and some that were outright anti-enlightenment.

Not surprising really. We now see an alliance between the tech sector of the US economy and the oil and gas sector. Remember Putin is effectively oil baron/executive, not just the leader of a country.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

Andreesen funds Edward Dutton.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Edward_Dutton

tasuki4• 1 year ago

$$$ probably...

excalibur• 1 year ago

On the bright side, the more clearly Trump displays his gross incompetence, the more quickly he will be deposed.

fullshark6• 1 year ago

I think most Americans have already made up their mind on Donald Trump. Nothing will matter until individuals' personal financial situations are affected.

mrtesthah6• 1 year ago

Just wait a month when the jobs report comes out.

gregwebs2• 1 year ago

It’s worth watching the full clip to appreciate how this starts with Zelensky undermining the peace process by blaming Russia right after Trump just answered by saying blame isn’t productive and Zelensky did it by directly challenging JD Vance's statement previous to the clip. [1] I would suggest changing the link in the article to the full length video clip because I couldn’t fault someone for assuming that with the current state of US Europe relations that the BBC is biased towards selective editing.

Obviously Trump & JD did not handle that well and embarrassed anyone that believes in the value of international diplomacy.

For some more backstory on Zelensky's disposition you can listen to Lex Friedman's take. He went to Ukraine to interview him with the only goal of making peace more likely and couldn't get Zelensky to move an inch in that direction during their discussion. He believes that Zelensky is an amazing leader in many respects, but poorly equipped (mentally) to make peace. [2]

[1] https://youtu.be/uqOOOR7Kr-s?si=5lbj-fGWTZzYMVwB [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2EL8hkwGE

guax11• 1 year ago

What peace process? This was a minerals deal. No peace was being brokered here. Not even solid assurances. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/framework-agreement-us...

WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;

gregwebs2• 1 year ago

It's not being reported on much, but they have moved towards normalizing diplomatic relations and Russia and the US are negotiating the outline of the deal now. Here is a recent video with John Mearsheimer (a foreign policy expert) giving commentary on recent developments. [1] John Mearsheimer was (and still is) completely baffled by the mineral deal which as you point out seems to be a distraction.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1lJBv76J5g&t=15s

fosh• 1 year ago

The Twitter responses to Leon’s post are shocking. I wonder if it’s mostly “folks left on Twitter” or “algorithm changes”

jmull• 1 year ago

Good lord, what an embarrassment. Our president is a foolish and incompetent clown.

Obviously those idiots in the White House are provoking this juvenile confrontation as part of a move toward withdrawing US support from Ukraine.

But why? It's beyond clear that a resurgent Russia is against our interests, but here we have the President debasing himself and his country to suck up with Putin as if Putin was the leader of a superpower.

So it must be a pretty bad reason. I guess we'll eventually find out why, but it may not matter at that point.

How stupid and idiotic.

scop4• 1 year ago

Well, here come the downvotes, but for anybody who thinks that it is completely believable that Trump is a Russian stooge or is “on Russias side” let me offer this up:

- We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and children. THAT IS THE GOAL.

CONTEXT:

- Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in first term, providing lethal aid which previous presidents did not do. He wanted to deter Putin while not also escalating.

- Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION.

- Biden admin sent Kamala over to Europe in '21 saying it was time to add Ukraine to NATO. Good job guys.

- Biden then said his response to a potential Putin invasion would "depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion" (I'm generalizing).

- Biden then flopped Afghanistan. US weak.

- There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down.

Europe and Ukraine are relying on the US to bankroll/supply a war with one of the world's greatest nuclear threat. THIS ISN'T A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. The lines have been more or less drawn. If we continue this war, we either:

(a) at a minimum, drive Russia into closer alliance with China while killing many more Russians and Ukrainians

(b) provoke a hot war amongst many nations, leading to the death of millions

We get a peace deal done with the general boundaries that have been consistent for nearly two years: Russia provinces going to Russia, a DMZ established, and Ukraine sadly smaller.

This isn't simply "we must support the Good Guys and defeat the Bad Guys". Right now Trump wants PEACE and feels as if Zelensky demands to call the shots. He can't call the shots. He is not the US.

Addendum:

Re mineral rights and the accusation "Trump just wants the $$$", you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?

kubb18• 1 year ago

We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and children. THAT IS THE GOAL.

If that was the goal, why is Trump asking for Ukraine's natural resources? Maybe his goals are different than yours.

---

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, which is why Ukraine was seeking protection.

From Ukraine's point of view, if they make peace now, and give up territory... Russia will do the same thing again in a couple of years. Many more people will die.

Russia doesn't care about killing off its population, they have lots of poor and non-ethnic-Russian citizens, and they think nothing of having them die to get some more land.

scop4• 1 year ago

Read my whole reply. I literally addressed that at the end. Read the whole thing before you dismiss something.

throwacct• 1 year ago

This is the correct answer. Everyone here saying "We need to stand up to Putin..." won't be fighting on the frontlines and at worst, we can be entering WW3 if the US, Russia, and the EU keep escalating the conflict.

kubb18• 1 year ago

About your analogy to China and Mexico... There are already 6 NATO countries bordering Russia. It's really just about Putin being unhappy that they can't attack and annex where they please.

amanaplanacanal5• 1 year ago

We want peace! If your own country was invaded, would you be saying the same thing? Just roll over and let them have their way with you? I'm genuinely curious if you have the courage of what you say your convictions are.

scop4• 1 year ago

No, I would fight them tooth and nail. As would any member of an invaded country. Duh.

But, if after several years a generation of my peers have been killed and I don't see a logic end to this war any time soon, well then I might start to re-evaluate.

But you know what's really dirty?

The pro-war people in the US are doing the opposite of what you say: gladly cheering on the slaughter of Ukrainians so long as it defeats the "boogeyman". Which side is more pro-Ukrainian? The side that results in more dead Ukrainians or less?

tasuki4• 1 year ago

Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in first term, providing lethal aid which previous presidents did not do.

Indeed, this reads like a convincing argument to me.

you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?

Honestly, the best pro-Trump explanation I've read. Well done! I'm sure that wasn't easy ;)

eitland• 1 year ago

The first is a direct lie.

The second is only as trustworthy as Trump (i.e. not at all). What would prevent Trump from striking a deal with the russians after he "legally owns it anyway".

Third: Much is said about the Budapest Memorandum and what it isn't. But I think it very clearly says that US (and others) should not use Ukraines weakness as leverage to exploit it. Which is exactly what US is trying to do now, thereby becoming the second country to clearly violate it.

artem24716• 1 year ago

Trump did not "arm Ukraine to the teeth" in his first term. He send a little bit of infantry weapons, and some armored cars. That's it. It was a big break from Obama administration that essentially embargoed any weapons sales to Ukraine, but it was not in any way "arming to the teeth". Arming Ukraine in a sufficient manner would have required tens of billions each year, that did not happen.

"- There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down."

There was no such thing. The "peace deal" in question was a Russian capitulation offer, which was never signed.

"- Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION."

There was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO simply due to the existing territorial disputes with Russia. Russian ultimatum to US in December 2021 was clear — get NATO to pre-1997 — Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic etc should all leave NATO. That would mean dissolution of NATO effectively.

"a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?"

It can work the same with Russia occupying the same territory. There is nothing there about "Ukraine" per se.

pillefitz2• 1 year ago

Dear Americans, please do something. Protest, write letters to congressmen etc. We Germans went through all of this 90 years ago..

dimgl• 1 year ago

Can you explain how this mirrors what happened in Germany?

pillefitz2• 1 year ago

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller"

linguistbreaker• 1 year ago

And how did you stop it?

nicbou• 1 year ago

By giving Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany

jimmydoe6• 1 year ago

It's lost, at least till mid term.

soared4• 1 year ago

Does anyone know what an average citizen can do that will have an impact? I’ve called my reps office in DC before but I don’t know if that does anything.

gtsop3• 1 year ago

Organise a political revolution. Nothing less than that will have an actual impact

_ink_• 1 year ago

Unionize and go on strike. Like nationwide.

scoofy4• 1 year ago

What do you think we've been doing? I've spent literally two decades of my life advocating policies to try to prevent this from happening... the left is blind to their decadence and the right has gone insane.

yolo3000• 1 year ago

People complained that the Russians didn't protest more at the beginning of the war, and here you have the Americans, who won't be sent to Siberia or thrown out of a window, doing nothing.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

American liberals are so full of lifelong indoctrination into thinking that laws, courts, and constitutions are what hold up democracy ... they're just going in circles for the last 10 years expecting the next election or court decision to save them.

They have no real concept of the mobilization of people power, street protest, disobedience because it's been stripped from the ideological palette of American liberalism.

Those on the left who do hold these concepts of opposition are deliberately marginalized by their two party system.

Just like with Russians and the war, the world cannot expect domestic dissent within these countries to save them. It's up to the people of Europe & Canada to form alliances and do the best we can.

nxm7• 1 year ago

Except I want peace in Ukraine finally, and not billions of dollars wasted and more lives killed because Zelensky doesn’t love a potential peace deal. Don’t compare apples and oranges…loses credibility.

topherpalmtree6• 1 year ago

It's a ceasefire, not a peace deal. With a party who has no history of honoring ceasefires.

Trump wants all of their mineral resources for a flimsy ceasefire. With no concessions from Russia.

It's a bad deal. Would you fold because people would die when your sovereignty is threatened?

amanaplanacanal5• 1 year ago

If you are fine making other people live under putins thumb... Are you willing to put yourself in that position?

crystal_revenge7• 1 year ago

Authoritarian governments don't collapse because of the "will of the people", that's a myth perpetuated by those in power to legitimize their positions. The major driver is the material conditions a society exists in.

We are beginnign to experience the contraction of the global economy, and as material conditions worsen, expect everything else to follow suit. Democracy doesn't bring prosperity, it a consequence of prosperity.

The comparisons of Trump to Hitler as also mind-numbingly facile. Other than a penchant for authoritarianism, they share little in common. But what they do share in common is they are both emergent phenomena of their contemporary environments.

fullshark6• 1 year ago

"This is gonna be great television I will say that." - Donald Trump's last words as the confrontation ended. Just insanity.

guax11• 1 year ago

His disconnection with reality is expected. I would be surprised if he understood or had any empathy to realities he doesn't conceive. The real change was in the GOP allowing and buying in on all of these.

fullshark6• 1 year ago

They told themselves they could contain him, they thought he was like them, cultivating an insincere public persona to accumulate power. He had the juice and the ability to perform jedi magic over their constituents. They rationalized the indefensible to win elections.

None of them care about anything except power and leveraging it. Politics ain't bean bag and all of that. It's revealing to anyone actually paying a modicum of attention that isn't blinded by partisan hate.

doesnotexist• 1 year ago

It's like the inverse of Gil Scott Heron's "The revolution will not be televised"

"The Nuclear Holocaust Will Be Televised"

There's even a trailer from the Reagan era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBtu0gr6JqM

But it seems the format is going to be in the style of reality TV shows from 10-20 years ago.

selimthegrim7• 1 year ago

There’s even the CNN tape for the occasion.

miramba• 1 year ago

How the mighty have fallen. The 20th century was the american century, the 21st doesn't look like it lately. This is an empire in decline.

ProllyInfamous2• 1 year ago

This is an empire in decline.

"To the privileged, equality feels like oppression" [questionable attribution]

As a retired union [IBEW] American, I am happy to see more countries gain footing within our global economy. Respectable competition among a distribution of the powerful keeps any one entity from a monopoly of exploiting the entire world/workers.

namuol6• 1 year ago

There’s no question in my mind that this went exactly as planned.

junto• 1 year ago

My feeling too. Now it gives the Trump administration the grounds to claim that they can’t work with this “warmonger” who doesn’t want peace.

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

They don't have to pretend anymore when siding with Russia in every conceivable way, not that they have been doing a good job of that anyway.

namuol6• 1 year ago

Vance made it very clear to the rest of the GOP that Zelensky is an “enemy” now. He misleadingly accused Zelensky of “campaigning with the opposition” because he met with Harris before the election. (He met with Trump too)

That statement was a direct signal to the party to turn on Zelensky and to make him an object of partisan divide, and Lindsay Graham understood that crystal clearly and called for Zelensky to resign shortly after the meeting, not long after praising him.

After sleeping on it, it’s obvious now that this was all to redirect the blame for Trump’s failure to meet his promise to broker peace swiftly.

lwansbrough• 1 year ago

I'm not sure most Americans will fully appreciate the gravity of this. We don't trust you anymore. We don't trust American self-control. You are becoming an enemy.

It genuinely feels like I'm looking at the precursor to a Nazi party.

UncleOxidant8• 1 year ago

As an American I can't blame you. It looks like that from inside as well and it's terrifying because we feel completely powerless - unless we can muster tens of millions to march in the streets in a country the size of ours it won't have any impact. And most people here are still completely apathetic.

gre3• 1 year ago

Best we can manage is an Feb 28 Economic Blackout Day. (Don't forget to stock up the day before!)

You didn't know about it? Or you did, and you didn't buy from amazon for a single day? Democracy is saved!

deadbabe4• 1 year ago

I don’t know what to believe much these days. So instead, I look to see at what actions are being taken instead of endlessly reading news and forums for consensus.

And what I see is Europe doesn’t seem to care much if Ukraine falls. The United States, has been supporting Ukraine far more up to this point, and they are not the ones facing the prospect of having Russia in their backyard breathing down their back. So if Europe doesn’t give a fuck, maybe it really means the fall of Ukraine ultimately doesn’t mean much to anyone except the Ukrainian people. The world will move on. This helps keep me calm and prevents me from stressing over most world affairs.

And another thing I wonder is what exactly is so bad about Russia anyways? Their leader sucks, but so does ours, and don’t people of both nations just want a good life at the end of the day? How different are they really from us? When I see TikTok interviews of everyday Russians in the streets, they are just like us, similar beliefs about their own country and what is wrong with the world. I understand less and less the source of our conflict.

lawn10• 1 year ago

Maybe if you had instead done some research you'd see that Europe has provided more military aid than the United States.

Also, relying on "TikTok interviews" ridiculously naive. You could just as well watch Russia Today and get the same amount of propaganda shoved down your throat.

beanjuiceII3• 1 year ago

if europe has provided more military aid than why do they need united states for this conflict? cant EU and ukraine just resolve this? why did Zelenskyy come to make a deal for the resources?

gatinsama• 1 year ago

Their leader sucks, but so does ours

But people voted for one and not the other.

HellDunkel3• 1 year ago

Let me help you out: one country invading the other, destroying homes and lives. But that should not concern you much as apparently it is not you who is under attack.

deadbabe4• 1 year ago

When Israel invaded Gaza we let them

Ancalagon2• 1 year ago

Wow what on earth did I just read xD

guax11• 1 year ago

Am in Europe (NL), people do care. I have Ukranian refugees living in my town, I helped them with computers and bicycles and what I could to help some kids be able to do their school works.

Europe has given more than the US to Ukraine. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...

US number would've been smaller if Biden did not push a large package before leaving. I think EU should do more.

What is so bad about Russia to the US? Well, you can ask every American administration of the past 30 years, they all seemed to agree before. For some Russian doctrine introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

deadbabe4• 1 year ago

Ok but in Russia do they say similar things about the US? And if so then is there some backlash from Russians who believe Putin shouldn’t be dealing with the US as a potential ally?

cr1895• 1 year ago

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/02/18/which-co...

JanSt• 1 year ago

China can be pretty sure that the US will not act if they attack Taiwan. Trump and Vance are weak. All talk, no walk.

ncr100• 1 year ago

MORE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209538

This is what I'm thinking.

Now would be a great time for China to start an invasion. It would be a crime. China today, that government is not above committing international crimes.

eagleislandsong10• 1 year ago

Now would be a great time for China to start an invasion

I'm not doubting at all that China has imperialistic designs on Taiwan and the South China Sea. But why would China invade, when its leaders can clearly see that Russia, through strategic patience, bribery, and aggressive hybrid warfare, has finally won the Cold War without ever having to invade the US militarily?

Bribery is rampant among high-ranking military officers in Taiwan, for example. Many of them have been exposed to have sold classified information to the Chinese government for trifling amounts of money. China has also managed to poach a lot of former TSMC engineers to work at SMIC by offering generous salaries. Why take military action against Taiwan today (or in 2027, according to the CIA [1]) when China just has to be very patient?

[1] And do we really trust the CIA, given how many times it has lied throughout its entire existence to justify starting/escalating wars?

nxm7• 1 year ago

Perhaps Europe can defend it?

dluan• 1 year ago

China is smart enough to know that US diplomacy lasts longer than a 4 year term. They've been operating off the 1992 Consensus, and had a longstanding agreement with the US re: One China Policy that was upended by Obama, and then Biden. Trump's chaotic swings are a blip.

China is also smart enough to have been watching the "decoupling" pushed by the Obama-era CIA starting in the late 2010s, and then the Russian invasion, so an actual Taiwanese land invasion won't happen until China is fully decoupled, and even then there is the much bigger international fallout. China won't throw away its position as world factory. Within China there are too many people in the party who don't see a land invasion as feasible.

All of the recent sabrerattling by the US and pushing Taiwan for a declaration of independence is what would trigger an invasion. To think that opportunistically exploiting a senile president's term to act on this conflict grossly misunderstands the entire Taiwan/China situation. And it says more about you and how Americans view global diplomacy.

drgo• 1 year ago

It is quite clear that Trump does not have the temperament to be a president or a leader of any kind. Clearly, he was venting and has not calculated the consequences of his words to US (and his own) interests. Also clear is the glaring absence of any counterbalancing influences from his cabinet and staff. It is so easy now for this government to make a huge mistake that can cause irreversible damage to the US and the world.

superq3• 1 year ago

It's a bit odd that literally every single top comment is pro-Zelenskyy and anti-White House.

I haven't seen a single thoughtful critique of Zelenskyy or his behavior on HN; it seems very one-sided and strange.

(also interesting that the BBC mispelled his last name, even though they're obviously big fans..)

MindTooth2• 1 year ago

If you have some constructive criticism to share, I’m all ears. Always in search for more views. Especially now where things are upside down.

superq3• 1 year ago

Both sides agree that America has provided at least $100 billion and possibly up to a half-trillion in aid and other consideration to Ukraine. That's a fair bit of money!

And, if Zelenskyy is to be believed, it was a "grant", or a gift, which makes Zelenskyy's disrespectful attitude and hubris in the White House even more outrageous.

sigmarule6• 1 year ago

Perhaps this has a similar explanation as the observation that universities and higher education seem to be politically one-sided.

soared4• 1 year ago

Trump and Vance’s behavior seems outrageous for leaders of the US. Zelensky certainly didn’t handle everything perfectly, but in comparison he looks like an actual president.

superq3• 1 year ago

Technically, Zelenskyy instituted martial law and cancelled Ukrainian elections, so although he is the undisputed leader in power in Ukraine, he's not an elected president.

Do actual presidents show up in sweatshirts and insult their benefactors?

nikodotio3• 1 year ago

Possibly there isn’t a critique of his behavior because there isn’t a critique to be made: from a website like hacker news where every reasonable position is usually represented, it should tell you something that this is unanimous.

sph3• 1 year ago

Yes, we are all state actors paid by Macron and von der Leyen.

How is what happened today surprising to you? Only if you live in American or Russian disinformation bubbles.

tim33331• 1 year ago

If you watch the video of the meeting there not very much to criticize re Zelensky's behaviour. I mean he says he's defending his country, Russia invaded it, making agreements with Putin is hard because he keeps breaking them.

I will say in favour of Trump is he is trying to make a deal to stop the fighting and did threaten economic sanctions on Russia.

Nition4• 1 year ago

I normally avoid commenting on politics entirely but I feel compelled to comment here. I'm sure anyone who's ever been bullied in their life will feel exactly what's happening in that video clip. Two big kids, confident in their position and backing each other up, gang up on the outsider. Did they ever really want to make a deal at all? Absolutely infuriating and saddening to watch.

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

Yup. I started having dreams about bullying recently, even before today's scene.

mock-possum• 1 year ago

Hold on are you claiming to be experiencing prophetic dreams?

Buttons8403• 1 year ago

Trump and Vance were saying things like "you're being disrespectful", and "you haven't said 'thank you'"--this level of argument is completely unproductive; it's what you would expect to hear from parents of dysfunctional families, not from world leaders.

noirbot• 1 year ago

And it betrays a total lack of care for substance. Zelensky has delivered public speeches in the US, while wearing a suit if that matters saying thanks to the US for their support. He just said it to the whole country, and while Biden was president. Trump doesn't care if the US gets credit, he wants to steal that credit personally, despite literally having been impeached for trying to extort Zelensky.

It's amazing levels of personal pettiness and ego. That's before you get to them inviting a Russian state news person to watch and then claiming they "snuck in" as if someone can just bumble into a meeting of world leaders.

heresie-dabord2• 1 year ago

"you're being disrespectful"

This, coming from: the one who openly calls opponents insulting names and openly proposes annexing other countries like a drivelling, senile elder; and the other, who toured Europe like a witless yokel scolding EU leaders for not being democracies...

This is the US losing its credibility and the confidence of its allies at a time when the US depends on these alliances.

DeepSeaTortoise17• 1 year ago

It's something the US patriotic wing cares about a lot.

It doesn't take much to satisfy their need (basically just nice words about the US), but they'll absolutely burn bridges if they come to the conclusion that you're unwilling to show the US this courtesy.

Trump very obviously being part of this wing, is one of the reasons that gave his campaign for the first term such a huge boost. People were convinced that he wouldn't betray the US, like they were betrayed by nearly every politician before (but maybe Bill Clinton, although, in hindsight, he absolutely screwed over Europe by continuing the Russian shock therapy and not supporting Russia in updating the CFE treaty).

Vance is somewhat part of this wing, too, but to a much lesser degree than Trump. E.g. he acknowledged in his speech at the MUC SecConf, that the US made what he considers to be past mistakes, but Trump pretty much never acknowledges what he blames on Biden and Obama to have ever been official US policy (even if he doesn't outright deny it).

Hence when Zelensky suggested the US will "feel it", too, in a slightly threatening way (due to the language barrier, I guess), Trump literally blew a fuse. You could see his head changing color in real time. I'm surprised he had the patience left to toss out the media semi-politely.

IMO, Zelensky should have picked up on Vance's hints to present himself grateful and stop trying to get commitments from the US infront of the media. Next time he should negotiate in his native language and bring a very capable translator, because picking up on such nuances is anything but easy if you're quite inexperienced in a language.

Trump is not really vindictive, despite his talking points (see him refusing to retaliate on Iran for shooting down that $150M drone, him not going after H. Clinton at all once in office, selecting Vance as his Vice, meeting with Scarborough and Brzezinski, ...).

So Zelensky got a good chance to set things straight, but Trump has also made clear that how the US progresses from here is up to Ukraine making the next move.

Knowing Trump a bit, he will push ahead with talks with Russia and keep increasing pressure on Ukraine until Zelensky agrees to a ceasefire and joins the table by making talks with Russia legal again.

Also Zelensky should take that "minerals deal". Despite being sold as such, it doesn't give any minerals to the US, but establishes an Ukrainian semi-sovereign fund with the focus of rebuilding Ukraine, financed through the Ukrainian government's revenue from natural resources and financial injections by the US.

Over time it'll also turn into a fully sovereign fund for Ukraine (unless the US keeps pumping absurd amounts of money into it) and Ukraine can withdraw money from it if they need it elsewhere.

bregma2• 1 year ago

It's exactly the dialog a gang member would use during a shakedown.

the_clarence2• 1 year ago

It's more than that. Some people in the audience started harassing Zelensky as well for not wearing a suit. It's just sad how the US has given up on diplomacy thinking that the worldstage is a businness as usual

ZeroGravitas4• 1 year ago

Not just "some people" but specifically a MAGA Republican Senator's boyfriend.

theothermelissa2• 1 year ago

That moment seemed to me to be when Zelensky realized (or accepted) that it was a 'bullies ganging up' setup, and started pushing back.

edelwiess• 1 year ago

Yes it was out right bullying after being challenged. Vance quickly devolved to “don’t question us, say thank you”. I showed and discussed with my kids as example of textbook bullying

mewpmewp29• 1 year ago

With such basic and seemingly silly, toxic tactics that they can get away with because of the power position they hold. Zelensky came there jet lagged, alone, while not being able to use his native language.

AnimalMuppet2• 1 year ago

Bad choice of target, though. Zelensky has stood up to Putin for three years; he's not going to be intimidated by one meeting with Trump and Vance.

herghost2• 1 year ago

100% bullying.

Something that isn't seemingly being commented widely on either is that Vance started hitting Zelenskyy with bursts of multiple questions and as soon as he started answering the first there were immediate challenges and redirections.

English isn't Zelenskyy's first language. Imagine how tough this must have been.

At that point the questions weren't questions anymore - they were statements that were left unchallenged.

llamaimperative8• 1 year ago

Vance just gets worse and worse every day, and so does certain SV circles’ infatuation with him. An absolute snake.

nozzlegear• 1 year ago

Something that isn't seemingly being commented widely on either is that Vance started hitting Zelenskyy with bursts of multiple questions and as soon as he started answering the first there were immediate challenges and redirections.

It's a (shitty) debate tactic called "gish galloping." It's not exclusively used by people on the right, but there are some very popular online personalities on the right who use it. Ben Shapiro is easily the most infamous for using it, but Jordan Peterson and Trump himself use it too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

ModernMech5• 1 year ago

Yup, it was a gish gallop with a dollop of DARVO.

bjoli8• 1 year ago

They never wanted a deal. If they wanted one it would have been negotiated and done before Zelensky stepped on American soil.

I don't want to fall into the conspiracy trap, but I can't help thinking this was planned on advance. Especially considering how couch man acted. Trump was wandering around aimlessly until Vance took command.

gambiting18• 1 year ago

Zelenskyy is an absolute hero. I couldn't be prouder of him in this very moment, to actually speak his mind and demand that the man who claims to be the leader of the free world admits one simple thing - that Putin is a killer. If he can't even do that then it's clear no productive discussion can take place.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I think he did a good job of calmly making his case in the face of Trump/Vances bad behaviour.

kelseydh5• 1 year ago

Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpAj8rRe-p0&ab_channel=PBSNe...

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

I would like to know what the alternatives are. None that I can think of are palatable:

1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much more territory, but not enough for Russia to feel threatened and escalate the war. This was the Biden plan and it sounds like what Europe wants. I just don't see how this ends the war. Is this just buying time for someone to depose Putin?

2. Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.

3. Freeze the conflict at the current lines and guarantee the agreement with US/NATO forces. What does that mean in practice? If Russia violates the agreement we go to option #2? That sounds like a hollow threat because we're clearly not ready to do #2 right now, when it could actually help. All this will do is let Russia rearm.

4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]

Did I miss anything?

The root of the problem is that this is a hard-power conflict and the only solution is going to be hard-power. But neither the US nor the EU are willing to put in hard-power against Russia. In that situation, I honestly don't know how to stop Putin from getting what he wants.

My frustration is that, as awful as Trump's plan is, it acknowledges that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.

But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong.

guax11• 1 year ago

The goal was always to support Ukraine for long enough to pressure Russia into the negotiation table, the concessions could varied, no one knows. Ukraine knows it cannot get it all, but they know they won't settle for nothing either.

We know this given how close even Trump got to having discussions with both parties. His competence was not there to finish any deal and took the worse turn possible.

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

But if you can't stop Russia from getting some of Ukraine, how do you stop it from getting all of Ukraine? That to me is the key problem.

Russia knows that time is on its side. It can just pause enough to rearm and then attack again. What will we do differently then?

namuol6• 1 year ago

I’m struggling to see how option 1 is somehow worse than option 4…

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

More Ukrainian + Russians dead/wounded and more money spent on weapons, and you end up in one of the other options anyway.

kajecounterhack2• 1 year ago

Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.

It _is_ possible with the combo of weapons and economic sanctions. Ukraine (had) more economic support, so it is both a war of blood and endurance, endurance which Ukraine could have by being a porcupine with next-gen weapons and non-stop bleeding for Russia until things start hitting the oligarch's pocketbooks too far and the people of Russia begin to demand regime change.

Russia is a glorified gas station. You can hurt it dramatically with economic sanctions because its whole GDP is concentrated into one sector.

Imo if Trump really cared about America's long term security, he would be trying to fund research into cheaper / easier to produce next-gen weapons for Ukraine to test for us, instead of complaining how much our HIMARS and tanks currently cost, firing top military brass, cozying up to a dictator, and trying to exploit a ravaged democratic ally.

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

Maybe. But Biden and Germany didn't push too hard on either because they feared Russian reaction. Now, with so many Ukrainian soldiers dead, it will be much harder.

Economic sanctions won't affect Russia as long as China is behind them. And if the West is against Russia, they will do anything to keep China as an ally.

B1FF_PSUVM3• 1 year ago

4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]

It would have been in the US best interest to have done this twenty years ago, but some greedy bastards thought there would be untold riches in breaking up Russia, to have "two, three, many Ukraines". They failed.

quickthrowman2• 1 year ago

Russia is a mafia that owns a gas station, not a global power. They’d be irrelevant without nuclear weapons. Their economy is roughly the same size as the state of Texas.

hagbarth2• 1 year ago

1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in the world. Seems like a good deal for US to me.

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

I get that. As I said, maybe eventually Putin gets deposed.

But (a) it is basically prolonging the losses for Ukraine, and (b) assumes that Russian won't escalate (maybe with nukes).

Russia knows that we're not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. At some point, they will cross a threshold and we will have to back down.

ikekkdcjkfke3• 1 year ago

Stopping / freezing means russia continues to stock up at the current rate and and takes odessa and kaliningrad once trump term is up. The only option is for to create even more cost efficient+robust+sophisticated+massed drones and slug it out

maratc9• 1 year ago

It sadly does nothing to solve the real geopolitical issue that the US have in this century, namely the rise of China.

jonathanstrange11• 1 year ago

In my opinion, Ukraine should be supported as long as they are willing and able to fight, allowing whatever strategies and tactics they consider necessary.

That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.

ccppurcell• 1 year ago

If Ukraine falls (which I doubt will happen soon fwiw, but what do I know), Moldova and the Baltic countries are in big trouble.

DrammBA2• 1 year ago

Fully agree. Ukraine should be given the means to defend itself on equal footing. No nation, regardless of size or power, should operate under the assumption that it can violate another country's sovereignty without consequences.

drawkward8• 1 year ago

Yes. I see this as a battle against authoritarianism, which is always worth fighting.

yz453• 1 year ago

To me it’s fair to say that while the moral duty might fall equally among nato nations, the geopolitical one leans heavily towards Europe.

Does this imply European nations should be contributing to the war effort more than the US? Does this shift match what the current situation leads to?

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

That is the current path (at least until today's meeting).

Maybe we get lucky and Putin dies or is deposed (and the successor is less hard-line). That's a lot of rolls that have to come down the right way.

More likely, Ukraine continues to bleed men until they can't defend Kyiv, then Russia takes all of Ukraine anyway except you've lost a lot of soldiers and weapons.

No matter what EU leaders say, I think they are beginning to realize that Ukraine will not win this war and time is not on their side. The EU may or may not continue to support Ukraine with weapons, but it will be half-hearted at best.

The EU will pressure Ukraine to freeze the conflict, but without any hard guarantees. In a few years, Russia will then begin the attack again and probably take Kyiv then.

I hope I'm wrong.

samename• 1 year ago

I think the heart of the matter that I haven’t seen discussed yet is: Who’s going to pay for it? The current administration is cutting expenses across the board. There’s a lot of talk about the deficit and defense spending. I don’t see much appetite in the US to keep sending blank checks to Ukraine. Hence, the minerals deal: this was to recoup costs.

Of course, it would be great if defending democracy was free. However, with politicians already talking about cutting Medicaid spending, it was only a matter of time until defense spending came under scrutiny

cryptonector12• 1 year ago

A quarter of Ukraine's population has left.

swat5353• 1 year ago

If we apply this reasoning universally, should any sovereign nation engaged in war receive indefinite support as long as they are willing to fight?

Historical cases, such as the U.S. in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, suggest that prolonged external backing can lead to drawn out conflicts with high costs and unintended consequences.

Is there a point at which the costs/economic, political, or humanitarian of indefinite support outweigh the intended benefits? How do you think such a threshold be determined?

I think one should _at least_ consider alternatives pathways to achieve a resolution.

throwaway4847610• 1 year ago

'Support ukraine' to an undefined end state is not a strategy. This is what Biden did and what the Europeans are still doing.

oezi9• 1 year ago

I think you need better wording for Option 1: Support Ukraine sufficiently so it can make its own decision if they want to continue fighting.

