Your article does not account for the fact that in this alternate world that you imagine in which Zelenskyy had accepted the agreement, Russia would break the ceasefire with a pretext that rationalizes breaking it. As such, it wouldn't truly be 'Russia's fault', there would be a Putin narrative for aggressing; given this, why wouldn't Trump go with the Russian framing? Trump has already shown that he is willing to paint Ukraine as an aggressor and a Ukranian leader as a 'dictator'. He could very easily say that actually the Ukranians broke an agreement even if they didn't.
This situation was not as simple as appealing to Trump's ego and waiting for Putin to 'break the ceasefire' because the President has a rotten, bad-faith attitude towards Ukraine (alongside an admiration of strongmen) which precludes honest negotiation. Trump may just fabricate reasons that a future broken ceasefire from Russia is somehow different to when he originally made such bold assertions that 'Putin would never break it under him'. Trump deflects constantly, yet for some reason, you assume he'd ever take some kind of implicit responsibility for being wrong. Why would he not just distort the entire context further?
A leader of a nation at war cannot rely on such an unstable intermediary. Your article seeks some logical resolution as if there must be something Zelenskyy could have done but the problem is that the USA is no longer trustworthy anymore. Any analysis of what unfolded between Zelenskyy, Trump and Vance is only credible if it recognises one simple fact; Ukraine was already abandoned. They would be better off relying on Europe in my opinion.
"Naive" is absolutely wrong. It's clear Hanania has a deep understanding of both men and the situation. It's clear he thinks much less of Trump than of Zelensky. I appreciate the analysis, but disagree with the conclusion, primarily because Zelensky is the good guy and Putin is the bad guy.
If commander in chief bone spurs had principles and courage, he'd stand fully behind Ukraine, and insure American values expand in the world, rather than contract. However, Trump is a churl, so Hanania's conclusion may be correct.
Carl, American values expanding in the world, (called the rules Based world Order more generally) is exactly the global imperial project which Russia (and the other cultural blocks) are opposed to. Remember, diversity is our strength, so a multi-polar world is likely to be a much safer one for us all.
Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 in an entirely different era.
Agreements are only worth the enforcement weight and will never last forever. Besides, any agreement with Putin is not worth the paper it's written on.
Zelensky's only job in DC was to keep Trump in play and keep the arms pipeline going and he failed.
Here is a prediction: Before the end of the Trump 2nd presidency, Poland will be, perhaps covert, nuclear power
It's only Poland in the EU that has a millennia long memory of "Russia bad" that is deeply ingrained in its national psyche
Couldn't have said it better if I were a Russian bot. If agreements are only worth the enforcement weight (i.e. whether we feel like obeying them) then they aren't worth anything, so neither was this minerals deal. Although I agree with you Poland will probably become a nuclear nation. I don't agree that it's only Poland that has a historic perception of "Russia bad." That's why all those former Soviet Republics joined NATO and why Finland eventually did too.
BTW, a large part of WW1 was because Germany cut through neutral Belgium forcing the British to declare war. Germany had figured that agreement was worth not the paper it was written on but discounted the fact that the Brits wanted in and the Belgium issue gave them the perfect excuse
Ditto with US and Germany in WW2; it was Germany that declared war on the US when the US declared war on Japan giving FDR the excuse he needed to wade into the European conflict for which there was little appetite in the isolationist US at that time
All thru the 19th century, in Europe agreements were signed and broken every season. They were kept when it suited the great powers and broken otherwise
The last 60 years of Pax American has ended 😕
Finland jumped into NATO’s arm! Recall that both Finland and Poland in addition to Ukraine were a part of tsarist Russia.
In fact Ukraine was the center of the White Army in the Russian Civil war!
It’s a multi polar world!
India is looking smart for staying multi polar, professing love to all and acting in her self interest
I thought it was dumb of India to not condemn Russia on the Ukraine invasion.
Fascinating times
I feel for the Ukrainians since Zelensky, IMHO failed at the 11th hour and at the 1 yard line when he just had to run out the clock for this game to end on his favor
And yeah the mineral right was BS but it was BS Trump wanted as Richard points out in his article. It was mutually toothless. What Trump wanted was a “great deal” and it would have cost Zelensky next to nothing to fucking don a suit and give it to him 🤦🏽♂️
On the news since, it seems it was Democrat operatives who told Mr Z to squeeze the deal, in public, thinking it would diminish Trump. As usual with their efforts, all conceived in political theatre rather than actual human dynamics that plan backfired spectacularly.
I believe so too. Americans are mostly ignorant about how the eastern part of Europe really worked or works. Given the race-centric narrative prevailing in the US, they see the inhabitants being white and assume that everything works similarly to Western Europe.
It doesn't. It is closer to a Christian-flavored Middle East than Europe, and any agreements with Russia also work on the "Middle Eastern" mentality: you'd better have a lot of tanks (or maybe drones, nowadays) ready to support them from your side. Otherwise they WILL be broken in an opportune moment.
The Americans would do better if they tried to broker peace betwen UA and RU in the same way as a hypothetical peace between Israel and Iran.
Yes the American race perspective is wrong, but it's also different to the Middle East in that e.g. Zelensky's first language is Russian, he shares the same first name with his invader. Many if not most Ukrainians have strong links to Russia, e.g. my best Ukrainian friend, a committed Ukrainian nationalist, has a Russian father.
True, but this isn't uncommon in many European blood feuds of the past.
There were a lot of mixed marriages between Germans and Czechs, Germans and Poles, Germans and Jews, Serbs and Croats etc.
Common language isn't always the supreme glue that would trump other differences. Even in contemporary West, most Irish people speak English without wishing to be ruled from London.
Yes, I commented in another thread that the Baltics are different.
But the slowly-diminishing leftover Soviet-era Russian 50+ population comes from a different world and they are a lot closer to what I described. Fortunately they don't hold sway in your countries. But they are "visibly different", to the degree that as a foreign tourist, I have no problem telling them apart in the streets of Riga or Tallinn. All that weird clothing, scowls on their faces...
The youngsters seem to be well-integrated, though. I cannot tell young Estonians from young Russians. They are all standard European youth.
The description of Eastern Europe as a "Christian-flavored Middle East" is striking. I don't know how accurate, but something to bear in mind when thinking in the future.
Eh, please don't take this to be the same for the whole region. I'm quite certain Estonia and Latvia would keep their contracts and promises nicely. I cannot speak for the southeastern countries, but I suppose there may be more cultural differences.
The Baltics are indeed different. My description was meant to include places like Belarus, pre-2014 Ukraine, Transnistria, Russia, Abkhazia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Ukraine is now in a state of potential transformation to a more Western country, but there is still a lot of post-Soviet baggage that is somewhat downplayed in the public. Much less of it than in Russia, but it is there. At least there are some efforts to do away with it.
Well, subsequent behavior by the Trump administration, which has done irreparable damage to the reputation of the United States in the rest of the western world, counsels more for the resignation of Donald Trump, than it does for the resignation of Zelenskyy.
The “mineral deal” is a shakedown. A surrender of all of its territory that Russia holds, already deprives Ukraine of a substantial part of its mineral wealth, and in particular gas and oil deposits and the United States strips out half of the remaining wealth of Ukraine by strip mining the country and using bloated numbers (that are simply outright lies) about what Ukraine “owes“ the United States. These are literally worse terms than the Versailles treaty. As Richard obviously knows, lesson of the Versailles treaty and its aftermath was partly what convinced the United States to rebuild rather than punish our allies and even our vanquished enemies. The notion of imposing confiscatory retroactive penalties on a country where we provided military aid on a no strings attached basis, has irreparably harmed the United States and falls right in line with Trump,walking into the Oval Office on day, one and starting a fever dream trade war based on make-believe stories against Mexico and Canada, when it was Trump himself who negotiated and bragged about the current trade agreement.
Elections at this point would be fully manipulated by the Russians, probably with the help of the Trump administration, to make sure that a pro Russian leader was put in place who would be bribed while the Ukrainian state was destroyed. It is the destruction of the Ukrainian state, not the minerals, the form the basis of Russia’s war. This is just pure Eurasianism. Fundamentally the behavior of the Trump administration was like a man watching a woman getting raped and saying that he might make the rapist to give her a break for a few miniutes if she agrees to turn over half of her assets when the rape is finished, thank you such a graphic example but no better one comes to mind.
If I were Ukrainian and looking at how Russia manipulated my own political system, including an attempted assassination by poisoning ((original), outright stuffing of ballot boxes and the initiation of warfare when things didn’t turn out in Russia’s favor, I would take a good look at the type of leaders that Russia approves of for nations that it controls (Belarus) or people that it conquers (like Chechnya).
Before accepting a Lukashenko, let alone a sadistic pervert, like Kadyrov, when my country has already been subject to countless horrendous atrocities at the hands of the Russians, (and hardly for the first time in the country’s history) I would willingly give my life rather than agree to any “deal” that did not involve any immediate *military backed* security guarantees for conceding any territory and would never agree to give away any of my country’s wealth as part of a shakedown and protection racket by a former friend who is now clearly aligned with Vladimir Putin. JD Vance look like the Peterfield controlled crypto fascist that he is and Trump humiliated America. I don’t know if Ukraine will survive as a state now than America has joined with Russia to help destroy it, but I do know that the “deal“ that Trump would impose would guarantee the destruction of the Ukrainian state.
