this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
2046 points (99.1% liked)

World News

41602 readers
4833 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump just presided over one of the greatest diplomatic disasters in modern history, with flared tempers, raised voices, and shredded protocol.

Never before has a U.S. president bullied and berated an adversary, never mind an ally, in such a public way.

During a tense Oval Office meeting, Trump and JD Vance attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, demanding he accept a peace deal with Russia or lose U.S. support.

The conversation devolved into shouting, with Trump accusing Zelenskyy of being ungrateful and “gambling with World War III.”

The meeting ended in chaos, with no agreement reached.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If Zelenskyj really had the ambition of accepting a deal here, he should've just let it slide. Diplomacy is always a good thing if it's fair and just. But we all know Vance is full of shit in this case. You have to have the right to defend your land, obviously. We know this.

But starting to question someone and putting someone in the spot on live TV that you're trying to make a deal with, and making them lose face in front of their own people in their home court, that's a deal breaker. You could tell because Vance had nothing to retort with other than say Zelenskyj was being disrespectful.

I mean, this is just facts. I don't like it more than anyone else. This was a shit situation. He needs the deal, but had to swallow a lot of shit if he were to get it, but he chose not to. Respect to him for that, but now it is what it is.

If he felt he didn't really need the deal, then he chose the right thing to do by not taking bullshit. So good on him.

I don't think people in this thread realize I'm on Zelenskyj's side in this. Everyone is just down voting every thing I post because Zelenskyj can do no wrong (❤️) and Trump is a monster (which he is), but negotiations are more nuanced than black and white sometimes lol. There's psychology at play here. Oh well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean, he was asking a question that had to be asked at one point or another. If Vance had an answer to that, he wouldn’t have lost face. If he didn’t, that means any kind of deal they could’ve made would’ve been useless (if not harmful) to Ukraine.

What would’ve he gained by not making that question? The chance to make a deal with no warranties? I feel like he’s a very good strategic thinker, and that wasn’t a choice dictated by pride or by the heat of the moment. There was nothing significant to gain by not asking that question, they would’ve just discussed the deal behind closed doors and he’d still have to refuse because Trump’s only warranty would still be “well so far he hasn’t broken promises with me, though”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seems to me like there was no point in being there at all except to argue in that case? That's how I interpret what you are saying. If there were no guarantees in this deal, why is Zelenskyj there in the first place, but to shame them (rightfully)?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think it’s because he hoped there were actual guarantees, considering Trump is definitely interested in Ukraine’s mineral industry. But as the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that keeping Putin his BFF was even more important and he just wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I just don't think it adds up, because Zelenskyj was thanking Trump and saying God bless Trump and being appreciative in demeanor all the way up until Vance's horse shit. To me it just seems like he took so much offense to Vance's remark about diplomacy that he couldn't keep it in. Again, no blame here. But it just seemed like it wasn't the way it was supposed to go.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

I still think the ultimate outcome wouldn’t have changed but yeah, rewatching it he does seem a bit more provocative than in the rest of the interview. Maybe it did tick him off a bit too much and he decided to go for it in the heat of the moment.