For Option 2 I actually don't see a lot of downsides except dead European soldiers replacing dead Ukrainian soldiers. Russia would absolutely stop if being stopped in their tracks more ferociously. In fact, Russia is already fighting this war all out. If they could they would do more (or at least I can't phantom why they would not).

pembrook4• 1 year ago

“I actually don’t see a lot of downsides”

You do realize Russia has nuclear weapons and a leader who has already hinted at using them if necessary?

losvedir2• 1 year ago

I think the "mineral rights" deal might play into this. In the full interview[0], Trump mentions it right off the bat, and talks about how it "means we're going to be inside".

I think it goes in tandem with your number (3). Like you say, why would Russia not violate the agreement? I think maybe the move is "well now we have citizens in there working so don't blow us up". It's one thing for Russia to attack the Ukraine, but another if they have collateral damage that takes out Americans.

I don't even know how valuable the actual underlying resources are, so much as a bit of "kayfabe" between the Ukraine, US, and Russia, that things are different.

Anyway, that's my hope.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um19Mf4dYes

cloverich5• 1 year ago

Zelenekys issue with that plan is the lack of guarantees, because of what happened the last time. He believes Russia will restrengthen faster than his country and when interest wanes, comes right back.

Trumps issue is he knows the lack of guarantees is a better deal for the US because we gain much and risk nothing. He wants to make a deal and get credit, i dont think he really cares what happens after. Maybe he does, i wish that to be the case. But i dont believe it.

jedberg• 1 year ago

You forgot option 1.5: Provide Ukraine with the long range missiles they've been asking for, the ones that they can use to strike Moscow directly.

This could escalate the war, but Russia does not appear to be in a position to escalate right now.

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

This feels good, but will ultimately fail.

Russia will respond with either strategic bombing of Kyiv or tactical nukes. And then what do we do? Nuke Moscow? Send NATO troops in? More sanctions?

Russia knows that we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine, which means escalation always ends with us backing down.

mongol3• 1 year ago

One obvious alternative is to not to behave like a bully but like a real leader. The US could disengage in much more orderly fashion, if it so pleased.

GMoromisato12• 1 year ago

I would love that!

But that doesn't change the underlying problem. How do we stop Putin getting what he wants? If you're saying, there's nothing we can do but the US should be nicer about it, well, I guess that's right, but somewhat useless.

zqna2• 1 year ago

5. Ukraine develops nukes ASAP. That's the only viable strategy thar protects (protected so far).

postalrat2• 1 year ago

At what point would ukraine be justified launching their nukes (if they had them)? Now? After russian launches first?

cryptonector12• 1 year ago

Sure, and Russia wouldn't nuke NATO targets in return. And they wouldn't know of Ukraine's nuclear weapons program and destroy it before it succeeds.

This sort of gullibility is very dangerous, especially if it manifests in folks in DC who could help your scenario happen.

krick3• 1 year ago

I don't know what answer you expect. I think you didn't really miss options (broadly speaking), but your interpretation of each option is opinionated, and this is extremely opinionated topic (obviously). So I wouldn't say you are wrong, you are just... opinionated.

1st one isn't really about "buying time". The prolongation of conflict is not a "side-effect" here, it's the whole point. And IMO it's a solid plan, honestly. If I was a citizen of the USA without any morals or inclinations to travel abroad, I would probably support it. This isn't a 100% solid plan, there are actually some questions if it works as it was supposed to work, but the incentive here seems blatantly obvious to me: war weakens Russia, weakens Europe, and nobody cares about Ukraine anyway, so by investing into the war carefully USA ends up winning, same as after WW1 and WW2. To me, the game plan is obvious here. It's just cynical, and that's why Biden (and other public-speaking supporters of the plan) would never say it as it is. No real politician would.

As to Europe wanting that... well, I would say it seems current EU leadership wants that, and I have pretty hard time explaining why, so I'll leave it aside. If you want some random data point: I, as a European citizen definitely don't want that. I don't doubt the majority of my fellow EU citizens would say they "support the support of Ukraine", but I don't find it surprising, given all media outlets chant 24/7 about how horrible Russia/Putin is.

I mean, yes, that's kinda saying "I think I know better than these guys", but I just don't see any benefits for the actual people (not governments) living in EU. This war hurts the economics, it hurts the relationships, and I personally have relatives in Ukraine, so I just want it to stop. I don't care on which terms, and obviously it cannot be the terms on which the war started. It's way too deep into the conflict and too many lives lost to call it a good outcome, but it's the best outcome.

So, not being a citizen of the USA, I am in favor of that alternative which is "as stupid as it sounds", the last one. I mostly have problems not with the option itself, but with the fact that for Trump to want it is not enough for it to happen. Because, as stated, a lot of people don't want this to happen, and it almost seems like Trump is mistaking being POTUS for being God. Meaning, the way he is doing things is stupidly blunt. It might work, it might escalate things more. In any case, having all of HN whining about how ashamed they are of their president is not a good start. And that product he helped BBC to make works awful for him and his plan.

thesumofall4• 1 year ago

If European leadership does this right, Europe will emerge out of this much stronger than they went into it. It has already strengthened the collaboration across the EU‘s nations, has led to higher defense spending, will lead to even higher defense spending, will drastically increase energy independence, and eventually also increase EU‘s soft power (because they would have the hard power to back it up). If they play it right

Glyptodon7• 1 year ago

I'd look at the minimum viable option as providing enough materiel that the worst case situation is eventually similar to North and South Korea. But I also think it is conceivable that non minimum options are possible.

gfkclzhzo• 1 year ago

The USA used to fight proxy vs proxy against Russia. Now we have a chance for us to fight through a proxy against Russia itself. This is a huge geopolitical opportunity to diminish or even destroy an enemy with low risk to the US itself.

The whole liberal-democratic world should be all-in on Ukraine assistance.

Instead, Trump just made it clear that the optimal time for PRC v ROC round 2 is within the next 3 year 10 months.

an_guy7• 1 year ago

This is a huge geopolitical opportunity to diminish or even destroy an enemy with low risk to the US itself.

They had this "huge opportunity" for last 4 years.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

#1 is the least bad because Putin only has the resources to keep going for so long and will eventually have to quit (while looking for a way to save face). There is a lot of resentment in Russia about their boys dying in Afghanistan and at some point the Russian people will not put up with the loss of life anymore.

machiaweliczny• 1 year ago

You seem to be missing $15T in minerals and for sure we can’t afford a freeze on current lines and this will make Russia invasion very profitable.

cryptonector12• 1 year ago

The U.S. abandoned Georgia in the 00s because it was indefensible.

The Ukraine is also very difficult to defend, especially since it seems like such a touchy issue for Russia. I doubt that Russia would go to full-scale nuclear war over Ukraine but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small scale use of nuclear weapons on -say- Brussels. And if Russia makes enough of those Oreshnik missiles they could easily take out most of Europe's air forces in one go without going nuclear, and thus change the balance of power in Ukraine.

The question really is: at what price Ukraine?

Your (1), (2), and (3) are no solutions. Pausing the war now simply means escalating it later.

Depending on Trump's understanding of Russia's limits (I say Trump's because he might have a better understanding that the public), (4) may be the only workable option.

1272• 1 year ago

If Ukraine received twice the military aid, they would have already won. Drip feeding aid was worst of all worlds, outside allying with Russia. Both US and Europe got deterred by Putin's nuclear threats. Which means logically next step for Europe is drastically increase their nuclear stockpile.

benrutter2• 1 year ago

I think you're at least a bit wrong in that this is about a lot more thn simply the Ukraine/Russia conflict.

The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.

Turning on an ally during wartime doesn't just create problems for Ukraine's ability to defend itself (although it will be interesting to see whether Europe ups spending to compensate) - it removes the US as a percieved ally of liberal democracies worldwide.

So, not that you're wrong on those points, but that they miss the USA's broader commitments. It might make sense to commit to an undesirable outcome, if it fits into a wider strategy.

averageRoyalty• 1 year ago

The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.

Nobody outside of the US has seen the US as that since at least the gulf war. US involvement since the 90s in foreign issues has been primarily for selfish purposes.

aurareturn2• 1 year ago

  4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.

  that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.

This is really Trump's plan? And what makes you think Americans would support sending US troops to defend East Asia if they're not willing to fight for Ukraine? And what makes you think Russia will sit there idling while the US fights China in the pacific?

TomK325• 1 year ago

Russia had three years, no eleven, to escalate this war but has not done so. You'd think the Kursk invasion would have triggered but it has has not. It is us Europeans who have to escalate this war, show strength because it's the modus that Putin operates on and the only language he understands. I want to see an ultimatum after which we not only create this no-fly-zone over Ukraine but also send men (I'll include my own grey beard here) to Ukraine to help them push the invaders out. If that happens we need to set a second ultimatum after which we simple invade Russia. It's sad to say: But as with my native Germany, it will take a complete defeat for the Russian people to have even a chance to embrace democracy. I'm somewhat disappointed that the future of Russian people is barely ever mentioned. Take away Putin and his cronies, give them democracy like (West) Germany did and the EU re-gains access to a huge market.

svara5• 1 year ago

Yes, you did forget a scenario where a EU, US and possibly other countries military presence is on the table as a threat to deter further escalations by Russia, but does not actually occur.

To be more specific, you give Ukraine what it needs to freeze the current lines, a cease fire is signed, Russia gets to stop fighting while saving face, and the unoccupied part of Ukraine gets what would amount to NATO membership without formally joining .

The status of the occupied territories remains ambiguous, with the West and Ukraine banking on a change in leadership in Russia at some point in the future.

As far as I can tell, this is the type of deal that Zelensky thought he came to DC for.

throwaway2902• 1 year ago

Russia is basically not a major player anymore. It's a vassal state of PRC. Thinking it would be a useful ally against PRC is a complete misread of the situation. Sacrificing a state and alliance with EU for this is doubly insane. US and West was doing absolutely fine and held ground and the values (freedom etc) against oppressive dictatorships right up until this year. It's distressing.

vanviegen2• 1 year ago

I'm not sure if Putin/Russia can sustain option 1 for much longer, given the huge economical, military and political drain, especially in combination with effective sanctions.

So keeping it up might destabilize Putin, without further escalating the conflict. Seems like the sanest of bad options to me.

zo13• 1 year ago

Had this on another comment, but decided to respond here more in the root:

If Russia invades a NATO country, then you guys can worry about WW3. Until then, leave it be. We could have avoided a million deaths by now if we weren't adamant to "stick it to Russia". Either Ukraine is a part of NATO, or not.

If the world let it be back in 2022, Russia would have finished invading Ukraine in a week, and then would have been stuck dealing with incredible amounts of terrorism and guerilla warfare coming from a very large Ukrainian population. What exactly would that outcome have helped them in this supposedly-dangerous "invasion of Europe"? More balls and courage to invade another country?

Same outcome if they win tomorrow after 3 bloody years of war. You think they want another European country? What for? You think Putin can continue to convince his populace to keep subsidizing more wars at this point?

lee• 1 year ago

This is a war of attrition.

Russia is expending its soviet cold war materiel. Its trade embargo is seriously undermining its ability to continue to fight. It may be sooner than we think that they'll run out of weapons and equipment so long as Ukraine has support from its allies.

SergeAx2• 1 year ago

Put economic pressure upon Russia so it cannot support its war efforts. Meanwhile, Ukraine should be given anything it needs to defend itself effectively. Do you think it is palatable?

mbs1593• 1 year ago

How about 3 + a fortified DMZ like in Korea?

kulikalov• 1 year ago

russia hasn't been cutoff economically still. 3 years and the economy is going down but not as fast as it should have. The leaders of the west think they are playing a game here with pros and cons. There are no pros and a huge con with number 3 on it. How the fuck can anyone still trade with russia.

This should have been retaliation of the western world years ago.

nahuel0x• 1 year ago

There are two opposing strategies for the US:

- Be aggressive against China allies to weaken them before attacking China (Biden)

- Try to be friendlier to China allies so they become US allies or at least neutral (Trump)

We are seeing oscillations between those two strategies, because both US factions are playing his cards according to what both see at the end of the tunnel: A new World War with US and China as the main actors, the most probable outcome of imperialism and capitalism crisis. The Trade war is his first act.

rsyring3• 1 year ago

I've wholeheartedly disagreed with a lot that past administrations, especially liberal administrations, said and did. But I don't recall ever being so absolutely disgusted by them as I am today.

We are currently watching the downfall of the current world order and the US as a bastion of democracy. And I'm not exaggerating. Trump is aligning himself with Russian interests. He even had a Russian state media representative at that meeting. Rome had to fall, I'm sorry I'm living to see it.

Trump, you'll never read this, but I need to say it anyway...there aren't words to describe how despicable you are. Tyrant wannabee and greedy coward. You are selling the American soul to cozy up to a murder and rapist. Those who voted for you have no excuse. You were always clear about the kind of man you are.

ToDougie• 1 year ago

Probably told him that since he and his government cannot account for tens of billions of dollars that the US gave them, and that we have evidence that Ukraine is selling arms to Mexican cartels (designated terrorist organizations), that we would no longer tolerate our relationship, as is.

Somehow all of the whiny commenters on here forget that DJT's first administration provided considerable CIA/Tier1 training and resources to the Ukrainian military. Then Russia invaded while Biden was president. They didn't invade on Trump's watch. They invaded while Biden was running(?) our country. Now, yet again, Trump has to go clean up the mess -- just like he did after Obama gave Putin the flexibility to invade Ukraine after his win in the 2012 election.

yakkomajuri• 1 year ago

Usually we keep the mainstream news out of here but felt I had to post this one because I've never seen anything like it and was curious to hear other people's perspective here.

To me it feels like a setup to look good in front of their audience without any proper desire to engage in true diplomacy.

neom7• 1 year ago

Some of the stuff I've had to deal with building business to $100MM++++++ revenue give me stress and anxiety. I've been through so much shit at this point I think it's hard to stress me out. Watching that interaction between the 3 of them invoked a feeling I've not felt in a very long time, it was incredibly stressful. That was neither politics nor business, personally I'd have accepted either, but that was not those.

Buttons8403• 1 year ago

How many millions of workers endure endless shit and disrespect from their boss, but they get the job done anyway for the benefit of their families?

How many business leaders, like you, let slide so much shit and instead focused on what was important for their business?

Even if Trump and Vance were disrespected, suck it up like the rest of us and do the thing that benefits the entire country. They met to make a deal to benefit the country; Trump failed to make the deal.

lolinder5• 1 year ago

I can understand, but honestly it was a mistake. I just scrolled down to get here, and there are no curious perspectives being shared or interesting questions being asked, just the entirely understandable and expected mass anger and frustration.

In an ideal world we could have a threat or two like this that would serve as outlets, but what I've actually seen is that having these discussions leads to them bleeding out into other threads that should have been unrelated. HN is going to need to more aggressively enforce its rules about political news if it's going to stay a haven for curiosity and not descend into just another place for angry politics.

spiderfarmer4• 1 year ago

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And this is a pivotal moment in US history, the moment where the world realizes the emperor has no clothes.

voidhorse3• 1 year ago

Whether we like it or not, politics pervades everything. Attempting to keep certain forums sanitized and "apolitical" while a regime shift is occurring and people's civil liberties face very real threats is to live in an amoral and ahistorical fashion.

Desperate times...

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

disagree. I’m here and not Reddit because I’m interested in the perspectives of people on this site and the information that is shared including on events as unprecedented and impactful as this one.

ActorNightly8• 1 year ago

and there are no curious perspectives being shared or interesting questions being aske

There is only one right perspective, and really no interesting questions to be asked. Please stop pretending otherwise.

elihu3• 1 year ago

To me it feels like a setup to look good in front of their audience without any proper desire to engage in true diplomacy.

If that's what it was, I don't think it worked. I think rather that Trump and Vance manufactured a conflict to use as pretense to do what they wanted to do in the first place, which was to cut off Ukraine from U.S. aid. Whether it flies with the American public generally is largely irrelevant to Trump at this point, as he's not constitutionally eligible to run for another term. (He might simply refuse to leave in 2028, but he doesn't need an election to do that.)

veidr• 1 year ago

Everything is like that with this guy. He looks at the world through the prism of old-fashioned network TV ratings. You saw that during the infamous COVID press briefings (the bleach and light ones), holding the bible after the paramilitary cleared the streets in Washington, D.C., when he stood on the balcony after he had COVID, etc., etc.

It's the same thing here — he literally said as much today[1].

As a worldview, that is incomprehensible to me (and I suspect most people), but it really does help understand the choices Donald Trump makes. The spectacle — the attention paid — is what matters to him. How it looks on TV is what matters. How it actually is, is secondary at best, but often irrelevant.

He does a lot of things that "don't make sense" until you think of it that way. That the executive of a country as powerful as the USA perceives the world this way, and makes instinctual decisions on this basis without any credible effort to reason through the possible consequences, is of course very alarming.

As a US citizen, I'll admit that the "gravitas" of the USA as the "leader of the free world" was always carefully stage-managed. Still, it's depressing to watch momentous and crucial international wartime negotiations degraded to this reality-TV/pro-wrestling level, and so swiftly, for the whole world to watch.

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5169464-trump-ze...

danbruc21• 1 year ago

Most here will not like that opinion, but I think this is essentially a good thing, it will eventually end this war - at huge costs for Ukraine. The fault of the USA is not that they now pressure Ukraine towards ending this war, the fault of the USA was that they did not accept Russia's demand - or at least tried to find an acceptable compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO which caused this tragedy.

rich_sasha5• 1 year ago

Assuming you're writing in good faith: Russia has already signed a treaty confirming Ukraine's sovereignty and its borders. Then ignored it and attacked - twice. First time it also pretended it wasn't them, until they turned around and said, "haha, actually it was".

Russia does not hold up bargains, so there is no positive utility in giving them things.

danbruc21• 1 year ago

That is a very weak argument, in my opinion. What if Ukraine attacked Russia, would you still expected Russia not to step into Ukraine while fighting back? Countries pull out of and break treaties all the time when the circumstances change. After all, all laws and rights and agreements and treaties are just ink on paper and they are worth nothing without the will and power to enforce them.

kubb18• 1 year ago

Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

danbruc21• 1 year ago

Who said they are? The official position of NATO was that Ukraine will eventually join NATO while Russia demanded that Ukraine will not join NATO. Contrary to the western mainstream opinion, I think that is why Putin started this war, to prevent Ukraine joining NATO, not to grab some land.

fullshark6• 1 year ago

And how is "ending the war" certain after a cease fire and not just a temporary pause in Putin's quest to eliminiate Ukraine/opposition and annex/install a puppet ruler there?

danbruc21• 1 year ago

Nothing is certain. I say this because I think that the mainstream point of view - that Putin is an expansionist and will conquer whatever he can - is wrong. If I am wrong with that and the mainstream opinion is correct, than it is of course a potentially [1] bad idea to end the war.

[1] I say potentially because even in the case that Russia will attack again, it is not obvious that ending the war for now is bad for Ukraine. Maybe they could grow their military potential quicker than Russia and be in a relatively better position in the future.

echelon3• 1 year ago

Ukraine wants security guarantees. A ceasefire without security guarantees is an opportunity for Russia to resupply and attack again.

danbruc21• 1 year ago

They will not get any. Let us be real, nobody really cares about Ukraine. If a country truly cared, they would have sent their own troops towards Ukraine on day one of the invasion. Nobody will agree to potentially fight in a war against a nuclear [super] power to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.

phendrenad2• 1 year ago

People complaining about politics on HN: Nobody is asking you to read or post here. Make your own HN where politics are strictly forbidden. Good luck.

omayomay• 1 year ago

this meeting will be remembered in ages to be come.

guerrilla5• 1 year ago

You're making the assumption that even more outrageous things aren't coming down the pipeline. I think that's unwarranted. They will continue to escalate.

nrawe6• 1 year ago

So, watching the video as a brit with a number if Ukrainian friends and colleagues, my first reaction is that this is the Trump Whitehouse looking for a cheap win.

However, I think their calculation here speaks to the difficulty of the current situation.

Putting aside the morality, sovereign integrity, and such: the situation appears to be entering/in a stalemate. The Ukrainian forces have done well to proactively take and hold Russian territory, and have held the line pretty well. However, there does not seem to be a play here that will conclusively end Russian occupation presently. The best case seems to be waiting out the supply of Russian troops, but the Ukrainian army doesn't have an endless supply of volunteers in this regard (I've worked with a few who have).

So the question has to be asked: how does this end decisively if neither side can win outright? And how much support is required to maintain the status quo?

I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose territory. I think they could argue for greater security architecture (i.e. part of NATO but no nukes) to prevent repeat. But otherwise I can appreciate why the current administration is where its at.

Its a sorry situation all around.

liuliu2• 1 year ago

I think they could argue for greater security architecture (i.e. part of NATO but no nukes) to prevent repeat. But otherwise I can appreciate why the current administration is where its at.

The current administration is redundantly clear that it won't allow Ukraine to join NATO to avoid antagonize Russia.

nrawe6• 1 year ago

Yeah, I think they'll fold on that point, too, but the main stumbling block for Ukraine is that Russian guarantees mean little in a post-2021 invasion context given they made the same overtures after 2014.

The idea of the entire country becoming a DMZ just smacks of Putin lining up the next play and a Russian-leaning leader put in Zelenskis place.

oezi9• 1 year ago

Why do they empower a war lord such as Putin? In what universe should the US care about if they offend Russia? Will they put Iran over Israel next?

Muromec8• 1 year ago

Well, it's either NATO or nukes, the man himself said it.

cloverich5• 1 year ago

Many characterize Putin's current position as taking as much territory as possible, while staying in the game long enough for US political climate to change. So I'd posit back, how would Putin's posture change if the US right was as aligned as the left on supporting Ukraine as long as it took? I suspect he would have taken a deal long ago.

Trump wants it to look as though he is the one making the deal happen, but the reality is he's the only reason it has not happened already. IMHO.

nrawe6• 1 year ago

I agree with your point about Putin waiting for the WH administration to change. Were the president hawkish on Russia, however, I still doubt Putin would back down.

Putin needs to be seen to win at home to play to his core base. Biden wouldn't let him, Trump will, but to Putin that means:

1. Control of annexed territory. 2. No Ukrainian nukes. 3. No NATO/EU membership for Ukraine. 4. Zelenski removed and puppet/anti-democratic leader installed.

What we're hearing post-meeting is Trump laying the groundwork for point 4 and taking a firm position on 1.

p2detar• 1 year ago

I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose territory. I

I don't think it's territory what Putin wants. Even without its current territories, if Ukraine turns out to be successful and recover in the next 10 years, what will this mean to the Russian population? A total and absolute surrender of Ukraine is the end goal. No EU, no NATO, just another vassal-president and things go on like they were before 2022, but this time with half-destroyed country.

This war should have never started, I actually agree with Trump on this. But for that to happen, NATO should have entered Ukraine the first week after Putin did. And to those in Europe that argue against it, I would only say - are we better off now?

senectus1• 1 year ago

I think what we have in Trump is a quintessentially weak leader. weak in a sense that he is easily led. Whoever speaks the most authoritatively with him last is who gets to set his direction.

Vance set the stage in that session, and Trump ran onto the stage and tried to make sure he was in the spotlight the whole time.

1272• 1 year ago

Putin's aim is the complete destruction of Ukraine as a nation and the removal of the current democratically elected administration. Until that he can be only stopped with force.

rhubarbtree3• 1 year ago

There is precisely one solution, which is western troops on the ground in Ukraine.

Yes that’s terrifying, no it won’t lead to world war three.

Any other solution leads to widespread war across the globe.

As I’m fairly confident the west won’t put troops on the ground to fight russia, you can test my hypothesis by watching china start making moves on Taiwan in the short term, and then further wars breaking out over the next few years. I’ll go with several African countries, the Middle East (Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq), turkey, and once the Ukraine situation has settled multiple Eastern European countries. Worst case you’ll see the baltics invaded by Russia, I think there’s a good chance of that. Finland an outside bet.

I may be wrong, but I did anticipate the coup in turkey, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the election of trump.

Enjoy your life whilst you can. Conscription is coming. There will be a lot of western troop deployments. These are the good old days.

t0lo3• 1 year ago

The west feels asleep at the wheel, and the next generations (including mine) have been so heavily insubordinated and worn down economically and spiritually that their capacity for envisioning a positive new future and policy seems minimal. Land grabs are back on the menu. The next generation of leaders has grown up on tiktok.

A young friend I know is a political "golden child" on the fast track to le4dership but only 3 years ago was talking about manosphere people and shoving tiktoks down my throat. I can't possibly communicate to you strongly enough how broken and emotionally stunted this coming generation is due to social media.

Happy I'm in tasmania, aus, learning to be a self sufficient young person. I'm living through the mistakes of the weak willed generations that came before me.

We have 5-10 years of bad enough normalcy left. The world, and us, the people in it, and our "common values" are going to be unrecognisable in 20 years.

I can't understand how we got so weak and unintelligent. Social media played a big role, and the elimination of anything except self aggrandisement in the popular culture, and the stupid labelling of anything a little nerdier as autistic or adhd or yada yada shows a society detaching itself from and losing patience for structured intelligence. Russia is behind a lot of this, and they place both sides. They bolster and distort transgender and autism communities etc as cultural weapons as much as they do conservative and libertarian ones. Their aim is to destroy the idea of the "normal" rational base.

To say russia is dumb, or slow moving is infantile. This is a calculating machine of evil which never rests and preys on the weakness and innocence of the west. I'm sure their propaganda divisions have their own cities at this point.

Read putins people and listen to londongrad s1 to understand just how hollow "western democratic institutions" are. Listen to WEF sexual escorts talk about how there's two camps of people who attend, one that believes climate change is going to end everyone, and the other that believes it almost will, and how the attendees gloat "tax the rich" as a joke as a running joke at bars. Read about how the ex IPCC head says there's a chance for 5°c warming. The world and the system you know is gone.

casenmgreen12• 1 year ago

Used to be UA needed EU+USA.

Now EU, sans USA, needs UA, because EU is militarily weak.

If UA falls, EU will fall also; it cannot stop Vladimir, and this before considering the massiive impact of drones, which only RU and UA know how to operate effectively.

EU+UA is enough to keep UA up and this protects EU.

All in all, EU will keep UA up, however it is done, and in the end it will require EU military involvement. Maybe we get there sooner now, rather than later.

I think the capability to retake lost UA terrain belongs to USA and massive military buildup in UA.

EU military in UA keeps UA up just fine, but doesn't retake terrain - not enough military force for that.

Ends up with cease-fire, and UA not in NATO, as USA/HU/SK will prevent it, but probably security guarantees and troops on ground from rest of EU.

Everyone then settles down to the next cold war (and RU economy post-war spends a while in strong recession, taking immediate pressure off).

Problem is, Vladimir effectively subverts Western elections through social media.

How do you have free and fair elections with that going on?

Humorist2290• 1 year ago

If you're an American and want to vent your frustrations, you could try the US Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121 .

You can contact your senator and ask how they are contributing to the safety and prosperity of Americans, or just human beings in general.

gs173• 1 year ago

My senators are both strongly in support of this. Bill Hagerty's website's top news story is from yesterday, but it pretty much restates everything Trump said today. And I'm sure I don't need to explain Marsha Blackburn's opinion. Republicans gerrymandered the state, so the Representative in the House is about the same. Unless I suddenly win the lottery, I don't think they're interested in hearing my opinion.

lostdog5• 1 year ago

They notice when lots of constituents call in all at once.

At least you have a congressperson on the wrong side of this who is worth pressuring. I am very tired of making calls that just say "I know you say you're on the right side of this, but will you please try to do anything?"

koonsolo4• 1 year ago

Just protest on the streets already!

horns4lyfe5• 1 year ago

Ya protest for the right to pay for a war that has nothing to do with you. Brilliant

GuinansEyebrows3• 1 year ago

i've been thinking a lot about this lately. how do we move from asking rhetorical questions of elected leaders into actually compelling them to act on our behalf? there's little to no connection between public will and its representation.

lifestyleguru• 1 year ago

Trump with his bluffs and attacks operates within crumple zone of US and even of the western world but this crumple zone slowly starts giving up. Inside his head he thinks he is genius with ideas like taking over Greenland, depopulating Gaza, capturing Ukrainian resources or that Putin treats him seriously. Fact is EU has been asleep at the wheel for the last decade doing even counter productive moves like Brexit and Nord Stream, or ridiculous things like attaching bottle caps to the bottle, while corruption in Ukraine has been continuously enormous to the point they run out of money and people. Honestly, it all looks rather bleak and elites of many EU countries are ready to eject to Dubai (as Russian and Ukrainian ones have already done).

varispeed2• 1 year ago

Russia probably has strong kompromats on Trump and his administration. Can't explain it any other way. Why otherwise they would go out of the way to make idiots of themselves in public in front of the whole world?

I know Trump has not been an example of tact but this is something else.

Glyptodon7• 1 year ago

I totally think the people saying that KGB has video or photos or whatever from the late '80s of him sleeping with KGB agent/call girls or similar are plausible. But I have a really hard time imagining Trump being embarrassed by anything like that. He'd be like "Of course I slept with beautiful women! who wouldn't?"

I'd love to have some idea of what they could actually have that he'd be ashamed of, but he's so shameless it's hard for me to imagine. Which makes me more inclined to think that he just hasn't met a dictator that he's not jealous of more so than anything.

fransje262• 1 year ago

Maybe they weren't adults...

anon77254• 1 year ago

I'd love to have some idea of what they could actually have that he'd be ashamed of, but he's so shameless it's hard for me to imagine.

“Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” -Eric Trump, 2014

"In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" -Don Jr, 2008

Kankuro• 1 year ago

I guess it would end up like usual: "They are fake news. They are created with AI. Everybody can do it. My dog can do it. They just hate America. Bad people. They want to hurt our great country[…]" And his radicalized voters will follow him, like it did not end Berlusconi career after the "bunga-bunga" scandal

beretguy2• 1 year ago

Why otherwise they would go out of the way to make idiots of themselves in public in front of the whole world?

Because they are pure evil people, just like putin, and nobody is stopping them. It's that simple.

varispeed2• 1 year ago

This is not mutually exclusive. Being evil makes it easier to succumb to Putin demands.

evantbyrne• 1 year ago

Could be as simple as he wants to say he "ended" the war. If history offers any lessons, it's that he doesn't think too much about the details and doesn't care how his actions impact others.

foldr2• 1 year ago

It's hard to imagine anything he's done in private with the KGB cameras rolling being worse than the mountain of stuff that's already publicly known, or that he has openly done in public.

freetonik2• 1 year ago

The point of diluting the notion of truth into a meaningless concept - a process so loved by both Putin and Trump - is to make things such as kompromats have zero power.

Just imagine some photos and videos of Trump having sex with minors or even murdering someone emerge. Do you actually believe it will be damaging to him? “It’s fake, it’s AI, it’s our enemies trying to attack us”.

AlexatParis3• 1 year ago

I am born in Ukraine and live now in Europe. As European I may understand your disappointment with the West letting down some "rules based" order and democratic values. Yet as Ukrainian, I know unfortunately that the premises of the "rules based world" do not apply to many regions in the world, inclusive Ukraine. Let me explain, a rule-based order means that the monopoly of violence is the privilege of the state: if a bad guy annoys, you get them arrested by the police and sued by the justice. In international relations, the cop was the US. But if you live in a region where US cannot or just doesn't want to play the cop (for the seek of is interests : think to Saudi Arabia..) then you finish up in a 'violent world' where the order comes from the violence and power. If you accept that such regions exist, you become a realist (see mersheimer) And if you are realist, you do not understand why Zelensky has sacrificed 1million people while another strategy would have been more suited: accept the neutrality, play the economic development, play the cultural development (remeber that economy and culture are the weak parts of Putin's policy) and gain margins of independence step by step.

jimmydoe6• 1 year ago

Zelensky is just one person, rest of the Ukraine govt will play realists

empiricus2• 1 year ago

What do you think Putin will do in year after a peace? What do you think Putin will do after taking over Ukraine? This is also a form of realism, to think what will happen in the future.

AlexatParis3• 1 year ago

yet how do you defeat him right now ? if western stocks are completely depleted, and in the battlefield Ukraine (with all help of western countries) has 1 to 5 or 10 ratio of ballistic to Ukraine / China. Acknowledging this basic fact hurts to the ego but may save millions of lifes. Acknowledging this fact makes you think to your sole remaining strategy: separate Putin from Xi and gain time to enhance your military industry. Acknowledging this fact does not make you pro-Putin as you still prefer a democratic world. Of course, you will not be very successful in meetings. You can afford such non sense when you have no skin in the game. But if the lifes of your cousin is at stake, you think in a real world with real terms, what to do to spare your population !