I stand with Ukraine. The world now sees the convicted felon the way many of us do. I would not have signed either with some (crazy) hope that orangie would step up later and offer security.
Why don’t you go over there and fight? Why don’t you empty out your purse and send them your money. Don’t ask where your money is going either because American tax payers have no idea where their money went. Susan, you’re a complete coward. You don’t value life. You are just an internet retard. You won’t even put up a picture of your own face. Liberal ass faggot
I couldn’t help noticing your openness to women serving in combat. I wasn’t expecting such a progressive viewpoint. You, sir, are a good feminist ally. 👍🏻
I see it now: you (Kate) think it was wrong of Matthew to say Susan should volunteer herself to fight in Ukraine. I’m glad you agree that he was intemperate.
You (Kate) strike me as somebody with a, shall we say, traditionalist viewpoint. Your commentary makes me think back to my Army Basic Training with a mixed male/female company in the 1990s. I had immense respect for all those sergeants, but gawd, the female drill sergeants outclassed the males when it came to pure verbal viciousness. I’m sure, like me, you would have been very shocked to hear women resorting to easy slurs and always reacting to what they interpreted as stupidity by ratcheting everything to 11 because government issued 10 wasn’t good enough. It’s a bad look, am I right?
The best proof of the existence of dysgenic fertility is your own existence. I hope you don't have children, for suffering a life with even half of your genetics sounds worse than non-existence.
Matthew- you do not know me at all. It continues to amaze me that you maga folks use insults and profanity rather than stating what you believe. Right now we have no idea what muskett and the felon are doing with our money. I think the felon should have stuck to their agreement-continued help from us, safety for Ukraine in exchange for mineral rights. Imagine if you had a deal where someone gave you money, asking nothing in return and then later decide oh I am changing our deal and now I expect this….i imagine you would feel betrayed. I don’t have my picture up because I can’t figure out how to do it. Not to hide. Also just so you know I have a graduate degree and do therapy with people with trauma, substance abuse and often disenfranchised (do you need me to explain that term? ) I advocate for people, been doing it for close to 50 years. In less than two months he is gutting us. When you lose benefits or a job and you end up having to decide do I have a place to live, food or medicine then you will see what a huge mistake you made hitching yourself to an evil man. Just so you know those of us that do this work make shit salaries and benefits-we/I do it cause I care and frankly because I must.
Right now after Muskie and company we have no idea where all the “wasted” money he found is going. Well, other than into the pockets of his own and his millionaire buddies. You know how many programs could be saved with the “government waste” they found? We have always had a military budget and that budget builds tanks and an arsenal of weapons. Rather have that than school lunches for kids? Makes me sick.
Oh, I can answer that one is a veteran. The only country I would die for is my own country. This is the exact same line (I mean exactly) that the pro Nazi America First committee used in 1940 about helping out the British. Not our war…. why don’t you go there and fight yourself. Exact. Same. Terms.
your piece of shit country is the reason why putin was able to invade after you strong-armed ukraine into giving up their nukes. You should be parachuted onto the battlefield and forced to fight.
Would you be asking the same thing if, say, Mexico built up their army, invaded the United States, and captured the southwestern states? Do you think we should just sue for peace and cede our land to the first dictator belligerent enough to invade? After all, how many people have to die?
You sleazy pieces of shit are so dishonest. We can end the war with victory. You want to turn over millions of people to a genocidal psychopath. Everybody (including Putin) wants to "end the war", but you scum are the only ones who use it as an euphemism because you are too cowardly to openly support the evil you root for and aid in private.
Zelenskyy was right to remain proud and not bend the knee to Trump. If you’re going to publicly eat crow as a supplicant it’s only worth doing if you’re certain the other party will honor an agreement. But Trump is too erratic and untrustworthy. If you “sell your soul” to him, there’s a better than even chance he won’t even pay you for it. Does anyone actually think Trump would participate in arming Ukraine against Russia? Trump never forgets a slight. His heart is with Putin. And all Trump remembers is that Zelensky refused to be his stooge during the attempt to smear Hunter Biden. Remember how Trump strung Mitt Romney along as a possible Secretary of State. He wanted to see Romney grovel before yanking the rug and giving the position to somebody else. Same dynamic with Zelenskyy. Trump wanted to see Zelenskyy grovel and ultimately still give him nothing in return.
What is the actual cost of publicly eating crow? Suppose there's a 10% chance that it will work. Still worth a try?
There's a question of whether this fight is more about humanitarianism or about the Ukrainian ego. If it's just ego vs ego, should the US really be funding it?
There are many politicians Trump has feuded with and later made up with. E.g. Marco Rubio was once "little Marco" and questioned the size of Trump's junk; now he's Trump's secretary of state. Vance famously condemned Trump; now he's the VP.
Musk was not a Trumper in 2016, not at all. Trump is very happy to forget a slight. So much media coverage and btl punditry like that of Mr Theisen is just assertion and wishful thinking. As Richard H says, Zelensky needed to just shut up, and nod. As it stands, the pro-war faction is just left with their favourite argument that there is no point reaching a peace agreement because it might not last.
it is less to do with bending the knee or showing fawning behavior. It has to do with the fact that if Ukraine accepted Donald Trump‘s terms, based on Donald Trump‘s history, both as a “leader“ and in decades of business, there would not be a Ukrainian state in a few years. They may lose anyway, but guaranteeing their own destruction is not the right decision. Even if they have a 10% chance of somehow holding on and not suffering more loss of territory, it is better than the 99% chance the Trump will turn on them and strip mine their country with his friend Vladimir Putin, and make sure that Ukraine has a leader like Lukashenko or Kadyrov and they live in a hell state condemned to permanent poverty, so that Russians aren’t able to see a prosperous nation, somewhat like them (Slavic and partly Russian speaking) on their own border.
My main disagreement with you is the assumption that Russia can ever truly win in Ukraine. I think their battlefield performance depends on quantity not quality. But their materiel reserves are not bottomless. The Ukrainians are emotionally motivated in a way the Russians just aren’t. Given material help, Ukraine will outlast Russia. Why? Because Russia is in demographic decline. The pool of military aged men is finite and draftees still only serve for 12 months total. Russia is rich in resources but starved of Western high technology inputs for its missiles and aircraft. Production of new armor and artillery systems is below the loss rate. Russian military tactics are unimpressive given their paper strength. Do we need to worry about Russia actually resorting to nuclear warfare? At this point, no. Invading Russian territory would have been a good time to threaten nuclear attack - but Putin demurred. As long as NATO itself doesn’t cross the Russian border, he’s shown himself willing to tolerate Ukraine’s long range strikes with NATO made weapons inside the Russian Federation. Ukraine stands for self determination and democratic values. At least they’re trying to grapple with reforming past corruption. On that level alone they’ve made more genuine progress than the kleptocratic regimes the US propped up in wartime South Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s a real argument to be made that the US lost those wars due to the political effect of never reforming the wide-scale corruption of those governments. (Korea was a military draw, but the President was embarrassingly corrupt so there’s that as a counter example.) Ukraine is leagues different and worth our support. Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Except he’s not. Trump doesn’t about ideology or idealism. On a personal level see’s himself in Putin’s and prefers a world run by mafia leaders. It’s reprehensible.
VANCE: "I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President."
Come on. This is just an insane statement, that Zelensky lies and tricks people who come to Ukraine to trick them into thinking that Ukraine is the good guy and Russia is the bad guy.
You can say Zelensky shouldn't have risen to the bait, but if the other team dicksucks Putin 24/7 and somehow the negotiations break down in the 11th hour as one of them accuses you of being a liar, is it REALLY because Zelensky said "during the war, everybody has problems, even you, you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future"?
This exchange only took place after Zelensky decided to engage Vance directly. He could've let Vance's generally mild comment regarding diplomacy slide.
Zelenskyy’s direct question was designed to embarrass Vance, his planned future ally. As Hanania said, this even was supposed to just be them talking to the reporters about how great allies they will be in the future to appease both Zelenskyy and Trump’s base. This wasn’t the venue to ask gotcha questions to a partner.
Zelensky paused for a moment and looked like he was going to swallow the whole canary. What the FK was he thinking???
He KNOWS Vance hates him!!
The minerals deal is pie in the sky. It will require 3-5 years of peace before any company would dream on investing. And then it will require USG assurances and probably loan guarantees from banks.
Zelensky screwed the pooch. Turn it around. Use the chance to make Trump look bad and have Europe pay for all the weapons. EVERYONE WINS!
Zelensky's initial engagement with Vance directly included "now it’s President Trump and he will stop [Putin]", i.e. sucking Trump's dick just like Richard wants. To this, Vance responded about how disrespectful it was to litigate things in front of the American media.
I mean, hey, maybe in the alternate universe where Zelensky pretended he didn't hear the VP, the mineral deal got done. Who knows?
But, I don't think one conversation actually determines anything in modern politics, and even Richard on Twitter was asking if anything "like this ever happened in history" (https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1895652060948996531). When something seems, intuitively, to have never happened before in history, there is a very strong chance it is not happening right now.
