bad article. I watched the whole meeting. WSJ lies and say Vance started the whole thing. You can obviously see that's not true if you just watch the 46 minute meeting.
Vance said Trump was trying to be diplomatic, which is, in fact, true. Whether true or not, or whether he agrees with diplomacy or not, Zelensky should've moved on. He didn't. he started an argument with his hosts in their own house. Bad move.
Can you point to specific acts and utterances during the meeting, prior to the meltdown, that support your opinion?
It should be noted that WSJ is conservative and owned by News Corp. They have often sided with Trump. They have no reason not to paint his actions in a light most favorable to him.
Finally, it is the responsibility of our heads of state and government to keep as cool a head as possible, even when are challenged. This is a basic requirement of a good manager, let alone the leader of the free world.
Vance: “For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.”
Zelenskyy: “Can I ask you?”
Vance: “Sure. Yeah.”
Zelenskyy: “OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the --"
Trump: “2015?”
Zelenskyy: “2014.”
Trump: “Oh, 2014? I was not here.”
Vance: “That’s exactly right.”
Zelenskyy: “Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
----
Then the argument starts. Vance's said nothing aggressive against Zelensky, he was talking to a reporter. He, like I said, said Trump is trying to be diplomatic, which, like I said, is true.
For the 40 minutes before this exchange both sides were obviously in disagreement about certain things, but it was quite respectful, tho Zelensky was obviously frustrated at times.
Also, there's a moment during the argument when Zelensky literally calls Vance suka under his breath watch the clip in this article. [1]
The mainstream media hates Trump and Vance and want to blame them for a cloudy day. But if you just watch the full video you can see it's much more complicated than that.
I just read your citation and it doesn’t sound particularly provocative. Certainly nothing compared to the dressing-down that followed.
If you look at my other comments, you’ll see that I recognize that there is room for good-faith disagreement on the merits of whether we should continue to provide money and weapons to Ukraine, and what stance we should take towards Russia. What I don’t think is negotiable is that we should be courteous toward our guests, even those that challenge us. Politicians should be judged on both their substantive positions and their character. People who support Trump appear all too keen to ignore the latter because they agree with the former. (In the discussion I’ve had in HN challenging Trump supporters in the past 24 hours, not a single one has conceded that maybe he and Vance overreacted.)
Regarding “suka,” I believe there are multiple interpretations of the intent there. A charitable interpretation is that he was expressing frustration and not hurling a personal insult. Regardless, to make it a lynchpin of the argument tilts the scales against justice.
> I just read your citation and it doesn’t sound particularly provocative. Certainly nothing compared to the dressing-down that followed.
Doesn't matter, my point was that Vance did not start the argument, as WSJ claimed. It was yet more misinformation from the media.
> In the discussion I’ve had in HN challenging Trump supporters in the past 24 hours, not a single one has conceded that maybe he and Vance overreacted
Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky. Zelensky needs stuff from Trump. They can react however they want because they're not asking for protection from a nuclear power.
> Regardless, to make it a lynchpin of the argument tilts the scales against justice.
Not a lynchpin, it's yet another example of how Zelensky totally dropped the ball because of his desperation.
The simple fact is that it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing.
> my point was that Vance did not start the argument, as WSJ claimed
WSJ did not claim that he “started the argument.” They claimed he initiated the “nosedive.” These are not the same thing. From what I can tell, most people agree with that. At any rate, I don’t think I’m going to persuade you.
> Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky.
What has that got to do with whether they overreacted? Do you, in your personal life, berate people from whom you don’t need anything who ask you for a favor? Would you teach your children to do it? Do you manage people this way? A good leader lowers the temperature in the room; he doesn’t escalate it.
> it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing
That’s not America. Or at least it’s not how we have been for the past 200+ years. We have never asked a fellow democratic leader to humiliate themselves to get our support. And I don’t see why we should start now.
This entire comment is just an appeal to emotion. There's no rationality behind it. It reminds me of Iraq/Afghanistan warmongering.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and the potential for nuclear holocaust and you're worried that "We have never asked a fellow democratic leader to humiliate themselves to get our support"
About a guy that's 6 years into a 5 year term.
Also politicians do the fake thing all the time, in America or otherwise. Zelensky included. It's not humiliation, it's part of the job description.
I could go on and on (ie he's not just asking for a "favor", but billions of dollars, weapons, and human lives), but I'm not sure this will get any more productive. You asked me for a citation as to why your WSJ article sucks, I gave you 2.
This brouhaha is not really about the subject of the request. That’s just context. And people can have good-faith disagreements about whether we should fulfillt Ukraine’s requests. Rather, this debate is ultimately about is how we treat people.
Respectfully, I don’t think you understand that treating people with courtesy is important, even if you perceive them as starting an argument, and even if they irritate you. It’s not just an appeal to emotion; it pays dividends in the end. If you don’t agree with that basic tenet, I don’t know what to tell you.