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

mersheimer, who premisses his theory on 'Putin never lies'. Such reality.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I have issues with Mearsheimer but that's not really his position.

GeorgeTirebiter• 1 year ago

Mersheimer is mostly wrong. I urge you to seek alternate sources.

AlexatParis3• 1 year ago

Mersheimer is not my source nor my reference. my source are the messages I receive from cousins on the battlefield.

tim33331• 1 year ago

accept the neutrality

They were neutral and yet Russia invaded.

About the only major thing Zelensky could have done differently was to get on a flight out when the 2022 invasion happened and let Putin take over. I don't know if you think that would have been better? There would have been less deaths certainly. But if you look at how the Russians behave in places like Bucha it's not very nice.

casenmgreen12• 1 year ago

you do not understand why Zelensky has sacrificed 1million people

Vladimir invaded, and has never asked for or offered peace, not that he could be trusted if he did.

What else could UA do except fight.

The idea Z chose this route, that there were other routes, is incorrect.

VeejayRampay• 1 year ago

absolute display of debased cowardice

if you're american and you're able to watch the video without feeling either ashamed or revolted, know that absolutely no one in the world respects the cloth you're cut from, except for the the worst dictators and their lackeys

black_puppydog2• 1 year ago

Dear god we need to stop producing Foundation-style and other imperialist sci-fi TV. Clearly Trump and his crew are way too convinced they're emperors. Next up I guess: cruel and unusual punishments for political enemies. :|

gtsop3• 1 year ago

The funniest thing about all this is the absurd joke that Trump is compromised by Russia. A clearly populist and baseless propaganda to wash off the cold self-interested policies that America always (obviously) shoved down the throats of it's allies and enemies.

The inability to see how this policy benefits usa (by giving an end to a dead-end spend to a lost war, claim some losses, attempt to not go head to head with russia since china is the biggest fish to deal with right now) is trully laughable.

I know the downvotes are going to come raining, i don't care.

rpmisms6• 1 year ago

Realpolitik is not a skill common among engineers. I won't begrudge anyone their outrage.

jimbohn4• 1 year ago

This was the investment of the century for the USA. Send old garbage and help with intelligence to weaken a historical enemy, revive NATO, and acquire knowledge on the frontier of warfare. The joke is on the USA, sadly.

gtsop3• 1 year ago

This is only a small part of the story regarding USAs involvement in ukraine. USA heavily reacted to the pro-russian election results and put forth a full on propaganda machine to establish their pro-american government, this was of course to ensure access to ukraine's sweet sweet resources and prevent the Russian expansion of influence and resource access.

whalesalad• 1 year ago

That meeting is one of the most infurating things I have ever witnessed. We are 100% cooked.

sys_647385• 1 year ago

I've never felt this embarrassed to be an American in recent years. To all our foreign friends in computing, the majority of people in the US are not caricatures of POTUS and his sock puppet sidekick.

B1FF_PSUVM3• 1 year ago

Should have felt embarrassed about Nuland and Blinken. This is the fall-out.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

It's actually possible to be embarassed for both.

brickfaced6• 1 year ago

You don't speak for all or even most Americans. A majority of US voters selected Donald Trump as their President. I'm pleased with the President's pushback on the disrespectful, high-pressure bargaining tactics Zelensky tried to use today in front of the press at the White House.

sjsdaiuasgdia11• 1 year ago

49% is a plurality, not a majority.

ttyprintk19• 1 year ago

He won by plurality, not majority.

acdha7• 1 year ago

Under half of voters selected him - roughly a quarter of the population - and many of them claim to have done so on the basis of the policy positions he made during the campaign which have been reversed (Canada, Gaza, Ukraine, Project 2025, etc.).

lurking_swe2• 1 year ago

well then i’m even more ashamed of my country lol. high pressure?

JD vance calling the guest out for being disrespectful in front of the media. Trump not letting the guest talk at all. did we watch the same video? Hilarious take.

Trasmatta4• 1 year ago

Do you not see the incredible irony accusing Zelenskyy of "disrespectful, high-pressure bargaining tactics"??

His country has been under attack by an authoritarian government for YEARS, and the problem is that he's not "respectful enough" for you? What happened to "facts don't care about your feelings"?

nullstyle4• 1 year ago

[flagged]

unethical_ban4• 1 year ago

Trump behaved like a petulant fool. If you don't know it, let me tell you, every foreign government on the planet and their diplomatic corps knows it. Shouting over someone speaking your language at a public meeting was such a god damned embarrassment for the country. A total lack of decorum, a total lack of diplomacy, a total lack of understanding or control of themselves or the situation. He's not fit to run a McDonalds.

otterley10• 1 year ago

Why couldn't what Zelensky did be equally described as "appealing to the American people"? After all, aren't we a democracy? The President is supposed to represent us, and thus be receptive to such appeals. If it so happens that the appeal persuades Americans, the President should follow suit.

Dissuading and choking off appeals to the people suggests to me that the President is highly insecure in his position. People in secure positions don't get offended or upset when people appeal to their bosses (i.e., us).

aprilthird20215• 1 year ago

the disrespectful, high-pressure bargaining tactics Zelensky tried to use today

Such as? All I heard was him asking how an agreement or deal would help when the history of Ukraine-Russia deals has always ended up with Ukraine being invaded more

chgs4• 1 year ago

But about half of America did vote for this, and Trump isn’t doing what he said he’d do and what the world said he’d do.

wrs• 1 year ago

Half of American voters voted for this, which is far less than half of Americans. I’m almost as disappointed in the people who didn’t vote as I am in the people who voted for this.

WhyOhWhyQ4• 1 year ago

77 million people voted for Trump. The US has 340 million people. 22.6% of the US voted for this.

krick3• 1 year ago

I don't understand why you assume your foreign friends in computing are not in favor of... eh, whatever you are "embarrassed by". And whatever it is, the (small) majority of people in the USA voted for it, so your statement simply means you are so invested in your own religion that you are willing to fool yourself into thinking "nearly everybody" is, not just every second guy. Which surely seems like "nearly everybody", if you don't want to consider their point of view has as much merit as your own.

If anything, I expected HN crowd to be one-sided, but not that one sided. All these laments in this topic are kinda crazy to read, honestly.

hollerith5• 1 year ago

the majority of people in the US are not caricatures of POTUS

It's so sad that an evil magician has hypnotized so many Americans into voting for Trump. Thank you for reminding us how the majority would have voted if they hadn't been hypnotized.

IanHalbwachs• 1 year ago

As an American it pains me how well put this is

damion6• 1 year ago

Just a bad seed Trump is

at0mic222• 1 year ago

Can we get downvoted comments look regularly and not faded completely out? Silencing people cause their opinion is not popular seems very redditish

blackeyeblitzar• 1 year ago

Agree. This graying out thing is a terrible design for contentious topics, and isn’t conducive to curious conversations.

tim33331• 1 year ago

You can always click the 'hours ago' thing on greyed comments to read them.

nxm7• 1 year ago

It should be noted that Biden lost temper with Zelenskyy in late 2022 after pledging more, Zelenskyy started to complain about to getting even more

sirolimus5• 1 year ago

Trump, Musk and Vance are a disgrace. I hope democrats turn this around. Europe stands with Ukraine

TheAlchemist9• 1 year ago

One more, somewhat important, detail that's also very telling about where the US administration is heading.

Reuters and Associated Press were barred from Oval Office during this meeting, but a Russian state news agency TASS reporter was allowed - into the Oval Office.

Wake up America before it's too late.

rsyring3• 1 year ago

There are plenty of us who are awake. But lots of the voting public wanted this man in office. And they are getting what they wanted, apparently, b/c he was clear about who he is and what he was going to do.

We'll have at least two years of this. One can hope 2026 will see a massive tide turn in congress and the Senate and maybe Trump will be impeached. But, it doesn't seem likely, and even if it happened, they can't impeach his entire administration so not sure how much can really change until 2028.

koonsolo4• 1 year ago

Slovaks also elected Fico, but they are also protesting like hell.

A democratic leader is a leader to all, not only to his voter base.

Where are your protests?

l0t0b0r0s3• 1 year ago

b/c he was clear about who he is and what he was going to do.

This was a much needed change; because it was insane having a dementia patient as a president. I dont mean that hyperbolically; the democratic party was ready to have him serve another 4 years when he couldnt hold his train of thought on the debate stage. The democratic party needs to explain why his mental condition was swept under the rug at the expense of the American people.

paxys• 1 year ago

Wake up America before it's too late.

The time to wake up was 2016. It is already too late.

33% of Americans have their heads in the sand and are believing the establishment talking points and amplifying them.

33% know what is going on and are cheering it on.

33% don’t care either way.

Hard to say which group is doing more damage to the country tbh.

selykg• 1 year ago

There are those of us that hate this but have no idea how they can help.

gkoberger• 1 year ago

I think there's a large portion (let's call it 22.47%... aka the percentage that voted for Kamala) know exactly what's going on, care a ton, and lost the election.

And then there's a large percentage for whom this whole thing just feels futile. It's not that they don't care, but they dislike Trump and feel like Democrats are unable/unwilling to rise to the occasion. (After all, 4 years later, Democrats just fired up the republican base and did nothing to protect Americans)

blacksqr2• 1 year ago

Been saying since the Clinton years that the American electorate is a three-way split between the stupid, the crazy and the feckless.

Sohcahtoa827• 1 year ago

I think a lot of Americans are truly taking the "both sides are bad" stance and thinking that it makes them superior and choose not to vote.

I think they're actively harmful. "Both sides are bad" is a thought-ending cliche.

sunjieming2• 1 year ago

Just fyi - That reporter wasn't on the approved list and was removed once white house staff became aware of their presence.

rsyring3• 1 year ago

Are you saying they got into the oval office accidentally? That seems really hard to believe.

krashidov• 1 year ago

this makes it even worse

ceejayoz8• 1 year ago

"Russian state media wandered into the Oval Office without permission" really isn't a comforting explanation.

blacksqr2• 1 year ago

This is what's know as "ass-covering."

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

I know they said that, but, really? Since when does an unauthorized person get access to the Oval Office? That would be a huge fail by the Secret Service.

TheAlchemist9• 1 year ago

I've read that too. Do we seriously believe that a random person can get into the Oval Office, for one of the most important high level meeting of the past years ?

martinky24• 1 year ago

What exactly are you suggesting by "Wake up"? How can I actionably do something to "wake up"?

righthand• 1 year ago

Smell the coffee.

beretguy2• 1 year ago

I think start participating in protests to begin with.

bilbo0s11• 1 year ago

This.

People abroad don't realize, the average American person is completely powerless.

Yes, we may lament the troubles that the current administration is causing for our allies, (or, I guess, former allies) abroad, but there's next to nothing we can do about it.

Again, buyer's remorse is all we can muster right now and it doesn't do anyone any good. At this point, we have no choice but to search for what positives we can work with that come out of the current administration, and just live with the consequences of the rest.

colechristensen4• 1 year ago

It's getting to be about time for pitchforks and torches in front of the offices and homes of your elected Senate and House representatives demanding they exercise their constitutional duty of checks and balances against the executive.

At the very least send letters, make phone calls. Let them know if they don't stand up to a dictator they've lost your vote.

Comment on all of the elected Democrats' posts "oh no repulicans just did this!" and let them know that whining isn't leading and they need to shut up and do something.

I'm encouraging every Democrat to register as a Republican, vote for the most centrist candidates in the next primary, and if they win, vote for any Republican that has an independent thought over a Democrat who knows nothing but how to sit around uselessly and complain.

And when the revolution comes, the first people who should get the most blame are those who chose not to use the power they had to do anything about it.

aparticulate21• 1 year ago

Going to bat for AP and Reuters, golly

sigmarule6• 1 year ago

Out of curiosity, what sources of information do you trust more than AP and Reuters?

HumblyTossed2• 1 year ago

Someone needs to figure out how to deprogram MAGA voters.

akmarinov7• 1 year ago

So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works.

Any negotiations US-Russia will be useless as the US won’t represent anyone with a stake in the war. They don’t have people, territory, anything at stake, they don’t get refugees and generally aren’t directly affected in any way.

What are the chances that they just leave Ukraine, Europe and Russia alone from now on and leave them to sort it out on their own?

GenerocUsername• 1 year ago

Despite all the rage in these comments, the base of the right largely views this as best possible outcome.

redmajor123• 1 year ago

Supporting peace?! That's a right wing cause now?

akmarinov7• 1 year ago

At this point that sounds like a good deal.

Also pull everything out of Europe and make NATO worthless.

StefanBatory5• 1 year ago

That would be a good ending by now - USA can start supporting Russia. With intelligence, with weapons.

akmarinov7• 1 year ago

Yeah but why? To what end?

Russia gets USSR back together? What does Trump get out of that?

And don’t start with any of that “Trump was turned by GRU”, “they have dirt on him”, “he’s bought by Russia”

He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money

He’s at the top of power - both houses, presidency, supreme court all will follow whatever he says without a second thought, commander of the strongest military the world has known, richest nation in the world - there’s hardly any more power to gain.

He doesn’t need to care about getting reelected, he won’t get removed from office. He’s 80 and whatever - there’s nothing to fear in his future as he’s at the end. He doesn’t care about the Republican party, so setting that up for the future doesn’t matter to him.

Any dirt they bring out can just be handwaved away as AI generated and no one in his base will believe it regardless.

So he can’t be a Russian asset, he’s beyond that and untouchable to the Russians.

So what is it? What is he after?

cowgoesmoo• 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that's what Trump wants if the mineral deal isn't signed. And now the mineral deal seems more and more unlikely.

code_biologist3• 1 year ago

Alex Krainer has speculated that Zelenskyy literally can't sign a mineral deal because those rights were a secret part of the UK/Ukraine 100 Year Partnership deal, making this all a bunch of theater.

thinkcontext• 1 year ago

So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works

Probably even worse than pulling weapons and intelligence would be if the US pulled the plug on sanctions.

casenmgreen12• 1 year ago

This is the outcome.

Well, we might see a vestigial "peace treaty" set up between D and V, with both saying "we'd have peace now except for Z not wanting it, he's the problem".

USA is out of the game. Only question now is if it goes neutral (EU can still buy munitions/weapons) or actually becomes actively hostile, to whatever extent.

EU now needs to step up. This means 7% defence spending, to re-arm and to support UA.

HU/SK will block everything in EU, every step of the way, as both are Putin's.

EU is actually fundamentally unable to respond because it cannot really deal with HU/SK. NATO also. No mechanism to eject members. Enough voting mechanisms require unanimous vote.

EU States need to start organizing things between themselves, sans HU/SK/USA.

gattr• 1 year ago

On the one hand, I'm pretty sure Zelenskyy has had similar exchanges with Biden and the members of his administration in the past few years. And I understand (I think) the realities here: the US isn't doing anything out of the goodness of its heart; Putin's idiotic "short victorious war" blunder presented a nice opportunity to weaken Russia via a proxy war, no decisive military/materiel support was given, just enough to keep Ukraine going, etc.

But FOR GOODNESS' SAKE, these dealings and bickering are supposed to happen behind closed doors! You give the public just the bland courtesies and assurances! The US president and vice president have come across as impulsive 4-year-olds throwing toys out of a sandbox.

I used to think that the novel "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" ([1]), which ridicules Donald Trump quite a bit, was overdoing it for humor. Now I'm not so sure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_2020_Commission_Report_on_...

selimthegrim7• 1 year ago

For a second I thought this was by Chuck Tingle rather than Arms Control Wonk

locallost2• 1 year ago

That's difficult to do when Trump still thinks he's on reality tv.

dworkr• 1 year ago

Zalensky is right. Russia started it, if we have to destroy the planet with nukes and kill every single European of fighting age, we can never, must never, surender to Putin. And think of the great innovations in murderous drones we will get out of an ongoing multi-decade prixy war, all that ingenuity and Ukranian expertise in killing can be ours for very, very low cost! Beginning to wonder about Trump's priorities.

alberth• 1 year ago

Can someone ELI5 the facts & dynamics at play - without taking a side in this topic?

Seems like POTUS feels used / manipulated, but how & why?

Zelensky seems to disagree with some apparent proposed plan, but what is the plan & why does he disagree?

nikodotio3• 1 year ago

Not make it political… you’re joking right?

liveoneggs2• 1 year ago

When Russia annexed crimea in 2014 (phase 1 of the current war) the response was sanctions because no one wants WW3.

Russia realized it can keep taking territory if it does so slowly because everyone is afraid of a bigger war and sanctions don't bother the Russian elite that much, so in 2022 they start phase 2 and absorb the additional sanctions.

Trump has a new capitulation deal for Ukraine in hand, possibly pre-approved with Russia, but Zelensky either backed out of accepting the terms or was otherwise surprised about the details and didn't play ball with Trump; possibly because it included him losing a lot of face.

logicalmind• 1 year ago

My read on the situation is that Zelensky is willing to make any deal for lasting peace. Meaning, if a deal is made and Russia ignores the ceasefire or continues its invasion in a month or year, what will happen to them? This is literally what he asked because Russia has violated all of the previous agreements in the same way.

What Trump was offering was to take a chunk of their resources for another temporary peace offer. Which as noted above, will almost certainly be violated in the near term by Russia again. So Ukraine is not only back where they started, but also lost a chunk of their resources. Why would Zelensky agree to that?

rich_sasha5• 1 year ago

One possibility is that foreign policy is in fact often driven by domestic policy.

It sounds like this is the sort of reaction that Trump voters might like - both the form and substance. So Trump obliges. The foreign consequences might be of secondary importance to him.

Another possibility is that, we have seen over the past decade or so, illiberal autocrats seem to support and like each other - Orban, Putin, Le Pen in France, now also AfD and Musk. They seem to like the idea of strong leaders such as themselves, carving up the world. This might motivate Trump to side with Putin.

As to the plan: there doesn't really seem to be one, as far as I can tell. Trump implied there's some mineral extraction deal he wanted from Ukraine but unclear how it works. It doesn't promise the one thing Ukraine needs, which is security. Depending on your viewpoint, you might say Trump is extorting mineral rights from Ukraine, or that they want to put some structure on how the mineral wealth will be used to rebuild Ukraine - that's what is discussed at face value. But either way, for any mineral extraction, you need peace, so it's unclear why you would even discuss this while the war is going on.

DrNosferatu15• 1 year ago

Didn’t a Trump call with the Danish prime minister also end like that?

brickfaced6• 1 year ago

All President Zelensky had to do was say "thanks for your support" and have the hard conversations behind closed doors. Instead he tried to use high-pressure negotiating tactics in front of the cameras, on Donald Trump of all people. This was clearly a mistake, and now his diplomatic incompetence and lack of basic gratitude and respect will cost Zelensky and his country dearly.

nxm7• 1 year ago

He did the same to Biden privately: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna54592

cynicalpeace10• 1 year ago

Absolutely correct, huge blunder on Zelensky's part, even though many here are angry with Trump

otterley10• 1 year ago

If you can’t tolerate emotional and tactical appeals from a foreign leader for support in a public meeting without falling apart and castigating them, you’re probably not fit to lead our country. This sort of behavior doesn’t befit a parent or even a middle manager, let alone the leader of the free world.

StefanBatory5• 1 year ago

I'm afraid of USA by now.

That one day they will sever ties with Europe, I expected. But not becoming an actively hostile state.

I am left wondering - how long it will take until Americans start openly supporting Russia and China?

When I was younger, anti-American people were a source of jokes for me. Being a Pole, why would anyone be against our ally? Well, now I see. And it's painful to say that, but I'm starting to see Americans as people in very negative light. Perhaps you were hated in the rest of the world for a reason.

markus_zhang• 1 year ago

It's sad to be smaller countries.

cynicalpeace10• 1 year ago

A lot of people here are angry with Trump about this. But if you watch the full meeting, it's clear Zelensky could have avoided this fiasco.

Just the facts:

1. Zelensky did indeed say thank you, at the beginning of the conference.

2. Zelensky made faces at various points of the initial questions. Mostly in frustration with reporters but also in frustration with Trump

3. Zelensky shook his head when Trump started making some remark he disagreed with. A reporter even followed up on him shaking his head. This was the preamble to the bigger argument.

4. Finally, Zelensky asked Vance a provocative question "what kind of diplomacy are you talking about?" which started the shouting match.

Zelensky and this administration simply do not want the same thing. This kind of altercation was probably inevitable in some fashion, but it should've been done in private. Zelensky now gives no chance for the administration to even save face if they do decide to help more.

Rapzid3• 1 year ago

Avoided what exactly? If the emperor wants to show the world he has no clothes, why stop him?

They've been "negotiating" with Ukraine's invader behind Ukraine's back. Concocting mineral right "deals" that they believe Ukraine _must_ accept; without their involvement and without security guarantees. Voting "against" them in the UN. Making false statements about who invaded who. Etc.

And he's gonna not, rather politely, push back and ask questions instead of getting steamrolled? They started this off with Brian Glenn grilling him over his lack of suite and accusing him of disrespect while they snickered and sneered. Let's not forgot that those "jokes", and this entire presser, are in the context of an ongoing war with nearly 1,000,000 dead and wounded now.

If anything I think Zelensky smoked them out for all of the US public and Europe to see. Why would he avoid that?!

cynicalpeace10• 1 year ago

Because he didn't get what he wanted, which is money and security guarantees.

Zelensky and his team wanted this minerals deal to happen because they saw it as a step towards getting Americans on their frontier, which would act as a shield against Russia.

He even wanted to come back to the White House after the fiasco. Trump says no.

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

Say what?

Zelenskyy's question is perfectly reasonable and not at all aggressive because of the context provided by the history that Zelenskyy has previously explained ad nauseum.

Trump and Vance react aggressively / defensively to it because they don't have an answer that fits their narrative, so the only option they have up their sleeve is aggressive accusation to distract from their lack of a decent answer.

They're in denial of reality.

cynicalpeace10• 1 year ago

This wasn't some neighborhood argument. Zelensky should've appealed to their egos in order to get what he wants, which is money and security guarantees.

Now it's even less likely he'll get that.

otterley10• 1 year ago

You might benefit from the WSJ’s perspective: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/putin-wins-the-trump-zelensky-ov...

cynicalpeace10• 1 year ago

bad article. I watched the whole meeting. WSJ lies and say Vance started the whole thing. You can obviously see that's not true if you just watch the 46 minute meeting.

Vance said Trump was trying to be diplomatic, which is, in fact, true. Whether true or not, or whether he agrees with diplomacy or not, Zelensky should've moved on. He didn't. he started an argument with his hosts in their own house. Bad move.

topherpalmtree6• 1 year ago

The US walks alone now. Vulnerable and weak.

bilbo0s11• 1 year ago

Alone? Maybe.

Vulnerable and weak?

Um, anyone who believes this is just not engaging in dispassionate analysis of the situation. We are a lot of not so good things. Weak is not one of them.

topherpalmtree6• 1 year ago

Any nation alone in a world of nations with strong alliances is weak.

arjunaaqa• 1 year ago

Strange to see people supporting Zelensky here.

He has lots of history proving he is no innocent man.

He comes from theatre background, so he loves doing theatrics.

He is cause of this public infighting.

Look at full interview please.

- He is president of one of most corrupt countries, don’t think him as a saint.

- Look at reactions of his own ambassador, you will understand why she is disgusted.

- Trump is a straightforward man. Zelensky very well knew terms of deal before he flew to Washington.

But he came because this drama is what he wanted, for his selfish and sponsored agenda.

This will not end well for him.

Ukrainians need a different leadership.

trymas3• 1 year ago

How your angle of criticism doesn’t apply to Trump?

Felon. Crypto grifter (selling corruption out in the open?). Known adulterer. TV personality - so he “makes good TV” when in front of cameras.

Whole world thought Ukraine will fall in 3 days (just like Putin). Zelenski asked for “bullets and not evacuation”. He stood his ground, united the nation, with kremlin’s assassins trying to constantly get him and he still visits soldiers on the front line regularly. Trump and JD are scared for their lives to even visit Kyiv.

captainkrtek3• 1 year ago

Absolutely heartbreaking. How many of the people arguing have seen any footage of the atrocities committed by Russia.

It is sobering to see women and children shelled in their homes and hospitals. 20 Days in Mariupol is free to watch on Youtube (Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvAyykRvPBo

Uninen• 1 year ago

Haven't seen that documentaty but unfortunately it seems to be geoblocked in Finland :(

PokemonNoGo• 1 year ago

I know some SVT stuff work in Finland maybe you can watch it here: https://kunskapskanalen.se/program/dox-20-dagar-i-mariupol

Edit: mate it is on YLE? https://arenan.yle.fi/1-67287489

mxschumacher• 1 year ago

also blocked in France

eunos3• 1 year ago

Ultimately what should be inferred is that Liberal idealism is receding or even gone.

It's all pure raw quid pro quo from now on.

Animats7• 1 year ago

On the minerals front, the US doesn't need anything from Ukraine. Most of the minerals mentioned, except titanium, are un-mined deposits. Or things the US has plenty of already, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and iron.

Here's a rundown:

- Rare earths:

I've mentioned the MP Minerals, Mountain Pass, CA mine before. The US doesn't have enough rare earth refining capability, and China won't export the technology. So US ore goes to China for processing. Or did, until DoD paid for a separation plant at Mountain Pass. That problem is close to being solved. That new separation plant is running. A plant for the final step, making magnet-ready metal, has been built in Texas, again by MP Minerals, and it's about ready to open.

What's happened with rare earths is not that they're rare. It's that China undercut US prices so much that the Mountain Pass mine went bankrupt. Twice. In 2015, there was a rare earths glut. Look at WSJ rare earths articles back to 2011.

There are large un-mined rare earth deposits in Colorado and Wyoming, with startups talking about mining them. Whether this makes economic sense is unclear. If all those start up, the price will crash again and they all go bust.

Three years ago, the US rare earths situation looked bad. Not today.

- Uranium

The US has plenty of uranium resources. Canada and the US are historically the biggest producers.

- Titanium

Titanium ore has supposedly been discovered in Tennessee. See https://iperionx.com/ Are those guys for real? Not clear.

- Lithium

The US produces about 75% of the lithium it uses. New deposits have been found in Arkansas:

https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/unlocking-ar...

And in Nevada:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCWeZiVsotc

- Graphite

China is the leading producer, but Canada and Norway are ramping up. There hasn't been US production of natural graphite since the 1950s. US production of synthetic graphite satisfies most US demand. (https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/pp1802J) Several new synthetic graphite plants are being built in the US.

As we've seen in rare earths, when the cheaper sources raise their prices, domestic production increases. It seems to take about three to five years to get a big mining operation going.

Quietly, during the previous administration, there was funding for US mineral projects in rare earths, graphite, and lithium. It's no secret, but most coverage is from sites that cover mining and minerals.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

Not sure why you're counting Canadian uranium deposits on the American balance sheet.

So far at least, these are under our own control and we still have the free will to decide how they are traded.

Unless the new regime in the US really wants to show its true hand, I guess.

Maybe we can toss a 25% export tariff on them, since the US is trying to strangle our economy anyways.

Karellen• 1 year ago

On the minerals front, the US doesn't need anything from Ukraine.

Need's got nothing to do with it. Bullies don't take what you have because they need it, they take it because that's what you have, and they want to take it away from you, just to be taking it away from you.

For Trump, it is not enough that (as he perceives the situation) he wins, rather than (as he perceives) everyone else loses. Even people's whose backs are up against the wall. Especially people whose backs are up against the wall. If you don't exploit the weakest player at the table, why are you even playing?

(Not that Trump knows anything about gambling... who the fuck loses money running a casino... on multiple separate occasions...)

Trump isn't making deals based on carefully considered advantages and concessions. He's just grasping his tiny hands at whatever comes in reach, whether or not he needs it, like the half-wit schoolyard thug he is.

Hikikomori4• 1 year ago

I dont understand how anyone is not seeing that trump just want to gobble up parts of Ukraine for his own gain, it's no better than the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Trump is just angry he's late to the party. There will be no guarantees for Ukraine and no concessions for Russia once this deal is signed.

code_biologist3• 1 year ago

I've seen speculation that rare earth mining is environmentally destructive enough that it faces massive (expensive) regulatory hurdles in the US. Much easier to pay politicians in less developed countries to do it there.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...

barbequeer• 1 year ago

if there's one thing we can be sure of with the current administration, it's that regulatory hurdles aren't going to stop them doing what they want

rjbwork• 1 year ago

One reason they're running roughshod over the EPA, among other agencies.

Animats7• 1 year ago

Mountain Pass, one bankruptcy back, beat that problem. It took some new technology. The system is closer to closed-loop, rather than using huge amounts of water and producing huge amounts of sludge in evaporation ponds. That's what the mines in China do, and the sludge ponds are visible from orbit.

Here's the Sierra Club report from 2011.[1] They were OK with the mine. So was the state of California and the US EPA. Problem solved.

Then in 2015, after all this was working, China cut the price of rare earths.[2] Mountain Pass mine shut down, and Molycorp, the owner, went bankrupt. But the equipment was stored and maintained. When the price of rare earths from China went back up the next owner, MP Minerals, bought the assets and restarted operations.

This time, the new buyers made long-term deals with the US DoD and General Motors to guarantee a market at a price at which they could operate. That seems to be working.

Much news coverage of mineral issues tends to lack background. Better info is available, but it's on mining industry sites, in USGS reports, and in places most people don't read. Punditry is cheap. Reporting is expensive.

[1] https://www.desertreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DR_S...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2015/05/15/chinese...

casenmgreen12• 1 year ago

The minerals deal made no sense.

1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source.

2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention there of mineral supply to the US.

I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it.

What was actually going on?

We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour to sign this".

That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there.

I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal.

Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled investment fund, which looked like a face-saver.

In any event, USA is now out of the game.

A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and courts are subverted, will be complete.

All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the situation here and now, however we got here.

leptons• 1 year ago

What was actually going on?

I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a bad case of novichok or polonium.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits.

Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.

lo_zamoyski• 1 year ago

The mineral deal has at least three purposes[0]:

1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.

2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.

3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.

Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-...

Jedd• 1 year ago

I think there's two (perhaps more) possibilities you've overlooked, that may go some way to explaining this.

First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people.

Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)

sgt3• 1 year ago

I think they realized this, and the only way Trump and JD Vance & team knew how to backtrack on it, was to behave like bullies and freeze Zelensky out. Since they are well known to be bullies already (but not always), this came sort of naturally.

m463• 1 year ago

Maybe they don't have strategic minerals, but they do have strategic democracy.

cyrillite• 1 year ago

Where can one reliably learn about rare earths in the supply chain, refining abilities, what’s actually important for which tech, etc? I feel like I read very different views on this stuff all the time at different levels of granularity.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

You're right, but for Trump, there doesn't have to be an actual deal, there just has to be the _appearance_ of a deal. He just needs to be able to repeat that $500 billion number -- it doesn't matter whether it's realistic or not or will ever happen or not. It's like Mexico paying for the wall.

mindslight2• 1 year ago

Maybe Trump isn't actually working for Russia/China, and is just waiting for the people of the US to start a gofundme to buy him off so he goes away.

scythe• 1 year ago

Titanium ore has supposedly been discovered in [...]

Titanium is very common (ninth most common crustal element IIRC). Generally there are always deposits. It's more important to have the infrastructure already in place because it's obtained in such large quantities.

DeepSeaTortoise17• 1 year ago

Also Titanium is an awful metal to work with.

Steel has the nice property of turning into any product with but a stern look, titanium torches your factory down if it doesn't like the air quality during its massage sessions.

kulahan2• 1 year ago

I’ve heard many, many times that one of the biggest problems with nuclear power plants today is simply sourcing fuel. Obviously a large part of that would be due to international scrutiny and security laws, not to mention trustworthy employees to hold up all of this, but I was seriously under the impression that actually GETTING it is the difficult part.

Is that not a supply issue? I admit I only know a bit about the topic, but it’s the only one without a linked source.

DeepSeaTortoise17• 1 year ago

The problem is that western nuclear tech isn't very vertically integrated.

If you buy a Russian nuclear power plant, Rosatom takes care of absolutely everything.

If you buy a powerplant from anywhere else, you've got to juggle hundreds of various contractors and companies at various stages.

So if you've built your system, there will be only very few fuel suppliers left, whose fuel product is approved for usage with all the components.

And if one of those suppliers has problems or goes bankrupt (since nuclear fuel is an aweful product to make money with: Very low numbers, extremely strict regulations, very expensive handling and processing, a very unstable and slow growing market, constantly new requirements and all of your customers have huge legal teams and deep pockets), you're going to have a lot of difficulty finding a replacement.