The comment about diplomacy was also already charged even Trump said Vance hated him, Vance already had significant negative feelings towards him, he was gonna find something else like the "Did you say Thank yiu" when his first words in that even was thank you, he says it all the time, an hour before the event with US officials,2 gours before on Twitter and everytime he met or engaged with officials anywhere
This overlooks the fact that Vance’s comments were both patently false and clearly intended to provoke Zelensky. Maybe he shouldn’t have taken the bait, but I do not believe there was any serious openness to ever providing security guarantees for Ukraine.
The real path for Ukraine is European support. I think all parties realize that at this point. Zelenskyy’s leadership alongside Trump’s insanity is quickly galvanizing Europe.
Zelensky objectively harmed Ukraine’s national interests today, so people who care about Ukraine should lower their opinion of him. Most American liberals (and many people commenting here) will raise their opinion of him because he sparred with Trump, which is their real interest in the Ukraine war.
The minerals deal was brilliant by Graham or whoever else came up with it. Gets Trump invested for the reasons Richard says. And you don't actually have to send any minerals? Obviously you can't during a war. Then by the time the war is over and mining can start to ramp up, Trump is long gone and someone more rational is president. The deal gets renegotiated to something that actually makes sense.
Zelensky didn't seem to get it at all. Got really hung up on the actual terms of the deal. You're going to blow it up over the lack of a security guarantee from Trump?! That doesn't matter! He wouldn't feel the slightest bit bound by it!
As bizarre as it sounds, while Trump is president, putting Trump's ego on the line to uphold a "Trump deal" is probably more valuable than a written security guarantee. If I were Zelenskyy, I would aim for a temporary ceasefire guaranteed by Trump's ego, to buy time for Europe to rearm and to negotiate with Russia. Meanwhile Putin grows older by the day -- he's 72, and has perhaps 7-10 years of life expectancy if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly. When Trump's term ends, try to negotiate something better with the next US president.
Lots of people are saying Zelenskyy shouldn't kiss ass. I would argue that with Trump, the better job Zelenskyy does of kissing ass, the stronger his security guarantee will be in practice. It's a silly situation, but it is what it is. One would also expect a stronger "practical security guarantee" if Zelenskyy was replaced by a Ukranian who legitimately likes Trump.
This is where I am at. I 100% support Ukraine in this war. The way Trump and Zelenskyy both behaved was embarrassing, but Zelenskyy did it knowing his country’s future was at stake. He should resign for the good of Ukraine.
Zelensky would not have led tiny Ukraine to hold the entire Russian army at bay for 3 years if he didn’t have a lot more courage than people who would bend over for the disgrace in chief.
He would not have led Ukraine to hold off the Russian military without American weapons and money, and if he wanted to keep holding them off, he should've taken the small L in order to get the big W.
So then Trump is incredibly courageous, by that logic-continuing to operate after not just the possibility of assassination (whatever that means) but two actual attempts. By that standard Trump is undoubtedly the most courageous world leader active today.
Or maybe there are other traits that cause people to risk danger: narcissism, grandiosity, delusion, hate. Do you know how many evil people have operated under the threat of constant assassination and then proven to be cowards when the time comes? Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein come to mind.
There are many reasons to risk some vague sense of danger. Z has never actually been in any that I’m aware of. When it comes to dodging actual bullets courage is almost always a requirement.
Here's the problem: given how erratic the new administration is in its foreign policy, there is no "ensure the security" carrot to balance the stick. A week later, all your groweling and kowtowing may be forgotten.
Churchill fellated FDR like he was Linda Lovelace, albeit in the days before TV.
Trump and Vance were being gratuitously butthurt about Zelensky's lack of genuflection, but Zelensky is still the one having to argue from a point of weakness. I wish it wasn't that way and Trump and Vance would grow up, but you have to play the hand you're dealt.
Putin wasn’t in the room, and it’s presumptuous to believe Trump was trying to flatter him. I bet barely a single independent Trump-neutral person believes that. There’s a simpler explanation: Z wanted massive financial and military commitments from Trump yet he started an argument with Vance and was disrespectful to POTUS. He must not have wanted those commitments that badly.
You believe your own eyes that Trump was being a supplicant to Putin? Even though Putin was 4000 miles away? I think what you mean is that you watched the exchange and then filtered it through your own biases and added preconceptions. Eyes are not the issue here.
I think this argument is flawed. Trump has ‘higher-order’ beliefs and motivations than just getting another notch on his transaction belt. Trump truly believes in the righteousness of Putin’s claims on Ukraine: that Ukraine is rightfully a part of Mother Russia. Trump may have wanted to strike a deal for ‘peace’ but what he wanted from that peace was a huge piece of Ukraine’s natural wealth to use as a bargaining chip with Putin as he eventually negotiated a deal in which Putin gets Ukraine and Trump gets . . . Who knows exactly what, but it would be ‘HUGE.’
Sometimes in the midst of these sorts of high stakes moments, we get an inkling, we have a strong and incandescent intuition that there is something one is not getting here. Something is not right. I think Zelensky was likely overcome by what was undoubtedly feeling like a horrible trap and that he needed to just get out of there. To me, what Zelensky did was the only thing he could do to continue to give his country and his people a fighting chance for self-determination rather than total submission.
I think maybe we should understand Ukraine domestic politics and also his relationship with EU leaders before calling for his resignation. Trump has been telegraphing that he would screw Zelensky for months. He might be better off getting it out in the open than letting him slowly sandbag his country over the course of several years.
I agree with your conclusion, but there may be more substance to the mineral deal than you seem to think. Trump's offer, which reframes support for Ukraine as a commercial transaction—which is why he sent Bessent (Treasury) to propose the initial offer to Zelenskyy while simultaneously sending Rubio (State) to reassure European allies (quietly, until some European officials leaked it to the press)—entails powerful network effects.
Let me build the case. Trump views the whole thing more like Yalta, and in his mind, it doesn't work unless Putin can save face. Recall that FDR was no fan of Stalin.
We can criticize this approach—perhaps Putin shouldn't be given the opportunity to save face. Maybe we should view Putin more like Hitler at the beginning of WWII than Stalin at the end of it. Either way, it's essential to understand what Trump's strategy is.
Zelenskyy is, of course, telling the truth (Putin was the aggressor and can't be trusted to respect a ceasefire). But the truth isn't always the way you get the deal. Had FDR told the truth about Stalin in February of 1945 at Yalta, WWII might not have ended. (Gen. Patton and others wanted FDR to tell the truth, so there is an alternate history to consider.)
Look, I'd rather have the Biden 10-year bilateral security agreement back. But let me steel-man the Trump position. One of the fascinating aspects of the proposal is it would fall under the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court in NYC (not the WTO or some international body).
The establishment of U.S. contract rights to Ukrainian mineral deposits through a New York federal court jurisdiction would create several important precedents and leverage points:
[1] By establishing contract rights under U.S. jurisdiction, this would create a formal legal mechanism to challenge Russian control of these resources. Any Russian attempt to exploit these deposits could potentially be challenged as interference with U.S. contractual rights, opening avenues for sanctions or other legal remedies through the U.S. judicial system.
[2] The recognition of Ukraine's right to enter into contracts regarding these resources implicitly reinforces Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. This creates an interesting legal paradox where Russia may have physical control of the territory, but Ukraine retains internationally recognized legal authority over its resources. This strengthens Ukraine's position in any future negotiations about territorial control.
[3] The arrangement would give the U.S. a direct economic stake in the resolution of the conflict, potentially increasing American institutional and corporate pressure for the eventual return of these territories to Ukrainian control. This economic interest could translate into sustained political pressure beyond any particular administration.
[4] Such an agreement could establish a template for other nations to similarly secure rights to Ukrainian resources under their own legal jurisdictions, creating a web of international contracts that collectively challenge Russian control. This would make it increasingly difficult for Russia to legitimize or monetize its occupation.
[5] If Putin wants to normalize relations with the West or seek sanctions relief in the future, he would potentially need to address these contract rights. This creates a specific legal hurdle that goes beyond general diplomatic disagreements about territorial control.
Moreover, this contractual framework could provide Ukraine with immediate economic benefits even before regaining physical control of its territory. The ability to enter into binding agreements about these resources affirms Ukraine's economic sovereignty and could potentially help secure financing or investment based on future resource rights.
The specification of New York federal court jurisdiction is particularly significant because of the court's experience with international commercial disputes and its strong protection of property rights. This choice of venue would give the agreement additional credibility and enforceability in the international business community.
This legal-economic approach to challenging territorial occupation represents an innovative form of leverage that combines commercial law with geopolitical strategy (Art of the Deal?). Rather than relying solely on diplomatic pressure or military aid, it creates concrete legal and economic obstacles to Russian control while reinforcing Ukraine's sovereign rights through established international commercial frameworks.
This isn't the strategy I voted for, but it seems to be Trump's. And it depends upon allowing Putin to save face publicly while sending the message—through commercial law—that the U.S. and the world will never accept that most of the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies is legitimately Russia's.
This is really well laid out, however if the US chooses not to enforce any of these things, considering how they reneged on support based on other signed agreements, wouldn't it not suffice as a security assurance?