Animats7• 1 year ago

The US seems to have only one uranium enrichment facility left - URENCO, in New Mexico.[1] Uranium mining as a US industry is down to 340 people.[2] That used to be a much larger US industry. It's not lack of ore. It's low prices.[3]

[1] https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/index.html

[2] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/

[3] https://nuclearinsider.com/reviving-the-atom-charting-the-co...

brightball2• 1 year ago

I thought I remembered reading that Ukraine was the largest source of neon gas in the world and that it was necessary for lasers that make advanced microchips?

Remember reading that sometime on here when the war started I think.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

look up Ingas and Cryoin

hedora• 1 year ago

Thanks for the detailed report, but if you watch the VP debate, it’s clear that Trump’s entire economic campaign platform was based on promising to do stuff that Biden already accomplished, and to lie and claim it hadn’t been done.

Trump also claimed he had no intention of implementing Project 2025, but that’s what he’s doing.

I’m not sure what the correct response is, but anyone that doesn’t think Trump constantly lies is willfully ignorant.

The only explanation I can come up with for this administration’s actions is intentional sabotage of the US economy and democracy. It matches 100% of the actions they have taken so far.

WhyNotHugo2• 1 year ago

You can aspire to control minerals because you need them, or you can aspire to control minerals because you don't want others to have them.

torpid• 1 year ago

That's not the point. The point is making Ukraine pay off the defense contractors rather than the American taxpayers. Trump made a campaign promise to end the war, and was overwhelmingly reelected on those promises, and has so far kept them.

cookiengineer• 1 year ago

Note that there's an actual chance Trump will be so narcisstic to make the US lose its alliance with Canada over some rumor he heard on X which has no basis in any of the statistics, and Canada can now join the EU because of its shared border with Denmark.

The Trump administration doesn't give a single shit about truth, it's always about power grabs for them. If I were you I'd digitize any copy of school books I can find on the internet, because they will be gone very soon.

monkeywork• 1 year ago

As a Canadian that EU join comment is laughable. We've had a border with France way longer... We aren't getting into the EU on some silly Island no one cares about border... Don't undermine yourself with such silly nonsense

Findecanor• 1 year ago

Perhaps this is really about keeping out potential European car battery manufacturers from sourcing their raw materials from Ukraine in the future. Trump is under the influence of Musk after all.

DeepSeaTortoise17• 1 year ago

Despite being sold as the "mineral deal" to the public, it has nearly nothing to do with them and doesn't give the US any significant control over them.

It's all about establishing a semi-sovereign fund for Ukraine (slowly turning fully sovereign, due to how it's financed), focused on reconstructing Ukraine.

amluto• 1 year ago

Titanium is an odd duck here IMO. Titanium is abundant in the Earth’s crust, and titanium ore is fairly inexpensive. We use the ore for all kinds of unglamorous things, e.g. paint. The hard part is turning that ore into nice pieces of metal —- the process is complicated and expensive. While China produces an outsized share of titanium ore, the US has some large-scale operations that turn titanium ore into metal. As far as I know, the only real limit on our domestic production is demand, and demand is limited because the prices are far too high for most applications.

I recall various sources saying that we’re just about to have a revolution in titanium processing, kind of like how aluminum went from being more expensive than gold to being cheap. It hasn’t happened yet, and I wish Iperion luck!

DeepSeaTortoise17• 1 year ago

The "minerals deal" isn't one but in name, no idea why it's being sold as such.

It's really just a Ukrainian sovereign reconstruction fund, with the option for the US to buy its way in. Also the fund is financed through Ukraine's natural resource extraction.

The crux being:

No one else can buy into the fund. So if Ukraine is rebuilt and then disappears from the map, the US pretty much owns the fund, together with whoever is recognized as Ukraine's exile government, and with it a huge portion of Ukraine's industries.

So even if Russia were to take over Ukraine, all the money making stuff is still co-managed by the fund.

And since Ukraine is the exclusive financial benefactor of the fund, whoever takes over Ukraine ends up facing an exile government with an utterly ridiculous budget.

And if they wanted to just expropriate the fund, they'd have to expropriate the US gov, too. Good luck with that.

The fund is a REALLY good idea, but the way it's sold to the public and Ukraine refusing to agree to it is ... odd at best.

neilv2• 1 year ago

This is important and horrifying, and the BBC live coverage was one outrage after another.

But HN is still feeling the previous few days of HN outrages (which involve tech).

Are we going to have outrage fatigue, and let even more injustices slide? How do we manage that, and what is HN's place?

basisword3• 1 year ago

If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and stave off tariffs. Time to stand up, realise the US is no longer a reliable ally, and start building (on all fronts - military, manufacturing, tech, etc). Given the American people voted for this guy twice - the second time in spite of Jan 6th and multiple indictments against him - there's no reason to believe the next person they vote in won't be worse.

casenmgreen12• 1 year ago

Everything must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence.

You can't force people, you can't trick people.

I may be wrong, but I think enough voters were deceived by Donald that the election was no longer well-informed.

That's how he got into power.

To the extent that's true, USA no longer had genuine elections.

imcritic5• 1 year ago

Riiight. Just when someone you don't like gets elected as a president - you instantly claim that that country isn't democratic anymore.

layer87• 1 year ago

Unfortunately, there are European leaders like Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban who expressed support for Trump in reaction to this event.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

Can we really put Orban in the category of "European leaders"?

Seems more like "Putin followers"

lm284696• 1 year ago

Who cares about Hungary? Get France, Germany, the UK, Poland, the baltics and that's plenty enough

pedalpete3• 1 year ago

I was thinking about this recently, and wondering the EU will start moving away from the USD, further weakening the global strength of USD and America. They are already dealing with BRIC, and the potential of crypto (likely Bitcoin) to remove any single currency as providing power to any country.

The US has benefitted hugely by being the reserve currency, but that strength is also a weakness that can be used against them, but only if the other countries collaborate, which the EU is most capable of.

epistasis5• 1 year ago

As a US citizen horrified by the people that voted for Trump, this is my big fear too.

We have never had a weaker president that caused so many self-inflicted wounds.

This administration is shaping up to be self-immolation covered by the veneer of strength, for people that don't understand what strength is.

The small fraction of Silicon Valley that bent the knee to this narcissist wanna-be-king have shown themselves to be unbelievably weak too. It's surprising. I have lost so much respect for so many people over the past 6 months, but I fear much more for the future prosperity that we have needlessly destroyed.

01100011• 1 year ago

The benefit of the reserve currency is our ability to run huge deficits and the result is a loss of our industrial base. It's a double-edged sword but one that ends up leaving us vulnerable. If we had a major non-nuclear conflict with China, for example, they would out build us the way we out built the Germans in WWII.

hintymad• 1 year ago

If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots

They should take control. That's why it puzzled me why they are okay to get deindustrialized, are okay to destroy their nuclear plants, and are okay to rely on imports of natural gas from Russia

cco• 1 year ago

Look into the German Chancellor that shut down the nuclear power plants and brought in natural gas from Russia is up to these days. It wasn't "Europe" being ok with it, just classic grift.

thesumofall4• 1 year ago

Europe still produces more than 20% of its electric power from nuclear plants. In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early, but looking at the rise of renewables it’s just a matter of time until nuclear will just be irrelevant (1). In addition, this will allow true energy independence while for example the German nuclear plants relied partially on fuel rods produced in Russia …

(1) Yes, there is the challenge of dark days with little wind, but there are many, many avenues to solve this one (better grid interconnections across Europe, green hydrogen backup plants, overbuilding cheap capacity, …)

palominoz2• 1 year ago

It's not a matter of taking control. For many reasons, starting from ww2 and later the U.s. summarized the west population common values and ethics, in a very simple and sharable way. In Europe this is not possible because there is too much cultural distance between the countries, but we are all equidistant from the U.s. That's why we are all NATO allies and why fundamentally for the u.s. eveything is possible. It's something that we all agree upon because otherwise we would be arguing with each other.

daveguy3• 1 year ago

You must have missed the visit from the French president. Macron whooped Trump harder than Stormy. That's probably why his fragile little ego needed someone to tell at.

jasonlotito• 1 year ago

Trump tried to grope him, and he wasn't having it. I don't understand how anyone thinks this is acceptable.

ttyprintk19• 1 year ago

A lot of Americans missed that cue. I think that old-fashioned Americans avoid applying psychoanalysis to politics because they’re afraid to fit in with cynics.

DrNosferatu15• 1 year ago

European Democracies need to start their own Alliance.

DrNosferatu15• 1 year ago

So, should Europe just roll over and wag its tail?

nataliste• 1 year ago

Oh, no. Don't do that. Europe footing its own bill for its own defense and increasing their industrial output is the last thing Donald Trump wants. Really.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

You can argue it’s been this way for a while, but it’s clear now that the US is no longer the leader of the free world.

kardianos2• 1 year ago

This is exactly what VP Vance and President Trump has asked the EU to do. They want them to pay more for their own defense... So, yeah.

ModernMech5• 1 year ago

Presumably their defense is our defense - that was the whole point of NATO.

bjoli8• 1 year ago

They also turned the US into a liability. I don't think any western nation will rely on the US for anything for a long time.

coryrc2• 1 year ago

We need a constitutional convention to fix the legislative branch. People in Wyoming should not have 10x the representation as people in California. Without the complicity of the legislative branch Trump's power would be limited much more.

We need mixed-member districts and eliminate the senate<->state connection and/or repeal the 17th amendment. Bicameral is no longer suited for the world we live in.

tempestn4• 1 year ago

Unfortunately short of a revolution, there is no realistic way to pass any kind of meaningful constitutional amendment in the US. And it's hard to imagine that fact changing, which makes me pessimistic for the long term future of the country.

corey_moncure4• 1 year ago

You can change the rules of the game, yes. Then we will simply be playing a different game, and strategies will update accordingly.

jim-jim-jim2• 1 year ago

I think most Americans of various stripes would endorse this. Europe is more than welcome to saber-rattle on its own budget.

drawkward8• 1 year ago

How is defending against Putin's encroachment on a soverign country "saber-rattling"?

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

Am American and yeah no.

dangjc5• 1 year ago

I think most Americans value freedom and reject tyranny.

ApolloFortyNine4• 1 year ago

It's been US policy for years to beg NATO members to increase military spending, it took the war in Ukraine for them to finally do it.

Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.

But honestly I don't know why this entire comment section has turned to NATO NATO NATO. Ukraine isn't in NATO. And if the Budapest Memorandum is what you're referencing, France and UK signed too. It's not as if the US hasn't contributed to the war already.

lambdasquirrel• 1 year ago

The flip side of this is that the NATO countries have traditionally toed the U.S. stance on diplomatic matters, even on issues that are quite unpopular at home. The understanding abroad is that the U.S. can dictate what it wants, but then the Allies will simply drag their feet.

meitham2• 1 year ago

>> Ukraine isn’t in NATO

Ukraine’s potential NATO membership is one of Russia’s main demands for ending the war. Additionally, Ukraine participated in the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003.

ulnarkressty• 1 year ago

Not quite:

Europe’s dependence on the United States for its security means that the United States possesses a de facto veto on the direction of European defense. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union. This has frequently resulted in an absurd situation where Washington loudly insists that Europe do more on defense but then strongly objects when Europe’s political union—the European Union—tries to answer the call. This policy approach has been a grand strategic error—one that has weakened NATO militarily, strained the trans-Atlantic alliance, and contributed to the relative decline in Europe’s global clout. As a result, one of America’s closest partners and allies of first resort is not nearly as powerful as it could be.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/

basisword3• 1 year ago

I didn’t mention NATO, Ukraine, or the Budapest memorandum… Defence is only a part of this. The economy is a big part. Europe is far too reliant on US tech for example. Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic the US should no longer be relied upon in any capacity.

Epa0952• 1 year ago

Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.

No, it is literally not. The charter is here[1], read it yourself.

To my knowledge it was first mentioned in 2006, the press briefing [2] states

  Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance.

It comes back again in 2014 [3], where they agree to:

  aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade

A decade after 2014 is 2024, and most, but not all, countries managed.

1: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

2: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm

3: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

sebazzz5• 1 year ago

Ukraine isn't in NATO.

Arguably the US isn’t either anymore . It is pretty clear that Trump won’t enforce Article 5 when Russia is the aggressive party. Which, by itself, might be a preparation to take Greenland. Both US and Russia are already interfering in the upcoming elections there.

It doesn’t sound crazy anymore, considering the shitshow we’ve seen the last four weeks sounded crazy before the inauguration.

lordhexd• 1 year ago

They could soon realize China and Russia may actually make better allies. Might not be what the consensus on HN prefers, but maybe it’s time to look east.

We need more cooperation for collective benefit instead of cooperation for the sake of profit

anon77254• 1 year ago

We need more cooperation for collective benefit instead of cooperation for the sake of profit

And you think that will happen with China and Russia as allies? Jesus. This thread is brigaded to hell by trolls.

DamnYuppie21• 1 year ago

Wait who would ally with China/Russia, Europe or US? I mean either of those are a deathknell for Europe. China will not defend them against Russia. Heck I am not sure China can keep its hands off of Russia's oil fields as they lack their own resources. It would be fun to watch though.

What collective benefit are you referring to exactly that isn't going to be profit? You think Russia and China care about your ideologies? China will exploit you and Russia will do what Russia always does. They all want to gang up and invade America?? They would have better things to do then that if Europe became their pet.

troupo2• 1 year ago

Ukraine was Russia's ally. Russian businesses operated in Ukraine. Russian entertainment was made in Ukraine. There was effectively no borders between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine was one of the most pro-Russian countries among the post-Soviet countries.

Look what being an ally with Russia brought.

Renaud• 1 year ago

China has little to nothing to gain from being an allied of Russia.

China needs to export to the West to survive. The Russian market is not able to absorb what China needs to sell.

China has already distanced itself from Russia. China’s happy to sell Russia what it can buy, but there is no real upside to that relationship.

talldatethrow2• 1 year ago

Personally most Trump supporters I know can only hope for a more Trumpian successor to Trump. Basically if JD Vance continues on his path he is looking like a sure thing for the Republican nomination obviously, but if any of Trump's tactics work he has a decent chance overall to ride that wave.

JKCalhoun7• 1 year ago

I suspect the coming economy though will weigh in.

ModernMech5• 1 year ago

JD Vance, and Elon Musk for that matter, and really everyone else lacks the one thing even Trump haters admit Trump has: charisma. Even my feminist ex-wife loved him on the apprentice. Even to this day she think's he's a funny guy and is entertained by him. Fact of the matter is his charisma has formed a cult of personality around him.

JD Vance, Elon Musk, Ron DeSantis, all of these guys who think they'll be able to take over the cult lack the key ingredient - the personality. Musk has a sort of cult among specifically the HN crowd, but we are small and generally people clock him as a weirdo creep.

There is no successor to Trump, his movement dies with him. His age is our saving grace.

99_003• 1 year ago

The leaders of Germany and France don’t see Ukraine as part of their destiny. And that’s their right.

ranguna• 1 year ago

Sources?

I've seen the contrary from Germany

https://youtu.be/K-yAvfGxQXE

whizzter• 1 year ago

We just had the leader of a Swedish party saying that non-US nuclear armament plans are needed, this is very significant since it's been basically unthinkable to say as far back as the 1960s or so when our own nuclear program was dismantled (The program was discontinued partly due to internal pressures but also rumored longstanding US guarantees for being under a nuclear shield).

nickserv2• 1 year ago

France and the UK are the obvious candidates, as both are nuclear powers. Ideally there would be some coordination at the EU level, but really hard to see that short term.

PartiallyTyped7• 1 year ago

I think quite a few EU leaders agree on this stance, and given the conversations with my peers, all of us want an independent EU.

Gud• 1 year ago

That there hasn’t been a Scandinavian military alliance is a huge mistake. It would stabilise the entire continent.

Instead there is NATO, totally dominated by the US.

skinkestek4• 1 year ago

Norwegian here.

I'd openly appreciate Sweden doing a nuclear test, preferably with almost plausible deniability (like Israel).

I'd also count support for this from any of our politicians as a plus for any party in our election this fall.

We have lots of money, the Swedes has nuclear power, know how, industrial expertise and probably a few guys left that still remember last time (they could have done it a number of times) they covertly almost built a nuke.

leewr• 1 year ago

Just curious, who said this?

belter9• 1 year ago

Interesting...

"Swedish nuclear weapons program" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...

ZeroGravitas4• 1 year ago

They weren't bending the knee. They were treating Trump like a toddler because that's the best strategy to get concessions from him.

Look at the theatre of the UK giving him the "unprecedented" letter from the King.

Talk of "bending knees" just makes macho idiots think they're winning. It's more like distracting your really drunk friend with something shiny to stop him starting a bar fight or walking into traffic while hoping when he sobers up he'll change for the better, not continue his slide into becoming an permanent asshole.

drysine4• 1 year ago

they need to take control of their own destiny

They could've understood this in 2014 when Nuland said "Fuck the EU"[0], and the US pressed on with the coup in the Ukraine setting off the chain of events that has led us all to where we are now.

Given the American people voted for this guy twice

American people voted twice for George W. Bush, the second time after the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. This might have given a hint.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

ttyprintk19• 1 year ago

I know this is pedantic, but the system selected Bush in his first election. Vietnam veteran and Southern Senator Al Gore won the popular vote. Only in his second election, as a wartime President, did Bush win the popular vote.

svara5• 1 year ago

The historic strategic opportunity is for all of what remains of the free world to join the EU and become the 'rules based order' hegemon. Doesn't need to be literally the EU, a similar kind of organization would work.

throwaway4847610• 1 year ago

Rules based order never meant anything. Really it was just predictable stability.

mihaaly• 1 year ago

More like the europeans acted like adult gentleman. Not like a frustrated and insecure imbecile, as the trend seems to be for representatives of the people in some places. Do not mix up handling a dangerous child with loaded weapon in the hand nicely with relying on him. They go home and organize the way the situation deserves. Trump is a dumb loser anyway, riding the waves of mass frustration without comprehending much beyond whistles and bells and shiny shiny things, a child would find center of the life.

k__• 1 year ago

In Germany, we just voted two man-babies (Merz and Söder) into power.

The only hope I have, is they want bolster their ego with a strong EU.

kavenkanum2• 1 year ago

It seems that this was a very cold and unexpected shower for all of us in Europe (maybe except Hungary) and now there is a big focus on working together against our common enemy and finding other more reliable partners. It's a pity we were relying this much on Americans for so long... Now we have motivation to change approach. And do it fast!

arp2425• 1 year ago

We can do both: prepare for a future without the US, while at the same time trying to make the best of the relationship with the current madcap US government. I don't think there's a conflict between those two. Completely burning bridges at this point seems unwise.

throwaind29k• 1 year ago

What we are seeing from Europeans in response is rather weak sabre rattling.

They don't seem to give an impression of being able to work out a coherent policy or show any initiative.

The EU leaders, include Ursula Von Leyen speak big noble sounding words, but do very little.

SecretDreams5• 1 year ago

I hope that changes soon. America is marching towards becoming kings of the world or completely isolated until this admin goes out to pasture. I hope nobody wants to go back to kings.

ponector5• 1 year ago

You can say the same about Trump, except words are not noble. Loud noise but do very little. Mainly pushing ally to accept the surrender terms.

Btw, EU spent more than USA, both military and financially.

scyzoryk_xyz• 1 year ago

Similarly to the U.S., European countries are also democracies and it is a fact of life for us that administrations and leadership change. Today it’s the U.S. that’s not a reliable partner, yesterday it was Poland or someone else. Authoritarian regimes like to criticize this as unstable, but it’s worth noting that this surface level lack of stability also means frequent recalibration and stress testing. In consequence there is a deeper stability and fitness.

The point of a democracy is to also have guardrails by splitting up executive, legislative and judicial powers - the U.S. is still not a dictatorship. European leaders know this, and professional politicians know that you can go hot and cold very fast. Today there is drama - tomorrow might rapidly turn over and flip.

ttyprintk19• 1 year ago

And to get even more practical, “stability” is a comfort word rather than proof of a local optimum. We are not surprised when a dictatorship subdues an uprising because we are not surprised there was an uprising.

chewz• 1 year ago

If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and stave off tariffs.

European leader are desperate because they realize obvious truth - US will soon implement regime changes all across Europe... European elites are simply not up to task of dealing with this new revolutionary era.

scop4• 1 year ago

The elephant in the room though is Europe. Trump wants Europe to step up and act more independently. Pay their fair share for NATO. Increase their active militaries.

Here's another fact to remember: Trump told Europe to kill Nord stream pipeline during his first term. He didn't want them tied economically to Putin. He didn't want Europe to depend upon Putin! Why? Because he's Putin's ally? Or maybe he is trying to make strong, independent countries that act as a deterrent.

That would be a hell of a deterrent, instead of old people with no kids droning on endlessly about NATO.

PovilasID• 1 year ago

It is not that people do not realize it is just not something you can do overnight. But once independent security system gets put in... I am sure there will be much less oral appeasement.

iugtmkbdfil834• 1 year ago

Eh. A lot will disagree with what I am about to type and, tbh, I am hesitant to point out the obvious, but I will do this just in case:

1. None of it should be a surprise. Policy-wise, Trump's position was very much well known at this point. 2. For Zelensky, this is actually the least bad political option at this point, which is presumably why is doing it this way 3. Note the amount of astroturfing surrounding anything related to Ukraine. It used to be that you couldn't comment on anything about Ukraine without being given 'you talk like Ukraine has no autonomy' speech. Yes. On HN too. 4. To all the hyperbolic, hyperventilating accounts out there, please stop. You are not helping your cause. If anything, you are making it worse.

bg243• 1 year ago

I find it difficult to comprehend if the billionaires do not know this. That if the Government slowly turns into an oligarchy with their help, the Government will eventually turns against them too. They cannot escape the punishment.

Humans (our leaders) have behavior that shows up when under stress or things do not go per their plan. Other countries are already noticing this about USA leaders and will not hesitate to exploit.

My prediction for the future, with a heavy heart.

- Feb/2026: China becomes #1 in technological progress. And America's relationship with former allies is irreversibly bad.

- 2027-29: Russia continues to pamper President Trump for another term. Their goal is to create anarchy in America. They succeed.

ericzawo• 1 year ago

Sitting US president siding with the RF. Truly unbelievable times.

biomcgary2• 1 year ago

George Washington's farewell address (1796) - on Europe: The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

guax11• 1 year ago

He did not live through two world wars and the invention of ICBMs. His views might have shifted a bit.

bongodongobob3• 1 year ago

Enough with the founding fathers. They are ancient relics. They may as well have lived on another planet.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

It's always noble quotes from them, too, like they're saints. Untouchable.

And never the parts about keeping slavery or exterminating indigenous people or conquering Canada, etc being legitimate causes.

yaksha6• 1 year ago

The stand they took and what they created is what has led to where we are today. To disregard their advice is at the very least disrespectful.

Regardless of where a set of ideas come from, if you disagree with them, argue against them head on and not with redirections to other topics.

rendang2• 1 year ago

Yes, but if we study them more we may manage to decrease some of that distance

steve_adams_864• 1 year ago

Would you also disregard ancient philosophy, or religion? Modern psychology seems to rigorously prove out profound ideas the ancients had about the human mind, yet these ideas were written down thousands of years ago. Why would it be that people from hundreds of years ago would be so divorced from our reality?

murkt• 1 year ago

The world is much smaller than it was 200+ years ago.

yaksha6• 1 year ago

I would argue that it was much bigger at that time. How many days of sailing would it take to cross the ocean? How undeveloped was the entirety of what we now have as the US?

Edit: I'm a fool and read the parent completely incorrectly. Ignore this comment.

lpapez• 1 year ago

Quoting founding fathers on contemporary issues always makes me chuckle.

If healthcare was a human right, then why didn't 18th century slave-owners put it in the Constitution?

danny_codes2• 1 year ago

Ah yes, the 1770s. Basically no difference between now and then. Every idea from the 1770s is perfectly relevant to the modern world /s

gottorf2• 1 year ago

Basic principles that change with the time aren't basic principles at all. Is the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech irrelevant now because we aren't communicating via handwritten letters and bulletin boards anymore?

sigmarule6• 1 year ago

To say the same thing as everyone else, but in a different way: let's say Washington turned out to be some form of benevolent vampire, and was able to live through all of America's lifetime from 1776 to today; do you think he would be commenting on his social media platform of choice quoting his younger self, or do you think his position on this matter would have changed?

biomcgary2• 1 year ago

Washington's opinion might well have changed and, as noted in other comments, an armada of nuclear ICBMs does negate the distance that he referenced.

Regardless of the hypothetical, isn't it clear that Trump IS meddling and not following Washington's injunction? (Also applies to Israel/Gaza.)

In family and community (and internet) dynamics, meddling in other people's quarrels often leads to blowback. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of making this comment on HN.) Is it really any different on the global stage?

My genuine question: What are the best criteria for deciding when getting involved is better than remaining on the sidelines? Do those criteria apply at both hyper-local and global scales, or this there a phase transition in applicability?

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

It's preposterous to frame the whole thing about being isolationism or not. As if it's just a matter of "walking away" from Ukraine and letting them sort it out.

In fact the US under Trump doesn't intend on doing that. It's not content to let Ukraine fight it out with Europes support. It's actively trying to force Ukraine down a path of American & Russian choosing, and trying to take Ukraine's resources in the process.

Trump is trying to carve up Ukraine along with Russia. That's not isolationism.

This is not isolationism and walking away from Europe to leave it to its own devices, even if that's how some on the American right are trying to receive it. It's actually imperialism. And imperialism in coordination with another imperialist power.

Are you in favour of that?

dragonwriter6• 1 year ago

Trump is trying to carve up Ukraine along with Russia. That's not isolationism

Yeah, calling what Trump is doing wrt Ukraine “isolationism” is like calling the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact “isolationism”.

Glyptodon7• 1 year ago

I wouldn't really view "avoiding foreign entanglements" as meaning "let's insult our guest unless they slobber at my feet like a groveling and servile mendicant."

That said, I think Washington's advice should be considered as defined by a pre-globalization economy, and travel times substantially greater by orders of magnitude when compared to ICBMs. Imperfect analogy, but in some ways Europe was further away from the US then than the Moon is today.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 1 year ago

Doesn't his quote hold true? The reason the US is involved everywhere is because it supports our business interests.

The thing about the founders is that there are so many with such varied views that you can usually find a quote in support of anything you want.

eightysixfour2• 1 year ago

Did you post it because you agree with it or just for fun? It's a 250 year old statement in a world that didn't look anything like ours does today. In 1796 the United States was not a global power with nuclear weapons whose entire strength is derived from the global order of trade that we imposed after World War 2.

All of this realignment away from our allies is actually throwing away our greatest strength. I understand why people voted for Trump or a figure like him on the domestic front - people want to bring back manufacturing and lower-middle class jobs? Great, let's work with our allies to do it. To throw away the world order that we won instead of iterating on it is a travesty and a fucking joke.

casenmgreen12• 1 year ago

Keeping Russia in check through a European alliance, and China in check through the Japanese alliance, is central to protecting US economic interests.

This is choosing to be involved, for your own best interest, exactly as Washington described.

Also, in 1796, the USA was distant to Russia and China.

This is no longer the case; all possess through the nuclear weapon the power to strike upon each other devastating blows.

Given the existence of nuclear weapons, the goal is now is to avoid major war completely, between any nuclear power.

A major nuclear exchange will lead to devastating environmental consequences, no matter whom is involved.

Finally when Washington wrote that, no one imagined the possibility of any one power conquering the whole of Europe, or of China rising to great power. The USA cannot withstand Russia, Europe, and China, combined.

consteval5• 1 year ago

Europe in the late 1700s is VERY different than Europe today. I don’t mean in technology or culture. I mean in foreign policy.

These are formally imperialist nations.

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

You really have to put that speech in the context of the late 18th Century.

bgnn• 1 year ago

So, supporting far right in all EU countries and being friends with Putin is what Washington is saying what US should do?

yobid20• 1 year ago

The people of the US do not stand behind trump. Trump's word is not the word of the American people. Zelensky might not have Trump's support, but know that he does have overwhelming support from pretty much everyone else aside from the Trump clan.

zfg• 1 year ago

Russia and China used to think they needed to beat America.

Then they hoped America would beat itself.

But I bet they never expected America to turn into an ally.

gre3• 1 year ago

What's wrong with being allies? Authoritarian countries unite!

MathMonkeyMan2• 1 year ago

I always thought that Russia should join NATO. Stop with all the flirting.

rllearneratwork2• 1 year ago

This is a time to boycott all of the president's Elon enterprises. I just cancelled my Tesla solar installation in California. If you are thinking about buying a Tesla - don't. Also do not vandalize other peoples' Tesla.

If you are thinking about working in AI for x.ai or Tesla - do not. This will not look pretty on your resume.

UncleOxidant8• 1 year ago

I took a look at the mutual funds in my IRA last night. Most of the market index ones hold a lot of TSLA - it seemed to be in the top 5 holdings of several of the ones I have (had). I put in sell orders last night. Not just because TSLA, but because of all the chaos this administration is causing re tariffs and everything else. I'll hide out in treasury money market fund for a while.

bvan• 1 year ago

Trump, and his posse of minions, are just not equipped to deal with real-world events and threats. What a disgrace.

tetrisgm• 1 year ago

I’m not familiar with this type of masterful deal making.

dave333• 1 year ago

Zelensky should have asked Trump if he (Zelensky) need only lick Trump's boots or should he lick Vance's boots also.

reverendsteveii2• 1 year ago

This was a setup. It wasn't meant to be a meeting where policy is negotiated, it was an attempt bully Zelensky into agreeing to a bunch of pro-Russian falsehoods in hopes that he'd get something from the US. Good on him for realizing that Ukraine will get nothing from our compromised government, pushing back against false narratives and not hurting his cause trying to pursue a "compromise" just like the one that Ukraine got in 2015 that Russia reneg'd on almost immediately.

grandpoobah2• 1 year ago

If we're going down the conspiracy theory route, is it not equally plausible that this was a setup by Zelinsky?

bashback5• 1 year ago

No, because Zelenskyy is a president whose country has been invaded, and Trump is a bully who craves power. These two men are not equivalent, and if you can't see that, then you are beyond help.

reverendsteveii2• 1 year ago

"Alice, schedule a meeting for me. At the white house. I'm gonna get Trump and Vance."

croes3• 1 year ago

I guess tomorrow Trump calls Zelensky a dictator again.

epolanski4• 1 year ago

I see many, understandably, comments that empathise with president Zelenski.

It is though to come to such meetings when the other party (the Trump administration) genuinely does neither care nor likes you.

That being said, I'm gonna point out Zelenski himself.

1) You can't be sitting in the oval office and tell the president of one of the most belligerent and bloodiest countries in the world "you cannot understand how it is to defend yourself, you're surrounded by oceans on both sides". If there is one thing that you should never, ever do, is question America's willingness to pick a fight. That was what triggered hugely Trump (go check the video). That was a terrible mistake, directed to the bulliest president of the bulliest country in the planet, a gigantic blunder on its part.

2) I feel for Zelenski, but after what happened today, his political career is over, that's what pundits and political analysts all over eastern Europe are saying (they are much more critical of Zelenski's naivety than Trump's behavior). Former prime minister of Poland Leszek Miller has been very critical and said Zelenski came very unprepared and leaves in a worse position.

He quits the White House in a critical situation and if Ukraine wants to get some kind of leverage it will have to necessarily consider a change of leadership. Zelenski's stance has been terrific in the first years of war, but now he's alone and unable to get most of what he can for Ukraine.

croes3• 1 year ago

If there is one thing that you should never, ever do, is question America's willingness to peak a fight.

But the choose to fight and it’s not on their home ground. Totally different situation. You can’t just leave if you begin to lose like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

They never faced the win or lose everything situation since their independence.

epolanski4• 1 year ago

But you don't go say it to the US President, least of all Trump, in front of cameras!

oh_fiddlesticks• 1 year ago

This is known to be a contributing factor as to why 9/11 had such a dramatical cultural impact.

exitb• 1 year ago

Leszek Miller is entitled to his opinion, but it’s not representative of what’s being said in Poland. Whether Zelenski gets to keep his job is for Ukrainians to decide.

Teever• 1 year ago

That was what triggered hugely Trump (go check the video).

That wasn't what triggered Trump in that moment.

What triggered Trump in that moment was being told a prediction about the future with an imperative sentence.

Trump viewed that as a personal command and his narcissistic personality cannot handle that.

throwaway0223• 1 year ago

Agree. Contrary to many comments here, I believe this was a disaster meeting for Zelenski personally, and for his political future.

This was a photo op opportunity. His job there was to make Trump look good, so he could secure additional support and funds. He was there to stroke Trump's ego for the media, likely join Trump on the lets-play-the-tough-guy pushing Europe to open the wallet, and maybe, just maybe, lightly mention that ceasefire is a good first step, but it alone is not enough.