This article is a masterpiece. Laugh at me if you will. I was ready to hate this article when I saw the title. Then I read it.
Yes you gotta kiss Trumps nasty ass if you want to get things done. But the point is to get things done. Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place. Your only choice is to get things done. Wearing a suit would’ve been brilliant. Yes you are checking your ego at the door there. But that’s what it takes. You have to bend to reality. You can’t make reality bend to you in this situation. It’s realpolitik as practiced by Metternich and Kissinger etc. I hate it all for Zelensky bc he’s a good guy but he misplayed this.
Right. Kissinger put china on the road to being a superpower just for some temporary pressure on Russia which made little difference to anything. China and Russia besties today
The idea Trump was going to agree to anything after that meeting is so naive.
This was absolutely a set up...an ambush. That's why, breaking all protocol, Vance was there and allowed to speak to President Zelensky. He was Trump's attack dog, ready to be unleashed when the time was right.
No matter WHAT Zelensky said, there was going to be a confrontation where Trump could show how "strong" he is by being a rude, arrogant, petty, self-serving bully.
Trump was letting his inner Neville Chamberlain show. Trump's "I'll be known and recognized as a peacemaker" is the 21st century version of Chamberlain's "Peace for our time".
The similarities between 1938 Nazi Germany and 2025 Putin's Russia are unmistakable.
Trump was not only dismissive the idea of the need for "security guarantees" he actually said the most boneheaded baloney ever said by a US president (at least since the last boneheaded baloney crap he says almost every day)....
"I don't want to talk about security yet because I want to get the deal done you know you fall into the same trap like everybody else a million times you say it over and over I want to get the deal done security is so easy that's about 2% of the problem uh I'm not worried about security I'm worried about getting the deal done uh the security is the easy part"
No, security is 100% of the problem.
Just like Chamberlain being so intent on "peace for our time" he would swallow any empty promise from Hitler, Trump's anxiousness to make "the deal" (and appease Putin) throws both Ukraine AND Europe under the bus.
Zelensky was correct to remind Trump that Putin CANNOT BE TRUSTED and has broken every "deal" he has agreed to in the past.
Trump bushing that aside with the ridiculous idea that Putin would never break a "deal" when Trump is president is the height of delusional insanity, and the very root of the problem.
The idea that Zelensky should resign is ludicrous, and would not only play directly into Putin's war criminal hands, it would portend the most serious threat to the security of ALL of Europe since 1938
Let me also quote from a Facebook post of Karl J Martin:
“What Vance did yesterday, in Hollywood terms, is called ‘The Stranger in the Room.’ Screenwriters, especially, are well aware of the role of The Stranger in the Room. The Stranger in the Room is anyone in a meeting who is just there ‘as a friend,’ someone who has no creative authority on, and no stake in, the project being discussed, anyone in the room who is a last-minute addition. Sometimes it's a 20-something intern, sometimes it's an executive from a sister office, sometimes it's someone from marketing, sometimes it's an older, more experienced producer who's lending a hand for a day.
Example: I was once pitching a legacy reboot project to a legendary producer, a real lion of the industry. His 22-year-old daughter was also in the room. She interrupted my pitch to say ‘Right, but we don't want, like, any conflict in the movie.’
The purpose of The Stranger in the Room is to destroy the project. The Stranger in the Room is the one who, after the writer and producer and director have all agreed on the direction of the story, says ‘How will that play in China?’ or ‘This sounds a lot like [movie X]’ or ‘But isn't this movie really about love?’
The Stranger in the Room is always, always there at the behest of the most powerful person in the room. Whether the Stranger understands it or not, they are acting on the behalf of the studio, and it is the studio's natural desire to say ‘no,’ because no one has ever gotten fired for saying ‘no,’ and Hollywood executives, more than anything else, spend their entire careers terrified they're going to lose their jobs for saying ‘yes.’
But they don't want to be disliked by creatives, so instead of saying ‘no,’ they bring in a friend, either a protege or an ally from another department, or just grab someone from the hallway, a producer on another project, and ask them to sit in on the meeting. They don't know what they're looking for, they hear a hundred pitches a day, they don't know what, if anything, will please their bosses, so they bring in an ally to get another viewpoint, any viewpoint, on the project, so that they can then say ‘no’ without looking like an asshole. Instead, they can say ‘Yes, that's a good point, we have to keep in mind the China market,’ or ‘Yeah, this DOES sound a lot like [movie X] now that I hear it out loud,’ or ‘Yeah, what about love? We're forgetting all about love, why isn't your action movie pitch really about love?’
And then, suddenly, the balance in the room shifts. Suddenly, a collaboration, a negotiation as it were, becomes an argument. Where, just moments earlier, everyone was agreeing on how awesome the project sounded, now, suddenly, the creatives are on one side and the suits are on the other, and the meeting becomes a power struggle, one the creatives can only lose, because the suits have the money and the creatives only have the art.
So, in Hollywood terms, Zelenskyy was the writer/director/producer, Trump was studio executive terrified of losing his job, and Vance was the disinterested ally brought in to bring up some random point that would turn the negotiation into an argument that the writer/director/producer cannot possibly win. I'll leave it up to you to figure out who studio head is.”
I think that Zelenski was in board with the "mineral" agreement. But if you've seen the whole conversation, it is clear that Trump started to link this agreement with a deal for ceasefire without security garanties. So Zelenski had to intervene, to make clear that it was not actually the conditions he accepted.
Trump said :"I don't think he's gonna need security, I think once this deal is done, it's over, Russia is not wanna to go back and nobody wanna to go back".
About weapons, Trump sayd "Hopefully, we won't have to send much [weapons] because I'm looking forward to make it (peace deal) done quickly, very quickly".
Then when a reporter asks "what changed between when Secretary Besson gave President Zelinski the agreement and today for the signing ?", Trump say "we made a deal, that's what changed." "I didn't think we would gonna make a deal and we ended up making the deal, that's what changed."
Then all the part about Putin that respect him so much that he won't break the deal, and that Putin wen't through a lot with the Biden Hunter "phony scam".
So Trump made a huge confusion between the mineral agreement and the peace deal, then he said the deal was made, he was clear that russia will be trusted by him to keep its words, without any constraints. Trump said that the American miners would be "diging diging digind" in Ukraine so there won't be war. Trump when asked about the mineral mines in Ukrainian region controlled by Russian army, he said he will study this later, not excluding the possibility to exploit mineral in russian-controled Ukraine.
It was not clear at all, 20 minutes after the start of the meeting, if Trump deal was about mineral exploitation only or not, it sounded like it was the deal for peace with ceasefire, no more weapons, Putin treated as equal as Zelinski.
Zelinski couldn't be silent, he had to clarify its conditions for this peace deal ! Or 2 days later, Trump would have said that Zelenski broke his deal by not stopping the war, as implied in the oval office, and so cannot be trusted.
"Again, here was another missed opportunity to psychologically manipulate Trump. Zelensky has been wearing street clothes since the February 2022 invasion."
Those aren't "street clothes" they are his version of a military uniform that he's been wearing constantly during the war. At least criticize the man accurately.
Trump is not going to be persuaded, and certainly Vance won't, by him bending the knee via wardrobe. And for so little--there's not a specific offer of military support or a security guarantee on the table.
Zelensky resigning would just set up the next president for failure in that Trump plainly has no desire to actually help Ukraine here (since its cause is unrighteous and lost) and looking weak won't help.
They're better off forcing Europe to take on the level of responsibility they need to, which is ironically a goal of Trump's. (17D chess for the win?)
WRONG. Yes, we know that the job is to play to Trump. But Trump is impossible to please, especially when he is clearly not acting on his own behalf. The goal of diplomats is not to guess what will please King Ook-Ook Gorilla. The job of Americans is to realize that King Ook-Ook Gorilla should not be running the world's most powerful country.
Your article does not account for the fact that in this alternate world that you imagine in which Zelenskyy had accepted the agreement, Russia would break the ceasefire with a pretext that rationalizes breaking it. As such, it wouldn't truly be 'Russia's fault', there would be a Putin narrative for aggressing; given this, why wouldn't Trump go with the Russian framing? Trump has already shown that he is willing to paint Ukraine as an aggressor and a Ukranian leader as a 'dictator'. He could very easily say that actually the Ukranians broke an agreement even if they didn't.
This situation was not as simple as appealing to Trump's ego and waiting for Putin to 'break the ceasefire' because the President has a rotten, bad-faith attitude towards Ukraine (alongside an admiration of strongmen) which precludes honest negotiation. Trump may just fabricate reasons that a future broken ceasefire from Russia is somehow different to when he originally made such bold assertions that 'Putin would never break it under him'. Trump deflects constantly, yet for some reason, you assume he'd ever take some kind of implicit responsibility for being wrong. Why would he not just distort the entire context further?
A leader of a nation at war cannot rely on such an unstable intermediary. Your article seeks some logical resolution as if there must be something Zelenskyy could have done but the problem is that the USA is no longer trustworthy anymore. Any analysis of what unfolded between Zelenskyy, Trump and Vance is only credible if it recognises one simple fact; Ukraine was already abandoned. They would be better off relying on Europe in my opinion.
Yes, Richard is quite naive about Putin and Trump.
"Naive" is absolutely wrong. It's clear Hanania has a deep understanding of both men and the situation. It's clear he thinks much less of Trump than of Zelensky. I appreciate the analysis, but disagree with the conclusion, primarily because Zelensky is the good guy and Putin is the bad guy.
If commander in chief bone spurs had principles and courage, he'd stand fully behind Ukraine, and insure American values expand in the world, rather than contract. However, Trump is a churl, so Hanania's conclusion may be correct.
Carl, American values expanding in the world, (called the rules Based world Order more generally) is exactly the global imperial project which Russia (and the other cultural blocks) are opposed to. Remember, diversity is our strength, so a multi-polar world is likely to be a much safer one for us all.
Not as though Russia, the US and the UK hadn't signed the Budapest Memorandum securing Ukrainian security. Which Russia obviously violated.
Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 in an entirely different era.
Agreements are only worth the enforcement weight and will never last forever. Besides, any agreement with Putin is not worth the paper it's written on.
Zelensky's only job in DC was to keep Trump in play and keep the arms pipeline going and he failed.
Here is a prediction: Before the end of the Trump 2nd presidency, Poland will be, perhaps covert, nuclear power
It's only Poland in the EU that has a millennia long memory of "Russia bad" that is deeply ingrained in its national psyche
Couldn't have said it better if I were a Russian bot. If agreements are only worth the enforcement weight (i.e. whether we feel like obeying them) then they aren't worth anything, so neither was this minerals deal. Although I agree with you Poland will probably become a nuclear nation. I don't agree that it's only Poland that has a historic perception of "Russia bad." That's why all those former Soviet Republics joined NATO and why Finland eventually did too.
Realpolitik 🤷🏽♂️
BTW, a large part of WW1 was because Germany cut through neutral Belgium forcing the British to declare war. Germany had figured that agreement was worth not the paper it was written on but discounted the fact that the Brits wanted in and the Belgium issue gave them the perfect excuse
Ditto with US and Germany in WW2; it was Germany that declared war on the US when the US declared war on Japan giving FDR the excuse he needed to wade into the European conflict for which there was little appetite in the isolationist US at that time
All thru the 19th century, in Europe agreements were signed and broken every season. They were kept when it suited the great powers and broken otherwise
The last 60 years of Pax American has ended 😕
Finland jumped into NATO’s arm! Recall that both Finland and Poland in addition to Ukraine were a part of tsarist Russia.
In fact Ukraine was the center of the White Army in the Russian Civil war!
It’s a multi polar world!
India is looking smart for staying multi polar, professing love to all and acting in her self interest
I thought it was dumb of India to not condemn Russia on the Ukraine invasion.
Fascinating times
I feel for the Ukrainians since Zelensky, IMHO failed at the 11th hour and at the 1 yard line when he just had to run out the clock for this game to end on his favor
And yeah the mineral right was BS but it was BS Trump wanted as Richard points out in his article. It was mutually toothless. What Trump wanted was a “great deal” and it would have cost Zelensky next to nothing to fucking don a suit and give it to him 🤦🏽♂️
On the news since, it seems it was Democrat operatives who told Mr Z to squeeze the deal, in public, thinking it would diminish Trump. As usual with their efforts, all conceived in political theatre rather than actual human dynamics that plan backfired spectacularly.
Hopefully a peace plan can be rescued, but Mr Z needs to get real. He should not treated as beyond criticism. See: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trump-not-zelensky-is-ukraines-only-hope/#comments-container
100% Richard is missing a lot of history here.
(Czech here.)
I believe so too. Americans are mostly ignorant about how the eastern part of Europe really worked or works. Given the race-centric narrative prevailing in the US, they see the inhabitants being white and assume that everything works similarly to Western Europe.
It doesn't. It is closer to a Christian-flavored Middle East than Europe, and any agreements with Russia also work on the "Middle Eastern" mentality: you'd better have a lot of tanks (or maybe drones, nowadays) ready to support them from your side. Otherwise they WILL be broken in an opportune moment.
The Americans would do better if they tried to broker peace betwen UA and RU in the same way as a hypothetical peace between Israel and Iran.
Yes the American race perspective is wrong, but it's also different to the Middle East in that e.g. Zelensky's first language is Russian, he shares the same first name with his invader. Many if not most Ukrainians have strong links to Russia, e.g. my best Ukrainian friend, a committed Ukrainian nationalist, has a Russian father.
True, but this isn't uncommon in many European blood feuds of the past.
There were a lot of mixed marriages between Germans and Czechs, Germans and Poles, Germans and Jews, Serbs and Croats etc.
Common language isn't always the supreme glue that would trump other differences. Even in contemporary West, most Irish people speak English without wishing to be ruled from London.
I don't know, I'm from the Baltics and my impression is that the Baltic states would behave quite western-Europey in such a situation.
Yes, I commented in another thread that the Baltics are different.
But the slowly-diminishing leftover Soviet-era Russian 50+ population comes from a different world and they are a lot closer to what I described. Fortunately they don't hold sway in your countries. But they are "visibly different", to the degree that as a foreign tourist, I have no problem telling them apart in the streets of Riga or Tallinn. All that weird clothing, scowls on their faces...
The youngsters seem to be well-integrated, though. I cannot tell young Estonians from young Russians. They are all standard European youth.
The description of Eastern Europe as a "Christian-flavored Middle East" is striking. I don't know how accurate, but something to bear in mind when thinking in the future.
Eh, please don't take this to be the same for the whole region. I'm quite certain Estonia and Latvia would keep their contracts and promises nicely. I cannot speak for the southeastern countries, but I suppose there may be more cultural differences.
The Baltics are indeed different. My description was meant to include places like Belarus, pre-2014 Ukraine, Transnistria, Russia, Abkhazia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Ukraine is now in a state of potential transformation to a more Western country, but there is still a lot of post-Soviet baggage that is somewhat downplayed in the public. Much less of it than in Russia, but it is there. At least there are some efforts to do away with it.
Well, subsequent behavior by the Trump administration, which has done irreparable damage to the reputation of the United States in the rest of the western world, counsels more for the resignation of Donald Trump, than it does for the resignation of Zelenskyy.
The “mineral deal” is a shakedown. A surrender of all of its territory that Russia holds, already deprives Ukraine of a substantial part of its mineral wealth, and in particular gas and oil deposits and the United States strips out half of the remaining wealth of Ukraine by strip mining the country and using bloated numbers (that are simply outright lies) about what Ukraine “owes“ the United States. These are literally worse terms than the Versailles treaty. As Richard obviously knows, lesson of the Versailles treaty and its aftermath was partly what convinced the United States to rebuild rather than punish our allies and even our vanquished enemies. The notion of imposing confiscatory retroactive penalties on a country where we provided military aid on a no strings attached basis, has irreparably harmed the United States and falls right in line with Trump,walking into the Oval Office on day, one and starting a fever dream trade war based on make-believe stories against Mexico and Canada, when it was Trump himself who negotiated and bragged about the current trade agreement.
Elections at this point would be fully manipulated by the Russians, probably with the help of the Trump administration, to make sure that a pro Russian leader was put in place who would be bribed while the Ukrainian state was destroyed. It is the destruction of the Ukrainian state, not the minerals, the form the basis of Russia’s war. This is just pure Eurasianism. Fundamentally the behavior of the Trump administration was like a man watching a woman getting raped and saying that he might make the rapist to give her a break for a few miniutes if she agrees to turn over half of her assets when the rape is finished, thank you such a graphic example but no better one comes to mind.
If I were Ukrainian and looking at how Russia manipulated my own political system, including an attempted assassination by poisoning ((original), outright stuffing of ballot boxes and the initiation of warfare when things didn’t turn out in Russia’s favor, I would take a good look at the type of leaders that Russia approves of for nations that it controls (Belarus) or people that it conquers (like Chechnya).
Before accepting a Lukashenko, let alone a sadistic pervert, like Kadyrov, when my country has already been subject to countless horrendous atrocities at the hands of the Russians, (and hardly for the first time in the country’s history) I would willingly give my life rather than agree to any “deal” that did not involve any immediate *military backed* security guarantees for conceding any territory and would never agree to give away any of my country’s wealth as part of a shakedown and protection racket by a former friend who is now clearly aligned with Vladimir Putin. JD Vance look like the Peterfield controlled crypto fascist that he is and Trump humiliated America. I don’t know if Ukraine will survive as a state now than America has joined with Russia to help destroy it, but I do know that the “deal“ that Trump would impose would guarantee the destruction of the Ukrainian state.
I stand with Ukraine. The world now sees the convicted felon the way many of us do. I would not have signed either with some (crazy) hope that orangie would step up later and offer security.
Why don’t you go over there and fight? Why don’t you empty out your purse and send them your money. Don’t ask where your money is going either because American tax payers have no idea where their money went. Susan, you’re a complete coward. You don’t value life. You are just an internet retard. You won’t even put up a picture of your own face. Liberal ass faggot
Elite human capital right here folks.
For those who fall outside the EHC group, this statement is irony.
I couldn’t help noticing your openness to women serving in combat. I wasn’t expecting such a progressive viewpoint. You, sir, are a good feminist ally. 👍🏻
Sending women into combat is as stupid as sending a tranny into a women’s bathroom.