Instead the tried to pick a fight with the bulliest of bullies, in their home turf, in front of a hundred journalists recording every second. You don't try to be a smartypants and teach history to the guy who got elected in rewriting history (see them debating the who-did-what in 2015-2016).

I think this was a colossal mistake in the 3D chess of this invasion.

Now he gave all the reasons for Trump to wash their hands of any responsibility, and let Europe fix the mess.

The only thing that may still keep Trump engaged is Trump's own ego. He was seeing this as an opportunity to go in the history books as the biggest peace dealmaker, and potentially a Nobel Peace prize winner. Now.. not so much.

josefritzishere• 1 year ago

Embarrassing buffoonery. I never thought I'd pine for the days of bureaucratic but stately presidents.

xyst• 1 year ago

Yet another reason to be embarrassed as an American.

xg152• 1 year ago

I read on a pro-russian site that if there is a strategy behind it, it might be to break Russia out of the China/BRICS alliance and use them as an ally against the "real" enemy, which would be China.

It would make some kind of sense and match the rhetoric of a lot of republicans - but on the other hand, it also sounds awfully risky especially if the plan is more or less known to anyone?

topherpalmtree6• 1 year ago

Whoever thinks that Russia will ever consider the US as an ally probably doesn't have a great sense of how Russia views itself and the US.

They'll play the part of ally, to a limited degree, when their stooges in Western Democracies don't have any demands of them. But no amount of trade will change their priorities as far as diminishing the dollar with something they at least partially control.

kelnos9• 1 year ago

That seems somewhat laughable? Pro-Russian folks who are grasping at straws to spin what's happening so it doesn't look so bad?

I can't imagine Putin allowing his country to be "used" like that (regardless of how desperate his situation gets), especially considering that China is literally next door and would absolutely destroy Russia in any kind of military conflict.

dralley12• 1 year ago

Didn't work for Clinton, didn't work for Bush, didn't work for Obama, won't work for Trump.

This is the siren's song of Western Geopolitics. Believing that it will work This Time (tm) is a surefire way to get wrecked.

Russia borders China, unlike the rest of The West. Why would Russia ever sign up to put themselves on the front lines of tensions between the West and China. But people delude themselves into believing that they will, because it would be very convenient.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

The Russian people are victimized by the kleptocratic petro-regime in charge, and the American people will be victimized the same.

It's best not to see these as the actions of governments acting in national interests, but as a section of an trans-national class acting in their own interest. With borders and statecraft being some of the pieces on the board they play with.

Lines between countries are for schmoes like you and I. Trump owns capital and etc assets around the whole world, just like Putin.

mopsi22• 1 year ago

That's pure wishful thinking. Russia spans 11 time zones, but most of Russia's population lives near Europe, west of the Ural mountains. They have as little to do with China as other people of Europe. The "mental center" of Russia is close to Eastern Europe, and their greatest ambition is to dominate the continent, for a variety of reasons that would take too long to explain. They see the US as the archenemy, because the US has stood in their way since the end of WWII.

Russia is willing to play an ally, but only insofar as it brings them closer to what they really want: Europe. Anyone who doubts this is utterly clueless about Russia and not worth listening to.

TiredOfLife3• 1 year ago

Just this week trump said he will not defend Taiwan from china.

eightysixfour2• 1 year ago

Russia doesn't even have one of the 10 largest economies in the world, has shown its military to be made up of the rotting corpses of cold war technology, and (outside of the cities near europe) is a backwards shithole. I can't even keep track of how many military leaders have been thrown out of windows.

Other than land what, exactly, makes them a useful ally for the future? A willingness to throw bodies into a meat grinder?

That's the real kicker for me about all of this - Russia is weak. Trump is bowing down to a loser.

trackone• 1 year ago

Things like this make it seem like China will be much more likely to try and retake Taiwan soon. Seeing things like this, it is hard to imagine that the US will help defend Taiwan by providing military aid. I can imagine that trump will try to ask for something in return first. Even something like trump asking for TSMC to be sold to trump supporters (musk and others) seems likely to happen.

jimmydoe6• 1 year ago

Either they get the island, or they play good guy and sell more stuff everywhere bc everyone hates America more.

Trump loves speaking about cards, Xi is the guy holding all the cards, and keep you guessing.

tnt1282• 1 year ago

The risk of China taking Taiwan by force, unprovoked, in the near future is vastly overblown, in my opinion. Everyone involved, including China, prefers the status quo. If there’s one thing to know about war, it’s that it’s unpredictable. China hasn’t been involved in a war for decades, and while its military looks good on paper, its actual performance in a real war still unknown. Failing to win or even losing a war with Taiwan would mean saying goodbye to its global dominance ambitions, and weaken Xi's leadership.

The Chinese are strategic and patient. They just need to wait a few more years until they are able to blockade the entire island for long period of time. Then they can potentially take the island without firing a single shot. they don’t need to take on this kind of risk right now.

topspin• 1 year ago

The risk of China taking Taiwan by force, unprovoked, in the near future is vastly overblown, in my opinion.

I don't share this view. China needs only a couple more (2-3) carriers and to arm enough H-6K's with anti-ship missiles to keep US capital ships at bay and they'll have all the tools they need to blockade and conquer Taiwan, perhaps without firing a shot. All of that will be in place in only a couple years; probably before Trump's term ends.

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

When you try to predict dictators' behavior usong geopolitical arguments, you make the same mistake as the people who didn't believe in the Russian invasion into Ukraine. It's the internal politics that pushes dictators to attack. And China currently follows the Russia's curve exactly there.

aucisson_masque3• 1 year ago

Taiwan without American support is extremely easy for China to take.

There is absolutely no risk whatsoever.

Everyone noticed trump behavior with zelinsky, Chinese too. It might instead push up their agenda to conquer Taiwan quickly before trump mandate end, or at least fund him to put up with a third mandate.

Which is something he had been talking a lot.

spacebanana7• 1 year ago

There’s no harm for China to offer $2T for Trump’s permission to coercively take Taiwan by threat of blockade.

I can imagine Trump accepting that kind of deal, and it’s probably still cheaper than war for China.

ggreer• 1 year ago

China hasn’t been involved in a war for decades, and while its military looks good on paper, its actual performance in a real war still unknown.

This is a very important point. While China's military is huge and technologically advanced, it is structured very differently from western powers. To reduce the risk of a military coup, the PRC split up control of air, ground, and naval units, making it difficult to conduct joint operations. China's military is also structured more like the Soviet system, where decisions are made at the highest levels of command and lower levels are given little discretion. Information going up and down the chain of command can be delayed, ignored, or corrupted. This is inefficient in peacetime and can be disastrous in combat.

In contrast, most western powers have military branches that combine air, ground, and water forces (the US Army is the second-largest air force in the world, behind the US Air Force), and they are organized in a manner that encourages joint operations. Western militaries also push decisions to the lowest level possible, allowing forces to quickly adapt to changing conditions in combat.

Lastly, China has limited air refueling capability. This reduces the range and effectiveness of their air units. To reach targets far away, aircraft must carry external fuel tanks, compromising stealth, speed, and maneuverability.

It is for these reasons that China is very hesitant to test their military against any modern force. They're trying to fix these issues, but the PRC can't adopt the west's organizational style without making themselves vulnerable to a military coup, which (so far) they absolutely refuse to do.

elihu3• 1 year ago

The Chinese are strategic and patient. They just need to wait a few more years until they are able to blockade the entire island for long period of time. Then they can potentially take the island without firing a single shot. they don’t need to take on this kind of risk right now.

...On the other hand, if they want to take Taiwan with a low probability of the U.S. intervening, it's hard to imagine a better time than right now.

One of the lessons Xi might have taken from Russia's war on Ukraine is that Putin made a tactical blunder by not invading during Trump's first term. Without the Biden administration's active support of Ukraine, Putin would likely have been more successful.

It's hard to guess probabilities on these sorts of things, but the current situation makes me uncomfortable.

(For what it's worth, the likelihood of a major Cascadia fault earthquake happening during the Trump administration is something that we can estimate the probability of, and even though it's not particularly high, it also makes me uncomfortable as an Oregonian.)

cn-watch• 1 year ago

This is a supremely bad take. Completely devoid of true understanding of the situation.

Satellite imagery exposed China's has new landing barges at the Guangzhou Shipyard. These barges, equipped with 120-meter-long bridges and stabilizing pylons to land troops and vehicles on Taiwan's rugged coastlines by creating mobile ports[1]

You don't build these things if you don't need them. they have no other use except invasion.

1. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/built...

m3kw94• 1 year ago

Maybe it goes up 100% from 1% to 2% within the next 4 years

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

The _continuous threat_ of China invading Taiwan benefits China more than _actually_ invading Taiwan, which, even if it could take it militarily, would have a very difficult time "maintaining the peace"--Taiwan is not HK.

rmk2• 1 year ago

And what exactly is wrong with that? Asking for TSMC to be sold to Americans?

thefz• 1 year ago

I am sorry but the intelligent, cultured America I learned to love does no longer exist.

UncleOxidant8• 1 year ago

It's gone. It's been going for a while, but now it's gone. I say that as an American. Take heed lest it happen where you live as well.

throw7878782• 1 year ago

No more folksy Bush with his boldfaced lies about WMDs leading to a million deaths. No more stately Obama redefining every dead 18 year old as an "enemy combatant".

Alas, time's cruel arrow!

Invictus02• 1 year ago

All I can say is that Zelensky is a terrible negotiator. Recognize who you're dealing with, and adjust your stance accordingly. He should have negotiated a little bit but ultimately taken the minerals deal--give Trump the win with his base, and give Trump a reason for the US to join in the fight. Throw in something crazy, like a Trump golf course or a statue or something. He is a simple man to please! These are generational battles that will long outlive either of their egos: be humble and accept that in at least one regard, Trump is right: Ukraine doesn't have the cards.

jopsen4• 1 year ago

Ukraine doesn't have the cards.

Oh, but they do. We (the west) can't allow them to be overrun.

So if they refuse to accept a deal, what can we really do?

Starving Ukraine for supplies would be extremely dangerous.

(That said: I'm not sure Trump understands this)

Invictus02• 1 year ago

So you think that Ukraine being overrun is a negotiating card? For whom? Why does America care? It's really Europe's problem, and Europe is not united enough to mount the necessary response. The reality is that Europe has underfunded their defense to the tune of trillions of dollars since the fall of the Soviet Union, and if Ukraine really mattered to them then they would have started investing in their defense back in 2014 when Crimea was "overrun" (and there were basically no consequences whatsoever). The EU's GDP is 10x Russia's; if it's really so important that Ukraine wins, then let Europe fight!

louthy2• 1 year ago

The whole notion of Pax Americana, just like Pax Britannica before, all the way back to Pax Romana, is that peace (Pax) is in the interest of the dominant empire that enforces it.

Why? Because the dominant empire that enforces it gets the most spoils from that peace. It is why Britain had the biggest empire ever and it's why the US is the richest nation on earth today.

This point seems to be completely missed by Trump, Maga, the US talking heads, and even people in threads like this. If the US withdraws from being "the world's policeman" then it withdraws from its empire.

As a European watching this unfold from the outside, it's hard not to see the actions of the US government as the beginning of the end of US dominance. It will likely hasten the collapse of the US dollar (if you can't force everyone to buy oil in dollars, then the world will shift, likely to Euros), does the US think their currency will remain the ‘reserve currency of choice’ if they isolate themselves from the world? The era of firing up those greenback printing presses whenever you want will be gone.

Isolationism will just lead to Europe recreating (or re-purposing) the institutions that the US was critical in forming (The UN, The World Bank, etc.) and looking to be its own world peacekeeper. It will eventually move the dominance to whichever nation or nations fill the vacuum. The US will get poorer. It may not collapse, but you can't withdraw from being the dominant empire and there be no financial consequences. Just look at the collapse of the British empire.

The problem is that this won't happen overnight. And the process of the US withdrawing will certainly lead to wars, maybe even a third world war. The withdrawal of its soft power via USAID will likely lead to famines, health crises, migrations, and a lot more refugees.

You may think that we can just 'sit it out' and wait for Trump's term to complete. But, it's obvious that the Republican party is now the MAGA party. The former allies of the US need to realise that this is it. They need to fill the space as fast as possible and move forward without the US. The US is not an ally any more.

It really is the last thing we needed after a financial crisis, a pandemic, and with the existential crisis - climate change - being ever more kicked into the long grass.

I despair for where this is heading :(

lawn10• 1 year ago

Bravo.

Another historical point of interest is how China, the "center of the world", isolated themselves from the rest of the world and how that played out.

roboben• 1 year ago

…and removed from front page…

yes_really4• 1 year ago

I saw a lot of people justifying Trump's moves because "the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war".

bitshiftfaced5• 1 year ago

In past agreements like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Western powers and Russia pledged security guarantees not to use force against Ukraine. Security guarantees in this context would mean the US pledging to use force against Russia on Ukraine's behalf, doesn't it? That's a much riskier proposition. That could potentially start WW3.

jopsen4• 1 year ago

the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war

Russia has been a principal threat for the past 75 years.

Donating equipment is a cheap way to wear them down. Dirty cheap.

It's absolutely in US interest, as it would allow US to focus on other players.

TiredOfLife3• 1 year ago

"the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war".

Large part if not the majority of US money is used to replenish/renew/modernize the stocks of the outdated/expired stuff they send to Ukraine

missedthecue7• 1 year ago

Neither the US nor the EU want to directly fight Russia. A security guarantee is only credible if they are able and willing to fight Russia. That's why.

parski• 1 year ago

[flagged]

ProllyInfamous2• 1 year ago

"The US is not a nation it is an economic zone." [—4/pol/489562208]

Act accordingly.

lijok5• 1 year ago

For those interested in getting informed, I strongly recommend listening to John Mearsheimer's thoughts on the crisis in Ukraine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 is a great talk on this).

Once you understand the history behind NATO's expansionism, the unfortunate role Ukraine serves as a buffer zone, and the failures of US foreign policy under Obama, you will see how the crisis in Ukraine started. Then, once you factor in Zelenskyy's "non-negotiables", you will see how this exchange, while unprofessional, is not surprising in the slightest.

crazygringo10• 1 year ago

The problem with Mearsheimer is that he completely ignores the people of Ukraine.

His analysis makes sense if you think people only live in the US and in Russia, and that Ukraine were an object.

But when you realize that Ukrainians are people, and they are choosing democracy and integration with the West -- it's not something the US is instigating -- Mearsheimer's analysis falls apart.

Because ultimately, Mearsheimer doesn't believe Ukrainians should have any choice over their own country. That only Great Powers like Russia and the US get to make choices.

russocan4• 1 year ago

This argument doesn’t make sense now that Ukraine lost the war, now it’s empirically proven that Ukrainians don’t in fact get to choose and this line of thinking is what led to the war in the first place.

lijok5• 1 year ago

The west has immense influence on Ukrainians, and have pushed for their integration into NATO for decades.

The arguments Mearsheimer is making are not whether Ukrainians should or should not have autonomy. It’s whether they do. And the sad reality is that they don’t, due to their unfortunate situation.

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

"NATO expansionism" is 100% pure, refined Russian propaganda. Countries join NATO because they are afraid of Russia and Ukraine is the proof they are right to be afraid. I don't know why I'm even writing this. Noone with half a brain believes this crap in good faith.

lijok5• 1 year ago

Is NATO not expanding? What are you arguing here exactly?

sirolimus5• 1 year ago

Wouldn’t surprise me if this OP gets flagged or has all anti-trump comments downvoted to oblivion by bots lol

consumer4519• 1 year ago

Forget the theatrics for a moment, and look at this map. These are the facts that will not soon be forgotten.

https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ixbbr9/countries_t...

kombine7• 1 year ago

US, Russia, Israel, North Korea - new axis of evil.

consumer4519• 1 year ago

It has been reported that Israel was forced to vote this way by the USA.

https://jewishinsider.com/2025/02/trump-administration-insis...

soraminazuki4• 1 year ago

How ironic considering that the modern day use of the term "axis of evil" was coined by George W. Bush of all people to justify the Iraq war. And I thought Republicans couldn't get any worse back then.

pembrook4• 1 year ago

It appears based on this thread HN has fully transitioned into becoming intellectually as interesting as the front page of Reddit, so why not skip the middle man and just link to it outright.

torlok2• 1 year ago

"Intellectually interesting" of course meaning that we should calmly discuss everybody's interests and motivations, and look for deeper meaning, while Russians have been lobbing missiles at Ukrainian homes for the last 3 years.

You must love the Lex Friedman Podcast.

goatlover10• 1 year ago

It's clear as day now that the Trump admin is carrying out the Project 2025 and techno feudalist playbook of consolidating power in the executive branch by removing opposition and appointing loyalists. While at the same time shifting America's foreign policy to be in line with Putin and Xi's.

Maybe none of that concerns you, but many of us don't want the us to descend into autocracy.

jimnotgym3• 1 year ago

Goodbye to Americas standing in the world.

We don't have to suck up to the US any more

horns4lyfe5• 1 year ago

Ah yes because Europeans are known for “sucking up” to Americans. If the EU has such competent leadership, why can’t they handle this themselves? It’s not something that affects the average American

jimnotgym3• 1 year ago

Of course we do. NATO spending commitments are all about buying lots of arms from America as the price of protection. The protection just left, we no longer need to pay our protection money.

The obvious sweetheart deals for US companies to operate tax free, no longer any need. The Visa and Mastercard tax, no longer any need. Following the US to all of its foreign adventures, no longer any need.

That is all going to affect the average American, but probably not as quickly as the self-harm tariffs.

appel• 1 year ago

Deeply embarrassing and disturbing. What a sad spectacle to see the President and Vice President of the United States so beholden to a foreign dictator that they would debase themselves in this way. Unpresidential doesn’t even begin to describe it.

My heart breaks for Ukraine. The outcome of the November 5, 2024, election will prove to be a tragic mistake.

hn_throwaway_992• 1 year ago

Shameful, embarrassing and disturbing is putting it lightly in my opinion.

The thing that is sad for me is I just feel like I don't have an iota of anything in common with people that could possibly support this kind of behavior. For so long I've been struggling to empathize with Trump supporters. I certainly understand the anger at the Democrats and Democratic leadership (I often share that anger myself). I understand the anger at the direction of the slow societal breakdown I've seen in many parts of the country (and which, ironically, I feel that Vance elucidated very well in Hillbilly Elegy). I understand many of the policy differences.

But it's what I see as the complete moral baselessness and behavior I can only describe as narcissistically bizarre that I just fundamentally can not understand. So often I hear myself saying "Imagine how any other politician would have reacted 20 years ago". And now it's like so many people are OK with stuff like this (never mind that insane Gaza video from just yesterday...)

I simply cannot understand it. And to be honest, I'm not sure I want to understand it, beyond seeing the whole Trump movement through the lens of something like a cult. I just have never been so ashamed of my country in my life.

SubiculumCode• 1 year ago

I cannot help but think that we are a victim of prosperity...even the poor have time for lurid entertainment, and that is what this all is for most people. Entertainment. Televised team sports. People have lost perspective on what real loss is.

Chance-Device6• 1 year ago

Because the system traps people into a false dichotomy.

There is no candidate, no party that perfectly represents my views, or yours, nor could there ever be. Yet people are forced to choose between one of two bad options while being fed propaganda from both sides. Everyone is too distracted by the fighting between the sides to question the system itself.

Why is it that in a democracy, instead of voting for policies we believe in, which would seem to be the point, we instead vote for men, who then have power over us? And then they can do whatever they want?

Direct democracy. Maybe it’s flawed too, but it’s less flawed than this.

mewpmewp29• 1 year ago

It seems like Russia has managed to polarize US and manipulate one side completely to do their bidding. It's a strategy that they call ideological subversion. Russia has managed to split US in such a way that one side will always pick the opposite opinion from the other side and tie their egos and identities with it, effectively manipulating them into doing anything. For that side the most important thing becomes owning the other side, and not caring about anything else. It is very sad. US right is just victim to a very effective mass manipulation technique from a foreign actor specialized in this.

Trias11• 1 year ago

Which outcome would not be a mistake?

pgib• 1 year ago

"All those decades of the arms race, and it turned out there was no greater damage you could inflict on a state than ensure it was led by an idiot." –Mick Herron, Bad Actors (from the Slough House/Slow Horses series)

tim33331• 1 year ago

Not sure idiot is the right word for Trump.

kombine7• 1 year ago

Republicans have been delaying approval of military aid to Ukraine during the past couple of years, tying it to Israel (which itself is morally wrong). Now a Republican president has the audacity to accuse Ukraine of not winning - precisely because of lack of substantial military aid. Glad Zelensky called Trump out on his bullshit.

markhahn• 1 year ago

As an American, I'm disgusted.

Not only does Ukraine deserve respect and support, but the US's elected crazies are damaging the country. Soft power is real, and smart, power

jmward01• 1 year ago

US policy is now one of forcing the world into a zero sum game and it is a shame because the world isn't zero sum. This means the world will loose the gains from friendship and cooperation that increase the overall outcome for everyone. It is like living in a city where crime is expected so everyone puts up iron bars on their windows and the parks are all locked-down nightmares. When there is trust and cooperation you can have nice things like open parks and friendly establishments but when trust and cooperation go away you get bars on windows. This is a shame. I am ashamed of the US. I am ashamed that we are so shortsighted and scared that we have to play the bully and force a minmax solution when things could be so much better for everyone.

rdedev• 1 year ago

Not just the US but a lot of right wing or authoritarian govt in general.

The problem with this zero sum thinking is there is another player outside of the countries if the world; nature itself. Think natural disasters, climate change, diseases. No one can negotiate with it or form alliances. It does not care about our survival. The only choice we have is to come together to make sure we don't get screwed over.

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

Or... here's another strategy collect as much money as you can for yourself, and maybe your family... making hay while the sun shines... drilling and selling oil and gas... Demolish sanctions, play the stock market, kill off carbon taxes and environmental measures...

Sprinkle a little cryptocurrency backed money laundering here... some tax cuts there... Make sure your closest friends are well taken care of...

Then hole up in armed compounds with plenty of fresh water and air conditioning ... and say "f you" to everyone else.

Now you understand the rationale of America's new ruling class.

aparticulate21• 1 year ago

Come together as what? What does this Beatles-era sentiment entail specifically?

aeternum2• 1 year ago

I really don't understand this take, any other European country could fund the Ukraine war to continue.

The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get. Plus it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.

coffeemug• 1 year ago

It isn't about funding. It's about denigrating our allies and attacking the victim of aggression, while praising our adversaries and aggressors. Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter.

earthnail3• 1 year ago

The US is undermining the very institutions it built, like the UN, and the rule based world order.

That’s what the outcry is about. As of today, the US is no longer the leader of the free world.

The economic impact for the US in the long run will be significant. Trust is hard to build but easy to destroy.

Swenrekcah4• 1 year ago

The US did nothing but benefit from the war really. So any talk about ending support being in the United States' interest is a serious misreading of the situation.

The US was sending old equipment. To replace it they were and spending money on R&D and manufacturing of current and next-gen equipment for the US military, not Ukraine. The US got to observe and study the use of it's older equipment in an actual land war against a geopolitical adversary. The war has demonstrated US equipment superiority over Russian equipment.

The US did not send any troops, only old equipment and some money.

Regarding "hopes to end the killing". The killing can end today if Putin withdraws. He is the aggressor who attacked without any justification or provocation. If somebody invades your neighbour's apartment and starts looting and hurting them, do you just say "give up, it's easier"?

Some might but those are not people we respect.

2thumbsup• 1 year ago

Not just does the US no longer want to support Ukraine, it is basically siding with Russia by not taking a stand and criticising Ukraine. It’s neglecting the interests of it’s ally by only including Russia in negotiations.

On top of it all, it’s extorting Ukraine into giving up it’s minerals while giving no assurances in return.

And finally, most important for long term, it’s a complete policy reversal to its NATO allies, which will have a long term impact on US transatlantic relations for decades to come. Before, US was the only country to invoke Article 5. Now its recognising a weak moments for its allies and is exploiting that opportunity.

openasocket• 1 year ago

Europe doesn’t have the resources in a lot of cases. To start, a lot of what the US gave isn’t cash, it’s old equipment that was in long term storage. You can’t just place an order for 100 infantry fighting vehicles and get them in a month. For other forms of equipment, the US has a ton of industrial capacity that Europe simply can’t make up for.

it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.

There is currently no funding for Ukraine from the US. Trump has dangled offers of assistance “with conditions” but nothing concrete. Even this minerals deal didn’t actually include any security assistance or funding for weapons.

NalNezumi3• 1 year ago

Maybe I can't expect an answer from you but maybe someone that agree with your comment can clarify for me:

Why did suddenly "end the killing" become a talking point for the people supporting this/Trump? "End the Killing of *american soldiers*(outside US)" seems like an consistent message but when this group didn't give 2 shits about Iraqi, Afgani, Vietnam, Libya, Syria, and even essentially justify warcrimes and killings, how can the movement stay morally consistent to "Oh we are doing this to save Ukrainean life" as a slogan?

"We don't want to spend our money on other nationals, but we are ok in having colonies or natural resource exploitation at your expense" is the only sensible interpretation of current presidents behavior.

A stance that seems pretty aligned with every war since 9/11, just more explicit and any pretense such as "spreading democracy" or "WMD", and less willing to commit (american lives) for profit. Wasn't support for Trump against deepstate and all this "benefiting deepstate at the expense of the common people" wars? Why can't the movement just own up to it all.

rurp• 1 year ago

We are burning generations of alliances, goodwill, and our own enormously successful system of government for what? Absolutely nothing. Our entire country is being sold out so a few corrupt billionaires can make out like bandits.

This it the end of an 80 year era. The US will never have as much influence and prosperity again.

philjohn• 1 year ago

The US hasn't put as much in compared to Europe as they'd have you believe. Whilst Europe has sent fewer weapons, they've been supporting monetarily. And the US was sending stockpiled weapons, marking them at book value, and then reinvesting that money into US defence firms to buy new weapons.

lm284696• 1 year ago

Your take would make sense if the world was an excel sheet that needed to be balanced. I think geopolitics are a tad more complex...

ActorNightly8• 1 year ago

I don't really understand this take, Russia can just withdraw from Ukraine and end all the killing in the first place.

quelup3• 1 year ago

I agree with you. You put on your own oxygen mask before you can help others. The US has debt interest payments of over a trillion dollars a year - totally unacceptable. We can't keep funding a war that can be willingly ended.

Juliate20• 1 year ago

The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get

It _was_ also their war, because it's Europe that's attacked through Ukraine, and... Europe (and Ukraine, actually) used to be allies.

Well, here we are: the USA is _not_ anymore an ally to Europe, and is objectively becoming, as a state, an adversary, so here is the most likely survival plan available to Europe now:

1/ find new partners (Canada/Australia of course; as for the big one, will be India and/or China);

2/ increase its own defence and technologies to be more independent from US ones (will hurt, for sure);

3/ close its market to USA (will hurt heavily on both sides);

4/ not even talking about the cultural reframing that will happen.

It's not a matter of "if the USA doesn't fix its course within 4 years", it's happening now.

And no one wins at this. Certainly not the USA. Trump will be gone and forgotten in a few years. USA will take, at the very best, 40/50 years to fix the damaged trust towards Europe, but also towards any future partner: how do you expect to sincerely partner with a country that behaves so erratically every 4 years, and now even ambushes guest state representatives in front of the media?

gdubs• 1 year ago

It's basically the Back to the Future II world / timeline, which makes sense when you consider who Biff was based on.

a2dam• 1 year ago

An interesting fact about that timeline is that the writers based it partially on what they thought the world would be like if Trump was president.

bluedevilzn• 1 year ago

Except the movie came out in 1989. Trump wasn’t really well known in the media when the movie was written. There wasn’t even a trump tower.

dh202213• 1 year ago

Maritime power vs continental power [0]. Trump sees the world from a continental power viewpoint. In the recent past the West used to see, and operate, the world from maritime power point of view. Incidentally, China used to think like a maritime power as well - until Xi became president.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8mCThmsGc

thaumasiotes3• 1 year ago

Incidentally, China used to think like a maritime power as well - until Xi became president.

Historically, China is probably the single least ocean-focused country of any country to have a coast.

bbminner3• 1 year ago

Not everyone benefits from cooperation. Feuds are a great "business opportunity" - while everyone's divided and at each other's throat, you can take them out (or extort/bully) one by one, without any consequences, especially if you have the biggest and scariest stick in the block. So, solidarity, cooperation, and people sticking up for each other are absolutely awful for thugs and bullies.

whatshisface5• 1 year ago

The US already had all the power when people called it the leader of the free world, when people start using the word "bully," that signifies a major shift.

dpc0505052• 1 year ago

What will Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel's wealth look like when the us dollar isn't the main transfer currency, the world sees the biggest financial crisis in the last couple centuries and everyone wants to cash out on their US bonds because all of a sudden there's 0 trust in the US government?

That's what we're headed towards. The 'dark enlightenment' fascists think they can accelerate a switch of global banking moving towards cryptocurrency. Good fucking luck trading a bitcoin when normal finance is blowing up, grocery stores are going to struggle with stocking their shelves.

29athrowaway4• 1 year ago

Territorial disputes, when the negotiation terms involve only territorial changes is a zero-sum game. It stops being a zero-sum game once you add more terms.

A good example of an effective peace treaty was the Camp David accords that put an end to the Yom Kippur war of 1973. That used interest based bargaining instead of distributive bargaining.

The outcome that Russia is interested in this conflict is:

- annexing territory (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc)

- help Ukraine facilitate the international recognition of that annexation

- Ukraine should not join NATO (this makes another invasion viable in the future)

In this deal, Ukraine gets:

- a ceasefire

- some peacekeeping help

These terms are pretty mediocre for Ukraine. This administration seems to be inclined to think that's the best Ukraine can get and they should take the offer to prevent further losses.

Oblasts like Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc. have a high percentage of ethnic Russians living there. That would remain a barrier for Ukraine to achieve peace even if Russians retreat to pre-2014 borders. Nobody knows exactly what percentage of Russians live there because the last census was long time ago.

whatshisface5• 1 year ago

That would not be a barrier for peace in Ukraine. The war is not between Russians and Ukrainians, but Russia and Ukraine - in fact, that area voted for Zelenskyy. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...

alabastervlog19• 1 year ago

Trump and Vance also emphasized that Ukraine’s very weak, on camera, and then Trump spent a very weird amount of time taking about how tough Hunter Biden’s laptop was for Vladimir Putin, or something, which he just brought up out of nowhere.

I think it’s a safe assumption their deal sucks.

[edit] I don’t care about downvotes but if anyone downvoted because they think I made this up… watch the video.

MildestMind• 1 year ago

Russia just wants to retreat to pre-1922 borders.

coolvision• 1 year ago

This stopped being a territorial dispute long ago.

Russia is only interested in a ceasefire as a pause before occupying most of Ukraine.

Not a single time Russia has even hinted to accepting presence of any sort of third party force in Ukraine for peacekeeping.

ignoramous7• 1 year ago

A good example of an effective peace treaty was the Camp David accords that put an end to the Yom Kippur war of 1973

You ignore the fact that in Begin and Sadat, Carter had parties on both sides very willing to sign a permanent peace deal. With Sadat even sending multiple proposals to the US & Israel prior to the 1973 war [0]. While Sadat & Begin are no saints, the incumbent and entrenched wartime leader in Golda Meir had to be thrown to the cribs for peace to come to fruition, something that the Trump Admin now seems to demand of Zelensky.

[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036402

misja1115• 1 year ago

- some peacekeeping help

Ukraine wouldn't even get much of that: this was Zelensky's point, the deal lacked any safety guarantees from the US.

ttoinou• 1 year ago

Some games are indeed zero sum, some are positive and some are negative.

You could also see that in a positive light : Europeans might get a better armies / defence in 10 years compared to if the USA continued its past behavior without Trump

Marazan• 1 year ago

The world and human society is not zero sum. The Mercantilist world view is empirically wrong.

muzani• 1 year ago

Larger armies are negative sum for everyone. Historically, per capita GDP was flat until the 18th century, because wealth was measured in gold and people thought the best way to be rich was to keep robbing and colonizing one another.

safety1st3• 1 year ago

Here is a more nuanced take imho:

* After decades of reckless spending and lax economic management the US is going broke in a number of ways. In particular dealing with the national debt before and after Covid are very different beasts

* Coupled with similar problems in other countries and gradual global demographic decline, the global future looks like a zero sum game

* In its relations with other states, America has tended to leave a lot of money on the table since the Cold War era, in order to curry political favor, which it can no longer afford to do

* Republicans speak and campaign more openly about this than Democrats even though they both agree on the fundamental ideas I just outlined

* This is why Republicans are currently ascendant with the electorate and Democrats are seeing some of their worst numbers ever in favorability polls

* It is eminently reasonable to not prefer zero sum geopolitical games because they tend to cause poverty and war, but we've boxed ourselves into this future through decades of poor decisions

tempestn4• 1 year ago

I don't agree with your conclusions, but I feel you're arguing in good faith and therefore don't deserve down votes.