I see it now: you (Kate) think it was wrong of Matthew to say Susan should volunteer herself to fight in Ukraine. I’m glad you agree that he was intemperate.
You (Kate) strike me as somebody with a, shall we say, traditionalist viewpoint. Your commentary makes me think back to my Army Basic Training with a mixed male/female company in the 1990s. I had immense respect for all those sergeants, but gawd, the female drill sergeants outclassed the males when it came to pure verbal viciousness. I’m sure, like me, you would have been very shocked to hear women resorting to easy slurs and always reacting to what they interpreted as stupidity by ratcheting everything to 11 because government issued 10 wasn’t good enough. It’s a bad look, am I right?
No, the correct question is: Why don't you want to fight for Ukraine? The rest is the usual spiral down into ad hominins, typical Trump/Musk cult.
The answer: Because you love Vladimir Putin's regime, and want to install the same here in the USA.
You will fail, but in the meantime at least be honest, or else the "political coward" label belongs on your forehead.
The best proof of the existence of dysgenic fertility is your own existence. I hope you don't have children, for suffering a life with even half of your genetics sounds worse than non-existence.
Matthew- you do not know me at all. It continues to amaze me that you maga folks use insults and profanity rather than stating what you believe. Right now we have no idea what muskett and the felon are doing with our money. I think the felon should have stuck to their agreement-continued help from us, safety for Ukraine in exchange for mineral rights. Imagine if you had a deal where someone gave you money, asking nothing in return and then later decide oh I am changing our deal and now I expect this….i imagine you would feel betrayed. I don’t have my picture up because I can’t figure out how to do it. Not to hide. Also just so you know I have a graduate degree and do therapy with people with trauma, substance abuse and often disenfranchised (do you need me to explain that term? ) I advocate for people, been doing it for close to 50 years. In less than two months he is gutting us. When you lose benefits or a job and you end up having to decide do I have a place to live, food or medicine then you will see what a huge mistake you made hitching yourself to an evil man. Just so you know those of us that do this work make shit salaries and benefits-we/I do it cause I care and frankly because I must.
Right now after Muskie and company we have no idea where all the “wasted” money he found is going. Well, other than into the pockets of his own and his millionaire buddies. You know how many programs could be saved with the “government waste” they found? We have always had a military budget and that budget builds tanks and an arsenal of weapons. Rather have that than school lunches for kids? Makes me sick.
Oh, I can answer that one is a veteran. The only country I would die for is my own country. This is the exact same line (I mean exactly) that the pro Nazi America First committee used in 1940 about helping out the British. Not our war…. why don’t you go there and fight yourself. Exact. Same. Terms.
your piece of shit country is the reason why putin was able to invade after you strong-armed ukraine into giving up their nukes. You should be parachuted onto the battlefield and forced to fight.
And you are blocked.
How many people have to die before your TDS subsides?
If Russia goes home, none.
So all of them, got it.
Would you be asking the same thing if, say, Mexico built up their army, invaded the United States, and captured the southwestern states? Do you think we should just sue for peace and cede our land to the first dictator belligerent enough to invade? After all, how many people have to die?
You don't care about lives or peace. More Trump Kult lies.
And your response to a supposed fake concern for lives is to continue the war?
"continue the war"
You sleazy pieces of shit are so dishonest. We can end the war with victory. You want to turn over millions of people to a genocidal psychopath. Everybody (including Putin) wants to "end the war", but you scum are the only ones who use it as an euphemism because you are too cowardly to openly support the evil you root for and aid in private.
Zelenskyy was right to remain proud and not bend the knee to Trump. If you’re going to publicly eat crow as a supplicant it’s only worth doing if you’re certain the other party will honor an agreement. But Trump is too erratic and untrustworthy. If you “sell your soul” to him, there’s a better than even chance he won’t even pay you for it. Does anyone actually think Trump would participate in arming Ukraine against Russia? Trump never forgets a slight. His heart is with Putin. And all Trump remembers is that Zelensky refused to be his stooge during the attempt to smear Hunter Biden. Remember how Trump strung Mitt Romney along as a possible Secretary of State. He wanted to see Romney grovel before yanking the rug and giving the position to somebody else. Same dynamic with Zelenskyy. Trump wanted to see Zelenskyy grovel and ultimately still give him nothing in return.
What is the actual cost of publicly eating crow? Suppose there's a 10% chance that it will work. Still worth a try?
There's a question of whether this fight is more about humanitarianism or about the Ukrainian ego. If it's just ego vs ego, should the US really be funding it?
There are many politicians Trump has feuded with and later made up with. E.g. Marco Rubio was once "little Marco" and questioned the size of Trump's junk; now he's Trump's secretary of state. Vance famously condemned Trump; now he's the VP.
Musk was not a Trumper in 2016, not at all. Trump is very happy to forget a slight. So much media coverage and btl punditry like that of Mr Theisen is just assertion and wishful thinking. As Richard H says, Zelensky needed to just shut up, and nod. As it stands, the pro-war faction is just left with their favourite argument that there is no point reaching a peace agreement because it might not last.
it is less to do with bending the knee or showing fawning behavior. It has to do with the fact that if Ukraine accepted Donald Trump‘s terms, based on Donald Trump‘s history, both as a “leader“ and in decades of business, there would not be a Ukrainian state in a few years. They may lose anyway, but guaranteeing their own destruction is not the right decision. Even if they have a 10% chance of somehow holding on and not suffering more loss of territory, it is better than the 99% chance the Trump will turn on them and strip mine their country with his friend Vladimir Putin, and make sure that Ukraine has a leader like Lukashenko or Kadyrov and they live in a hell state condemned to permanent poverty, so that Russians aren’t able to see a prosperous nation, somewhat like them (Slavic and partly Russian speaking) on their own border.
My main disagreement with you is the assumption that Russia can ever truly win in Ukraine. I think their battlefield performance depends on quantity not quality. But their materiel reserves are not bottomless. The Ukrainians are emotionally motivated in a way the Russians just aren’t. Given material help, Ukraine will outlast Russia. Why? Because Russia is in demographic decline. The pool of military aged men is finite and draftees still only serve for 12 months total. Russia is rich in resources but starved of Western high technology inputs for its missiles and aircraft. Production of new armor and artillery systems is below the loss rate. Russian military tactics are unimpressive given their paper strength. Do we need to worry about Russia actually resorting to nuclear warfare? At this point, no. Invading Russian territory would have been a good time to threaten nuclear attack - but Putin demurred. As long as NATO itself doesn’t cross the Russian border, he’s shown himself willing to tolerate Ukraine’s long range strikes with NATO made weapons inside the Russian Federation. Ukraine stands for self determination and democratic values. At least they’re trying to grapple with reforming past corruption. On that level alone they’ve made more genuine progress than the kleptocratic regimes the US propped up in wartime South Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s a real argument to be made that the US lost those wars due to the political effect of never reforming the wide-scale corruption of those governments. (Korea was a military draw, but the President was embarrassingly corrupt so there’s that as a counter example.) Ukraine is leagues different and worth our support. Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Except he’s not. Trump doesn’t about ideology or idealism. On a personal level see’s himself in Putin’s and prefers a world run by mafia leaders. It’s reprehensible.
VANCE: "I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President."
Come on. This is just an insane statement, that Zelensky lies and tricks people who come to Ukraine to trick them into thinking that Ukraine is the good guy and Russia is the bad guy.
You can say Zelensky shouldn't have risen to the bait, but if the other team dicksucks Putin 24/7 and somehow the negotiations break down in the 11th hour as one of them accuses you of being a liar, is it REALLY because Zelensky said "during the war, everybody has problems, even you, you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future"?
This exchange only took place after Zelensky decided to engage Vance directly. He could've let Vance's generally mild comment regarding diplomacy slide.
This only happened after Z asked V a direct question and then V decided to torpedo things because of made up allegation of ingratitude and disrespect.
Zelenskyy’s direct question was designed to embarrass Vance, his planned future ally. As Hanania said, this even was supposed to just be them talking to the reporters about how great allies they will be in the future to appease both Zelenskyy and Trump’s base. This wasn’t the venue to ask gotcha questions to a partner.
Zelensky paused for a moment and looked like he was going to swallow the whole canary. What the FK was he thinking???
He KNOWS Vance hates him!!
The minerals deal is pie in the sky. It will require 3-5 years of peace before any company would dream on investing. And then it will require USG assurances and probably loan guarantees from banks.
Zelensky screwed the pooch. Turn it around. Use the chance to make Trump look bad and have Europe pay for all the weapons. EVERYONE WINS!
Fools errand to try to "appease" Trump, his cult, or by extension, Putin.
Please folks, wake up and stop the naiveite.
The United Snakes of America is the regime Trump/Musk/Vance want to install in teh USA.
Zelensky's initial engagement with Vance directly included "now it’s President Trump and he will stop [Putin]", i.e. sucking Trump's dick just like Richard wants. To this, Vance responded about how disrespectful it was to litigate things in front of the American media.
I mean, hey, maybe in the alternate universe where Zelensky pretended he didn't hear the VP, the mineral deal got done. Who knows?