I'm not sure America actually has left a lot of money on the table. I see America having benefitted a lot from the post cold war world order (as indeed have most of its allies), and my take is that the kind of extraction of value that Trump has been attempting is at very best only beneficial in the short term.

But again, I appreciate when people with different viewpoints can discuss them civilly, so I gave you an upvote.

smgit• 1 year ago

I don't think this is the future or anyone is boxed in.

Trump & Co are by no measure the sharpest tools in the shed. In Trumps own words they have been up against some really inept people, who have all lost credibility.

Therefore the counter-reaction, which is building, will come, and it won't look like what Trump & Co are used to dealing with in the past. I think that's what interesting about where the story goes next. Whose is going to lead? What are they going to stand for? How are they going to organize? Its an opportunity for the best in America to shine.

fifilura4• 1 year ago

Cooperation is never a zero sum game compared to non-cooperation.

That is pretty much the definition of it.

And for example free trade is a flavour of it.

youngtaff2• 1 year ago

After decades of reckless spending and lax economic management the US is going broke in a number of ways. In particular dealing with the national debt before and after Covid are very different beasts

Most of the reckless spending is by Republicans via unfunded tax which grows the deficit

Then when they’re in opposition they suddenly become deficit hawks

Republicans don’t mind the debt pile growing providing it’s the rich getting the money, they object when it’s ordinary people’s lives who are being made better

NoLinkToMe5• 1 year ago

The US has never been richer, adjusted for inflation, both in aggregate and per person. [0]

The idea that there have been decades of reckless spending and the US is going broke I think is not at all a nuanced take.

Anecdotes about the inflation of prices of eggs (which is 0.05% of US economy) don't change the overall facts that are material.

I will grant you that debt servicing needs immediate attention. Blowing up 100 years of foreign policy has nothing to do with that, however.

The number of NATO members spending 2% or more on defense went from 3 to 23 in the past 10 years. Their spending almost doubled in the past 10 years, while the US only grew 15% (actually shrunk in PPP terms). [1]

The US has been successfully pressuring NATO allies to pick up the bill, without having to call Ukraine a dictator and cede Ukraine to Russia without US security guarantees, and promote politics of appeasement that will lead to China taking Taiwan which is the only material place that produces the future's most important geopolitical asset: chips.

The US looking to reduce debt also isn't compatible with raising tariffs on everyone including allies, reducing taxes and warding off cheap immigrant labour, it's the opposite. Trump seems to have 25% good ideas, 75% bad ideas, and 90% poor execution that causes a lot of collateral damage. Penny wise pound foolish comes to mind a lot when I look at his policy choices.

[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat... [1] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...

arp2425• 1 year ago

If Republicans would be oh-so concerned about the US "going broke" they wouldn't be pushing through trillions in tax cuts.

And much of this meeting with Zelensky had nothing to do with the budget (or at least the bits I've seen). It's just Trump being upset Zelensky isn't bending over backwards to praise Trump and being obsessed with shown to look "better" than other presidents (which is why he goes off on a tangent about Biden and Obama, disconnected from what Zelensky actually said).

namaria7• 1 year ago

It is like living in a city where crime is expected so everyone puts up iron bars on their windows and the parks are all locked-down nightmares.

That's life in Brazilian big cities.

Brazil has been very violent for a long time because the government enforces a zero-sum game against the population. The poor half of the population is overwhelmingly colored people and the richer white half would rather burn it all down than share it better. Brazil is one of the most unequal societies on the planet.

If we go that direction globally, security will erode everywhere.

Trust me, we don't want that. You don't want every metropolis to become like a big Brazilian city.

Go find some Brazilian media website and read the news. It's pretty grim. It's what society is like with persistent high inequality, a forced zero-sum game to preserve status quo and the resulting general insecurity.

barrenko3• 1 year ago

You can find the same thing (well, similar) in San Francisco, Oslo, Antwerpen. It's plain refusal to police and hold up societal values.

javcasas• 1 year ago

Oh, are you talking about Ecuador? Or maybe it's most of latam at this point.

I am living now in Portugal (has its own defects, won't hide it) after 10 years in Ecuador. Here, people park their cars in the street and expect them to be there next day. That would be crazy talk in Ecuador.

jiggawatts9• 1 year ago

globally, security will erode everywhere.

Just a day or so ago, Trump was asked about AUKUS, the closest military alliance that the US is a part of. He didn't know what it was.

For some months now, the Australian Liberal party has been going on and on about building nuclear power plants.

It's not about the electricity generation -- when pressed they'll admit that it might be as little as 4% of the supply -- but secretly it's about giving us the option of building nukes to defend ourselves in case our relationship with the US falls apart.

We can't be the only country thinking like this. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and many others have the industrial base and most have nuclear power plants already, nuclear engineers, etc...

I just checked: Singapore has started talking about building nuclear power plants also.

Sigh...

badestrand• 1 year ago

the government enforces a zero-sum game against the population

Can you expand on what that means, in laymen terms?

Xunjin2• 1 year ago

Being honest, this is 100% in big cities, but in the countryside it doesn't hold. A lot of cities between 100k-300k are pretty safe to live, people with gates leaves them open, even leave their cars entire open while getting a beer inside the house (all unlocked).

gazpacho• 1 year ago

As someone who’s lived in Latin America this is something I try to point out to people in the US every chance I get. If you have hundreds of millions you can post up in some remote mansion and get things delivered but even then your staff might steal things, your kids are targets, etc. And for everyone else, even the 1%, it’s not going to be a fun life. I’d much rather pay some more taxes and know that everyone has a safety net and UBI so that a much smaller fraction (never zero) are going to be so desperate, drug dependent, etc to commit crimes, especially the harder core ones. If you’re in the top 1% and everyone else is poor and desperate you are going to lack connection, community and safety. That's not good. We are all happier in a more equal society.

remarkEon19• 1 year ago

We need to level-set the reality here.

The lines on the map in the Ukraine war do not change in Ukraine's favor unless one or both of the following happen: 1) The United States gets directly involved, and/or 2) strategic weapons are used. The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up. I think everyone realizes this, and I think the recent election results in multiple countries there make this point.

You are complaining, I think, about the style here. An argument in the Oval Office. Well, the United States is the main reason that Russia, after its disastrous and frankly juvenile attempt at an invasion, hasn't been able to gain additional territory after the war went into the defensive. Let me repeat that: The United States is the reason this war is still on-going. And as a result of this fact, The United States is the one that gets to dictate terms.

whatshisface5• 1 year ago

OK, if we can dictate terms, let's tell both sides to be at peace... and while we're at it, Russia should join NATO, and let's get a side of Freedom Fries. ;-)

hiddencost• 1 year ago

You're asserting things you don't know.

pjc5013• 1 year ago

Yes, the US gets to try to force a Ukrainian surrender, we're all complaining that's a grossly immoral use of power. I don't think the Ukrainians are going to go along with it yet.

andsoitis• 1 year ago

The United States is the reason this war is still on-going.

In what way? Because it is providing assistance to Ukraine to defend itself against an aggressor?

gambiting18• 1 year ago

>The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up.

I think you might be very surprised about that, countries on the eastern end of the EU look ready to make that trade without hesitation, as they were invaded by Russia in the past themselves and can understand the risks. Poland is already at 5% GDP spending on defence, and by all indications that number will only grow. That's war-like levels of spending.

youngtaff2• 1 year ago

You know Europe has funded about 2/3rds of the war costs?

ioblomov21• 1 year ago

Let's not confuse domains: while economics isn't (necessarily) zero sum, geopolitics (in terms of influence or territory) is. US policy has nothing to do with these two facts.

misja1115• 1 year ago

Yes, when you look purely at geopolitics in terms of influence or territory, then that's zero sum. But even when leaving economics out of the equation, which I find questionable, there are plenty of other aspects of politics that are not zero sum. For instance: climate politics, pandemic control, arms race prevention.

omnee2• 1 year ago

The world, including the US, will be poorer and less safe if the US moves to zero sum geopolitics and mercantilism of 19th century. And the losses will be burdened on everyone else other than the very rich elites. Indeed, even a short review of America's own history would be proof of this.

idle_zealot• 1 year ago

Even the rich will be worse off. Just relatively less so. It's utterly irrational, but that's what happens when a population feels disillusioned with the status quo, and capital does all it can to push that unrest in any direction but reducing wealth inequality. Turns out the next easiest outlet is to appeal to humanity's worst tendencies, resulting in the rise of fascism.

This will play out over and over in liberal democracies so long as they abide a large wealth gap. It's anyone's guess whether we'll figure that out before there are no democratic states left.

_heimdall18• 1 year ago

How did we actually escape the zero sum game that is economics?

Oil, lumber, plastics, steel, human labor, electricity, etc are all still finite resources.

It seems like we've been playing in a much larger zero sum game, and that allowed us to gain temporarily profit from that much larger game. We can't escape it though, only finite resources have economic value.

jeswin3• 1 year ago

I am ashamed of the US.

Don't be. I'm neither American nor European, and from my vantage point this is far less America's (US) fault than it is Western Europe's. US has been asking Europe to increase defense spending for years now, and at the beginning of the war it was below 2% (Germany was spending 1.25% in 2018). Trump said this very publicly in during his first term, and he was ignored and mostly ridiculed. Same thing with the Gazprom deal.

Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer.

herghost2• 1 year ago

Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer

True. However.

The US has wanted to play a major role in Europe for 80 years because it meant they controlled the narrative. This, co-incidentally was favourable to European countries because they could spend their money elsewhere.

Over the past few years the US has decided that it would prefer to play in the Pacific rather than Europe and so has been edging away.

It's true that Western Europe has been slow to respond, but it's also important to acknowledge that Trump just changed the pace of this redirection and so it's not entirely on one or the other side.

johnnyanmac15• 1 year ago

You fell for the propaganda. The US is not spending for Ukraine the way Trump is trying to make it seem. Sending old equipment that is expensive to dispose of helps the US two-fold.

And yes, fighting indirectly with Russia is also helping the US two-fold. Or, was until Trump decided to wake up as a sleeper agent .

LeChuck• 1 year ago

This is a simplistic, even childlike, view of the relationship between the US and Europe. The situation is the way it is because the US wanted it like that. Statesman like Dean Acheson and George Marshall designed it this way. To throw 75 years of relative peace and stability away because you feel it’s unfair? A world that revolves around American military, economic and cultural power, and uses the U.S. dollar as its reserve currency unfair? It galls me that small, arrogant, petty people with no notion of history are throwing all this away because they have a schoolyard understanding of fair and unfair.

wewxjfq• 1 year ago

he was ignored and mostly ridiculed

Trump disagrees with you:

So we raised [the defense spending of NATO members by] $130 billion almost immediately. We had a meeting with all of the [NATO] countries. I said, “You got to pay.” We got $130 billion more — more.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/re...

belter9• 1 year ago

Two critical items who give away the total compromise of the administration.

During the conference Trump was asked when did he talk to Putin last time and said "a couple of days ago". No official communication was made about that. I am not referring to the initial call mentioned a few weeks ago.

A TASS reporter got into the Oval Office, and was kicked out when this was flagged by other members of the press. The normal accredited journalists can't easily get into the Oval Office, there is a much more rigorous process for that.

Somebody from the current US Administration, wanted this prearranged ambush, to be broadcast live to Russian audiences.

rayiner17• 1 year ago

The U.S. pulling back from policing the world is good for everyone except the europeans who were free-riding on the american military budget. How many deaths and trillions of dollars of waste resulted from liberal internationalism in the 20th and early 21st century? Vietnam, Korea, Iraq? The Iraq War should have discredited the whole project and resulted in throwing the “promoting democracy” folks into gulags. But they regrouped masterfully.

dh202213• 1 year ago

I think American involvement in Korea is a huge positive for Korea and Koreans.

svara5• 1 year ago

Yes, exactly, and that's the one huge issue with overt Machiavellianism as a strategy.

The big question I've been asking myself for a while now is, why isn't that plainly obvious to everyone in the US? Why isn't it plainly obvious to Trump himself and to his fans?

I think the reason is American Exceptionalism, and the cultural power it has in the US.

If you start from the premise that you play in a completely different league than everyone else, there isn't much to gain from building cooperative structures.

Interestingly, I remember even Peter Thiel saying in a podcast I listened to many years ago that he thought American Exceptionalism was the biggest cultural weakness in the US.

perrygeo• 1 year ago

The world _wasn't_ zero sum when we had limitless economic growth. But growth has effectively ended for the majority of people. And resource constraints look they will define the future.

Extracting resources has always been the central tenant of industrial society, and there was always somewhere new to pillage. With literally nowhere on earth left to expand this global juggernaut, it's not clear that our zero sum utopia can continue.

I'm not defending Trump's actions by any means; spitting in the face of your friends is the last thing you want to do when times are lean. But at least this administration sees the writing on the wall: business as usual is dead and we're entering an era of zero sum contraction. Their response is insane but at least they acknowledge the problem (unlike traditional liberals and conservatives who think we can keep tweaking the current system forever)

sethammons• 1 year ago

You realized all the markets have (until very recently) been going up, all the economic indicators showing green, and business was booming. My portfolio was up.

That economic activity is growth. It was still happening. Just the middle class didn't participate like it used to like in the 50s. Because the marginal tax rate back then kept as much wealth from pooling at the top.

Economic inequality is the problem, not lack of growth.

yyyk2• 1 year ago

The reality of the matter is that world was going that way anyway, as a result of weakness and mistakes past admins couldn't remedy (including Trump's).

The Russian army is IMHO not anywhere near collapse, it's suffering many casualties in a useless war (for Russia), but ultimately they have x4 people and industrial advantage (!). Trump is being very crass, but any US admin would seek to close this up since simply put Ukr is losing - yet Putin cannot take Kyiv either. What's left is everyone wasting a lot of blood for a some land in Donbass.

The pressure is applied too much on Ukraine though - Putin needs to made to climb down a bit, which is difficult given his advances but maybe doable (I think a threat of unilateral EU forces deployment could do it).

mark_l_watson• 1 year ago

I have a different take on this situation: I have felt for about a decade that it was time for my country (USA) to slowly ease away from being the sole dominate super power and figure out how to live in a multi-polar world. I am not a fan of President Trump but I wish him good luck in moving us in the direction of coexisting with Russia and China because I think it is in the best interests of most people in most countries. I was disappointed by Zelensky yesterday and I don’t believe he acted in the best interests of his people. I like Ukraine, wonderful country to visit and nice friendly people. I would like to visit again when the war has ended.

KevinMS• 1 year ago

Zelensky wouldn't have acted like that if he wasn't in the oval and on national TV. It was a performance in really bad taste, climbing to the moral high ground, and that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Zelensky even pissed off Lindsay Graham, huge urkaine supporter in the senate, who looks like he's done with him now.

taosx• 1 year ago

Lindsay Graham looks more like he pissed himself. So after he saw that bullying and the way the president conducted himself he couldn't be more proud? I've met some ppl, some crazies included, but none that distort reality the way trump and his supporters do. Is there like a crisis in the american education system, what is happening there?

asnyder2• 1 year ago

Honestly, after watching the full press conference twice, I suspect this meeting will go down in history as a canonical example of "what not to do as a politician".

It seems Zelensky was unaware he's dealing with Trump, his demeanor, and his presidency. Historical this or that is not applicable when dealing with someone like him. Trump will be Trump, and nobody should expect otherwise. Always best to understand and know your counterpart.

I'm definitely no Trump supporter, but objectively, prior to the blow-up, Trump was being somewhat reasonable. Maybe the most Presidential I've seen him. He reaffirmed support for NATO, continuing sending weapons to Ukraine, and generally wanting to push efforts to stop fighting, etc. He respectfully let Zelensky speak numerous times, at length, on difficult subjects, even things he didn't agree with. He even respectfully looked at photos of prisoners offered by Zelensky. Compare that to his prior behavior with the UK Prime Minister just a day before where he cut him off numerous times forcefully.

Zelensky made numerous mistakes, emotionally reacting and replying to reporters questions when not directed towards him, adding on more grievance, and generally not being as a politician needs to be. He clearly showed why being emotionally responsive doesn't work in a debate, court, or other significant and crucial meetings.

The supposed Mineral agreement may just be a way for Trump to look like he got concessions or something in exchange to look strong to his supporters, especially compared to his favorite archrival Biden.

If Zelensky had goals/aims he wished to reach, he should've done his best to ensure the truth and his viewpoint comes through when is applicable to the question being asked, but not offered voluntarily or in conflict with his ally's statement. His demeanor from the beginning of the broadcast was already chilly and stern. He should've let any need for venting to come out AFTER the signing, at the 2nd joint press conference scheduled for later in the day.

If you watch Vance's initial statement, it was relatively supportive of Ukraine and leaned to neutral at the end. Nothing negative outright that needed to be added on to. Zelensky erred here by asking if he could ask Vance a question afterwards which led to the blow-up and escalation, and ultimately really bad decision of telling Trump he's going to feel this or that. This was a classic mistake. Question was over, should've moved on. Logically no possible statement could've helped his efforts or goals, so he only had the potential to hurt himself. Further being emotional, combative, and from Trump's perspective, relatively disrespectful did not help him. The entire over answering, and combative escalation was an emotional release from Zelensky and did not aid his aims, and ultimately hurt him.

He left in the worst possible position. He didn't get to his signing, nor his second opportunity for public statements post-signing, where he would've had clear gains, while forcefully stating whatever truths he feel were being left out or gaslit.

It seems Zelensky felt he needed to vent and express his people's pain, frustration, and anguish, but as the saying goes, time and place for everything, and unfortunately wasn't correct for either.

rstuart4133• 1 year ago

The entire over answering, and combative escalation was an emotional release from Zelensky and did not aid his aims, and ultimately hurt him.

I think the reverse. It's hard to predict what Trump will do next, but the straight forward reading is his plan was always to stop supporting Ukraine. The cherry on top would have been to bully the into giving the USA minerals rights without giving much in return - certainly not security guarantees.

Which means there is nothing Zelensky could get out of the USA from that meeting. But, he still has most of the rest of the world on his side, and he could use the meeting to get them to step up to the plate.

I think he did a very good job of exploiting the dynamics of the meeting to do just that. He ensured there was absolutely no doubt what the USA's position is going forward, so there are only two outcomes: Europe either let's Russia forcibly take over another country, or they wholeheartedly commit to Ukraine defence.

Making it undeniably obvious they are between a rock and a hard place is a great way to force action.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v210• 1 year ago

<< He left in the worst possible position.

I wonder about that. Z was already in a pretty bad position on US-side, but this blowout only strengthens his position on EU side and in his own country. He also manages to get attention of anti-T people in US. Politically, it may have been the only 'good' move for him. If I was a leader of a country, I sure would not want to sign a 'deal' like this and be responsible for what it does to it ( which seems to suggest that Z is probably the least like other politicians, who would sell their own mother if the price was right ).

I obviously might be wrong, but I think there is a level of misunderstanding on what actually is happening.

tim33331• 1 year ago

People trivialize what went on as "needed to vent" and the like but if you look at the disagreement it was basically Trump was proposing give us a load of minerals, give your lands to Putin and in return I'll get a bit of paper from Putin saying he won't invade more. But no military guarantee to enforce that.

Zelensky says that's not good because Putin breaks all the agreements. Trump says he breaks other peoples agreements that won't happen with me. Zelensky points out the December 2019 Ukraine and Russia agreed to implement a "full and comprehensive ceasefire" happened under Trump and Putin broke it.

It was at that point Vance and Trump went all shouty because they'd been called out. If Zelesky had gone for Trump's agreement probably Trump would take the minerals, Putin would ignore the agreement and invade further and take over Ukraine in a similar way to how the Taliban made an agreement with Trump to be nice then they took over Afghanistan.

Dunno if you've seen the 2 min freeonis cartoon on the Trump deal. Quite close to the truth perhaps https://x.com/freeonis_/status/1893646996948337031

asnyder2• 1 year ago

We have to separate his goals as a politician and his need for righteousness.

Trump gave him clear wins in his previous statements prior to the outburst. He committed to continued weaponry but emphasized he'd prefer the fighting to stop. He committed to NATO. He committed to getting back as much of the land, or more than you'd think, all clear progress from his previous statements and position in prior weeks.

Remember, the Mineral deal was already agreed upon. Trump, in my view, was being gracious and gave him additional wins. Had Zelensky taken those wins, NOT added an a whole unnecessary unprovoked debate with Vance, he would've ended that first meeting with those wins, EVEN with all that he said prior to the blow-up, some of which was already ungracious from Trump's perspective.

After the signing at the 2nd press conference he could've went into his whole need of security guarantees to protect their now mutual interests. He could've asked Trump to help him build "a big beautiful wall" to protect from the vicious x, y, and z, and still iterated, strongly to the press and world his needs, perspective, etc.

That's how a politician should've operated. Got there, carried out agreement which gives Trump face to his followers, taken the additional wins, and after all set, broadcast his views strongly and respectfully to the world, setting up a clear pathway to additional security in the future.

Win, win, win.

Instead he got none of that, and may even lose the current funding and support they were getting as Trump is still Trump and will likely want to extract some pain for his perceived slights.

Objectively, from a political perspective, we can see the outcome wasn't great, especially compared to the version of events that was being setup prior to the unnecessary confrontation.

sys32768• 1 year ago

Here's seven minutes of head cam footage of a Russian and Ukrainian soldier fighting to the death with knives, for those who are more upset about Trump than the war itself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1hrs6oz/clos...

SergeAx2• 1 year ago

If you follow the conversation, the beef started after President Zelensky asked the same question he has been asking since the beginning of this circus: What are the guarantees for Ukraine? Ukraine tried diplomacy in 2015 and 2019; the results are well known. Why fall for the third time for the same putin's trap?

Instead of directly responding to direct questions, Vice President Vance starts shaming and bullying President Zelensky. This means the US has no answer and doesn't want to admit it. This is why Ukraine should walk away from the deal that gives them nothing.

effed3• 1 year ago

Bad feelings about this, bad diplomacy bad manners and usual bunch of false facts agains a leader fighting for freedom of it's own country, seems a one more act in these bad story where there are no more allies but servant. One more step in the takeover of freedom and democracy by a planetary oligarchy, beyond borders and states, this economic and financial power do not care aboout states and citizens, nor freedoms and basic rights, eg: i see so little differences betweed the power of Musk and those of Putin, at these levels the far right is only manpower.

solid_fuel3• 1 year ago

My god, the conduct by the administration this morning was disgusting. I have been an American my entire life - I have never seen conduct this shameful. Congress must act to reign this President in, we cannot abandon our allies like this.

I am calling my representatives and DEMANDING action, and if you care about this nation, the security of Europe, or defending a democracy against invasion then I recommend doing the same.

It has reached the point where I cannot express my full thoughts on this matter without reckless language. But rest assured, if we (Americans) do not speak out and stop this NOW, it will get worse.

metadat• 1 year ago

Is there better footage than this weird livestream which abruptly cuts off at 2h:20m?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmea-M9BvhE&t=8175s

DrammBA2• 1 year ago

From PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpAj8rRe-p0

nickmp2• 1 year ago

Extraordinary. I hope the Americans reading this please watch the full exchange with the perspective of history. I saw a hero, Zelenskyy, one of the great leaders of our time, and two shockingly awful bullies. Vance especially.

user39393824• 1 year ago

Yeah he showed great leadership when he banned books, religion, language, journalists that opposed him, canceled elections, lost 20% of his country and generations of young men fighting a war he had 0 chance of winning when he had a peace deal initialed early on. Just a fantastic leader.

_7acn2• 1 year ago

I watched the entire meeting attentively from start to finish, and in my opinion, nothing major happened. There was a slight argument, but then the emotions cooled down a bit. What did happen, however, was complete madness in the media. The media went crazy. I think any rational person should know that it’s not worth listening to the media, especially mainstream ones.

gschrader2• 1 year ago

That one media guy asking about Zelensky's lack of a suit and it being disrespectful to the Oval Office. Completely out of touch, the man has about a million other things to worry about than that.

aparticulate21• 1 year ago

It's as a prop to make him look hard af. Is he IN combat regularly? No.

altmind2• 1 year ago

cancelling a scheduled press-conference without signing a deal is not major?

_7acn2• 1 year ago

Do you believe that they actually read that "deal", that everything had already been agreed upon, and then it just so happened that they had an argument in front of journalists and that's why they didn’t sign it?

attentive10• 1 year ago

1750 comments, why is it #25 on HN?

All the while "3,200% CPU Utilization" with 100 comments is #1. Which is niche at best.

digitalnatives• 1 year ago

I don’t see it at page #1 or #2

The28thDuck• 1 year ago

This post was hidden by mods I think - not on front page

dang28• 1 year ago

You should, because everyone sees the same front page.

Edit: and indeed, the same site generally. That's one thing I used to post a lot about but not so much in recent years.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

dang28• 1 year ago

Which is niche at best

Let me answer that bit first. Most good HN threads are "niche", meaning they are about things far less important than major events. This is on purpose, because if a story's importance were the criterion for HN's front page, then HN would be a current affairs site, and that is definitely not its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). One could even say that HN is more for unimportant things, as long as they gratify intellectual curiosity, but the most accurate way to put it is that importance alone is not a criterion.

A certain amount of political overlap has always been part of the mix (that's why the site guidelines say "most" and "probably" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426), but we're careful not to let that part get too large, because we want to preserve HN for its intended purpose.

Here are some links that point to lots of past explanations about this:

some political overlap is ok, but only some - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

not a current affairs site - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

optimizing for curiosity - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

not burning to a crisp - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

If you review the first part of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and then take a look at these links, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.

1750 comments, why is it #25 on HN?

This is answered in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, but I'll expand on what it says there.

Number of comments doesn't make a thread rank higher on HN. Upvotes make it rank higher, and flags make it rank lower. At this moment the balance between upvotes and flags on this story (and other factors, like the time of submission) combine to rank it at #23 or so.

HN's front page is a product of 3 things: community moderation (e.g. upvotes, flags), software moderation (e.g. flamewar detector) and moderator action (e.g. turning off flags, downweighting, or selecting posts for the SCP - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308).

In this case, community moderation was removing the story from the front page altogether (because flags were dominating upvotes). I overrode that by turning off the flags. Why? Because whatever else one says about this story, it is an interesting new phenomenon (a phrase from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It may even be unprecedented.

However, I didn't turn off the flags to such a degree that the thread would be at #1 because it is not in HN's interest to have a divisive, indignant, and bellicose topic at the top of the front page. That would send the wrong message about what this site is for. Having this thread on the front page, but lower down, sends an accurate message about what this site is for. (As for what it is and isn't for—that is covered in the links I listed above.)

Another way of putting this is that while it's in HN's interest to have occasional threads on topics like this, it's important that the flames not burn so hot as to risk burning the site to a crisp. After the 'crisp' would come scorched earth, which is not interesting—it would do no good for HN to end up there. It's true that this tends to be the default fate of internet forums, but HN has right from the beginning (https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) been an experiment in trying to stave that fate off for as long as possible.

scorched earth is not interesting - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

stave that off - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

I had the same question, so thank you for the comprehensive explanation.

nomel11• 1 year ago

What's the history of this model? Was it organic, or was it planned from the beginning (or maybe a bit of both)?

It's impressive when relatively small rules can so effectively set the vibe. I suppose you could claim you set rules that are well aligned with the eigenvectors of a nerd.

quink9• 1 year ago

Divisive? Bellicose? Flames?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a less divisive thread than this one, having read _hundreds_ of comments in this thread. There is virtually no flame war going on here and opinions are fairly uniform on the matter at hand.

It’s more incendiary for this pretty civil discussion to be called divisive when there’s hardly any evidence that it is. The comments I most disagree with are all about appeasement, which is in my opinion misguided and coming from a place of saving lives (even if all the evidence is there in practice that it won't in the long run), rather than actively malicious.

froggertoaster2• 1 year ago

Hey Dan, thanks for the well-reasoned and thoughtful moderation approach.

TBH, after seeing the number of upvotes and comments, I wondered why it wasn't ranked higher. Your explanation makes sense to me.

I think you struck the right balance here.

magicalhippo• 1 year ago

As I understand it HN ranking algorithm penalizes controversial threads, as indicated by roughly equal or higher number of comments compared to upvotes or something along those lines.

dang28• 1 year ago

Yes, that's more or less how the flamewar detector works. But I turned it off in this case.

(I can't remember if I did that because it had kicked in, or if I was being proactive.)

For more info on moderation of this thread and why, see my long comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835.

csa• 1 year ago

You can work around this a bit by using “new” and/or “active”:

https://news.ycombinator.com/active

Since I’ve discovered active, I actually look at it first to find stuff that got pushed off the front page while I was not looking at HN.

I appreciate the goal of the front page algo quite a bit, but sometimes it pushes interesting stuff off the front page very aggressively if I am not refreshing HN throughout the day.

shmerl• 1 year ago

Time for Europe to reduce the discussions and back Ukraine even more. Europe can't rely on Trump and his clowns anymore who will more likely side with Putin and other fascists than with free Europe.

They should use all frozen Russia's money assets to back Ukraine's war effort (it still didn't happen fully). And increase weapons production and armies to adequate sizes ASAP (this should have happened "yesterday").

hermitcrab2• 1 year ago

A finally forced myself to watch the clip. What an absolute disgrace Trump and Vance are.

fjjjrjj• 1 year ago

As an American I will have a hard time forgiving anyone that voted for Trump. He telegraphed his sick obsession with Putin and still was voted in. I am sorry.

I hope we still have a country 4 years from now. He is a saboteur as is Musk and both should be considered foreign agents IMO. Yet they are running the country. Makes me want to vomit.

worik• 1 year ago

This could be a good thing. Uniting Europe possibly

Mr Trump is not wrong IMO that Europe has depended too much on the USA for too long.

Europe is divided, both between and within nations, this might be the impetus needed to reverse that. Unite them in their diversity, and take their place in the world

namuol6• 1 year ago

So… Where are we marching?

hayst4ck3• 1 year ago

Zelesnky and Trump both want peace, but what is peace?

The political spectrum is divided chiefly by how one views what peace is. On one side, John Locke's and the American founding father's, peace is the presence of justice. On the other side Thomas Hobbes' and Russia's, peace is the absence of violence. When you feel wronged, do you submit, or do you fight? If you fight you fight for justice. If you submit, it's because the violence is too much or those with the capacity for it are too strong, you would rather live a slave than die on your feet.

Ukrainians are fighting for justice, for self determination, and for a better tomorrow. Ukrainians are better Americans than we are because they have chosen to risk their lives rather than submit.

Peace must be due to justice, not submission. "Peace" due to submission is a false peace. It is the very definition of oppression.

etc-hosts35• 1 year ago

Zelensky wants his country back. He would love for Russia to peacefully give Ukraine back. Probably not going to happen.

Trump's brain's actions are guided by a deep hatred of Ukraine. The Ukrainian cause is tightly bound to the memory of the Biden administration. The Ukrainian security services leaked the Paul Manafort diaries to Western press. The Ukrainian Phone Call was behind Trump's first impeachment.

TriangleEdge• 1 year ago

Maybe dumb question, but I asked ChatGPT search and didn't get a straight answer, so:

Why is Russia at war with Ukraine?

ChatGPT tells me it's because of "western alignment". Trump told reporters 1m people died. Seems a bit excessive to me for political ideas.. I'd have an easier time believing it's a resource conflict or some oil field being liberated or wtv.

layer87• 1 year ago

Broadly speaking, it’s because Putin is pissed that the Soviet Union fell (he lived through it as a KGB member in East Berlin), and Russia culturally originated around Kiev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27), so he sees it as part of what should be the Russian empire. There are some important industries and resources in Ukraine, plus better access to the Black Sea. Ukraine’s orientation towards the EU and NATO is seen as an ideological and military threat. But the perceived humiliation of the fall of the Soviet Union, not being respected in the Western world, and trying to undo that and restore Russia’s glory, seems to be what is driving Putin the most.

demaga• 1 year ago

We're 3 years in and I have zero idea. Nothing comes to mind except for plain old expansion for the sake of expansion.

anigbrowl20• 1 year ago

Historical: Putin longs to rebuild Russian empire

Strategic: oil, minerals, Black Sea port access. Russia's great strategic weakness is that it doesn't have any warm water ports, which drastically limits its naval reach and ability to shape trade.