But, I don't think one conversation actually determines anything in modern politics, and even Richard on Twitter was asking if anything "like this ever happened in history" (https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1895652060948996531). When something seems, intuitively, to have never happened before in history, there is a very strong chance it is not happening right now.
The comment about diplomacy was also already charged even Trump said Vance hated him, Vance already had significant negative feelings towards him, he was gonna find something else like the "Did you say Thank yiu" when his first words in that even was thank you, he says it all the time, an hour before the event with US officials,2 gours before on Twitter and everytime he met or engaged with officials anywhere
This overlooks the fact that Vance’s comments were both patently false and clearly intended to provoke Zelensky. Maybe he shouldn’t have taken the bait, but I do not believe there was any serious openness to ever providing security guarantees for Ukraine.
The real path for Ukraine is European support. I think all parties realize that at this point. Zelenskyy’s leadership alongside Trump’s insanity is quickly galvanizing Europe.
Zelensky objectively harmed Ukraine’s national interests today, so people who care about Ukraine should lower their opinion of him. Most American liberals (and many people commenting here) will raise their opinion of him because he sparred with Trump, which is their real interest in the Ukraine war.
The minerals deal was brilliant by Graham or whoever else came up with it. Gets Trump invested for the reasons Richard says. And you don't actually have to send any minerals? Obviously you can't during a war. Then by the time the war is over and mining can start to ramp up, Trump is long gone and someone more rational is president. The deal gets renegotiated to something that actually makes sense.
Zelensky didn't seem to get it at all. Got really hung up on the actual terms of the deal. You're going to blow it up over the lack of a security guarantee from Trump?! That doesn't matter! He wouldn't feel the slightest bit bound by it!
As bizarre as it sounds, while Trump is president, putting Trump's ego on the line to uphold a "Trump deal" is probably more valuable than a written security guarantee. If I were Zelenskyy, I would aim for a temporary ceasefire guaranteed by Trump's ego, to buy time for Europe to rearm and to negotiate with Russia. Meanwhile Putin grows older by the day -- he's 72, and has perhaps 7-10 years of life expectancy if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly. When Trump's term ends, try to negotiate something better with the next US president.
Lots of people are saying Zelenskyy shouldn't kiss ass. I would argue that with Trump, the better job Zelenskyy does of kissing ass, the stronger his security guarantee will be in practice. It's a silly situation, but it is what it is. One would also expect a stronger "practical security guarantee" if Zelenskyy was replaced by a Ukranian who legitimately likes Trump.
This is where I am at. I 100% support Ukraine in this war. The way Trump and Zelenskyy both behaved was embarrassing, but Zelenskyy did it knowing his country’s future was at stake. He should resign for the good of Ukraine.
He had one job? To suck Trumps dick on TV is that honestly what you are saying?
As undignified as that is, I would do it to ensure the security of my country.
Zelensky would not have led tiny Ukraine to hold the entire Russian army at bay for 3 years if he didn’t have a lot more courage than people who would bend over for the disgrace in chief.
He would not have led Ukraine to hold off the Russian military without American weapons and money, and if he wanted to keep holding them off, he should've taken the small L in order to get the big W.
I don't think it's a matter of courage. It's a matter of ego.
Zelensky has never fought as far as I know. His role requires many things, but not physical courage.
Dear god you lunatic he is under constant threat of assassination and refused to flee the country when his capital was being attacked directly.
Not all courage involves dodging bullets.
So then Trump is incredibly courageous, by that logic-continuing to operate after not just the possibility of assassination (whatever that means) but two actual attempts. By that standard Trump is undoubtedly the most courageous world leader active today.
Or maybe there are other traits that cause people to risk danger: narcissism, grandiosity, delusion, hate. Do you know how many evil people have operated under the threat of constant assassination and then proven to be cowards when the time comes? Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein come to mind.
There are many reasons to risk some vague sense of danger. Z has never actually been in any that I’m aware of. When it comes to dodging actual bullets courage is almost always a requirement.
What do you know about courage?
What do you know about courage?
Who said Trump wasn’t?
Here's the problem: given how erratic the new administration is in its foreign policy, there is no "ensure the security" carrot to balance the stick. A week later, all your groweling and kowtowing may be forgotten.
Agreed. Definitely a risk. Expected outcome on average better than what happened though
If you let a man grab you by the pussy why would he stop at that?
Churchill fellated FDR like he was Linda Lovelace, albeit in the days before TV.
Trump and Vance were being gratuitously butthurt about Zelensky's lack of genuflection, but Zelensky is still the one having to argue from a point of weakness. I wish it wasn't that way and Trump and Vance would grow up, but you have to play the hand you're dealt.
He should have done the deed, and chomped down with his teeth! That TRULY would've been great TV!
(Just some advice here from a liberal-ass faggot!) ;-)
Nah. When you saw President of the United States act like a supplicant to Putin and think that’s just fine, that’s derangement.
Putin wasn’t in the room, and it’s presumptuous to believe Trump was trying to flatter him. I bet barely a single independent Trump-neutral person believes that. There’s a simpler explanation: Z wanted massive financial and military commitments from Trump yet he started an argument with Vance and was disrespectful to POTUS. He must not have wanted those commitments that badly.
Putin wasn't in the room personally, but TASS was.
Presumptuous to believe? I believe my own eyes. Not the words of Trumps cult members.
You believe your own eyes that Trump was being a supplicant to Putin? Even though Putin was 4000 miles away? I think what you mean is that you watched the exchange and then filtered it through your own biases and added preconceptions. Eyes are not the issue here.
Trump has acted like a toady towards Putin in the past when he was in the room. This is no different.
I thought the reference was to the Putin-Trump press conference where Trump stated "he believed Putin" contrary to America's intelligence services.
I think this argument is flawed. Trump has ‘higher-order’ beliefs and motivations than just getting another notch on his transaction belt. Trump truly believes in the righteousness of Putin’s claims on Ukraine: that Ukraine is rightfully a part of Mother Russia. Trump may have wanted to strike a deal for ‘peace’ but what he wanted from that peace was a huge piece of Ukraine’s natural wealth to use as a bargaining chip with Putin as he eventually negotiated a deal in which Putin gets Ukraine and Trump gets . . . Who knows exactly what, but it would be ‘HUGE.’
Sometimes in the midst of these sorts of high stakes moments, we get an inkling, we have a strong and incandescent intuition that there is something one is not getting here. Something is not right. I think Zelensky was likely overcome by what was undoubtedly feeling like a horrible trap and that he needed to just get out of there. To me, what Zelensky did was the only thing he could do to continue to give his country and his people a fighting chance for self-determination rather than total submission.
I think maybe we should understand Ukraine domestic politics and also his relationship with EU leaders before calling for his resignation. Trump has been telegraphing that he would screw Zelensky for months. He might be better off getting it out in the open than letting him slowly sandbag his country over the course of several years.
I agree with your conclusion, but there may be more substance to the mineral deal than you seem to think. Trump's offer, which reframes support for Ukraine as a commercial transaction—which is why he sent Bessent (Treasury) to propose the initial offer to Zelenskyy while simultaneously sending Rubio (State) to reassure European allies (quietly, until some European officials leaked it to the press)—entails powerful network effects.
Let me build the case. Trump views the whole thing more like Yalta, and in his mind, it doesn't work unless Putin can save face. Recall that FDR was no fan of Stalin.
We can criticize this approach—perhaps Putin shouldn't be given the opportunity to save face. Maybe we should view Putin more like Hitler at the beginning of WWII than Stalin at the end of it. Either way, it's essential to understand what Trump's strategy is.
Zelenskyy is, of course, telling the truth (Putin was the aggressor and can't be trusted to respect a ceasefire). But the truth isn't always the way you get the deal. Had FDR told the truth about Stalin in February of 1945 at Yalta, WWII might not have ended. (Gen. Patton and others wanted FDR to tell the truth, so there is an alternate history to consider.)
Look, I'd rather have the Biden 10-year bilateral security agreement back. But let me steel-man the Trump position. One of the fascinating aspects of the proposal is it would fall under the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court in NYC (not the WTO or some international body).
The establishment of U.S. contract rights to Ukrainian mineral deposits through a New York federal court jurisdiction would create several important precedents and leverage points:
[1] By establishing contract rights under U.S. jurisdiction, this would create a formal legal mechanism to challenge Russian control of these resources. Any Russian attempt to exploit these deposits could potentially be challenged as interference with U.S. contractual rights, opening avenues for sanctions or other legal remedies through the U.S. judicial system.
[2] The recognition of Ukraine's right to enter into contracts regarding these resources implicitly reinforces Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. This creates an interesting legal paradox where Russia may have physical control of the territory, but Ukraine retains internationally recognized legal authority over its resources. This strengthens Ukraine's position in any future negotiations about territorial control.
[3] The arrangement would give the U.S. a direct economic stake in the resolution of the conflict, potentially increasing American institutional and corporate pressure for the eventual return of these territories to Ukrainian control. This economic interest could translate into sustained political pressure beyond any particular administration.
[4] Such an agreement could establish a template for other nations to similarly secure rights to Ukrainian resources under their own legal jurisdictions, creating a web of international contracts that collectively challenge Russian control. This would make it increasingly difficult for Russia to legitimize or monetize its occupation.
[5] If Putin wants to normalize relations with the West or seek sanctions relief in the future, he would potentially need to address these contract rights. This creates a specific legal hurdle that goes beyond general diplomatic disagreements about territorial control.
Moreover, this contractual framework could provide Ukraine with immediate economic benefits even before regaining physical control of its territory. The ability to enter into binding agreements about these resources affirms Ukraine's economic sovereignty and could potentially help secure financing or investment based on future resource rights.
The specification of New York federal court jurisdiction is particularly significant because of the court's experience with international commercial disputes and its strong protection of property rights. This choice of venue would give the agreement additional credibility and enforceability in the international business community.
This legal-economic approach to challenging territorial occupation represents an innovative form of leverage that combines commercial law with geopolitical strategy (Art of the Deal?). Rather than relying solely on diplomatic pressure or military aid, it creates concrete legal and economic obstacles to Russian control while reinforcing Ukraine's sovereign rights through established international commercial frameworks.
This isn't the strategy I voted for, but it seems to be Trump's. And it depends upon allowing Putin to save face publicly while sending the message—through commercial law—that the U.S. and the world will never accept that most of the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies is legitimately Russia's.
This is not a steelman this is sanewashing.
That's the closest thing to a good argument for Trump as I've seen.
This is really well laid out, however if the US chooses not to enforce any of these things, considering how they reneged on support based on other signed agreements, wouldn't it not suffice as a security assurance?
This article is a masterpiece. Laugh at me if you will. I was ready to hate this article when I saw the title. Then I read it.
Yes you gotta kiss Trumps nasty ass if you want to get things done. But the point is to get things done. Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place. Your only choice is to get things done. Wearing a suit would’ve been brilliant. Yes you are checking your ego at the door there. But that’s what it takes. You have to bend to reality. You can’t make reality bend to you in this situation. It’s realpolitik as practiced by Metternich and Kissinger etc. I hate it all for Zelensky bc he’s a good guy but he misplayed this.
Right. Kissinger put china on the road to being a superpower just for some temporary pressure on Russia which made little difference to anything. China and Russia besties today
The idea Trump was going to agree to anything after that meeting is so naive.
This was absolutely a set up...an ambush. That's why, breaking all protocol, Vance was there and allowed to speak to President Zelensky. He was Trump's attack dog, ready to be unleashed when the time was right.
No matter WHAT Zelensky said, there was going to be a confrontation where Trump could show how "strong" he is by being a rude, arrogant, petty, self-serving bully.
Trump was letting his inner Neville Chamberlain show. Trump's "I'll be known and recognized as a peacemaker" is the 21st century version of Chamberlain's "Peace for our time".
The similarities between 1938 Nazi Germany and 2025 Putin's Russia are unmistakable.
Trump was not only dismissive the idea of the need for "security guarantees" he actually said the most boneheaded baloney ever said by a US president (at least since the last boneheaded baloney crap he says almost every day)....
"I don't want to talk about security yet because I want to get the deal done you know you fall into the same trap like everybody else a million times you say it over and over I want to get the deal done security is so easy that's about 2% of the problem uh I'm not worried about security I'm worried about getting the deal done uh the security is the easy part"
No, security is 100% of the problem.
Just like Chamberlain being so intent on "peace for our time" he would swallow any empty promise from Hitler, Trump's anxiousness to make "the deal" (and appease Putin) throws both Ukraine AND Europe under the bus.
Zelensky was correct to remind Trump that Putin CANNOT BE TRUSTED and has broken every "deal" he has agreed to in the past.
Trump bushing that aside with the ridiculous idea that Putin would never break a "deal" when Trump is president is the height of delusional insanity, and the very root of the problem.
The idea that Zelensky should resign is ludicrous, and would not only play directly into Putin's war criminal hands, it would portend the most serious threat to the security of ALL of Europe since 1938
Let me also quote from a Facebook post of Karl J Martin:
“What Vance did yesterday, in Hollywood terms, is called ‘The Stranger in the Room.’ Screenwriters, especially, are well aware of the role of The Stranger in the Room. The Stranger in the Room is anyone in a meeting who is just there ‘as a friend,’ someone who has no creative authority on, and no stake in, the project being discussed, anyone in the room who is a last-minute addition. Sometimes it's a 20-something intern, sometimes it's an executive from a sister office, sometimes it's someone from marketing, sometimes it's an older, more experienced producer who's lending a hand for a day.
Example: I was once pitching a legacy reboot project to a legendary producer, a real lion of the industry. His 22-year-old daughter was also in the room. She interrupted my pitch to say ‘Right, but we don't want, like, any conflict in the movie.’
The purpose of The Stranger in the Room is to destroy the project. The Stranger in the Room is the one who, after the writer and producer and director have all agreed on the direction of the story, says ‘How will that play in China?’ or ‘This sounds a lot like [movie X]’ or ‘But isn't this movie really about love?’
The Stranger in the Room is always, always there at the behest of the most powerful person in the room. Whether the Stranger understands it or not, they are acting on the behalf of the studio, and it is the studio's natural desire to say ‘no,’ because no one has ever gotten fired for saying ‘no,’ and Hollywood executives, more than anything else, spend their entire careers terrified they're going to lose their jobs for saying ‘yes.’
But they don't want to be disliked by creatives, so instead of saying ‘no,’ they bring in a friend, either a protege or an ally from another department, or just grab someone from the hallway, a producer on another project, and ask them to sit in on the meeting. They don't know what they're looking for, they hear a hundred pitches a day, they don't know what, if anything, will please their bosses, so they bring in an ally to get another viewpoint, any viewpoint, on the project, so that they can then say ‘no’ without looking like an asshole. Instead, they can say ‘Yes, that's a good point, we have to keep in mind the China market,’ or ‘Yeah, this DOES sound a lot like [movie X] now that I hear it out loud,’ or ‘Yeah, what about love? We're forgetting all about love, why isn't your action movie pitch really about love?’
And then, suddenly, the balance in the room shifts. Suddenly, a collaboration, a negotiation as it were, becomes an argument. Where, just moments earlier, everyone was agreeing on how awesome the project sounded, now, suddenly, the creatives are on one side and the suits are on the other, and the meeting becomes a power struggle, one the creatives can only lose, because the suits have the money and the creatives only have the art.
So, in Hollywood terms, Zelenskyy was the writer/director/producer, Trump was studio executive terrified of losing his job, and Vance was the disinterested ally brought in to bring up some random point that would turn the negotiation into an argument that the writer/director/producer cannot possibly win. I'll leave it up to you to figure out who studio head is.”
I think that Zelenski was in board with the "mineral" agreement. But if you've seen the whole conversation, it is clear that Trump started to link this agreement with a deal for ceasefire without security garanties. So Zelenski had to intervene, to make clear that it was not actually the conditions he accepted.
Trump said :"I don't think he's gonna need security, I think once this deal is done, it's over, Russia is not wanna to go back and nobody wanna to go back".
About weapons, Trump sayd "Hopefully, we won't have to send much [weapons] because I'm looking forward to make it (peace deal) done quickly, very quickly".
Then when a reporter asks "what changed between when Secretary Besson gave President Zelinski the agreement and today for the signing ?", Trump say "we made a deal, that's what changed." "I didn't think we would gonna make a deal and we ended up making the deal, that's what changed."
Then all the part about Putin that respect him so much that he won't break the deal, and that Putin wen't through a lot with the Biden Hunter "phony scam".
So Trump made a huge confusion between the mineral agreement and the peace deal, then he said the deal was made, he was clear that russia will be trusted by him to keep its words, without any constraints. Trump said that the American miners would be "diging diging digind" in Ukraine so there won't be war. Trump when asked about the mineral mines in Ukrainian region controlled by Russian army, he said he will study this later, not excluding the possibility to exploit mineral in russian-controled Ukraine.
It was not clear at all, 20 minutes after the start of the meeting, if Trump deal was about mineral exploitation only or not, it sounded like it was the deal for peace with ceasefire, no more weapons, Putin treated as equal as Zelinski.
Zelinski couldn't be silent, he had to clarify its conditions for this peace deal ! Or 2 days later, Trump would have said that Zelenski broke his deal by not stopping the war, as implied in the oval office, and so cannot be trusted.
"Again, here was another missed opportunity to psychologically manipulate Trump. Zelensky has been wearing street clothes since the February 2022 invasion."
Those aren't "street clothes" they are his version of a military uniform that he's been wearing constantly during the war. At least criticize the man accurately.
Trump is not going to be persuaded, and certainly Vance won't, by him bending the knee via wardrobe. And for so little--there's not a specific offer of military support or a security guarantee on the table.
Zelensky resigning would just set up the next president for failure in that Trump plainly has no desire to actually help Ukraine here (since its cause is unrighteous and lost) and looking weak won't help.
They're better off forcing Europe to take on the level of responsibility they need to, which is ironically a goal of Trump's. (17D chess for the win?)
WRONG. Yes, we know that the job is to play to Trump. But Trump is impossible to please, especially when he is clearly not acting on his own behalf. The goal of diplomats is not to guess what will please King Ook-Ook Gorilla. The job of Americans is to realize that King Ook-Ook Gorilla should not be running the world's most powerful country.