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

It surprises and scares me how few people in the West understand this. It's because staring wars is how dictators cling to power, plain and simple. This is obvious to anyone who follows Russian politics. There's even a term "Crimea consensus", referring to the fact that annexing Crimea made Putin super-popular again after he angered people with his clumsy return to the presidental chair. In 2022 his rating was at all-time low again.

Yes, it's actually a bit more complex than that. Russia never stopped being an empire, it's codifed in their culture in many ways. Yes, there are personal inclinations of Putin. He said in his first ever interview when he got some minor post on SPB government that the Bolsheviks' greatest mistake was giving autonomy (however nominal) to the soviet republics. So those are the reasons too. What's not a reason in any way though is geopolitics. Feeling threatened by NATO, needing this or that resource, access to this or that body of water, fighting Western colonialism (!) - those are all bullshit reasons invented for propaganda.

attentive10• 1 year ago

to rebuild USSR aka russian empire. That includes EU "eastern block" countries.

quenix• 1 year ago

This is an absurd claim

tim33331• 1 year ago

It's complicated because you hear so many different stories and versions as to why. My take is they regard Ukraine as basically Russian land and put up with Ukraine being independent when they had a pro Russian government but got annoyed when the Ukrainians, with American help, overthrew that and went western democracy.

But it's also part of a long pattern - over the last 500 years Russia has expanded at an average rate of 50 square miles per day by invading other people's countries and the like - it what they've always done. I'm not sure if that isn't a bit out of date these days - the whole imperial invasion thing. I mean I'm a Brit and we used to do it and had the world's largest empire but it's all a bit passe now. (50sq mile link https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2016-04-18/r...)

By the way re the history, Ukraine, governed from Kyiv is basically the same as Kievan Rus, also similar land governed from Kyiv and existed long before Moscow or Russia were invented. Muscovy, the bunch out of Moscow, were a warlike lot and stole the Rus bit of the name and much of the land. So when you here Putin going on about it not being a real country and just a bit of spare land belonging to Russia, it's not quite true.

pencilcode• 1 year ago

Donate donate to Ukraine https://u24.gov.ua/ Trump is simply abject

TomK325• 1 year ago

Isn't there anyone in the White House who makes sure Trump isn't inventing numbers? Put the actual dollar amount on a cue account if needed so he doesn't repeat the 350 billion again (of which most stays in the US anyways).

insane_dreamer45• 1 year ago

I wonder what the GOP senators' reactions are to this very sharp turn? They had been strongly supportive of aid to Ukraine, pushing through funding. Maybe that was mostly McConnell and now that he's no longer majority leader, it fell by the wayside? Certainly the "traditional conservative GOP" would be horrified by these events. But maybe all those guys -- McCain, Romney, McConnell, are gone or on their way out.

namshe4• 1 year ago

They are on their way out, they understand what's about to happen.

MathMonkeyMan2• 1 year ago

What's about to happen?

tnt1282• 1 year ago

This is so painful to watch. This kind of discussion should absolutely be behind closed doors to avoid the theatrics.

gwerbret2• 1 year ago

Bit of a tangent, but I wondered if anyone here is particularly into the serious business of foreign affairs/international relations, and can recommend a primer -- or even a curriculum -- for someone wanting to become more knowledgeable about the field. As with anything, I suspect one is better able to appreciate the ramifications of events of this sort with a more nuanced and informed perspective.

namshe4• 1 year ago

You could do a lot worse than starting by reading this: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

namshe4• 1 year ago

This comment getting downvoted into the negatives is hilarious.

consumer4519• 1 year ago

I can recommend every Dwarkesh Patel pod and lecture with Sarah C. M. Paine. History is the best teacher, and that's her specialty. I learned a lot from each of the following:

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah-paine (WW2, Taiwan, Ukraine, & Maritime vs Continental Powers)

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah-paine-india

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah-paine-japan

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah-paine-china

NalNezumi3• 1 year ago

I can second this recommendation. The first interview he did, he was a bit rusty as a interviewer but the 3 followups was great, he did his homework. All 4 are good tough, I'm not sure it is helpful for "international relations" of today as much as good to understand history from multiple perspective. I think they are a good foundation on "how to think/see perspective in things", but history always have hindsight so practicing that is a bit harder.

There's also Decoding Geopolitics Podcast (full content is paywalled) since he talks with actual experts. There's ofc US bias in experts, and usually actual experts can be kinda boring to listen to initially.

But experts in international politics seems to disagree on a lot of stuff, and when one big thing happens it seems like a new face always momentarily pop up (John Mearsheimer, Peter Zeihan etc, for Ukraine war). A good rule of thumb seems to be to not get too fixated by one voice.

Its refreshing to hear some experts being able to healthily disagree, such as Mearsheimer & Sach in this[1] for example. That should be the take away from Sarah Paine interview too, she's good at making clear what she can & can't say for sure. Contrast that with say Zeihan. [1] https://youtu.be/uvFtyDy_Bt0?feature=shared

erichocean• 1 year ago

Well, if you want to understand Russia, China, and Trump, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations

That's how politics was done before WW2.

anal_reactor• 1 year ago

As a complete layman, I highly recommend the YouTube channel of William Spaniel, along with his second channel Lines on Maps Extra. He explains current political events from his academic perspective. Regarding what happened now, the TL/DR conclusion is that Trump wants Europe to focus on its own defense, while US will brace for potential conflict with China. If you think that NATO might get caught up in a two-front war, this makes a lot of sense. The fact that Trump uses unorthodox methods to achieve this isn't exactly interesting on its own, which is why the heated discussion shouldn't really deserve as much attention as it does.

sublimefire6• 1 year ago

Historian Timothy Snider has some lectures online and wrote some great books. I’m reading his book Bloodlands now. Then there is Anne Applebaum.

But this is a wide topic, I suppose various biographies would help. Older books could help, e.g. “Prince” is old but a classic.

You could also lookup reading lists in best known universities under political science and international relations.

m3kw94• 1 year ago

What’s bad is the example Trump is setting for future presidents of United States. Also another worse thing is he is installing all yes man/woman who seem clueless in their posts

vitali4• 1 year ago

If you’re a European, you should try identifying the psyops more with yourselves and your families, and support unification and democratic alliances where possible. And talk more about it since most people are absolutely influenced by conspiracies across the whole continent and across social strata. The UK was talking about the EU instituting straight bananas, and it was a key point for Brexit, including by the UK Prime Minister (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johns...)

If you’re an American, good luck. I’m sorry you’re gonna have to go through this.

At the end of the day, if you voted one way, it wasn’t your fault. You were probably deceived by foreign psyops. Happens to everyone.

If you voted the other way, don’t be angry. Turning it into class warfare does not provide any moral victory, and more so, is once again a distraction from the group of people who really are to blame for this. This is a the rallying point you were waiting for to become more politically active, in whatever way you can.

Also maybe consult with your constitution?

kemiller2• 1 year ago

Peace without justice is just conquest.

missedthecue7• 1 year ago

Welcome to earth. It's not fair.

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

But some rare worthwhile people don't just lay down, or bend over, to take it from a bully.

Fairness exists as much as people are willing to pursue it.

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

I have invested considerable personal resources into fighting for democracy in my country and ended up having to flee leaving behind a rather comfortable life. The United States has always been an inspiration despite its well-known flaws.

Watching this situation unfold is very disturbing. And especially disheartening is the behavior of Republican representatives. A mere month ago these same people were Ukraine's best friends and world's dictators' most hawkish enemies and suddenly they are all parroting a completely opposite narrative. I mean, I can understand electing a pathalogical liar. Happened in my country as well. But turns out others were lying too? Suddenly turns out there's no commitment to values, but only a commitment to one man? If this can happen so easily in a 250 years old democracy, is democracy even worth fighting for? Is the Ukrainians' sacrifice worth it?

hypeatei2• 1 year ago

A mere month ago these same people were Ukraine's best friends and world's dictators' most hawkish enemies

What Republicans a month ago were UAs best friend? I feel like the simping for Russia has been a consistent stance of MAGA since 2016 -- certainly since the 2022 invasion.

CrossVR3• 1 year ago

There were non-MAGA republicans who still held Reagan-era values about freedom and democracy.

neom7• 1 year ago

Just talking aloud here and not trying to say anything in particular: I've been an HSBC customer for 20 years, 6/7 years ago things started to get a bit weird, and then there was a full blown withdrawal. I do a small amount of business with kids of CCP folks, 2/3 years ago things in those relationships changed also. I've thought for a while now there is something pretty big brewing behind the scenes, the way Trump reacted to Zelensky saying that the USA is going to feel some stuff... again, I'm not trying to say something, I'm not saying war, aliens, paradigm shifting tech, I don't know what I'm saying, but my gut says something starkly unusual is brewing.

causal• 1 year ago

Don't think I track. Some people withdrew some money and it makes you think something big is coming?

awesomeMilou• 1 year ago

Maybe it's just because they're anticipating fallout from an escalation over Taiwan? Large US tech companies would be crippled because they'd suddenly loose access to top chips and manufacturing capacity over night.

SlightlyLeftPad3• 1 year ago

You’re absolutely right to be concerned. We’re watching a long-term strategy being played out and America is largely a pawn and blind to it because the average person, leaders included, can’t imagine what our world might look like beyond the next 4 years.

The reality is, strategically, China is much much much wiser than the US is and the puzzle pieces are starting to come together in all the ways that are good for them.

And if you want proof of my statement that our society is in denial, watch this comment get downvoted into oblivion.

tandr• 1 year ago

So you too have noticed "something" that cannot be quantified as "event" yet. I would say from around 2014 things started to move in strange directions here and there around the world. I am not sure if what is brewing is highly unusual, but I would say it is not something we have seen in a last 50-70 years.

saturn86015• 1 year ago

DEFCON started the Frankin project less than a year ago. Purpose is to work with the small mom and pop people across the country and volunteer to harden their security. The consensus being that China will be launching a major offensive in the next 5-7 years and this country filled with small pockets of people doing their own thing are deeply vulnerable to having their infrastructure being crippled in a "first strike" kind of attack. Think about it, so much of the country is decentralized and a lot of the people have their infrastructure that the country depends on just running on outdated junk.

The rest of this decade is make or break for the next 20+ years. I honestly don't know if the US is really on the right path. Maybe letting Musk cut everything so the country can focus on the core essentials will save us? Maybe it will doom us? If we go down, I suspect he will go down with us (never getting to mars) so there is that at least. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore? Maybe there really is no leadership at the top so the window has closed and we are just sleepwalking into a depressing era of pain and suffering?

[1] https://defconfranklin.com/

fulladder4• 1 year ago

We're living in a classic "pre-war era," similar to what people said about living in Germany between the wars. I don't know what the war is going to be about or even who the sides are going to be (hopefully I won't be on either of them), but I think that's what the tension is about.

Maybe it will be defused, though? No way to know.

mjfl7• 1 year ago

what is Ukraine's path to victory and why do you think war is better than peace or even a ceasefire?

lm284696• 1 year ago

Coming from the people who spent $2.5 trillion fighting goat herders with ak47s for over 20 years, and lost, that's a good one...

Either way it's not a reason to publicly humiliate Zelensky, to announce he's a dictator, to repeat Russian propaganda talking points, &c.

If your version of peace is to unconditionally accept all of the aggressor's demands, shit on the country being invaded and steal their resources don't be surprised if people don't clap

HumblyTossed2• 1 year ago

Ukraine’s path to victory should be the rest of the world telling Putin to fuck off or else.

rfrey4• 1 year ago

Why do you think complete surrender is better than continuing to struggle?

regularjack2• 1 year ago

A good start would be to not have the president of the world's most powerful state do the oppressor's bidding.

thrance8• 1 year ago

Trump has been glazing despots for years, nothing about this is surprising. They were never "the world's dictators' most hawkish enemies", quite the contrary. Why else would russian propaganda be so aligned with MAGA?

cryptonector12• 1 year ago

Is Ukraine currently a democracy?

aeze• 1 year ago

It's generally considered one, yes.

rfrey4• 1 year ago

Yes. Why would you think otherwise? Even the leader of the opposition says the current situation is the only legal scenario.

Buttons8403• 1 year ago

Yes: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/2/25/ukrainian-parli...

Summary: While questions have been raised about Ukraine’s democratic process, the country is acting in accordance with its constitution. Parliament overwhelmingly affirmed Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, and under Ukrainian law, elections cannot be held while martial law is in place. Despite the challenges of war, Zelenskyy maintains a 57% approval rating, and his mandate is not disputed by the Ukrainian people or their elected representatives.

whatever1• 1 year ago

European nations, in contrast to the Americas, have been fighting bloody wars between them constantly forever.

After WW2 the EU was formed with the goal of stopping the bloodshed. Germans and French became friends!

Europe outsourced their defense to the USA, and instead they started paying NATO and buying defense equipment from US companies.

Yet they stood by the USA in all their fair or unfair endeavors in the Middle East.

The first time that the EU called for actual help, the US seems aligned with Russia.

Things don’t look good.

rKarpinski3• 1 year ago

Yet they stood by the USA in all their fair or unfair endeavors in the Middle East.

France and Germany both openly opposed the US on the Iraq war [1], France even threatened to veto any UN resolutions for an invasion. Hence the whole "Freedom Fries" thing [2]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/22/germany.france

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

preommr• 1 year ago

Turns out they were right on multiple levels. Canada supported the US wholeheartedly, and now we're being threatened with annexation.

Thanks, America.

aucisson_masque3• 1 year ago

De Gaulle said that in the matter country's foreign policy, there is no friend or even allies but only common goals.

Pushing back on Putin has never been one of trump goal, he'd rather have the entire Europe Russian than having to deal with that.

Instead he is much more focused on fighting China, which is fair.

However, Russia has been a long time China allies. They have mutual border, mutual goals (the first one being to end American domination on the world).

Wouldn't helping Putin, by making Ukraine armless and easy target, be then also helping china indirectly ?

I don't see how, all things considered, it even helps push trump agenda on fighting china.

matwood11• 1 year ago

You're making an assumption that Trump has any clue what he's doing. He barely understands first order effects, much less second or third order.

hashstring5• 1 year ago

It sounds like we’re attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing

You really believe that the current administration is acting out of “hopes to end the killing”?

What do you think Greenland is about? About spreading christianity?

The current administration is failing and the top % is profiting off it; eating itself up. It’s a pattern that’s well known.

Internationally, the US is rapidly losing allies all across the board. And internally, facing its facing increasingly extreme inequality in terms of wealth distribution.

The current administration doesn’t even have interesting cards that it can play.

netsharc2• 1 year ago

[flagged]

cmrdporcupine21• 1 year ago

[flagged]

dang28• 1 year ago

We detached this offtopic subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213104.

unethical_ban4• 1 year ago

Donald Trump is no greater ally to Putin than a trained asset would be.

Vance is like Ben Shapiro with a little bit more intelligence.

Zelensky had some translation issues, perhaps, and said something in a strange way. But Trump's outburst was like that of a run-of-the-mill dive bar moron, not a diplomat.

Zelensky's interview with Bret Baier was also subtly hostile. Z never said the words "apologize" or "sorry" but did express regret that the conversations happened as they did in public. He was repeatedly grateful of the support of the US and was showing quite a lot of understanding.

The arguments of the Fox panel, if you cut through the lines, is that it is Zelensky's fault for not knowing how to handle the intellectual child that is the US president.

yes_really4• 1 year ago

I watched the whole press conference. Here's the summary:

- It was amicable for the first 30 minutes.

- It went downhill when Zelenskyy asked Vance slightly hostile questions saying that Putin would not honor the cease-fire.

- Then Vance responded in a more hostile manner saying Zelenskyy should be more thankful and that he shouldn't be litigating in front of the press. And everyone started fighting.

Honestly, the 3 of them acted badly. Both Zelenskyy and Vance started it. And after it was started, Trump just accepted the fight instead of trying to end it. It's sad this ended this way, especially because the press conference was going well for the first 30 minutes.

kreeben• 1 year ago

We're at peak ape technology but at this point in time for some reason we turn to a specific ape, not a smart one but an ape who feels he should rule the world, and is on the doorstep to world domination, one that feels entitled to this amount of power, and we ask him to do "the right thing"?

America, don't be the next force the rest of the world needs to fight. Wake the fuck up.

_DeadFred_13• 1 year ago

"How dare Zelensky dress like that" yet it's totally fine for Musk to dress like that AND keep a hat on.

mjfl7• 1 year ago

This place has become a real echo chamber lately. I'm seeing radically unexamined opinions stream past like a firehose and can't respond to all of them. But to the anti-peace "pro-Ukranian" people here:

1. Do you see a path to victory? If so, how many Ukranians have will have to die before Crimea is retaken? Conditioned on your answer - do you really care about Ukrainians?

2. Do you really believe that the West stands for the 'rules based international order' while it unconditionally supports the ethnostate of Israel holocausting it's indigenous population inside of a concentration camp?

3. Do you really consider Ukraine to be a democracy given that Zelensky has suspended elections and has repressed his political opposition?

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

On #3: The elections are suspended under well understood rules of martial law.

On how many Ukranians have will have to die before Crimea is retaken?

How much of this is about Crimea? Russia already annexed it, and the world accepted that.

On anti-peace "pro-Ukranian" people

That is an inflammatory strawman that pretty much sums up that your commentary should be ignored. Zelenskyy's point is that Russia / Putin has not honoured past attempts at diplomacy, which rings true for me.

quink9• 1 year ago

As for point 1:

Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine. How anyone could forget that when only about 35 years ago they controlled regimes that consist of 40% of Germany in addition to all of Eastern Europe is beyond me. We're not talking about Crimea here, we're talking about Kharkiv, Tallinn, Helsinki. We're talking about the time they marched, with tanks, into Budapest and Prague. We're talking about the time Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. There is but one proven answer that stops people from dying in the long run over the past hundred years. I care about the Polish and Czech people who had their territory split up and who decided to fight and now have their nations back. Same with Ukraine. Whether that means Crimea or not is up to them, but it seems obvious which side one would rather support for lasting, permanent, peace. The one that united the old enemies of Germany, France, and the UK who had fought amongst each other but are now on the same side. The same side that Poland, and Spain are on, despite these five nations having fought again and again over a thousand years. Russia is the odd one out, despite some support for the minor players like Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. I don't see Poland forming a military alliance with France against Germany or vice versa. It's all, in a nutshell, against Russia, but it's also without any designs for an invasion of Russia.

Now that's peace. For the first time in history (except maybe for a few years after 1815) the nations of Europe haven't torn themselves into pieces for decades now, with one single perpetrator, Russia, being the exception. And Russia already has more than enough land, being the biggest country on the planet, and resources beyond imagination. You blame Russia is what you ought to do, you support a peaceful, prosperous Russia that stays within its borders.

As for point 3:

Article 83

In the event that the term of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine expires while martial law or a state of emergency is in effect, its authority is extended until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine , elected after the cancellation of martial law or of the state of emergency.

Article 157

The Constitution of Ukraine shall not be amended in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency.

No, it's not a democracy. _Because_ of the invasion by a hostile foreign power.

Just wondering, during WW2 would you have been critical of the "pro-UK people here", listing it above anything Nazi Germany, Vichy France or Soviet Union did, because the UK didn't have an election between 1935 and 1945?

bashback5• 1 year ago

[flagged]

mjfl7• 1 year ago

[flagged]

idra• 1 year ago

Funny to see how all the commenters just ignored point 2.

quink9• 1 year ago

Because being a whataboutism makes it not relevant.

Implictly making solving the Russia/Ukraine situation (which, again, is basically as simple as Russians just going home) require peace in the Middle East first seems like you just want to delay it for the next just about 5000 years?

tanbog45• 1 year ago

This kind of thing makes the US look disorganised, unpredictable and ultimately weak.

China and Russia and many others will be very pleased.

I expect a number of military "provocatives" from China in particular in the coming months.

belter9• 1 year ago

"You don't ask me with respect..." - https://youtu.be/7j_3Secty54

yalok• 1 year ago

The guy who literally was laying his life down to defend his nation, and who has hundreds of his fellow citizens die every day

guys who are just afraid of the compromat that Putin has on them.

mnewme• 1 year ago

Is the US now run by a Russian asset?

dznodes• 1 year ago

If they EU wants to spend trillions of euros and send millions of europeans soldiers to fight for zelensky then they have every right to do so. If they don't want to pay that price then they should shut up.

cbg020• 1 year ago

There's no talk of sending European soldiers to fight for Zelensky, the only thing currently being discussed is a peace-keeping force, once an accord is reached. If that happens there will most likely be elections held and Zelensky might not get a second term, or maybe he will?

rzwitserloot• 1 year ago

In the modern bizarre age we find ourselves in...

A comedian is clearly the best job on your resume if you want to apply for the job of president.

Certainly the experience dealing with hecklers, and a sharp wit, come in handy.

layer87• 1 year ago

Trump made the following statement on Truth Social after the meeting:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

It seems to me he wants the war over with as quickly as possible, and America’s involvement minimized, which means the weaker party in the conflict has to concede. And in his view the weaker party has no other chance anyway. He also wants to minimize anything that would stand in the way of lucrative deals with Russia.

throwawayq342329• 1 year ago

It seems to me he wants the war over with as quickly as possible

He wants the war to end right away on Russia's terms. Guess who else wants that?

icedchai• 1 year ago

Watching this makes me embarrassed to be an American. Totally disgusting. Of course, we deserve what we're getting... we collectively voted for this again.

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

I'm very curious what the end game is for the US. They've basically blown up the world order, given up on being the defender of democracy... This will also hurt US soft power immensely, I can't imagine anyone feels great about doing business with any American entity any more.

Now China looks reasonable, as the main superpower that isn't perpetrating or supporting an active all-out war... They might even get Taiwan and others on their side without firing a shot.

This will unite Europe, all Macron and Merz have to do is limit migration and stay reasonably centrist and they'll both limit Russian influence and be the new leaders of the free world, along with Poland, Italy, the Nordics, etc...

It's also a strange situation for Americans I'm sure. On one hand, I can understand why Americans voted for Trump. The left ignored the working classes, pushed way too hard on extreme left social issues and didn't have coherent domestic policies. On the other hand, I really doubt anyone, even most conservatives, want to be part of a Russia-NK Axis and be enemies of the entire free world. How is the CIA and others going along with this?

We live in interesting times...

dwoldrich• 1 year ago

Does _anyone_ in these comments wonder what happened before JD goes off on Zelenskyy? What could have elicited such a scorched earth response from the VP while the administration is still negotiating?

That explosive clip, which I'm sure is all 99% of people have watched, happens like 40 minutes into an otherwise really quite friendly presser.

https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-t...

Very disappointed with practically all of you.

throwaway5752• 1 year ago

"Very disappointed with practically all of you"

Zelenskyy could have stood up and urinated on him and this still would have been inexcusable for any president of any party. They cannot control what others do but they can control their own behavior.

This is the most embarrassing incident in modern US history. Reuters was barred and TASS was present.

tim33331• 1 year ago

Zelenskyy mentioned the 2019 deal that didn't work out, signed under the last Trump administration.

janalsncm2• 1 year ago

I’m split on this. Part of me is very sad because Ukraine has gotten such a raw deal, not just recently but historically. They’ve always been trampled on as a fairly poor place. And it’s a bit classless to spit on Zelensky as he’s holding out his hat for donations, as he must.

But I also believe Ukraine is increasingly a distraction from more pressing concerns, both domestically and abroad. Frankly, there will probably come a day when the current world manufacturing superpower (China) decides to throw their weight around. And that day may be very soon.

As Americans I think there is a huge amount of hubris preventing us from seeing how vulnerable we really are. Outspending adversaries on military should be seen as weakness, not a strength, especially when we consider 1) the fact that American manufacturing is more expensive 2) a lot of spending is maintaining legacy systems 3) an adversary will likely not try to compete in conventional means 4) China graduated more STEM majors than all US majors combined which drives down costs 5) China has recently become the number 1 car exporter 6) US payments on debt now exceed defense spending for the first time in ~90 years despite not even being at war 7) almost all chips are currently made in Taiwan.

(If anyone doubts this, they should watch videos of Chinese drone shows, and imagine it being scaled up 100x.)

And just to double down on the hubris bit. Every single time I see some discussion of research that came out of China I see the same old tropes: they can’t innovate, it’s stolen IP, it’s low quality. Things that are either false or irrelevant. It didn’t matter that the Soviets stole blueprints to nuclear weapons.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I don't think it's a distraction so much as rather important to detering China. If Putin can invade Ukraine and get away with it China will assume it can do the same for Taiwan and other territory it wants. If the west stops Putin, China will think twice.

janalsncm2• 1 year ago

What would actually deter China is strategic certainty that invading Taiwan 1) won’t work and 2) will have severe geopolitical consequences. Neither of those are true now.

CSMastermind• 1 year ago

I agree with this poster, you should watch the full video before forming opinions:

https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1895606614302019688

(The full video is in the post)

Glide• 1 year ago

But then you’d only get 1% of the comments.

madmod• 1 year ago

Thanks for this it was very informative.

avodonosov• 1 year ago

To me the HN comments are even more interesting than the event itself. Politics is rarely at HN so it was a rare chance to see the opinions about this topic.

Most commenters have highly inadequate view of the Ukrainian situation. I wonder why. Even in highly censored and manipulated universe of western information space, there are enough facts to form more adequate views. What makes people ignore the facts and stick to the wrong views?

I suspect it's because of a feeling instilled, that sticking to these opinions makes them good people. If you #StandWithUkraine you become a kind of a moral hero.

Paradoxically, this confirms the need for brainwashing in mass politics. If normal, sufficiently intelligent and developed audience can not form adequate views of political questions, somebody needs to guide their views.

Unless some new technology or social organization emerges, that allows public to form a balanced and adequate opinion, some guides will need to brainwash the public.

But when the guides are themselves inadequate, troubles happen.

aprilthird20215• 1 year ago

What facts do you think people are ignoring?

I think everyone knows Ukraine is at a disadvantage in this war in terms of manpower, ammo, money, resources, allies, etc.

But what Zelensky said in the meeting is true. Ceasefires and agreements don't mean much to Putin. He has broken them in the past. He's not someone who can be defeated in diplomacy.

It's a tough issue without an easy resolution. I don't think people here think otherwise?

adamrezich• 1 year ago

Why would you expect nuance from a set of commenters that generally defer to their country's media class to do the thinking about any complex issues—so as to boil them down to a Star Wars-tier “good vs. evil” distillation—for them?

raziel2p4• 1 year ago

ironically you are contributing to the poor discourse by vaguely pointing to a lack of fact based views, but without specifying which facts you think are wrong or missing in this discussion.

srid• 1 year ago

My gut feeling is that HN comments on these political threads (which are almost always of sinistral statist ideology, à la anti-DOGE, pro-Ukraine, etc.) do not properly represent the whole HN demographics. It seems that only a small vocal group of participants tend to participate in these threads. Most techies just want to do tech stuff.

theonething• 1 year ago

My take doesn't conform to HN leanings on this:

Zelensky messed up here. He and his country are a position of need. Ukraine needs the US, not the other way around. In that position, you don't walk into the Oval Office arms crossed, eyes rolling, head shaking with your demands. You come in with the understanding the US has given you over $300 billion in aid, the US is offering a minerals rights deal that benefits your country economically and binds the US and Ukraine closer economically, politically and most likely militarily (the US protects its interests abroad). Given that, you come in with a thankful attitude seeing that this deal is the beginning, not the end of the solution to your problems. It's a very good beginning. You'll have disagreements with the President for sure. You air those out behind close doors, not in the house of your guests/benefactors for all the world to see. This is basic diplomacy.

This deal is very good for Ukraine. It's in Zelensky's court to salvage the damage he's caused. The Ukrainian people depend on it.

jaaron• 1 year ago

When I look back at it, Dugin was right back in November:

"So we have won. That is decisive. The world will be never ever like before. Globalists have lost their final combat. The future is finally open. I am really happy."

https://x.com/AGDugin/status/1854136340184490282

Dugin wasn’t exaggerating when he said, “We have won.”

Today’s White House display is exactly what he meant. A decade ago, the GOP would’ve never echoed Russian talking points. Now, they’re openly aligning with them.

This isn’t just isolationism—it’s the dismantling of U.S. hegemony from within.

steve_adams_864• 1 year ago

I've been turning my attention to cold war and post-cold war Russia, their espionage, writing and interviews from various defectors, and generally trying to understand if talk of Russian influence is overblown.

It seemed very conspiratorial on its surface. I'm now fairly convinced that the Russians have been refining their espionage for generations, the USA is likely full of agents in all places of society.

Somewhat frighteningly, they anticipated the need to subvert any notions of this occurring, and very explicitly set out on a campaign to destroy trust and truth in US society such that when people began claiming Russia was infiltrating the country, it would just sound like conspiratorial nonsense. You can find plenty of references to this type of initiative going back 50 years at least.

The idea, ultimately, is to get the USA to destroy itself, as you mentioned. The dismantling of democracy in particular is a major accomplishment. Once that trust is eroded, every American's most immediate enemy is another American. Who cares about Russians when you've got neighbours like these, right?

It's hard not to see what's happening as a major victory for Russia. Did they actually orchestrate it? How much? I have no idea. Maybe only slightly, maybe a lot. Regardless, they're celebrating today.

sublimefire6• 1 year ago

They (Russia) have lost big time, because their goal was total annexation of the country in a couple of weeks. Now they got a unified Europe and Ukraine which is much stronger. Finland in NATO, and other things not to their liking. Not to mention a bunch of young and old people going back from front and causing chaos.

It is funny how they switched their narrative from “we are fighting US and NATO” to “US will do business with us and the war is with Ukraine”.

kragen10• 1 year ago

Finland and Sweden in NATO is a huge setback, but they'll probably get Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia, plus a guarantee against Ukraine joining NATO. This is not a great outcome for Russia, but it's certainly better than a NATO Ukraine and a second Euromaidan in Red Square next year, which was probably the alternative on offer.

Also, it seems likely that Russia will get the dismantlement of NATO as part of the outcome of the war, and that would be a great outcome for them. Will Sweden and Finland remain in a mutual defense pact with France, Germany, and the UK after NATO ends? It's up in the air. But in any case invading Russia from Sweden is vastly less feasible than invading Russia from Ukraine.

sesm2• 1 year ago

I think by 'we' Dugin meant 'anti-globalists', not Russia. There are pro-globalists in Russia and anti-globalists outside of Russia, so one doesn't equal the other.

lawgimenez3• 1 year ago

This episode for sure would change some minds regarding our Mutual Defense Treaty with the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_...

linuxhansl• 1 year ago

The US have lost their soul.

tomjakubowski2• 1 year ago

On the plus side, at least Marco Rubio seemed completely embarrassed to be sitting in the room with them. He was sinking and sinking into that sofa.

soraminazuki4• 1 year ago

Haha, no. He praised Trump immediately after.

https://nitter.poast.org/SecRubio/status/1895554419305091087

uptownfunk2• 1 year ago

Everyone knows this is just a publicity stunt and a distraction from Elon Doge. Zelenskyy is a puppet anyway. Thats why he is so confused. “You guys put me here wtf”

tim33331• 1 year ago

Who is Zelenskyy a puppet of? If you say the Americans then that meeting was a strange thing.

uptownfunk2• 1 year ago

The meeting is a joke to distract from doge it has no bearing on anything else. Totally staged.

timetraveller26• 1 year ago

My point of view overall is that it was an insufferable meeting and I'm surprised that it didn't explode sooner.

Question after question praising Trump and then he repeating his same old script. They even seemed to forget Zelenskyy was there for a moment, and then a reporter asks him why is he not wearing a suit?. Such a ridiculous question, and if they care about it so much, why they don't ask Elon Musk that?

Being in Z shoes I would feel like a sane people trapped on an mental institution or a cult.

geye12342• 1 year ago

Was this argument staged? Trump & Vance get to look as though they're out for American interests and peace-friendly. Zelensky gets to go home and say "look, my hands are tied, I have to end this war, our biggest ally has betrayed us".

I'm working on the thesis that everything politicians say about foreign policy in public is for the consumption of the home audience, which has served me pretty reliably up until now.

yubblegum• 1 year ago

That was a shameful display and a stain on our republic. Is it possible our nation is bankrupt (and we haven't been told) and these theatrics and all this talk about deals is in fact about settling debts?

One thing that is certain that such reckless behavior by the US executive will increase geopolitical instability. Nuclear proliferation is very much in the cards. And you can be certain the event was viewed with horror in Asian capitals where the notion of 'face' is a matter of cultural sensitivity. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan decides to go nuclear post-haste.

NalNezumi3• 1 year ago

The good & the bad is that Japan could go nuclear very very fast because everything to make it is there, and given their (sometimes funny) "this aircraft carrier is actually a helicopter carrier for self-defense" kinda stance on defense, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the effort have already been secretly done.

The other good/bad is that the population is very, very, very against any nuclear weapon armament and even holding an army, even Shinzo Abe could only do an "reintrepertation of article 9" because he was aware of this. Public opinion might change with Trump + Taiwan/Korea incident though.

tokioyoyo• 1 year ago

I’m sure you might’ve felt the same, but people are visibly (online and in person) are becoming more aware of how dependence on US might not be the most beneficial thing to do for the country in a long run. Locals really don’t like very in-your-face bullies.

rhubarbtree3• 1 year ago

I really don’t think you’re going to have a republic very much longer, so it probably doesn’t matter reputation wise.

I’m not sure what will happen, but I think the idea of a free and fair election for the next president is laughable at this point. Perhaps Americans haven’t realised this yet, I don’t know.

voisin• 1 year ago

I’d like to know who the despicable man was that asked him if he owned a suit. The definition of bikeshedding if I’ve ever seen it.

layer87• 1 year ago

Brian Glenn, boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Greene.

gravy• 1 year ago

Dang please let me filter politics

dredmorbius3• 1 year ago

Email requests to mods at hn@ycombinator.com.

You can use the "hide" link to hide specific stories if you like.

tsoukase• 1 year ago

I have genuinely some questions:

Are these world class leaders that manage trillions and more importantly human lives?

Where is the f... nuclear weapons threat that would convert the war to a cold one?

Why doesn't EU cooperate/negotiate directly with both Ukraine and Russia to end the war? US can be ignored for now with such incompetent leadership.

Just a reminder: Uk and Ru are sister countries. Kiev was the first capital of the Russian empire. Its loosely like a civil war.

overview2• 1 year ago

We’re only weeks since Trump taking office. Watching the full video, I think to me it seems there’s a mismatch in the response from HN and the reality of what happened there and is happening with the war. Ultimately, people are dying everyday in this war. I wonder if it’s in the best interest of those still alive to continue fighting and dying, or settling with territory being lost. If there really is no end in sight, why continue forcing people to die.

I like to think more about the individuals than anything else. If it really is possible to no longer have them die over things they realistically won’t get back, and it’s possible to freeze the progress of Russia with where it is today, isn’t making the war stop the top priority?

user39393824• 1 year ago

The only permitted take is that Ukraine should fight until the rest of their men are gone along with the remainder of their territory.

matwood11• 1 year ago

Russia has broken every ceasefire/treaty so far. Lets assume Ukraine is fine conceding everything they have lost to date, who will then enforce the next treaty? Ukraine, I think correctly, knows any treaty without strong enforcement provisions is simply giving Russia time to rearm.

Finally, if making the war stop is a top priority, who is putting the pressure on Russia? Russia can pack up and go home at literally any time and stop the war. Putting the entirety of this situation from starting the war to blocking peace on Zelensky/Ukraine might as well be direct talkings points from Putin himself.

overview2• 1 year ago

Yes, I share the same concerns. Frankly I’m not sure what can be done on long term security when Russia has demonstrated its willingness to threaten nuclear weapons. I wonder if Putin being no more would result in a different Russia, one which isn’t focused on expansionism.

I don’t think this is the intention of the U.S. negotiating a peace deal, but a pause could give time to let Ukraine and europe to build up arms. I might be wrongly optimistic but I suspect a build of arms across europe would result in a more powerful force than Russia alone.

sergers• 1 year ago

Remember team america, world police...

How everyone in the world wanted usa to stay out of other countries 20 years ago...

https://youtu.be/LasrD6SZkZk?si=qbP5t6WNVY7hq0p9

Seams alot of people want to bring that back.

awb• 1 year ago

There was broad bi-partisan support for the first Gulf War (response to Iraq invading Kuwait) and the war in Afghanistan (response to 9/11).

The broader dissent started to come after the invasion of Iraq (based on the notion of Iraqi WMDs) and the lack of progress in Afghanistan or finding Bin Laden.

Foreign policy under different Presidents is often contradictory and as in any political context, the President usually has some base of support from their own party no matter how far off script they go, simply out of unity or fear of the alternative party benefiting from a lack of unity.

So while a coherent policy of “The US should intervene in all conflicts or no conflicts” would be intellectually consistent, the circumstances surrounding the conflict and the political environment lead to inconsistencies.

aussieguy12342• 1 year ago

It's interesting, but not entirely surprising, that Trump is kowtowing to Putin and giving Putin everything he wants. Could it be something to do with the Kompromat the Kremlin reportedly has on him?

Putin would like to restore the former Soviet union, he said that the collapse of the Soviet union was a catastrophe. The war in Ukraine is the beginning of Putin trying to rectify this. So if he wins the war in Ukraine, about half of Europe will likely be next. He will likely want to move fast, not waiting 4 years for Trump to be possibly voted out and possible US opposition after that.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v210• 1 year ago

<< Trump is kowtowing to Putin and giving Putin everything he wants.

Alternative interpretation:

Or.. you know, focusing on the interest of US, which does not automatically mean sending unlimited amount of money/gear/intelligence to Ukraine. After all, Ukraine is not part of NATO. There are no obligations to follow here. And Russia as an unfriendly country in future conflicts may complicate things further.

Yes. There is an argument to be made about what happens afterwards in baltics, but those countries are part of NATO, which is a different consideration.

tim33331• 1 year ago

There are no obligations to follow here

The US did talk Ukraine into giving up its nukes in return for helping to protect it. Bit of an oopsie by Ukraine there.

aussieguy12342• 1 year ago

I would have expected Trump to stand up for the interests of the US and all those things.

But Trump went a bit further here - praising Putin, making Putin out to be the victim and seemingly mocking those who see Russia as the bad guy .

Also, the fact he parroted many of the Kremlin talking points speaks for itself.

Interests of the US? More like the intersts of Putin's Russia.

MichaelMoser123• 1 year ago

I have a naive question, as a foreigner: do European leaders have any kind of leverage on their US allies?

charlieyu1• 1 year ago

No.

But people will remember that no and realise that they need to arm themselves because allies can’t be relied. Next you will have nuclear arms race everywhere, particularly Europe and Asia.

Is it what US wanted/don’t care? If not then it is the leverage

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

Europe could remind Trump that he's going to need our alliance if he plans to confront China. It looks less and less like he does though.

sublimefire6• 1 year ago

Europe is a very large market and ignoring it does not make much sense, countries buy high tech components and armaments and they are aligned in terms of export controls. Europeans have a lot of high tech products that are valued globally.

sidcool• 1 year ago

This is exactly why no country should rely on other country for their survival and security. Powerful nations have shown time and again in the past how they can abandon you at a drop of a hat. Never ever rely on other country for your safety, you'll be screwed.

Imagine your country being usurped because people in some another country voted for someone who may have ties with your enemy.

horns4lyfe5• 1 year ago

Astounding how quickly all the liberals here were convinced to become neocons nearly overnight out of spite over Trump. All this talk about “soft power”, one user below even bemoaned the end of the “US hegemony”. Unreal

bashback5• 1 year ago

Do you feel better about yourself now?

A4ET8a8uTh0_v210• 1 year ago

Where is he wrong?

j_timberlake• 1 year ago

Could all of this have been avoided if USA voters had been given a slice of USA's GDP growth over the years?

Rising wages, lower taxes, or 35 hour work weeks, instead of stagnation and inflation. So they wouldn't turn to a populist outsider.

nlitened• 1 year ago

Anybody can get a slice of USA’s GDP growth — just buy S&P500. Too many people instead prefer to spend that money on Uber Eats and new iPhone every year.

rmk2• 1 year ago

The uncomfortable truth Donald Trump is finally articulating forcefully is that Europe built its welfare state under the US security umbrella, but then started getting cocky with antitrust actions, restricting American companies' access to their markets etc, while simultaneously doing next to nothing to secure their own neighborhood by investing in defense (France being a notable exception). Even if we charitably assume that they took 50 years to build back up from the destruction of world war 2, they have wasted the next 20-30 years with zero preparation or thought about their own defense.

No one did a thing when Crimea was taken. In fact, there was simply no firm response after Russia shot down the airplane brazenly. In fact, leaders such as Merkel further increased dependence on Russia by importing gas and integrating them deeply into Germany and many other EU countries' economies! Staggering incompetence and frank delusion!

entropyneur7• 1 year ago

I agree with your characterization of Europe's actions. However, belittling Ukraine and siding with the aggressor to make a point with europeans is not "articulating forcefully". It's bullying.

froggertoaster2• 1 year ago

I know this will get lost, but regardless-

Read the comments on this thread.

Then read this post by Dan, where he explains why the post isn't ranked higher: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835

TLDR: lots of flags on this thread, despite the overwhelming number of comments that tend in one direction.

Think about that.

evo_92• 1 year ago

Fill video is worth watching:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxbGjvcdyY&pp=ygUbZnVsbCB6ZWx...

morphle3• 1 year ago

Before you debate (what was said in) this meeting I think you should look at the full recording first. I saw edited versons where the meaning of the 'spat' was changed by leaving out the context.

This Dutch NOS news version [1] is longer than the BBC version and it is enlightening.

Il'll try to search for a version that has the total recording (this version misses the opening remarks) from start to finish and still without any editing (this version has no editing cuts). If I find a longer one I'll comment below.

The comments of Trump and Vance where way out of line if you consider they where in response to Zelensky stating in the very beginning that you should understand that Putin allready invaded in 2014 and has never honored any agreements or ceasefires before (especially not between 2014 and 2022 in Ukraine but also with other countries).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7THU0jPM7l4

raziel2p4• 1 year ago

enlightening how exactly?

morphle3• 1 year ago

A little bit more of the oval office exchange but still not the fully integral recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEOv4x_FIsc

walterbell2• 1 year ago

Full video (49:22), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajxSWocbye8

unraveller• 1 year ago

Unfortunately both WSJ and The Hill call their ~10 minute argument edit the "full video" on YT and most people won't see the full exchange.

The first thing Trump says in the official stream is that they've had their negotiation spats before and are stronger for it.

walterbell2• 1 year ago

Limited coverage of earlier Friday morning meeting with Senators, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/zelenskyy-meets-bipartisan-g... & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKW2XJxyW4

11:15 am Fri 28 tweet by Senator (D), "will not support a fake peace agreement": https://x.com/chrismurphyct/status/1895508100595204115

Vaslo• 1 year ago

Sone real tech news here

dang28• 1 year ago

HN isn't just for 'tech news' - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

More explanation elsewhere in this thread: https://inference-review.com/article/time-travelers

snickerbockers4• 1 year ago

What is actually the projected end-game of people who support this war? It's been three years and ukraine has struggled to make any significant progress at retaking its territory. It should be clear by now that they can't return to their 2014 or even 2022 borders unless the countries backing them become directly involved in a potentially apocalyptic war against Russia, and I haven't seen anybody who wants that, not even the countries clutching their pearls over this incident.

The only three possible outcomes at this point are total Russian victory, peace treaty, and WW3. It's not realistic to think Ukraine will ever bring Russia to its knees on its own.

tim33331• 1 year ago

If the west crank up things already happening - stopping Russia's oil trade and blowing it it's refineries etc - it would probably get so weak economically that it couldn't really continue the war. At that point you could make a deal, or maybe the Russian government would change or decide it has better things to do.

The trouble with just signing a piece of paper is Putin tends to just ignore those.

snickerbockers4• 1 year ago

I suppose that could work assuming the russkies don't respond to a direct attack on their refineries by escalating to nuclear war, but even so nobody's even trying that. Ukraine is too busy fighting for survival with what scarce resources they have, and none of their backers are even talking about joining the war as true allies.

My point is, it seems like everybody at some subconscious level sees this as Ukraine's problem alone, because even their most ardent supporters aren't treating Putin ss the grave international threat they call him rhetorically. Trump's being pragmatic by trying to end the war on terms that can at least preserve what's left of Ukraine as an independent nation.

lawn10• 1 year ago

No, Russia's economy is hurting bad and it's entirely reasonable to say that a fourth option is the collapse of the Russian economy and military.

snickerbockers4• 1 year ago

Yeeeeaah, I really can't see that happening. Ukraine has a much smaller economy, a much smaller pool of conscripts, and less foreign assistance. Ukraine gets more free money and supplies from other countries but Russia is actually getting shock troops from North Korea and that's what Ukraine needs more than anything to win a war of attrition against a significantly larger country.

Putin is an asshole, he doesn't care about sanctions and tbh I'm not confident the Russian people do either. Europe, despite their harsh rhetoric, is still addicted to Russian exports, and their hypocrisy is so bad that there are actually Russian pipelines in Ukrainian territory which the Ukrainians are afraid to sabotage because they don't want to piss off the people who are funding their war.

Maybe if Prigozhin didn't get cold feet during his coup attempt it could have ended the way you describe but I don't think that's the sort of thing that anybody can count on happening again.

matwood11• 1 year ago

I think what you're missing is that a peace treaty isn't possible without enforcement. Russia won't agree to any enforcement provisions and Ukraine won't agree without enforcement provisions.

Letting Russia take Ukraine puts all of Eastern Europe at risk and may get us closer to WW3 than simply continuing to support Ukraine from afar with the added benefit of burning down Russia's ability to wage war.

If this does ultimately lead to a large conflict it is NOT because Ukraine didn't roll over, it's because of Russia's actions over the last decade.

snickerbockers4• 1 year ago

I think you're right in that there needs to be enforcement provisions, and maybe Trump should be doing a better job of convincing Ukraine that he intends to provide for those. But I don't think it's necessarily a given that the Russians won't agree to any provisions; they'll say that for the sake of bargaining but if they really meant that they wouldn't be coming to the negotiating table. But even if the Russians really aren't ready to agree to security provisions, coming to the negotiating table does not obligate either side to agree to a deal.

I personally would be much more satisfied with my tax dollars going to Ukraine if they had demonstrated that there is no nonviolent solution to this conflict; from the perspective of Americans this is just another case of two countries squabbling over adjoining territories and that's fairly common among countries that don't have a SoFA or defense pact with America (which, regardless of how passionate the Europeans are about Russia pushing into the frontier of western Europe, currently includes Ukraine).

mpreda2• 1 year ago

Impeach Trump.

mikewarot• 1 year ago

Trump and his administration seem hell bent on undoing everything that's held the world together since WWII. We in the US are going to pay the price, as we lose the privilege of having the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency, while at the same time our nations institutions are destroyed from the inside in a deliberate act of sabotage.

We're going to see our standard of living drop by 80% or more because of this. 8(

tim33331• 1 year ago

I don't think it'll be that bad unless they manage nuclear war. It's kind of a shame though.

somethoughts• 1 year ago

Found the following insightful:

Lines on Maps - Oval Office Meltdown: The Trump-Zelensky Split, Europe's Response, and the Fate of the Ukraine War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD_AfqDfPek

meitham2• 1 year ago

This is what you get when you put two former TV personalities in public offices and have them argue their cases in front of cameras , diplomacy takes a back seat and their ego and posture become the main focus

apotropaic3• 1 year ago

Had no idea how far left leaning hn was :(... It's like everyone on here is in a giant echo chamber, saying and thinking the exact same way. Is that not concerning to any of you?

FiberBundle• 1 year ago

This has nothing to do with being left-leaning. If you disagree with HN's sentiment here, it just means as you have completely lost the plot.

cbg020• 1 year ago

As much as social media will try to ingrain this into you, people are not just "right" or "left" and you'll find plenty of conservatives in the US that are not in agreement with Trump's stance on distancing from old allies and not helping Ukraine, and that doesn't make them "left-wing", "libtards" or other slurs.

apotropaic3• 1 year ago

I'm not on social media but thanks. My views about HN come from the last few months of almost all top news stories top comments involve trump and or musk bashing if any leap to them can be made. This story was just particularly one sided in the comments.

You say Trump is distancing but the reality is, Ukraine people are dying and he's the only one to offer and off ramp and not endless bloodshed. It's as of nobody in this thread values human life, only important thing is orange man and Putin bad. What Putin did sucks and but it has been happening throughout all human history. The solution is not endless bloodshed. Any offramp and chance at peace should be welcomed by anyone one values life.

hyuh563• 1 year ago

I can't believe so much war mongering is going on this site. So much support for perpetual war, US to become world police. A decade or so ago the sentiment was against these. Where are those people, did they change.

If nations beleive this is a just war then they should send troops to the ground. Otherwise it seems like Ukraine citizens are sent to their graves while west is again virtue signalling.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I think you misinterpret peoples sentiments. They are mostly against war. Putin started this one so if you don't like war you want to see him stopped.

sgt3• 1 year ago

Russia didn't start the war, Russia did.
If in March 2025, people still don’t understand that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war started by NATO, you are either biased or utterly stupid. All the documents are freely available.

I had a discussion with someone yesterday. I said Russia started the war, but his argument is completely the opposite. People actually believe this and it's getting harder to convince them otherwise.

hyuh563• 1 year ago

And how to stop putin? Start world war 3? I see that trump is for peace deal. Then why are people against it and calling to further adding fuel? The terms can be agreed later but there should be concerned push for peace. EU calls for unconditional ceasefire everywhere they should call it when it happens in their continent as well.

rightbyte2• 1 year ago

I think there has been major astroturfing going on since 2022.

hyuh563• 1 year ago

But the guys who are for world peace would comment? Are they afraid of cancel culture or getting drowned in this war madness.

fmxsh2• 1 year ago

From HN guidelines:

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [...], unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

What is the interesting new phenomenon this is supposed to be evidence of? (The question is not intended to be a statement.)

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

A complete backflip of US foreign policy, representing an escalation of the potential for an historic changing of the world order.

That's all.

fmxsh2• 1 year ago

Thank you for your answer. As a casual observer, I was genuinely curious. I am not well-versed in foreign policy, so I'll leave it at that.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I have to say, and I'm 61 and have always followed the news, I've never seen anything like it. Kind of a Jerry Springer shouting match in the Oval Office. It's a new one on me.

I just watched the video and it was normal until Vance started shouting a bunch of stuff at Zelensky.

leftcenterright• 1 year ago

In the UN resolution, US did not even dare "condemning" Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity. They did not even have to do anything but use words, a mere symbolic gesture. It is shameful.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/g-s1-50473/un-ukraine-resolut...

surume• 1 year ago

Ukraine just lost the war. Europe has no weapons to give them. They will now have no money from the USA. Zelensky was stupid and he bit the hand that fed him. Now he must live in shame and watch his country be conquered by Russia. I think Putin will change the name of Ukraine after he wins. What do you think he will call that land?

balamatom3• 1 year ago

He'll name it after you, obviously.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I'm not so sure about that. Russia's forces are quite depleted and Europe probably isn't quite as hopeless as you suggest.

whatshisface5• 1 year ago

I don't think anyone has made the simplest observation, which is that Zelenskyy is not groveling because the survival of his country now depends on his credibility with other allies. Seriously - why would he want to send submissive signals?

lawn10• 1 year ago

Especially important as Ukraine (unfortunately) only received help because they managed to defend themselves.

If they had rolled over for the Russians, like Trump wanted Zelensky to do, they wouldn't had received the support they have.

No, the reality is that to receive help you need to be strong yourself.

StarterPro• 1 year ago

They're both clearly bought.

Why else would you have the cameras in there for that long, and act that way in front of said cameras. I'd hate to be Rubio or anyone else trying to actually do their job.

It stopped being a Red/Blue issue after the polls closed, this is a issue for the country as a whole.

BLKNSLVR10• 1 year ago

Rubio has since done at least one interview regurgitating Trump's and Vance's positions, so he's sold the entirety of his soul.

He doesn't appear to deserve any sympathy.

t0lo3• 1 year ago

Is it just like extensive child molestation tapes by donald trump by k-/gb, stroking his ego, a lifetime guarantee of russian indulgence and young russian escorts? Proof of him sexually abusing his daughter? I just don't get it.

wilsonjholmes• 1 year ago

Could you point me to reports about this? I would like to read them.

taberiand• 1 year ago

There is no Kompromat that could ruin Trump at this point

They are doing it because they want to.

mpreda2• 1 year ago

The democratic system of checks-and-balances of USA needs to act to contain the Trump individual. After all the current USA government system is not a dictature and thus Trump is not supposed to have dictatorial powers.

czhu12• 1 year ago

A couple other ripple effects that could shape the next decade with Americas new position

1. The nuclear deterrence of mutually assured destruction that’s been in place for half a century is no longer “assured” if the U.S. isn’t seen to be reliable. I have to imagine the second priority after upholding Ukraine is a European arms race, so that at least the sum of European warheads and delivery capabilities matches Russian ones.

2. There’s a fringe pro unification group in Taiwan that advocates for reunification with China on friendly rather than hostile terms. It will be seen if that group raises in prominence after these spectacles.

aurareturn2• 1 year ago

If the people of Taiwan still don't see that they're being used as a sacrificial lamb to slow down China's economic rise, maybe they'll see it now.

codedokode2• 1 year ago

I wonder, giving the situation in the world, do you agree that Iran's and North Korea decision to develop weapon of mass destruction was the right idea in hindsight? Because the one who is weak gets bullied.

Paradigma1112• 1 year ago

There is a pretty good chance this set off the countdown to a war in Asia. Japan, SK, Taiwan, Philippines..... now KNOW that they cant rely on the US as an ally which means their only chance against Chinese hegemony is a nuclear weapon. Given that that will take some years while a weak US president is at the helm this is the window for China to invade Taiwan.

iamEAP4• 1 year ago

Think a lot of people here are missing the forest for the trees. We are witnessing the collapse of the unipolar world order that has brought relative freedom and prosperity to most of the world for the last three and a half decades.

I don’t know what comes next. No one does. But Europe needs a deep-rethink of a lot more than just defense if it wants to have any say in what the next world order is going to look like. Otherwise, we’re looking at four decades of less peace and less prosperity.

kakadu• 1 year ago

that has brought relative freedom and prosperity to most of the world for the last three and a half decades.

What an incredible take.

I cannot possibly think of a US intervention that went well for the receiving end.

throwaway2902• 1 year ago

Off the top of my head apartheid in South Africa, ethnic cleansing of Albanians and genocide in Serbia, WWII... maybe indirectly, end of oppressive horrible USSR where I was born

rKarpinski3• 1 year ago

I cannot possibly think of a US intervention that went well for the receiving end.

Germany, Japan and the post WW2 order in question are probably the best candidates.

IAmGraydon5• 1 year ago

[flagged]

42772827• 1 year ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

ponector5• 1 year ago

USA did not intervent into 2014 Crimea annexation and here we are.

And don't forget Ukraine gave up nukes for security assurances from USA, UK and rusia.

As we can see now, it was a mistake. Declaration means little

DeepSeaTortoise17• 1 year ago

With Russia and China reaching out to each other after many decades of nearly no contact and Trump reaching out to Russia after about a decade, it might as well be a sign of the very opposite.

This might genuinely be the birth of a true unipolar world order.

No idea if that's good or bad...

hkpack3• 1 year ago

That is what current US administration hope, but it is a bluff from the russia at least.

They view US as weak now, and will not stop until it is collapses on itself.

nathansherburn2• 1 year ago

With who in control? A Russia, China and US alliance? This seems very unlikely to me. All signs indicate we're moving to a multipolar world as far as I can tell.

China owns an increasing majority of global GDP and Trump seems to be either taking a path of peace, populism and or stupidity by pulling America out of its global alliances.

mycall• 1 year ago

last three and a half decades.

That is laughably tiny in the grand scheme of things.

LastTrain3• 1 year ago

What is your point, exactly? It is a huge chunk of time in human scale.

LastTrain3• 1 year ago

On the contrary, I think pretty much everyone is aware of it but doesn’t want to think about it.

iamEAP4• 1 year ago

Here in Sweden, following news of “peace talks” where both Ukraine and Europe were sidelined, the prime minister referenced a “new Yalta” as a troubling scenario, especially for small nations like ours.

Whether intentionally or not, the USA is relinquishing its role as global hegemon, and at least the baltics and nordics are contemplating the ramifications.

maratc9• 1 year ago

I agree, however the unipolar world ceased to exist a while ago. My take on what we are witnessing is that the US finally acknowledges that what has worked in the unipolar world won’t work in the one we have.

IAmGraydon5• 1 year ago

What does this even mean? The world was working just fine before a nutjob with an axe to grind with the west decided to invade its democratic neighbor.

lionradio• 1 year ago

The free world needs a new leader.

thewileyone• 1 year ago

Two Karens yelling at a man, "Do you know who I am?"

That's the impression and its really shameful and embarrassing.

spinlock_2• 1 year ago

Man, as an European I have the hope that this utterly bizarre and embarassing spectacle yesterday is finally waking us up and we start taking our fate into our own hands. Personally, I would do without a lot of things instead of having to watch europe being paraded around by a narcissist.

abrolhos• 1 year ago

What we saw on TV was just a glimpse of what actually already happens behind closed doors.

svara5• 1 year ago

If you're one of the US allies in Asia, feeling threatened by China, what do you conclude from this?

This looks like a major strategic blunder.

lawgimenez3• 1 year ago

I’m from the Philippines and there are already talks of concerns regarding our mutual defense treaty with the US.

Taiwan is just above us and for sure can be easily sucked into a war.

eagleislandsong10• 1 year ago

concerns regarding our mutual defense treaty with the US

I'm curious: Is there now widespread concern, or is this mainly a partisan issue among Filipino politicians? Are there any Filipino media reports discussing this issue that you'd recommend to me?

saghm• 1 year ago

At this point, it seems like considering yourself a "US ally" is a strategic blunder. There's no reason to expect any sort of loyalty based on shared interests or collective security; I don't even think it's purely transaction at this point, because the entire pretense of the meeting with Zelensky was a demand for an absolutely absurd deal on mineral rights[0]. US foreign policy seems to be just as much about ego as anything else, and if you're not sufficiently deferential, it doesn't matter what you bring to the table.

[0]: $500 billion in minerals, which is around seven times the value of all of the aid given to Ukraine so far: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/20/stop-criticisi...

nikolayasdf1232• 1 year ago

thank god we have trump

nikolayasdf1232• 1 year ago

is HN flooded with bots from ukraine propaganda machine? or is this just woke left?

tim33331• 1 year ago

Maybe is just has thoughtful people who are against mass murder?

user39393824• 1 year ago

Therefore they want Ukrainian men to continue dying in a war they never had a chance of winning?

hnbad3• 1 year ago

Media reporting on this feels extremely misleading if you actually watched the full clip. Zelenskiy remains remarkably calm throughout the entire ordeal.

Things only really get "angry" when JD Vance tries to provoke him only for him to calmy respond and be cut off immediately by Trump as soon as he hints at the US not being immune to physical risks from adversaries just because there's a body of water around it. Trump then goes completely off the rails saying things like "you don't get to dictate to us how we feel" or some nonsense like that.

It seems that the line he crossed was suggesting that the US is a part of geopolitics, not just an immortal observer with the option to intervene and participate as they see fit with no risk of consequences. This wasn't a disagreement over Russia, this was a disagreement over American isolationism and the mirage of American invulnerability that I thought had been disproven at least since 9/11.

crossroadsguy• 1 year ago

From Wikipedia. Just as a cliched reminder:

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and security assurances from Russia, the United States, United Kingdom and France to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. Years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine.

I live in the upper part of India and I suspect I could have been taking forced Chinese lessons right now if a woman, decades ago, who was called a bitch by a US secretary of state, didn't decide to say 'fuck it!' and went ahead with her plans to have our own modest nukes.

Would this world have been better off if no one had nukes? Of course, yes. I do believe so.

Would we (the world; not just India) have been better off with just USA, Russia, France, UK, China having nukes? Fuck no!!!

And I have a foreboding feeling the list is not going to stop with Pakistan, NK, and that undeclared member of this club. Also, I just hope South Africa has no reasons in the future to regret.

And then: I mean - does anyone else not find the very fucking idea of NPT ridiculous? You can't have nukes, we have and we will keep having it? Why? Just because. Come, sign this now. Assurances? Yeah, maybe. What the actual fuck!

dethos• 1 year ago

I'm still digesting what I've “witnessed” yesterday. I have no words for it, I'm baffled. Time to re-think…

dade_• 1 year ago

Horrific diplomacy failure. These are usually pleasant photo ops because the work was already done behind the scenes. Incompetence is on full display. Story I understand is the Rubio thought he had a deal, but clearly didn't. JD Vance should be kept out of the room, he is out of his depth and his behaviour abhorrent. And Trump's kiss the ring makes me sick to stomach. Why America wants a King after a bloody revolution to get rid of the last one is puzzling to say the least.

questinthrow• 1 year ago

The elephant in the room is that America doesnt want Russia to lose. Russia is basically America's dog, used to scare European countries in spending either 2% or soon maybe 5% of their GDP to america in order to be "protected". It's a racket and both the USA and Russia are colluding.

tim33331• 1 year ago

I think it makes more sense that Biden at any rate didn't want Russia to lose in case it collapsed into nuclear armed anarchy.

skc• 1 year ago

I'm not clear on why Trump threatened that Zelensky was risking a world war.

It seems to me that Trump and Putin are effectively allies at this point so what exactly would trigger World War 3 in his mind.

hmm99002• 1 year ago

Hard not to think Zelensky wants Ukraine war to leak out to Europe. This was the case when Ukrainian army shot rockets above Polish terriory resulting in two deaths, Ukraine never apologized. Same as they proclaimed Stepan Bandera their national hero, honestly crimes committed by germans during wwII were nothing compared to what UPA led by Bandera did. I hope this war will be soon over.

tim33331• 1 year ago

It seems the S-300 missile hitting a grain silo in Poland was an accident, and the Banderea stuff was a while ago.

throwaway0102• 1 year ago

Crimes against humanity never expire. And Zelensky's attitude towards allies earned him well deserved response.

jumpman_miya• 1 year ago

[flagged]

dang28• 1 year ago

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

Normally we'd just ban an account that has been posting like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=jumpman_miya, but your account is 7 years old and I don't want to ban it without at least giving you a chance!

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

iashishagarwal• 1 year ago

While this meeting went really bad, and US leadership was pathetic, US could have been the adults in the room.

Let’s look at the other side for a minute,

1/ Zelensky rejects the idea of stepping down after White House spat - Is Zelensky the right leader from here on ?

2/ Zelensky needs a bench to deal with different personalities, he showed up in his usual style hoping for compassion. Trump was clearly unkind but he should have chosen his words carefully , practiced what works for this president

3/ What is the end game for Ukraine? No one is winning this war in fact Russia has support of both China and India. They can’t expect US to go into direct conflict with Russia

he0001• 1 year ago

Can someone explain what Trump means by that there’s a ”world war 3 in the pot”?

tim33331• 1 year ago

Dunno exactly but there has been WW3 talk from the start. eg https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/world-war-iii-has-beg...

A bit overdone in my opinion.

ulrischa• 1 year ago

Propably just a show to make the EU swing by helping the poor Ukraine

beej71• 1 year ago

My hot take on this is that Zelensky knew going in that Trump was never going to back him after the secret Russian peace talks. So he went in hard looking for the live fight they had in order to wake up European leaders for additional support.

reaperducer• 1 year ago

My hot take on this

The last thing the world needs now are "hot takes."

Save the hot takes for Reddit.

baxuz• 1 year ago

The most important defense that the EU can make at this moment is to block off Russian access to European Internet and regulate all social media to stop Russian propaganda

This is the culmination of 10 years of hybrid warfare via disinformation and propaganda.

midoreigh• 1 year ago

"Somewhere Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems." European elites and American military industrial complex inching towards Russia using NATO is the problem. World won't go to war over this because unlike World War I and II, rest of the world are not Europe's colony. American people elected Trump to say the same. They too are unwilling to fight for the European elites. This is not world's problem. Only EU have to handle it.

FrustratedMonky6• 1 year ago

Really amazing how much of current reality consists of direct 1-1 plot points in Babylon 5. Not like some Simpsons reference, but entire season story arcs.

I think we are up to Season 3, Ep 9.

The president will declare martial law, and will issue executive order to dissolve the senate.

throwaway4847610• 1 year ago

Anyone not starting a nuclear weapons program right now is a fool.

hypothesis4• 1 year ago

Congratulations on hitting 5k posts on a Fyre-level topic!

jbirer• 1 year ago

As someone who agrees with cutting back some of the funding to Ukraine, this could've done in a much more professional and diplomatic manner. Arguing in front of televisions and interrupting Zelensky is just a bad look.

develop72• 1 year ago

Somehow it makes me quite certain US will not stall shipping latest and newest weapons to Russia, contrary to the way they did to Ukraine.

Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting

Related Stories